In an era of zero growth any increase in population must mean that
the available resources, food, building materials, services etc must
be shared around in smaller and smaller shares.

Does this seem familiar to you and do you see it in our political
machinations ?
Yes, every extra person directly means less for you, no ifs no buts.
Thats the way it is.
Just how hard it will get as we enter an economic contraction as
energy sources deplete is anyones guess.
Very few politicians see this so starkly and so go with "she'll be right".
Well she won't be right and it will require some enlightened activity
on their part to get us into the new era of sustainable economy.

Ludwig I knew the thread was yours after just reading the title.
You and I are a minority.
From the post war days of populate or perish, gee that has a new meaning now.
Capitalism needs growth.
We as yet have found nothing as good as it,and every country wants growth .
Greed demands it, we, at times have over looked every reason to stop growth.
America has its people sleeping in the streets, yet is setting an amnesty for illegal migrants.
Yes Labor Liberals too,are hooked on growth.
Those of us aware of the long term impacts are not being heard.
Only a future calamity will change that.

Thanks for your quite considerable input OUG.

.
Belly, we need to be very careful about that word ‘growth’.

It has different components, some of which are highly conflicting. Population growth, which means growth in the demand for all goods, services and infrastructure, sits strongly at odds with economic growth, which we need to constantly increase the provision of goods, services and infrastructure.

Hey, our government SHOULD be chasing growth, but only of the second type… and for goodness sake they should be pulling right back on the first type which variously reduces, cancels out or overwhelms different aspects of the second type.

<< Only a future calamity will change that. >>

Yair, you are probably right.

But I would dearly like to think that a Carr/Thomson Labor government is possible. And that if it were to happen, we’d suddenly have hundreds of politicians making the switch to support them.

Labor is heading for certain defeat and there is a lot of talk about the party going into terminal decline. So what have they got to lose by embracing the strategy of two of their most intelligent MPs, which just happens to be precisely what the country really needs and which would gel with a large percentage of the votership?

Hey, Thomson and Carr haven’t been hounded out of office or ridiculed into silence. Quite to the contrary: they have generated a great deal of support.

Growth Ludwig is also spelled SELF INTEREST for land developers builders small towns growth is more, of every thing.
Haters of Bob Carr should be aware, maybe they are and hate him for it, he made more national parks than any one.
He warned of inner city slums to come, called for an end to migration at current levels.
We you and I pee in to an endless and strong wind.
My silent sitting in the scrub in areas that may never have seen a man, of any color, are not forever.
Some one will one day sit on my veranda and not to watch the full moon sneak above the trees like a bush fire then a great big ball.
But past high rises and future slums.
The calamity comes mate and our love of the bush is threatened but its not at our hands.

Ludwig,
I am in the same camp as you and Belly on this. I did not like Bob Carr as Premier for other reasons, but he did oppose high immigration and I think mainly because Sydney ended up with most of them which meant that NSW had to find extra funds for the infastructure required.I am not at all sure if he opposed high immigration per sey.

I do not know if Labor is tied into growth, but both major parties receive big donations to party funds from the buisness sector and buisness supports high immigration because it means more sales for them. Whether it be land for houses, cars, white goods, electrical or food and the end sellers do not care whether it is imported or made locally.

To them your two seperate areas of growth become the same,i.e. more people means more economic growth, and when more people arrive the business turnover goes up and they do not have to compete with each other to increase sales.

So really 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune' and big business pays both parties to favour high immigration. The Greens do not object too much, even though their aim is lower immigration, because they rely on Labor preferences for their Senate seats.

Except Banjo, everything changed in 2008.
Banjo said;
To them your two seperate areas of growth become the same,i.e. more
people means more economic growth, and when more people arrive the
business turnover goes up and they do not have to compete with each
other to increase sales.
-_-
Now an increasing number of people does not mean economic growth.
Here, we are trying to grow on China trade, but even a comparatively
small drop in China trade will mean zero growth.
You can see this in Sydney now as growth here is basically zero.
The state government has a great big money hole into which it will
poor Canberra's pixel money.