Oh Dear,
Pericles seems to have no sense of humour or he is an economist !

Dear Ludwig,

The following may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33460.html
Australia's Population Challenge.

At the behest of academics, a concerned Australia population achieved zero population growth many years ago (Sixties, but certainly by the Seventies).

Instead, Australia is experiencing the population (over-) growth of an undeveloped African country. The Australian population would still be maintaining zero population growth were it not for the continual record immigration for the 'Big Australia' policy of the federal government.

The Greens are zealous supporters of opening Australia's doors to all, without limit. There is no criticism of over-zealous immigration policies from the Greens. Not once did Bob Brown or Christine Milne raise that issue with Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd before.

But the Greens are dirty on young Australian couples having children, waging a continuous sniping, sledging campaign against them as 'breeders' and worse. Most put off children and do not have the children they would like to have because they cannot afford to do so. But we can afford billions lost to illegals, propping up people smugglers.

What manner of self-loathing madness causes the feckless, interfering Greens to do that? The Greens are total BS on the environment and sustainability. It is their lunatic social program that they turn to when the chips are down. Even the tax on 'poisonous' carbon dioxide is about revenue collection for their social program, income leveling and sending our taxes to the UN.

Any wonder the electorate is looking forward to putting the Parliamentary garbage out in September '13.

China, in truth only had a one child policy for those living in its city,s.
Farmers, who needed bigger family,s could always, have more kids.
And it is also true, China facing a shortage of workers and an aging population is reviewing all together its policy.
I doubt, very much so,we are yet capable of knowing what growth should be contained and what should be approved of.
A fine example, well worth watching is the implication of China,s one child policy.
That saw male babbys live, and a soon to emerge lack of wives for them.
Even greater problems exist, for different reason, in India and other near by country,s.
The cost a brides parents must pay, under a far different culture than ours, has seen according to world health authority, over a million known abortions of females, soon the implications will be massive.
I note again, as Pericles has, the name calli8ng here and think, without reserve the user of such is in need of a mirror.
Ludwig I take it for granted you blame the ALP for the growth in China Indonesia, Pakistan, and many more places?
If not why not? your charge makes as much sense including them as leaving them out!

Dear Ludwig,

I've just come across the following website:

http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/consultation/submissions/pubs/0158.pdf
A Sustainable Population Strategy For Australia.

It's worth a read - if you can stand the length.
It shows some of the problems Australia faces
with inappropriate infrastructure, pollution
or degradation of soil, water and ecosystem resources,
and other problems - including all of its tiers
of government.

It's a Response to the Government's Issues Paper
by Engineers Australia.

<< One of the more blatant misrepresentations that continues to dog these discussions is the "all-or-nothing" approach. >>

Absolutely Pericles. This applies to many debates on all manner of subjects. The tendency for people to see things in a simplistic or polarised manner is a huge problem.

But I’ll have to completely reject your suggestion that I do this. Afterall, my baseline premise is BALANCE. That’s what sustainability is all about. And as I keep saying; not all growth is bad. And I’m not pushing for the strongest possible change towards sustainability; I desire to see us head gently in that direction.

I wrote:

>> I note a very significant omission – no mention of the PROBLEMS that further increases in population would or could bring <<

You replied:

<< Yep. Problems that can be overcome, if we set our minds to it. >>

Yes, maybe, in theory. But in practice, we have not been good at dealing with many problems that you’d think we should be able to deal with. As you say:

<< Successive governments of all political persuasions haven't tackled a single substantial problem since the 1950s. >>

So surely it would make much more sense to not cause or risk causing problems in the first place and therefore not have to worry about fixing them up later.

continued