Seems very simple to me.

Tell the people to stop having sex. Apparently, that causes babies, who everybody agrees are the major cause of population growth.

Then close the borders, to keep out all those nasty foreigners who come here and bludge of the hard-working Aussie.

Now that's the kind of society we all aspire to, isn't it.

All it needs is one strong politician, backed up by the army and the police. To make it easier, they could all wear a distinctive uniform, and have the power to be involved in every aspect of our lives.

All in the interests of sustainability, of course.

Utopia.

Ludwig I agree last night's debate was heartening.

I particularly liked the global focus as you cannot only talk about sustainability and limited resouces from a local perspective - it is a global issue.

Some great ideas and open discussion followed on Q&A particularly in relation to decentralisation and infrastructure concerns which is the crux of the issue in Australia. Rural areas like around Mount Gambier need more people, have the water and good arable land for farming, but the region does not have the supporting education/health infrastructure to attract and maintain population. Meanwhile the cities get bigger and we are set to follow the mistakes of our international neighbours.

It got me thinking about a global currency and industrial relations system/wages to iron out the disparity between nations and as discussed on the show, education and workforce participation (particularly for women in the developing world) is one element in reducing poverty and hence spiralling populations that cannot be sustained due to economic and/or environmental factors. I suspect this would be difficult and involve much negotiation and adjustment to changing values such as the impact of consumption.

It is good to see the topic getting some airing. Lets hope we see the improvements in infrastructure in the near future.

It is not only interesting, but telling that the chattering classes criticism of China's one child policy had finally disappeared.

China's leaders for saw the problem of overpopulation long before the wast, had the sense to state that they were serving the greatest human right of all with their policy, the right to eat enough food.

The chatter reached a crescendo when China started penalising those who did not comply with the policy, but now almost everyone can see how right they were.

Our immigration does not help anyone in the long term. The countries of origin will simply fill any space created, & all Ozzie's will be poorer in the long term.

Thank heavens for the Dick Smiths of the world, who will put the effort into telling it as it is.

I love that epithet, "chattering classes".

It is a sure sign of a complete absence of intellectual rigour on the part of the author - thank you for proving the point, Hasbeen.

>>It is not only interesting, but telling that the chattering classes criticism of China's one child policy had finally disappeared<<

Quite possibly, that is because the discussion has moved beyond the scope of the frivolous sound-bite (Ooo-er, did you hear about them Chinese?) into the realm of serious sociological discussion.

Not that I expect to find you anywhere near that group, Hasbeen, you can stay next to the water-cooler and discuss the Footy Show.

There are literally hundreds of studies, freely available on your local interwebs, that dig beneath the surface of this policy.

They each come from a different angle.

India looks for the opportunity to avoid what it regards as "mistakes"

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/143ss106.html

Others look at the way it encourages infanticide. Of girls.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Yet others, confine themselves to a description.

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/gro/gro_088chinaonechild.html

To me, it is simply staggering that an adult Australian can seriously believe that legislating against the natural inclination - I won't even describe it as a "right", although I think it comes pretty close - of people to get together and create a family, is a good idea.

Just the very image of an Australia where the population is happy to live under such rules, is abhorrent. Who would want to live under a government that considered it their right to tell you how to live, at such a fundamental level?

I'm speechless.

Almost.

I believe the current growth rate of babys born in Australia is 1.8% which means they do not replace their parents. This means we have to have a migration intake of .2% to break even plus an intake to replace those leaving Australia.

Pericles,
Well said on all points.

Philo,
You could add to that the demographic bubble called "the baby boomers" are heading to their twilight years. By normal logic between 2O30- 50 there will be a disproportionate number of exits. Migration including the puddle jumpers may reduce the starkness of that demographic decrease it will none the less significant.
Keep in mind the 'boat people' are less than 2% of our migrants.

All.
In my mind Dick Smith is an excellent entrepreneur and self publicist but his program's logic was overly simplistic and deeply flawed.

What isn't considered/understood by "the great unwashed" are the externalities.
As stated this isn't just a Fortress Australia problem but is a multi layered and complex international one.

The world has the capacity to feed a larger population but not at the current lifestyles or methodologies. By that, I mean the poor nations need to be raised to the level where survival rates don't necessitate many children. And the West needs to adopt a less profligate consumption lifestyle.

For the curmudgeons amongst us that doesn't me communism/socialism or living in grass huts et al. Not all change is or needs to be apocalyptic.

All the discussions on this topic so far either pays lip service to the issue or devolve into a futile argument about the extremes based only on the historic. No one seems able or willing to think out of the dogma influenced mind sets.

It is naivety on steroid to think that we can act independent to the rest of the world and that there won't be consequences.

I have posited preemptive action in boosting countries before. Help them solve the issue at home so the people who emigrate are manageable.

It is pure nonsense to suggest that eventually the starving masses are going to ignore our petty laws and we will be reduced to ?
Sinking the boats at sea with all lives?

Part1