Ludwig, who exactly is 'we'?

You said: "I don't know which is correct CJ. But if we get our global act together and gear ourselves towards 2 billion, that would be excellent".

Ludwig which part of the global act are you referring to?

I still think we have addressed the issue, world population 100 million, and found it unachievable.
Yes Ludwig is opposed to migration Numbers and our predicted numbers in 40 years.
And yes sometimes he is blinded by his dislike of Rudd.
But it was Peter Costello who said one for mum one for dad and one for the country.
And Baby bonuses exploded under Howard, evidence My views both sides want to increase our numbers.
The idea the world needs only 100 million is in my view rubbish.
Those people would live a life of luxury compared to some, and those refused the right to breed.
Nature will make it easy on us, great tragedy Will come but surely not down to that number ever?

Can somebody tell KRUDD that he is over-populating Oz.. Logically this country cannot presently keep accepting over 250,000 immigrants if there are no support services etc.

The country will not support 36 million by 2050 if the Inter-generational Population Report is to be believed UNLESS there are large taxes to pay for infrastructure and lessen the effect of loss of social services and values as we know it now.

So where to from here? Populate or or perish, now who said that? One for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country? Pleassse.

Dear Belly,

Eventually there will no humans whatever we do.

<< Ludwig, others of like mind, please tell us how can this country, any country control its population, stay viable, without an international plan for every country to do the same. >>

Belly, if Australia reduced immigration to net zero and abolished the baby bribe, our population would continue to rise slowly and gently plateau off at something like 26 million.

Population control is as simple as that in this country. There is nothing in the slightest bit unviable about it. It is whole lot more viable in terms economic and social wellbeing than a population of 35 million or more would be.

In most other countries, it is a very different story. Much harder. Aren’t we lucky in that regard. Well, we would be if we didn't have a government that is doing it's utmost to dismantle this very fortunate situation.

<< We simple as it sounds can not, defending our boarders would cost twice the GNP >>

As I said earlier Belly, our defence capability would be stronger if we had a strongly coherent society and economy and thus a significant financial ability to maintain a good defence force. Rudd’s massive expansionist policies will not lead to that sort of situation, they’ll do just the opposite.
----

<< Surely Pericles isn't suggesting that Ludwig would stoop to 'bait and switch' tactics in order to engender yet another tiresome discussion about immigration and border protection in Australia? >>

Ah yes, there’s old CJ making some inane comment on another ‘tiresome discussion’, without adding anything useful to the discussion. How unusual!

Talk about tiresome. Snore! ( ;>c

<< Ludwig, who exactly is 'we'?

You said: "I don't know which is correct CJ. But if we get our global act together and gear ourselves towards 2 billion, that would be excellent". >>

Raebee isn’t it obvious?

‘We’ means humanity, that is; all people of the world, in this context.

<< …which part of the global act are you referring to? >>

I don’t see where any possible confusion or uncertainty lies in what I was saying. I’m referring to the worldwide population issue.