Burying heads in the sand is pointless - the FACT is that without serious worldwide / international:

Recognition of the problem.
Discussion about the problem.
Research into solutions.
Co-operation to provide / achieve those solutions.

- The BIGGEST THREAT facing humanity is NOT disease, it's NOT war and it's NOT natural disaster (ie. earthquake, tidal wave, meteor impact etc.) - IT IS OVERPOPULATION.

The two obvious ways we can go is either figure out ways of CONTROLLING it - or alternatively and more humanely, let population increase naturally and work out ways of COPING with it (ie. be able to provide food, accommodation and services). These are the sorts of discussions that NEED to be getting under way NOW!

Ultimately just as with other animal populations, left to it's own devices it will self correct but it could be very nasty and by virtue of the fact that - unlike animals - humans have technology, it could be disasterous to our species (ie. if nuclear war is triggered or someone resorts to using biological control).

Grim and Ludwig, your statement that we pay people, very often the wrong people, to have children, supports my view here and in other threads, both party's share the view increased population is a good thing, for us.
Sorry but it is increasingly clear at least to me, an industry is being built on unwanted children, to our shame many, far too many children are in care of Foster carers.
No disrespect meant, some hopefully not near most, are nothing but baby farmers caring more for money than the kids.
Trees, well yes let us not plant wrong trees in wrong places but why not re plant?
Why not return bush to its natural state not farm land that is at best marginal.
Examinator as usual gets closer to reality, we just must consider, understand, if those rivers die , if true hardship sets in , we can forget about our concerns with refugees/boat people, and never not ever control our population again.
If we said 100 million, if we for one second thought it was achievable, we would have to become mass murderers to achieve it, even if we said 300 years was our targeted time to do it.
Sterilizing masses controlling who breeds, saying what percentage of that number each country could have, inhuman not achievable if we want to remain what makes us human.
And Australia will be confronted one day by the number who want to share our country.

Thought so.

This thread was never intended to debate world population. It was simply a stalking horse for anti-immigration propaganda.

The original proposition - world population of 100 million, a number not seen since 500BC - was never remotely credible, or even useful as a debating tool.

So after some metaphorical dancing with seven veils of faux-concern over whether 100 million, 2 billion or whatever is a sustainable number, Ludwig finally shows his true colours.

>>to achieve a population of 4 billion, or to keep it below 7 billion for that matter, would be simply beyond the powers of humanity...But not so in Australia. We DO have the power to control our national population and preserve a decent quality of life... <<

Dog whistle blown, along comes pelican to tidy up.

>>The only way you can achieve population sustainability within any one nation is via changes to immigration policies<<

Thank you, says Ludwig.

>>It is also vitally important for us to be able to have a significant input into refugee and population issues via our international aid programs.<<

Can't you SIFs even be honest with yourselves?

<< This thread was never intended to debate world population. It was simply a stalking horse for anti-immigration propaganda.>>

Dear o dear Pericles, you’d have to be doing some pretty highly selective reading of posts thus far to come to that conclusion!

How about debating on the statements that you quote instead of just poo-pooing the person who wrote them, hmmmm?

C’mawwn, entertain the debate instead of playing the man!

The real issue limiting control of population and excessive consumption in the West relates to the issue of control of the population by the axis of capital/ media/government. Like it or not- the people who profit most from the current situation hold nearly all the cards when it comes to controlling public opinion through the media.
The situation of overconsumption, of seeing people in the 3rd world as a threat and as our enemies suits the Murdochs, and the Enrons of this world very nicely. They are profiting, they are continually increasing theri slice of the pie. They think that their political control will last forever. It will not. The credibility of the media, vital in maintaining the current status quo, was dealt a mortal blow by the Iraq affair. Look around you- many people will not buy into the next war that the military industrial complex try to foist upon us so that their weapons continue to seem relevant. More and more of us are just going to walk away and say "No thankyou- I do not recognise your authority." Make no mistake- a crisis is coming- one of Biblical proportions quite likely. In the end it will be between the people who choose to share and cooperate and those who do not.

Err...Pericles can't let that one go. If you are going to quote me do the courtesy of taking the whole paragraph. How is a advocating for a replacement policy anti-immigration? ie. one out, one in proposal regardless of race.

How are population polices to be discussed if immigration is not included? Those arguing for greater unfettered growth can only do it via birthrates or immigration. It is but one part of a population plan.

Nation, as opposed to global, because it is impractical and impossible for any influence to extend beyond one's own borders, other than fostering more equitable economic and foreign policies that don't discriminate or work against the economic and social health of poorer countries.