Absolutely, Ludwig.

>>Interesting Pericles. So what you are really saying is that continued population growth will make the situation so bad that governments are forced to act!<<

When was the last time you saw a politician actually looking to the future, and making sensible decisions ahead of when they were forced upon them?

The only one I recall was Keating's insightful moves to implement compulsory superannuation. Employers bitched and moaned at the time, but with hindsight the decision was not only right, but neatly anticipated a growing problem.

>>And then yes, it will never be enough. They won’t be able to build enough infrastructure or duplicate enough services to get up to the quality that we had before the population influx that forced them to act<<

Errrr, when was that, Ludwig? When was this golden age, when our infrastructure adequate for the task? What year was it that predates our "population influx"? 1788? 1888? 1988?

Part of your mission as a Green anti-growth tree-hugger (oh, sorry, did I say that out loud?) is to perpetually view the glass as half-empty. Life just won't be the same again, you mutter, carefully disregarding every single economic and standard-of-living measurement ever made. But real life has a habit of proving you wrong every time, despite the leaden-footed panjandrums (panjandri?) in State government who are constantly playing catch-up.

We have a long way to go before this country becomes overcrowded. We have a bright future. Even when we run out of stuff that we can ship northwards - which will in any event be a couple of interesting decades away into the future - we will become the destination of choice for gazillions of affluent visitors, who will undoubtedly envy our laid-back lifestyle, before going back to their dark satanic mills.

The only thing that prevents this from coming to pass is the inbred dislike that so many people - amply illustrated here on this very thread - have for people who are not quite like them. But, as with the politicians, they will ultimately have to face reality, and do something about it.

Populate or perish was not my invention Bazz.
It was both sides who thought we needed to grow, just to defend our country.
Has any one thought of the results of not growing?.
How do we survive.
I think any true understanding of the effects/nation and peoples wants/ even defense makes the claim Labor holds the blame, along with Ludwig,s want list, more radical than *any policy* the greens currently have.

Well Belly I didn't say "Populate or Perish" was your saying.
It could have been Arthur Caldwell or someone earlier.
It was valid at the time, but that time has expired.
You said;
Has any one thought of the results of not growing?.
How do we survive.

Now those are very important questions, and are the most important
questions that both Labour & Liberal should be asking each other.

Growth MUST decline as it is now in most of the world.
It is driven by energy and we are facing a major rearrangement of
energy sources. It is not for fun that the oil companies are closing
their refineries in Australia. In three years we will be 100% reliant
on imported fuels.

All of our own oil, which is 40% of our usage is to be exported to
Asia and we will be buying our diesel and petrol from Asia.
Not sure where we will get our bitumen and bunker fuel.
Maybe we won't and ships will fuel up before they come here.
We can use concrete for roads if we have the electricity to make cement.
If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz today we will have petrol rationing tomorrow.

To get back to your second question, well you are a gardener I gather
so you can teach us non green fingers how to survive.
Anyway, as everything becomes local I am sure the local farmers will
expand their weekly markets. Remember, every town, village and even
cities as large as London was in those days had their market days.

How cities the size of Sydney will go I don't know, it will be very
difficult, but perhaps not impossible if the electrified railways
continue.
Remember when every station had a parcel office and or a goods shed ?
In Sydney the electric parcel vans used to do what couriers do now.

Anyone with a skill for fixing things will be in big demand.

By the time it hits the fan, hopefully many local industries will
have restarted and will make the transition enjoyable.

Interesting point Jay re the demographic of immigrants.

Pericles, I concur about that glass half empty thing. I mentioned it on another thread but I have observed that most 'greenies' are essentially catastrophists. As you say though, so often "real life has a habit of proving (them) wrong every time".

And this: "we will become the destination of choice for gazillions of affluent visitors, who will undoubtedly envy our laid-back lifestyle, before going back to their dark satanic mills " is especially noteworthy in view of the PM's trip to China - she commented on the news tonight that we should sell ourselves as a destination for a country of huge population and rapidly growing wealth.

Belly, you agree that continuous population growth is wrong, but you reckon I should stop worrying about it and just let it be because the political reality is that it will continue.

Well, sorry but that ain’t gunna happen. I won’t be dropping the issue.

The current political paradigm is WRONG, and terribly much so! It might be a very hard nut to crack, but one has to keep trying… and certainly not just give up and accept that the mad antisustainability momentum will just continue until we are so far past the point where it should have stopped that making the switch to sustainability will be TOO LATE!

I am actually quite surprised that you continue to repeat this sort of message. You are man of conviction. You believe strongly in various things that your party has done or should be doing. And you keep on raising these issues. So please, don’t advise me to drop the sustainability push.

Rather, you should be joining me and trying to work out how we can get your party out from under the enormous thumb of big business and get it to start doing what it is supposed to be doing – looking after the best interests of the whole community, in the long term.

Pericles, your post reads like it was written by someone who started off sober and then consumed a large glass of red with each paragraph written!

Boy, does it deteriorate!!

So it really is only worth responding to the first couple of paragraphs.

<< Absolutely, Ludwig >>

You are enormously confusing! You are agreeing with me that population growth is likely to make the situation so bad that the government is forced to act…. and yet you have for some years now totally poo-pooed me on this forum for wanting to stop population growth! ( :>|

<< When was the last time you saw a politician actually looking to the future, and making sensible decisions ahead of when they were forced upon them? >>

Not for a long time.

So then, it would appear that you think the decision to maintain high immigration as recently announced by Gillard is a decision that is not looking to the future.

But hold on, it is something that you support! So… um…. you support decisions that are not looking to the future!?

Okay, so now all you need to do is admit to yourself that yes, you DO indeed support daft decisions by short-sighted, vested-interest-pressured, self-serving politicians.