It is currently believed that science and technology can provide effective solutions to most, if not all, environmental problems facing western industrial societies – including Australia. This is a very optimistic assumption and is highly questionable. Why? Here are at least three reasons:

1. An automatic and impersonal approach can be taken, (like say a factory or classroom for example), with science as a picture. This is incapable of providing complete and accurate information which is required to successfully address environmental problems.

2. Areas that relate (to science) and a move to use (these areas) to deal with various elements of science and link (these) to potential environmental improvement is also questionable. This movement can solve some environmental matters, but can and will cause permanent environmental damage in other areas. Some who advocate going down this pathway, are not thinking about the after effects or consequences environmentally. They can often be thinking about themselves, such as people involved in large scale irrigation for example.

3. So far it has been intrinsically, or nearly impossible to design any industrial processes that have had no negative environmental impacts. You could put solar electricity into a separate basket from the (previous principle of point three), but such technology (as solar), also has side effects – being involved in the manufacturing sector, which has side effects which impacts on the environment.

Science and technology only have a very limited potential in solving current and future environmental problems. It will be vital to address the root causes of environmental deterioration, namely, the prevailing materialistic values that are a main driving force, overpopulation and overconsumption

Of course Australia's economy will “fall to bits” with less overconsumption, overpopulation and environmental degradation, but I believe it something all Australians and government need to be responsible for.

The natural environment of this wonderful country, we call Australia, did not create this human dominated mess.

Yuyutsu
We simply do not have the physical, social, political or economic infrastructure to grow our population with dependent variables in the equation.\I read somewhere that only 10% of the migrant intake over the past 20 years have a job. The rest live off the taxpayer.
Let me decide about my country (which I fought three wars for)

Dear Chris,

But there is no need to provide those who come with any physical, social, political or economic infrastructure. There is absolutely no need to equate not being physically blocked with the gift of privileges and benefits. If they cannot support themselves and nobody else (e.g. individuals and voluntary groups such as churches, not the taxpayer) supports them, then let them starve.

I trust that you are a good man and the reason you fought three wars was that you have done your duty, rather than in order to achieve something. How could the fact that you fought wars possibly alter what is right and what is wrong?

Those reading this thread will probably find this article that I read
this morning to be interesting.
It shows that if you want to live in a town or city in the future find
one that was there in the 19th century.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-02-08/does-your-city-have-a-future

In terms of large not for profit groups providing services and support to the public (of any nature), in 2016, this needs to be questioned. Many of these charitable groups rely on government funding. Taxpayers pay for that.

Many of these groups and charities have gone into a more "silent" mode to not lose government funds, (to not upset a government).

So whilst a group may provide some assistance in some areas, they are not assisting in others, as these may be too controversial for example and decide to "sell out" on original core values as a result. Many charitable groups are being left without funds and having to close also.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/charities-face-closure-after-losing-federal-funding/6029464

As a result, I believe people need to live more independently with a "back to basics" lifestyle, with a strong case provided to use government services. More people (living in Australia) has wide ranging impacts (across the board) and this is something we all need to reflect upon.