The bright lights of Melbourne???? The what? Where? Those Taswegian asylum seekers are obviously very easily pleased Gerard....

OK. Slightly dull lights out here in Glum Iris. I actually love Tasmania and Taswegians, it is just the time difference that makes it interesting. Actually it is the same time difference you get when you cross the border into South Australia. You know the sign. "Remember to adjust your watch back 30 - YEARS"

On topic, I wonder if the Lancaster Environment Centre's Sustainable Energy Department is sustainable or does it draw power from the coal and nuclear UK grid?

Unfortunately, most university sponsored sustainable and environmental departments are totally unsustainable. An excellent example is Professor Sandiford's Melbourne Energy Institute which is part of the University of Melbourne which actively encourages high energy international travel by it's academics.

When will they ever learn.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

"Now it's time for those people to come back out of the bush and become more inclusive and share what they have learned."

OK this is what I've learned Ian.

That living "in the bush" is not a viable alternative option. Not for everyone. Not for their entire lives. People get old and tired and need to be closer to the towns. And the actual costs of going it alone - even as a group - are prohibitive, ecologically and financially.

I have learned that many older "hippies" had set aside the permaculture adventures of their youth and were living essentially suburban lives on 1,000 hectare community titles.

That they burned just as much diesel as the local farmers and were dependent on an income from work, commuting 30ks each way (sound familiar?), that their verandahs were covered with enough lead acid batteries to sink an aircraft carrier and their fading utopia was drowning under the weight of lantana, their escaped garden plants and Bell-bird associated die-back.

The other thing - perhaps the underlying driver for a lot of this - is that while the kids and grandkids of these "hippies" often came back for visits - they all wanted to live somewhere else - in town, at jobs, and also leading very suburban lives. There was a diminished pool of fit strong labour - hence the increasing use of diesel.

But also the PV systems - which were HUGE and State of the ART - would hop the fence after 3 days of grey skies. No grid. So on goes the Genny... pop pop pop all along the valley.

Now 40 or so households all had $20,000 worth of gadetry slapped on their roof - and all up they had a total of three days worth of power. Absurd economics when you add it up.

A lot of the problem is that they half-did stuff right at the start. They paddled their own canoes. The available technology was not designed for more community-based notions of energy supply. It still isn't by and large. But also there were limits on the extent to which they would - or could - live in a "community" - they all wanted their own bush hideaway, or that's how it has ended up after 40 years.

So to summarise, the notion of going it alone is not in fact sustainable - not physically, not socially and certainly not economically. That doesn't mean we don't do things differently and better, but alternatives need to be more than just youthful adventures. Long-term, stable, as self sufficient and productive as possible, and somewhere where diesel is forever banned. Oh yes and learn to manage the bloody landscape while it's still there.

The one thing I have taken away from the bush is that small regional towns are a far more interesting prospect when it comes to building medium scale, long term alternatives. I'm still learning how to do that.

Incidentally the Carbon Price and subsequent trading system is very clever... probably too little too late for mine ... but very very much an Australian approach - not an import at all. And clever. Just not big and hard enough to effect enough change in enough time to avoid anything ... but let's see. We can argue about that elsewhere anyway.

Thanks for the reply Peter and much of what you have said, I have witnessed for myself as well. The counter-culture revollution turned into an expensive lifestyle for many.
I will tell you some of the things I have learned over the years, eeven though I never "went bush" in that particular way, preffering to travel and sample both alternative and conventional methods:
1. Organic methods and permaculture methods can work, but it requires skill and knowledge and a lot of hard work.
2. Aquaponics works very well and requires less physical work but higher levels of initial expenditure and good management.
3. Going bush was never going to be a viable alternative for the majority, the very act would destroy the environment that we/they value most.
4. Any realistic changes that are going to clean up our collective act must be as inclusive as possible if they are ever going to have an effect.
5. Farmers of the conventional style are (on average) good people with a love of the land that they farm, they are not the enemy.
6. Stand alone power systems have to be as diverse as possible, or they will end up on the diesel generator. (But there is no need for stand-alone systems if the mains are already connected or pass the front fence.)
7. We need to develop better energy storage systems than the lead-acid battery to get the best results from photovoltaic technology.
8. It's almost impossible, or at least very hard to be come 100% self sufficient but it is possible and not so hard to become self reliant and reduce consumption dramatically.
9. There are greens and there are greens and they are not all the same. Some do everything they can to get it right because they have deeply held beliefs, others are just interested in the lifestyle and the social status attached to "going green".
10. I don't have all the answers but a lifetime of asking questions has given me some insights.

You are right, not the time, not the place for a carbon tax debate. Let's just concentrate on what we agree on, namely, we need to clean up our act and we need to do it asap.

All excellent points.

Although I did not think there was much social status to being Green - given the shellacking they receive in the mainstream media. Then I am not in the kind of income bracket where such frivolities are afforded.

The Greens spent years appropriating real on-the-ground projects and mobilising them to their political cause, after all The Greens are the traditional owners of all things environmental, aren't they?

Now you say these people are 'optimistic', 'inspiring', 'offering specific, detailed constructive responses', when all this stuff is well over 150 years old. I myself started way back in the 1960s. Where were they then? Where have they been since?

They've been nowhere. Their entire agenda is to win political power, nothing to do with the environment or climate change or anything whatsoever, writing endless 'policy positions' aside.

Dare to argue with them. Dare to criticise the agricultural and environmental degradation of their special rural 'farms'. Dare to question the mull plants outside the kitchen window, and down the paddock.

Dare to ask them about the economics and cost efficiency of their $600,000 'environmentally sustainable community' with shacks built from salvaged sleeper-backs, windmills, vast arrays of solar panels that can be seen from the road, all purchased from Daddy's geology consulting fees and mining royalties, and every one of them chronically ill with chest and intestinal infections from the unhygienic living conditions.

Supposing the world is simply going to wait long enough for them to win enough power to make a difference, and then demonstrate to the rest of us that it was not just raw power they were after all the while, so what?

The reasonable question to ask, if they do know what they're doing, is why not simply roll their sleeves up and work alongside the rest of us?

The simple answer is, they don't know how.

All policy does is use more trees, with some saving I guess in it's being recycled as toilet paper.

The greens have not been a genuine dedicated environmental party for decades. They are far more focused on refugee advocacy to the detriment of environmental considerations.

For example, originally their website recognized population size as being directly related to environmental threats. However that was expunged decades ago and replaced by only consumption levels being a direct threat to the environment.

Cheerfully ignoring the fact that a billion humans consuming at third world levels can have equal or greater environmental impacts that 20 million or so human beings consuming at western levels!

Unfortunately nativist, anti immigration, neo Malthusian, cults of isolation and worse types of groups from the USA, especially via John Tanton's FAIR Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, have had a strategy of coopting the environment movement, and this has also influenced same in Australia.

However, many of their arguments about population, environment, carry capacity, food supply, cost to taxpayers etc. are flawed http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13640&page=0

Your moronic slurs do not scare me off Andrew Smith!

Nor do they scare off SPGN or any other organisations and individuals who have legitimate concerns about the environmental impacts of unsustainable population growth whether it be by immigration or excessive fertility.

Concerns that you are obviously unable to comprehend due to your obvious lack of intellectual and accademic capacity!

They also indulge in ad hominen or personal attacks as opposed to justified arguments....... more like religious cults.....

QUOTE
Unfortunately nativist, anti immigration, neo Malthusian, cults of isolation and worse types of groups from the USA, especially via John Tanton's FAIR Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, have had a strategy of coopting the environment movement, and this has also influenced same in Australia.
END QUOTE

Ad hominen attacks did you say Andrew????

Well it takes one to know one you imbecile!

Yes predictable reaction, and of course one understands the community rules here :) Who did I attack personally? Another tactic of same groups, play the victim card while attacking others.....

I have no problem debating rationally with you over population and environmental impacts but I will not tolerate racist, nazi and genocidal sluring from you.

This time I have blown my top and we have crossed swords over it but I am preparared to let by gones be by gones.

But next time I see this sluring like this and I will simply report you for abuse.

Why not now? You can report me for highlighting the fact that some seemingly pro environmental groups, movements and views (without abusing or attacking anyone personally) may have an agenda which others may not realise.

Also how the same strategies have also seeped into Australia blurring real environmental issues e.g. Australia's own nothing policies on carbon footprints, public transport policy, urban design etc. as opposed to simply blaming everything upon "runaway population growth", "immigration" etc.

Our predicament is not entirely caused by excessive population nor entirely caused by excessive consumption but a combination of both.

In the west over consumption is the major problem while in the third world over population is the major problem.

The west is also hugely exascerbating the third world problem by companies pushing our collective over consumption habits on bloated third world populations. And by encouraging high immigration from third world to west also increasing the consumption levels of the third world.

The solution is humane depopulation of the third world through family planning services as a matter of priority and a compulsory requiremrent of all aid efforts. One can only hope that we do not need to resort to more drastic measures like coecion etc later due to continued failure to act now. And the west must contribute by signficantly decreasing our excessive consumption.

If you want more people in the world then we all must have lower living standards. If on the other hand ou prefer higher living standards then there must be less of us.

An analogy....
If you have a water tank containing 200L of water that recieves 50L in flow per day and 50 people each drawing down 1L per day from the water tank, then such a population is indefinitely sustainable. And the population can withstand short periods where there is no in flow into the tank.

You can halve everyone's consumption to 500ml today which would allow another 50 people to live sustainably off that water tank. But with less of a safety margin should there be periods of no inflow into the tank.

But yet another 50 people living off the water tank will eventually drain it regardless of the fact that everyone is consuming the bare minimum of water each and regardless of normal daily in flows into the tank.

Then what are you and all those additional people to whom you have shown SHORT TERM compassion to do?????

The point of this Michael is that you can't deny mathematics.

Efficiancy and consumption reduction measures are finite and population and consumption levels CANNOT be considered independantly.

Much as I hate to agree with you, I see a melancholy example in Somalia.
A generation ago, the world rallied to help the starving of that land. Today, we're being asked to repeat the effort.
What did we achieve? Another generation lived in misery, leading only to yet more misery.
Civil war plays a substantial role, but to what extent is the war a cause and to what extent is it an effect?

Take Rwanda for example.

Despite the massacre being portrayed as being caused by political and ethnic tensions by the western media consider the details.

Ethnicity is some what blurred in Rwanda due to intermarrying between the two sides. Similarly the sides in the massacre were some what blurred with hutus killing other hutus and tootsis killling other tootsis.

What was the real motivation for the massacre for may Rwandans? Well, for example, many rural Rwandans killed their neighbours and took their land.

So one has to question which is cause and effect here.

Was the massacre caused by political and ethnic tensions or were the blurred political and ethnic tensions caused by more fundamenal problems. Namely to many people and not enough land/wealth/jobs.....what ever.

Despite superficial and trivial politics being used to disguise the real causes, all human conflicts through all of history have been about, at their heart, access to and control over critical resources.

Too many people and not enough resources to meet everyone's 'wants'.

As always there is a territorial fight over resources, you can just as easily take Bosnia. But one thing Greg :) You wasn't there, was you?

War sux.

And ethnic wars leave the biggest scars.

You are allowing the superficial politics of the Bosnian conflict to blind you Yoron!

Think about it more deeply.

You had ethnic Albanians (different ethnicity and different religion) encroaching on territory that the Serbians perceived as belonging to them.

Territory that contains agricultural land, other resources perhaps and living space for the expanding Serbian population. At its heart that conflict was over resources just as was nearly every other conflict in human history.

The fact that the Albanians were of different religion and ethnicity simply made it easier for the Serbians to dehumanise them and engage in those terrible attrocities.

And the human penchant for politics nearly always masks what their fundamental concerns really are and therefore renders them impotent in solving them and thus eliminating the drift towards conflict.

Greg, please read again, and think carefully about what Yoron has written before accusing him of not understanding, or of being superficial.

For the record I was not specifically suggesting that Yoron is superficial, rather that human, as a general rule, are blinded by superficial politics.

No politics to it Greg,I like to think of it as common sense myself. Australia has been in wars, not on their own territory though. Ask the survivors if they had fun. There is always a few finding it to their liking but for most people I expect it to be a work none want to get back too. And that those with weapons at hand, and protection. For civilians it's worse, no weapons and no protection.

We are trying to get away from it world wide, but resources and ethnic cleansings, as well as other racial prejudices keeps us from seeing that we're all originating from one same place and one same earth. It's stupid to expect us all to love each other, but it's not stupid to to cooperate.

Yoron it doesn't matter how terrible war is, how educated we are and how well we know war does not solve problems, humans always default back to it when push comes to shove.

After Vietnam and the USSR's experience in Afghanistan, one would think that the yanks would have had the intelligence not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yet they did with the same predictable poor results. And what is more, with a new generation and new adminstration they will do it again and again until they go the way of the Roman Empire.

Was and violence is an instinctual human response to competition over scarce resources and we are held hostage to our base instincts more than we care to admit to ourselves. As such we will continue to engage in it no matter how horrible it is when push comes to shove.

The only way to sustainably reduce warfare and violence is to reduce our numbers so we are not competing as intensely over scarce resources.

Agreed Greg. All empires meet the same problems, expand or not to expand, and also the question of resources. We're on a limited Earth though, hasn't been a problem before, well maybe a little, as in the deforestation of parts of Spain for example historically. Still, Earth is getting real small those days, our weaponry are becoming truly devastating, gene and all biological science too. So, can we cooperate, or not?

We better.

Yoron all wars have been over resources of some sort.

Remember I said population relative to resources is the issue. In that past we basically lacked the enormous power of oil energy that no allows us to gather resources from far afield and on a scale far beyond what could be accomplished by past civilisations.

That has allowed our western population (and satellite nations) to attain an unprecendented population level that is now butting up against the physical and ecological limits of the planet.

In the past wars were fought over local resources where populations were large enough to cause signficiant competition. Their populations were limited by the limits to those local resources. They had very limited ability to bring in resources from else where to supplement local resources.

Hence wars were fought at much lower population levels and resource levels but at similar competition intensity.

Today wars are fought over global resources between nation states. When the age of cheap oil finally draws to a close we will again fight local wars over greatly diminished local resources and at much lower population levels.

A little like rats then Greg?
Put them in a too small cage and see what happens.

I hope we can do better than that myself, through cooperating instead of killing each other off. But I can't be sure of course. It depends on individuals in the end, and their way of looking at life. A society and the solutions it prefer always must reflect the individual, as well as the society at large influence the individual. Society's as well as individuals has a certain inertia that needs to be overcome before new solutions can be seen. Internet is a good provider of ideas and discussions.

Collectively yes Toron, humans are like rats in a cage.

I am afraid that I do not believe that, collectively, humans are as far removed from the other animals as we collectively like to pretend we are.

Although education and particularly science can and does allow us to rise above our base instincts. But even the best of scientists are still capable of all the instinctual animal behviours at times.

"I do not believe that, collectively, humans are as far removed from the other animals as we collectively like to pretend we are."

But we are Greg ... and not in a nice way. I quite like animals.

Greg, we're not that far apart there

We're definitely animals, but one gotta admit, rather smart ones :) And cooperating isn't just a human trait. A lot of species finds it beneficial, predators or not, but yeah, we're aggressive at times. But we can cooperate even so, and the best solutions is those including us all, not aiming for some others. That's why I say we have two important ideas to build on, democracy and equality. The other types of solutions forcing some other to things you won't accept for yourself can never be democracy.

If you are talking about our ability to threaten other species and the entie planet with our 'collective disagreements' and daily activities, then I suppose you are right.

But I was really only comparing our individual behaviours, in a collective context, to other animals.

But what I disagree with Yoron, is your view that democracy and equality are solutions in an of themselves.

I agree they are nice to have. But given that we are, to a large extent, driven by our base instincts democracy and equality cannot and will not always win out when the chips are down. uite the opposite really if you consider the state of much of the over populated third world.

I put it to you that demecracy and equality CANNOT be sustained in a state of chronic over population and resource shortages.

Well, think about India :) A democracy, different standards than us but still a democracy and with a huge population. The idea may not be perfect, and it differs in practice, but it is still the best there is, and our best 'export' too as a guess. But it's tricky. What we differ in Greg is not the problem per se, but in how to solve it. I prefer discussions and agreements to force, you seem to think that this won't work, so we might just as well use 'cannon boat diplomacy', that is if I get you right?

That is another thing that I disagree with you about Yoron. That the majority of Indians enjoy the benefits of their purported democracy as most of us do with a much smaller populations.

I never said that all are equal in India, but neither are they in Sweden, or for that sake in Australia. Money is always a divider, money and profit. What I said, or at least meant to say, is that if we have democracy and equality as our goal we at least are trying. Without it we have money, force, and power.

And that change constantly. Democracy as an idea is old and still developing, the same can be said for equality.

And what I am trying to get across to you is that I believe that democracy and equality are a by-product of low population and resource competition.

If you want to spread democracy across the world then you must do all you can to reduce global population and resource consumption.

Democracy, egalitarianism and equality will then follow in most cases.

This may mean we will have to be prepared to bring about population reduction by undemocratic means in the short term, if other methods fail.

There are several ways to democracy, although yours is a possible one too, it assumes a lot of strife before that happening, force and manipulations. You don't write about it, but that is how I interpret it. We already have a democracy and, as I see it, such an idea works very poorly with forcing and manipulating other nations. There is no longer a 'white mans right' and good riddance to it too.

Would you Aussies accept other nations defining what you are allowed to do in your homes?

We are headed for a great deal of strife in the near future anyway when millions in the third world cannot get enough to eat and they 'hold a gun at our head' to give them food or else.

Forcing and manipulating nations to democracy is what we are currently helping america to do Yoron, through invasion, occupation and drone strikes.

For starters I am suggesting we set the example to the third world with population by abolishing all financial incentives for our citizens to over breed, carefull regulate immigration intakes for zero net population growth, require immigrants make a commitement to restrict their fertility before being granted citizenship and being given any of our welfare, require that family planing be a compulsory part of any foreign aid coming from our countries,........

Should they not cooperate then countries don't get foreign aid and their citizens do not get immigration rights.

No guns involved Yoron but also and end to this soft c&*k molly coddling, borne of western guilt and self hatred, that we are currently engaged in.

Just as parents can't be both a parent and a mate to the kids, the west cannot be both a leader and a kiss ar$e to the developing world. But just as parents don't automatically need to get out the big wooden spoon, the west does not need to automatically fuel up the gun boats and drones.

Not sure how you see it?

That everything except western civilization is inferior?
And that everyone looks to us for guidance?

There are a lot of sovereign nations and all have their own cultures. Even if some are technologically inferior for the moment, their culture might have lasted quite some time longer. And the rules you can't accept yourself won't become better because you try to impose them on others. Family planning is a good thing to me too, but on a shared basis, none excluded. And every Country will present the idea differently I guess, depending on local variables and beliefs. It's going to be some real struggle before all see the necessity for it, depending on where you live but it has to be seen as fair to work.

The alternative is wars.

If the alternative is global war over insufficient food Yoron then which choice between evils would you make?

Allow war to cull off the excess mouths to feed or compell people to use birth control or simply give them no choice with some sort of biological vector that reduces their average fertility?

I would be prepared to choose the last option, even if it effected myself and my children, if the only other likely alternative was a global war and domestic violence over access to food etc.

"We need a determined approach, not a panicked one." - Fred, I completely agree. I have a child at primary school and I'm walking a fine line with him, trying to encourage awareness and responsibility without frightening him. But here's the thing - I am frightened. I am really, really scared about what the future is going to look like for him.

When people talk about "gloom and doom" scenarios, it's because that is what we're up against. Without a massive level of effort to combat climate change, the future looks pretty bleak for humans. Look at the current drought in the US and what that's going to do to food prices. We have 7 billion humans on the planet. We need to start taking this seriously.

Talking seriously about the likely consequences of inaction is not panicking. It's not embracing apocalypse. It's being realistic. And dismissing anyone who does so as "alarmist" or "fear-mongering" is not helpful.

The only thing different with the kids today from us kids back then is that in our day it was nuclear holocaust, while for this lot its global warming.

What's the same for us all is entrenched negativity, leaving us simply, when the time comes, to lean forward and kiss our arse goodbye.

It's no accident that the Baby Boomers cut loose. I've been saying for quite a few years now that the next couple of decades are going to be the 1960s and 70s all over again.

All the signs are there, even down to the tight black pants the boys are wearing.

I would laugh my ar$e off if that dumbo eared little twerp was rejected by the electorate at the next election through another hung parliament.

His considerable ego would be severely deflated and he would almost certainly quit politics with considerable sour grapes!

Stranger things have happened.

Howard lost his seat.

And Curiosity has successfully landed on Mars.

Yes, we can.

Dianna

You have confused me. On one hand you seem to agree with Mr Greenaway's comment "Nor could I continue to stomach the vacuous and venal behaviour exhibited by those with elevated political and/or financial station"

On the other, you appear to applaud the landing of the Curiosity on Mars.

The funny thing is those 'elevated political and/or financial station' people took the risk and funded the Curiosity. Do you know how much money, technology, energy, hydrocarbons, minerals and resources went into building, launching and landing the Curiosity on Mars.

There appears to be a contradiction in your position. Perhaps I am wrong.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

I do understand the resources that have gone into the Curiosity landing. It is these same scientists who have given us much of our knowledge and understanding about our environment.

I am not against exploration - just exploitation.

There is no contradiction in this.

The contradiction is that you have not acknowledged that the Curiosity was pushed into space by the politicians who passed the bills to borrow the money from the financiers to give to the scientists and technologists and machinists and suppliers and manufacturers so they could land this wonderful spacecraft on Mars.

I would rather we use our resources on projects of this imagination and stop the United Nations running any more "Sustainability Conferences". After all, the Curiosity will answer questions about our universe, whereas all Rio+20 did was waste 35 million litres of non renewable JetA1 fuel FOR NOTHING.

So, well done to the Curiostiy team, including the financiers who took the risk with our money.

Gerard Dean.

While optimism is great Yoron, we would be rather foolish to totally ignore the substantial risks we face.

While I don't believe that it is likely that Homo sapiens will become extinct as a species any time soon, I do believe our peaceful (relatively) technological civilisation is indeed facing considerable threats. Many civilisations before us have become extinct and forgotten, with the surviving citizens having moved else where and starting all over again.

The enormous global population as it considerable peril with global warming and associated food and water insecurity. Despite our technological prowess I really don't believe that our civilisation can survive a few billion third world people starving or indeed even a few hundred million starving westerners.

While I am not quite ready to give up, recognition of the above risks does influence my views as to where we should be focusing our efforts, third world AND fwestern depopulation being one of them.

That is family planning in the third and abolishment of fertility incentives in the west.

Not Hitler inspired genocide as Andrew will no doubt attempt to misrepresent it with his sluring ways!

No, not as it is today. Family planning and some restrictions on how many kids one can have seems a good idea to me too. At least for the closest generations, but it has to be fair to work. One can't impose draconian rules without taking part oneself so to speak. And what about those countries in where you are dependent in your old age for your sons to work and take care of you? But I think we need a solution to over-population, still it also becomes a question of what a 'over-population' means? I'm not sure myself?, I like the way we have it in Sweden with a lot of land for each, if divided by population, but that's me? In Asia people may look at it differently.

And no,I don't think it's genocide, if it was people had better stop what they they're doing, all by them selves, in splendid privacy so to speak, in the absence of that special one :)

But it is something that needs discussing.

Yoron in mho, and apparently that of numerous others, third world woman will not take much convincing to reduce their fertility substantially.

Few would choose, in non patriarchal societies, to spend the majority of their active lives pregnant and caring for young children. Many would prefer to have jobs, increase their family income and provde better education opportunities for fewer children.

I think others a right, it is primarily the third world med that are the major problem who would prefer to suppress woman by keeping them bare foot and pregnant so to speak.

For example, it seems that long lasting, slow release, subcutaneous 'pills' are the prefered method of contrapetion by many third world woman because they can hide them easily from their husbands and fathers. So western aid providers should exploit this to the max.

That being the case I think in some case it may come down to an ultimatium. No cooperation on fertility reduction and female education, no economic and development aid. He who pays the piper calls to tune and in this case the west is doing the paying!

Well, be it as it may :) But if one want to regulate others one better include oneself too, as I see it. Was that what you meant or did you feel that our Western society should be excluded? If so, why?

"Was that what you meant or did you feel that our Western society should be excluded?"

Absolutely not. Given our consumption levels it is even more important for the west to contain our population, or even reduce it to some extent.

And containing our population also means that we restrict immigration from the third world. Or if we wish to accomdate more of them then we should reduce our own numbers to compensate.

In Australia we have a 'baby bonus' from the federal government. At the very least this should be abolished for the third child or more. Or preferably abolished altogether. It is WRONG WRONG WRONG to be sending Australians the message that we need to increase the population of this continent given our climate and global warming etc.

If I had my way I would only allow parenting payments etc for the first two children and no subsidisation at all of the third or more child. If you want large families then you should be prepared to bank roll them entirely yourself.

There is absolutely no need and no excuse for Australia to have above replacement level fertility.

Greg, "And containing our population also means that we restrict immigration from the third world. Or if we wish to accommodate more of them then we should reduce our own numbers to compensate."

I think I can see your thinking there :) It's a little as I said about Sweden earlier 'persons per square meter', sort of?

But to me it's also about ideologies, we have democracy in the west, at least that's the theory. Either that really mean that we all are 'equal' or it doesn't. If we all are 'born equal' but one live in a tyranny, or where there just ain't no way for a person to make a decent living for him/her and the family? Will that 'equality of life' we believe in allow them the chance to start anew?

Just setting a limit on the kids born will be good enough for me, as I think, for the rest of it, I won't try to change anything. And to be honest, if I did try it I would have to stop calling it a democracy.

A key problem with birth control in many countries is the dependence of old people on their offspring.

It is not enough just to have subcutaneous pills or any other contraceptive technology. We need social services that will support people living independently in their old age..

Aside of resource considerations in accepting immigrants, we may need more research into just what is a reasonable level of immigration in terms of social stability. A relatively low level brings in a lot of useful new ideas and skills. Too high a level causes disruption and resentment. What is a resonable level, and in what circumstances?

We could accept many more refugees in Australia if we were not cherrypicking the most capable young people from other countries, to save ourselves the costs of training them. Also if we didn't have idiot politicians telling us to breed for Australia.

The jump in the birth rate after Costello's idiot rant gives us a hint of the power of simply asking people to do something for their country. I suspect it might work just as well in dropping the birth rate in a country with reasonable social services. It does help, however, to work on some of the fundamentalist religious groups who are hell-bent (sic) on increasing their numbers and on migrant groups still locked into the model of procreating to safeguard their old age.

What is a reasonable population, and what is a reasonable rate of change?

Yep, that's a good one :)

America is a culture made up from a lot of different immigrants, lately it seems to be Mexicans that makes up the most of the 'illegal immigrants', well, for the moment? But it still seems to work :) Though America is also a very big Country, still having a lot of natural resources.

But that can be said of Australia too, can't it?

What I think will define it is the way you will treat your environment, if you just will exploit, or if you will try conservation? You have an amazing wildlife still, even though you got all those 'foreign' imports, like rabbits and all those wild cats, killing of whole species as I understands it?

But even if conserving the nature and wildlife you have you still seem to have room for some more people? I'm no expert on this though :) It's just a guess.

Yoron in the big picture equality between third world and the west is not a priority in the short term.

Puting the entire human population and all our civilisation(s) on an ecologically sustainable footing is THE MAJOR priority.

That will involve primarily depopulation of the third world and primarily consumption reduction in the west.

Equality between third world and west will then inevitably follow at some point in the future when the west is consuming at a more reasonable level and when the third world has far fewer mounts to feed.

Seeking equality between the west and the third world through immigration IS NOT SUSTAINABLE and will lead to hell on earth for all of us and justice for none of us in the end.

There are abudant examples in Africa of what happens when the number of mouths to feed and bank accounts to fill exceeds the available food and other resources - war, famine, genocide, ethnic cleanising,.......

There is nothing like starvation etc to bring the worst out of many humans

I agree with you Yoron that democracy is to be prized above all else.

But unfortunately democracy is incompatible with with over population.
Think about it - personal freedom is inversely proportional population even in Australia and Europe. The more people there are doing something or taking something, the more regulation there has to be to restrict access to that something, e.g fisheries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5skBg2XuQeU

Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues at its present rate?

Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I will use what I call my bathroom metaphor. Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.

The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the less one individual matters.

I'm not disputing overpopulation Greg :)

We got it already as I think, and it's gonna be worse before it gets better, What I'm wondering a little about though, is how one should implement regulations for limiting a further overpopulation. It's a little, if you excuse me using a metaphor, like two alcoholics telling each other 'you better stop drinking, or you will .. diee' but none of them realizing that it is themselves that needs to take that first step, not the other.

We can either do it together, or we can try to 'force' others to do it for us. The first way is a democracy to me, the other is not, And the second way won't work. No sovereign nation will accept it. What it will lead to is economic wars, and worse. And I don't think any nation is an island any more, not even Australia. We are living in a 'global community'.

I think you are trying a bit hard for a reaction, Greg.

Is your view that my view is totally off the planet then?

If so then please give me your explanation as to the differences between the west and the third world re democracy.

The biggest democracy in the World is India and Indonesia is right up amongst the biggest.

Neither is a perfect democracy but each at times has shown itself capable of making wiser and more humane decisions than the imperfect democracies of some of their "First-World" neighbours, particularly Australia.

Of course Jim you have made a very large assumption concerning the steel boats with a lot of guns in that there will be sufficient cheap oil to power them and that if not, that the invading power has not been denied access to what little oil remains by the USA etc.

It seems to me Greg that you are making some equally large assumptions. Firstly, if a large country like China or India has designs on our landmass, then I am sure they will find the oil, whatever the price. Secondly, there is no guarantee that in the future the USA will be able to deny anyone anything. Sustainable population and climate change are issues that will be felt one way or another over a very long time and no one can forecast what will happen. However, one assertion can be made and that is that deniers must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that observed natural phenomena and related political movements will correct themselves and life can just go on as it used to. If they cannot do this, then surely it is prudent to take actions which will alleviate any perceived bad outcomes, purely as insurance. The activities described by Professor Harris and the ideas discussed in my blog fall into that category and do not necessarily reflect any particular philosophical or political position.

The USA will be in a position to deny oil to competitors for a while yet it seems - they are not quite ready to lay down and die just yet.

The longer they remain in power the more likely it is there will be insufficient oil supplies for China or India to mount a military invasion of Australia or any where else. It is hard to see them doing so in sailing ships.

On the contrary, if oil is seriously short by the time the USA falls, they will be to busy fighting to maintian power in their own territories with hundreds of millions of hungry and rebellious citizens.

Australia, with our much smaller population, will still face considerable difficulties but they may be more manageable than those that will be faced by China and India.

Here's to hoping that the USA lasts just a bit longer.

What you should do Greg, is to write a book :)
I will read it with interest.

But the main point i want to make is.
Don't count anyone out.

There is a lot I love with USA, just as with Australia.
But it has to do with dreams, the reasons why we exist.
America has a lovely dream, and so has Australia.
And Sweden.

Don't give up on it.