<< They won't be overcome, however, if we simply say "we're full, go away". >>

Pericles, do you really think that this is my position… after all the years that we’ve been discussing this stuff??

Alright, I’ll outline my desires… once again….for the sake of clarification:

I want to see us head towards a stable population. As part of this, I’ve always advocated a zero net immigration policy, which is very different to a zero immigration policy. Zero net immigration is where the number of immigrants per year would equal the number of emigrants for the previous year. We would still have a substantial immigration program. Then after we have achieved a sustainable society, we could perhaps increase immigration if we are confident that we can sustainably support it. So this “we’re full’ go away” thing that you keep on attributing to me, in different words on different threads, is entirely false.

You are very critical of governments for not doing what they are supposed to do in terms of improving infrastructure, services, etc. I agree. That’s our reality, at the Federal level and in all states.

So, given these short-comings of government, surely it is not a very good idea to accept continuous high population growth, with starry-eyed focus on the positives that it might bring and a dismissive she’ll-be-right attitude about the negatives. It is surely a vastly better idea to just be very damn careful about it…. and to just simply not allow high population growth unless we are absolutely sure that the positives well and truly outweigh the negatives and the negatives can and will be properly dealt with.

Luddy old mate I agree with you, population growth should stop until we have proof that not only does it do no harm, but that it has a positive effect on the wealth & well being of the existing population.

Having said that I am still waiting to know just what you mean by sustainability. This is not a dig, I want to know, & know in detail. Without that sure knowledge I could never support your push.

It would be very difficult anyway, as I'm sure our Tasmanian greenie ladies mean something entirely different to you when they utter the same word. If we give then even an inch, we will damn soon find ourselves with nothing. While the green movement is headed by such as them, I will not trust anything of even a faint green tinge

The word can cover such a multitude of sins, it probably means something different to every one who uses it.

If Australia,s population stops growing, right now.
And the words continues to grow.
NO not sirring.
Will even more boats come to fill the emptiness?

Haz, pleaze! You asked me about sustainability here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5709#159093

You said; << Give me what you see as sustainability so we can talk >>

And then we didn’t talk. You left the thread!

I can’t fathom what is so hard to understand here, or why you left this conversation if you still didn’t fully understand some aspect of it.

Thanks Lexi.

From your first link:

< The fourth revolution for humanity, after agriculture, industrialisation and information, is sustainability >

That’s a good way of putting it.

Hazza, in this short article, that Lexi has kindly brought to our attention, Professor Malcolm McIntosh outlines the five main issues of sustainability: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33460.html

Lexi, your second link is much appreciated.

It shows that a significant sector, which one might expect to be strongly geared towards economic growth and leave the bigger picture issues to government or just not even think about them at all, has gone to great lengths to carefully consider the bigger picture.

This is excellent. Engineers Australia has come up with well thought-out sustainability strategy.

From the executive summary:

EA believes that an Australian sustainable population policy means that population growth is determined in a framework consistent with sustainable development principles and practices. Sustainable development optimises economic, environmental and social objectives…

EA believes that important aspects of Australia’s economy and settlement pattern are not yet consistent with sustainable development principles and practices and these issues need to be addressed BEFORE there is significant enlargement of Australia’s population.

A larger population may result in a larger economy, but not necessarily growth in per capita income, improved equity or sustainability.

EA believes that without major change to how economic infrastructure assets are planned, managed, maintained, located and developed, Australia’s capacity to support an increased population at present standards of well-being and liveability will be unachievable.
---

This is exactly what our GOVERNMENT should be doing – developing an overall sustainability strategy, with opportunity for all businesses, organisations and individuals to have their say.

They should be putting pressure on the continuous-rapid-growth vest-interest fraternity to come into line with the views of the likes of Engineers Australia, CSIRO, and other ‘more balanced’ organisations.

I’m sure if our government put their minds to it, they COULD wriggle out from under the thumb of big business... and properly govern this country!

Gillard's recent announcement that we are going to continue to have a very large immigration intake, in the absence of such a plan, is irresponsible in the highest order.