Comments

The proposed large-scale expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundary would destroy significant areas of endangered native grasslands. The State Government will try to persuade Parliament to approve Planning Amendment VC 67 to take 43,600 ha out of Melbourne’s green wedges and surround the new urban growth zones with a freeway that will not be needed in a post-carbon economy. If ratified by Parliament these planning amendments will mean that our green wedges irrevocably replaced by more concrete, bitumen, and suburban sprawl. 5000 ha of environmentally significant Western Basalt Plains grasslands, the grassy woodlands of the Maribynong and Merri Creek catchments, including giant red gums and 4000 ha of the South East food-bowl, would be destroyed. This area has highly productive market gardens using recycled water and doubles as Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat. It will also mean high rise developments along tram, bus and light rail routes as well as around stations. Grasslands continue to be one of the most heavily cleared and endangered ecosystems in Victoria. The Brumby government feel they have the right to by-pass environmental consideration and the public of Victoria. "Planning" to cater for sustainable population growth is a polite term for more McMansions, MegaStores, freeways, infrastructure, water demands, energy consumption and associated soaring costs. The "nimby" tag is another useful political tool to manipulate the public into silence while our fertile plains, native grasslands, fauna habitat, heritage areas and our State's integrity is being bulldozed to serve solely the interests of the housing industry and land developers. We should take an example from Haiti - where population growth has endangered the nation through consumption of flora and fauna, and thus vulnerable to Nature's extremities.

Peak-hour train services were thrown into chaos across Victoria this morning after a massive power failure near Southern Cross Station in Melbourne brought the rail system to a halt. About 400,00 passengers were caught up in the chaos during peak-hour. Yet again we are reminded about the lack of investment by our state government in rail infrastructure. Myki has an open cheque book it seems, yet having a decent maintained train on a safe piece of track is in the too hard basket. So we need to spend more on public transport infrastructure to support the needs of Melbourne's population explosion? The solution, add more people to give an injection of funds! That doesn't last, so the public must pay out more in taxes and fees to cover the shortfall in public funding. Population growth does not pay for itself or bring "prosperity" - quite the contrary! There are always going to be "shortages", blow-outs, and infrastructure demands as we can never "catch up" with an economy that depends on limitless population growth. The addiction cycle must be broken so we can have good and sufficient services, without rising costs.

Household water restrictions are almost certain to be eased within months after extra water was returned to rivers ahead of schedule. Melbourne is on stage 3 water restrictions but its water storages are at 35.5 per cent - the highest level in July for three years! With a targeted population for Melbourne of over 7 million by 2036, it means that water supplies will have to keep increasing along with population growth rate, and the costs for infrastructure must keep increasing too. 35.5% of capacity is hardly time to ease restrictions. Victoria's water storages at the end of September 2005 were at 56.9% of capacity. We are encouraged to "save water" but there is little incentive as the costs of infrastructure are fixed, and more consumers keep getting added to Melbourne.

well done all you wonderful people ! here in SA we have many in our roo yard who have had similar injuries. they and your girl atre living proof that they do not have to die. be aware though that a joey like this in inexperienced hands could/ would suffer horribly. just 3 weeks ago a local vet rang and said he had a pinkie for me or d.. or he would put her down. little ebony is well on her way to being healed and went to a doctor/ friend/ carer just last night. its a fantastic thing to be able to help them live a good life instead of simply being euthed.

Poll in The Age: On population, is Australian the NIMBY nation? Yes, we have room for more people if we weren't obsessed with our own needs No, we have a right to plan for a sustainable population Unless we have stability in both our own numbers and in our economy, we will be in no position to send aid or accommodate refugees and support humitarian causes. Globalisation has meant that national problems have become globalised! Instead of nations with runaway population growth being forced to support themselves and adjust their living standards and family sizes accordingly, they have the option of international aid and/or immigration/asylum seeker status. NIMBY-ism isn't misanthropic, but about sensible and sustainable populations. It is about resisting commercial forces that promote "prosperity" from population growth, religious fundamentalism, and lack of facilities for family planning. Unless we resist the forces trying to make us feel guilt about being "NIMBYs", then we ourselves will be absorbed into the global threats instead of being part of the solution!

We in Australia have such an ambivalent relationship with our unique and world-famous wildlife. They are feared as being over-abundant, as over-grazers and thus environmental threats, and except for the emu and kangaroo, are little known in their own country. Tasmania has a cruel and twisted history of human and animal abuse. The indigenous peoples were discarded and killed, and that's where the Tasmanian Tiger was exterminated. The level of suffering and human abuse in the Colonial era of penal settlements has left a dark pall over this jewel of an island. It is famous for environmental vandalism that still continues today, with Gunns and old-growth forests continually under threat, and that's where the Greens and TWS originated. BT Possums are processed for skins and meat as an export, and the atrocities of 1080 poison, to stop wildlife eating new growth is still being debated. Iconic Lake Peddar was flooded in Tasmania. Tasmania's dark history is still evident today, with "culls" of native wildlife when there are non-lethal alternatives. Attitudes have little changed since Colonial days.

There are some genuine students who study hard and then go back for employment in their own countries, but there have been too many bogus courses simply as a back door to immigration here. We do not lack skills in hairdressing, bakery or cooking in Australia. They are simply low paid and require long hours! Students have bought housing too, and rentals have added to the demand we already have of housing. Students don't have to live here to study our courses. The courses should mainly be done in their home countries, online and in campuses overseas. They should just come here for post graduate or for experience. Foreign students don't have to live here in Australia. There are overseas campuses of Tafes and universities that should be promoted and developed first. This would leave our own educational institutions open for our citizens to alleviate the "skills shortages" businesses keep complaining about. We could still have an export industry, but off-shore. This would leave our educational institutions free to do the job they are supposed to do - educate our citizens and address the so-called skills shortages, and then be able to send human resources overseas as another export industry.

Humans are basically herd animals and see a larger herd more exciting, more comforting and reassuring. However, seeing beyond the herd, and the mentality that prevents it, is difficult for some who only see the benefits of endless growth. Think of a herd of buffalo in Africa. They form a herd because in general it will increase their safety against predators, they feel safer. In reality, the predator will still attack the herd and seek out the weak or sick, so irrespective if you are part of a herd, there is still a very real chance of danger. If you look at the human inhabitants of the very same country as the oxen you find them congregated into multitudes of tribes. A very large tribe falls to pieces through its own inflexibility, because, by the nature of things, it must be either deficient in centralisation or stretched for food, or both. As a lone lemming, you may see the herd and think "lets join it and follow it”. So you run and run and run…until all of a sudden you run off a cliff and plummet to your death, because that is what lemmings do, they commit suicide! Herds are psychologically reassuring, but it can be a false reassurance and stops the human race actually seeing the size of the herd/tribe itself as a threat! Perhaps the whole herd's fate is mass suicide, like the lemming? An evolutionary flaw that hasn't been ironed out by time and the trials of survival?

Sheila says: " "A lot of people do believe these lies because those lies are purveyed continuously in the press by people marketed by the press as unquestionable authorities. A lie constantly repeated gains the consistency of truth and ordinary people are conditioned against the necessary self-assertion to question truths conveyed to them by people they believe to be their betters. In this the 'majority' are no more empowered than most villains about the real attributes of nobility." This statement needs repitition. The Demographic Theory of Transition has been around since 1934, and the longer its tenure, the more entrenched it becomes. Mere fact cannot dislodge it. How many other such myths must we constantly contend with? For example: The myth that the empowerment of women---women's rights---will solve the overpopulation problem. But as Engleman's study showed, women, on average, want two children. That is at least one or two too many. In the context of this population emergency, NO ONE has any procreative rights. Only the right not to have children. The myth that we can focus on lowering birth rates without allowing rising death rates to achieve the necessary population reductions. A one child per family regime, or even a no-child per family regime will not achieve the population reductions we need. The humanitarian impulse to cure cancer, aids, etc etc. is in fact, a declaration of war on sustainability. Precious resources must not be squandered in putting surplus billions on temporary life-support and encouraging more to join them. We need to focus on the 5% of humanity that might have a chance to carry the torch for our race. Callous? Not as callous as the die-off of 3.5 billion people in the decade ahead. The replacement rate fallacy. Mother Nature doesn't give a crap about falling birth rates. It is the number of people who are alive now that counts. And BTW, by 2050 35% of the population will be in the prime reproductive stage of their lives..... The fallacy of the spoiled only child--aka in China as the "little emperor's syndrome". Stanley Hall--father of child psychology--- came up with this myth in 1892, and despite the lack of an empirical foundation, it has prevailed to this day. The truth is, 'only' children outperform children with siblings in almost every category of well being, especially in education attainments. The more attention parents can give to a child--as a rule--the better that child fares. There is NO argument against a One-Child-Per-Family regime that is compelling enough to out weigh its obvious ecological benefits. The myth of the aging population needing a broad base of youthful taxpayers to support them. Enough has been written to destroy this assumption, yet it holds court in the media every day still. What does it take to refute this 'conventional wisdom'? Two main points. The number of immigrants it would take to preserve the existing age structure is astronomical. In Canada immigration would have to be increased seven times its current level and sustained for forty years to keep the proportion of seniors at 20%. And who then would support them? A Ponzi scheme that would leave the environment and the taxpayer holding the bag. Secondly, the average age of immigrants is only about two years less than the national average. The myth that the birth rate "must" be at "replacement level" or our society will collapse (an argument which in tandem with open borders immigration arguments). How can replacing a population level that is already unsustainable make any sense? "But Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan" are losing people. Big effing deal! Industrial societies are in CRITICAL overshoot now---including "Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan". Wake up and smell the coffee!!! The myth that only immigrants will do menial work---"work that our people won't do". As one man told me, "If you sent all the illegals back to Mexico the economy of the southwest would collapse" . This is just a rehash of the arguments used in the pre-bellum south: "If we freed the slaves the economy of the south would collapse." Native born people will do whatever work there is available---IF it pays a living wage. Since when does a low-wage slave economy make a nation prosperous? In North America, 80% of migrants fail to earn enough income to reimburse governments with taxes to pay for the services they consume. A Canadian needs to earn $25,000 per year for the government just to break even. New Canadians don't even come close to that. In America, it takes 5 Walmart employees or 9 hamburger flippers at MacDonalds to pay for the pension of one retiree. The ratio for union employees---largely outsourced and squeezed out of existence----is two or three to one. The truth is, importing a slave labour caste to do the menial work is CORPORATE WELFARE, plain and simple. There is NO net benefit to domestic consumers. The myth that all we need to do is to increase energy "efficiency" and per capita consumption and reduce per capita waste and all is safe. Again, nature only cares about total impacts. Per capita efficiences within the context of a market economy are growth ENABLERS. They only provoke MORE consumption by the virtue of lowering per unit costs and per unit waste. The myth that we can consume our way to sustainability by "going green" with the purchase of "green" products. The way to go green is to STOP consuming! You do that in two ways. You don't sire or give birth to more consumers, and you limit your purchases. The myth of GREEN capitalism. Capitalism is all about the generation of wants and their graduation into "NEEDS" that can only be satisfied by buying more, and more, and more. Choosing "green" products does not make this process ecologically benign. The myth that the "profit motive" is the root of all evil. We know about "disaster" capitalism. But check out "disaster socialism"---read the June 1991 issue of National Geographic. The command economy turned Eastern Europe into a smoggy toxic waste dump---and China and North Korea are following that path. The root of our problem is industrialism. Capitalism is just a form of management of a fundamentally unsustainable society with a resource utilization mix heavily weighted to non-renewables most of which have already peaked (87% in America). The myth that immigration is not a population issue. That is, tightening the borders will have NO impact on global overpopulation. WRONG. Open borders are a proven fertility stimulant to countries of emigration. Every extra child increases the chance of an offspring landing a passport in the land of milk and honey. The successful immigrant then can send back remittance money and anchor the citizenship bid of relatives down the chain. And by offering a safety value to foreign dictators, immigration relieves the pressure to force changes at home, most especially the need to face up to overpopulation. And on and on and on........ Tim

"Here in Australia every state government is in the business of raising the price of land beyond the capacity of most people to pay for it, creating exorbitant rents," Really? Government is forcing private land owners to raise their prices? There's no market economy in Australia? I had no idea they were not a capitalist economy. What does any of what you said Sheila have to do with the planet being over populated? The FACTS are this. For every calorie of food energy we eat, there are 7-10 calories of oil energy in it. There is no getting around that, there are no alternatives to oil for that food. So once oil goes into world wide terminal decline, aka peak oil, the planet cannot physically feed 6.7 billion people, not even 20% of that. The planet can only likely feed 5% of that. We are at or very near peak oil. Once that starts, Sheila, none of your complaints will matter any more.

Last month Pike reminded us that "since my time as a board member of Greenpeace, I've been committed to taking real actions to improve the environment". If she is spruiking the Brumby government's "green" crudentials, then she is totally off the track, and so is Greenpeace. The Brumby government is totally environmentally naive and destructive. They freely give permits to "cull" wildlife, heavily support the land developers and investment industries, and are intent on logging and the polluting desalination plant. The north-south pipeline destroyed bushland and threatened the Goulburn river. They are a "business as usual" party, totally oblivious to the environment and climate change. Population growth is totally incompatible with conservation and is our planet's greatest threatening process.

Warmists ignore the impact of population on over-use of resources. They ignore the unarguable fact that too many humans are reducing everyone's quality of life. If you raise this issue, warmists will ignore it. I wondered why this is so, concluding their closed minds are more to do with a longed-for intellectual recognition of their science, and the excitement surrounding the search for sustainables, rather than the public's silenced desire to harmonise a range of mitigation methods. On foreign aid, and the donor public's growing resistance, Bob Geldof has morphed into a professional speaker, making a financially rewarding career out of the subject of foreign aid... We in advanced economies pour billions of dollars into aid for populous nations, and the employment industry surrounding the distribution of these funds, and we are so often upset by reports about our money paying for guns bought by corrupt regimes. With diminishing resources on every continent, one would expect that population stabilisation, followed by population reduction would be a worthy and justifiable program funded by some proportion of our foreign aid money. I suggest that the ignorance surrounding the over-population subject and the delivery of money to countries and cultures that multiply their numbers, is some of the reason that there is deep public resistance to forced energy austerity measures proposed by warmists. Climate changers appear to be mopping the floor with the tap still running, but do not want to address the public's quiet resistance to their rather complicated (albeit contributory valuable) natural energy solutions. They do not address excessive global population as both most of the problem and some of the answer. Contraception is an important factor in addressing global over-population but the Catholic church for example advocates against, and this is proving particularly detrimental in AIDS-riddled countries such as Africa. Statistics seem to be showing that couples in advanced economies are now limiting their families to two children, and oftentimes to just one. Baby bonuses should cease immediately and new programmes developed as incentives to halt population growth, concomitantly reduce energy consumption with the aim of returning to pre-1975 global population levels.

While I agree on basis with much of what has been stated, one of your comment was concerning fishing bag limits. I am a recreational fisher and some thought needs to be put into why you think 30 for bream is a high limit. If someone is out on their boat in order to catch fish there are obvious costs involved like fuel and registration and getting the boat to the water, a person will attempt to justify this with the amount of fish one catches and gives a monetary value to this. This person will most likely have a freezer to store the fish for long term consumption. Your argument seems to presume that this person should have his limit curbed, necessitating increased fishing outings. This in turn will increase fuel consumption adding to environmental damage, water congestion and if said people are not environmentally conscious (and there are many) the possibility of other environmental contaminants. Your statement also gives the impression that the person is fishing for their daily consumption, and if they are then yes 30 is bit high, but many will be looking to spread this catch over a non fishing period. I have been out for an entire day and have thrown everything back. If the bag limit is to be revised should this not be done off sustainable studies of fish numbers and not some numbers simply plucked out of the air because the previous sounds a little big.

What the hell is Bronwyn Pike doing on the board of Greenpeace? And what is Greenpeace doing for the environment? How can anyone concerned about the environment give money to Greenpeace when it has politicians like Bronwyn Pike on its board? Kenneth Davidson wrote in "Green-wedge plan would be a mortal blow to liveability," Sydney Morning Herald, July 12, 2010: "Last month Pike reminded us that "since my time as a board member of Greenpeace, I've been committed to taking real actions to improve the environment. I know that reducing our impact on the environment means not only rethinking how we do things in the future, but what we can change now." Pike is an influential member of cabinet. So what is the government doing for the environment? In June - at about the same time as the latest spruiking letter was being sent to constituents - the government was doing its best to push Planning Scheme Amendment VC67 through Parliament. If it is passed, it will take 46,600 hectares out of the green wedge land for urban development, create reservations for a new outer-metro ring road and the E6 freeway and, in clause 12, change the planning laws to allow construction of high-rise development along existing tram and bus routes." It is for this kind of reason that I cannot understand why people have any faith in the 'classical' environment groups. The Australian Conservation Foundation had for a long time Mr Pratt of Visy as a major donor. That sealed the organisation's fate for me as a paid-for lapdog. If you look at the presences on boards of well-known charities as well, you will find big developers and financiers, even though they are agents of the very problems that the charities pretend to be solving.

Ed. There was a defamatory comment here from a person who disapproves of Madonna King's work as a journalist. It would have been more helpful if they had given their comment as an opinion based on an argument, but I am conveying the feeling here.

We hear is all the time - that Australia is a "racist" country. We are one of the most tolerant nations in the world, and we have huge cultural mix, and years of experience in being tolerant. There are some racists elements in every human society, but it is time to stop the racism against us! People should be free to practice their culture and religion, and that should be a private right. However, we have groups who want to enforce their ways upon us, contrary to our history and heritage. That's where the problems start. We do not have Sharia law in Australia, and this should be understood before Islamic people arrive here. We believe in equality between sexes, and being open and transparent. There are groups who want women to cover up, including their faces. After years of the suffragette and feminists movements, and progress, we don't want imported cultures/religions that deny women these basic rights. They are an affront to our culture. Immigrants coming to Australia should accept our (tolerant) laws and way of life, not confront us so that we have to become defensive and be called "racist"!

Belgium is on the verge of becoming the first European nation to ban the burka. A parliamentary committee has agreed to outlaw the wearing of face-covering veils in public. The full Parliament will vote on the matter shortly. Under the proposals, women could face a week in prison or a fine for wearing a veil in public. There are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Belgium – 6 per cent of the population. The text of the new law does not specifically mention burkas but makes it illegal for anyone to wear clothing ‘that covers all or most of the face’ in any public place. MP Denis Ducarme left no doubt the rules were aimed at Muslim extremists. He said ‘This sends a very strong signal to radical Islamists.’ The French- speaking liberals who have proposed the law argue that an inability to identify people presents a security risk and that the veil is a ‘walking prison’ for women. Daniel Bacquelaine, the bill’s chief promoter, said the ban might also be used against potentially violent demonstrators who covered their faces. He estimated that only a few hundred women in Belgium wore facial veils, but said it was a rising trend. The MP said Belgium did not wish to follow the ‘bad examples’ of Britain and the Netherlands, where Muslims lived in separate communities. The proposal is expected to become law as early as June as it has the support of all five parties in the coalition government. But opponents may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. There have been debates over banning the burka in France, Switzerland and Italy. France’s highest administrative body said a full burka ban, which is supported by all political parties, could violate the French constitution and European law. Source: Intercessors Network

The hype over asylum seekers and "border security" is really to distract and confuse us over immigration. We must balance compassion, our sovereignty, and our duty of care towards the persecuted/lost with strong but humane and just policies. The trickle of asylum seekers is just the beginning of a coming deluge! There will be millions of asylum seekers as climate change, global population explosion and food/water shortages take over in the next few years. We will see displacement as the result of unsustainable environmental destruction, terror caused by lack of land and overcrowding, lack of water, crops, fish, compacted by climate change. The number of asylum seekers is small compared to the "students" who seek PR, economic migrants and those from New Zealand, Julia Gillard has already denounced her support for a "big Australia". Without the massive numbers of legal immigrants arriving, we could easily process more genuine and suitable refugees. However, we are not obliged to give them permanent residence, or bring their extended families. With our present housing shortages, we could not accommodate refugees without eroding our standard of living and displacing people on waiting lists for public housing. We don't want ghettos!

If net migration added 54% to the growth, they would also contributed at least this amount, probably much more, to the "natural" birth rate. Some migrant groups believe in having big families. Thailand has successfully limited their population growth rate through advertising condoms, with good humour. Improved education, especially of women, and the distribution of free condoms has meant that over the past generation Thailand has significantly reduced its birth-rate. Two decades ago Thailand had the same population as the Philippines; today there are 60 million Thais and 90 million Filipinos. Thailand's long-term economic growth has been remarkable. This progress has been reflected in the very significant improvement in indicators of well-being, such as life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality, and literacy. Poverty incidence has declined dramatically. The Government has been taking a people-oriented policy approach and gradually moving the country toward a social welfare-oriented system and forward as a single economy.

The DSE should be caring for our environment and fauna. The Attorney General recently condemned the Labor Victorian government for not caring for endangered species, but nothing happens and it is "business as usual" making more species vulnerable! Victoria's biodiversity and habitat is being paved over with concrete, and the public are paying for Melbourne's continuing urban sprawl and destruction. Peak oil will be upon us in a few years, and these big concrete monsters will just be eye-sores, monuments to stupidity and lack of foresight. Not only this, but Bulldozers move in to Westerfield before the Heritage Council Decision comes out! This is a brave move by residents, and no decision has been made by the Heritage Council yet! So much for transparency and consultation by the Brumby government! The Link is all about making more land available for continuing Melbourne's obesity of urban sprawl, right into remnant heritage areas, wildlife habitat, and what once was a picturesque holiday escape for busy Melbournian families.

Over the last forty years Australia has become addicted to cheap oil, especially for transport which uses almost 80% of Australia's petroleum; 55% of road transport fuel is petrol, 39% diesel and 6% is LPG. Some governments are very concerned about this uncertainty but our government is unaware of the serious threat of reduced oil supplies prior to 2025. Oil shortages and global warming will increase the number of the world's hungry by reducing the area of land and the amount of fertiliser and pesticides available for farming in developing countries. While there are many events that could postpone an oil peak to after the year 2020, there are equally many events that could lead to an oil peak before the year 2020.....an oil peak in the near future is indeed plausible and that it would be useful to consider the possible consequences for global energy markets and the resulting drive for system innovations. Australia in few years will have a high level of import dependence and remote geographic location, but does not have an oil security stock holding above that which is commercially optimal. See the report: If world oil production peaks before 2020 it puts the well being of all Australians at risk by Alan Parker, 2005 The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Project (ZCA2020) presents a realistic path forward for Australia to achieve a zero-emissions economy, covering stationary energy, transport, industrial processes, buildings, land use and replacement of coal exports. Why is our Brumby investing public money in large, petrol guzzling freeways in light of peak oil?

Michael Stutchbury, Economics editor at the Australian wrote on June 28, 2010 that "JULIA Gillard's rejection of Kevin Rudd's "Big Australia" goes dangerously close to cornering her into a low-growth economy." He argues that 'the strongest po population growth since the 1960s was one of the chief reasons Australia sailed through the global financial crisis" and that "Australia has plenty of room for 40 million people if we manage it properly, whatever the new Prime Minister says." (!) [Really persuasive, hey.] He disparages Gillard as "driven by the politics of rising traffic congestion in Sydney and our other big cities, the pressure for higher urban housing density and double-digit price inflation for household electricity, gas and water." Well, um, yes. We would hope so. Doesn't Stutchbury have to pay for water and electricity? Doesn't he have to pay for housing? What ivory castle does this so-called Economics Editor live in? What planet does he dwell on? Stutchbury's comments show just how out of touch and ridiculously unrepresentative and untrue to real news the mainstream Murdoch Press is. Stuff you Michael Stutchbury! On-ya Julia G.! It takes a woman to see reality.

This woman will unravel very quickly. Seriously out of her depth. This is a mid-life actress who has worked the numbers thus far, but the demands of the union heavies who engineered her promotion will bring her down - if Australian voters don't beat them to it. A well-informed, unforgiving public may not be as enamored with Miss Gillard's record as Messrs Shorten, Howes, Feney, Adams, Ferguson and the rest might like to think. Big mistake. Big.

This is a pretty prophetic cartoon! Rudd sent out into the wilderness like Nebukanezzah! How close is candobetter.org to the horses' mouth?

If size matters, then it should not be assumed that bigger is better! More people makes a larger economy, but the costs are multiple and paid for environmentally, in how long the land can produce and be viable, and in the financial and lifestyle costs to the people. The powerful lure of a big population is for the real estate industries, developers and the finance industries who gain the touted "prosperity'! In a small company, it also much easier to annoy the CEO, because he actually knows who you are. Each individual has less power to determine his/her destiny, and less say on the direction a nation takes. Democracy is threatened by size. Being big has evolutionary advantages. It makes it harder for predators to win an attack, and it is easier to fight off competitors for food or mates. And there’s a much better chance of being popular and looking intimidating in a museum. But there’s a downside as well. Big species consume more, and they breed slower, which means that they have greater problems when times are tough. They are therefore more vulnerable to extinction. They then end up in museums!

"Atheism and skepticism are two intelligent philosophies to start investigating choices of faith, since they are faith neutral and question everything". We are facing the ominous doctrine which attempts to build a society with no regard whatsoever for religion and which seeks to destroy the religious freedom of its citizens – an ideology especially hostile to the Christian faith. Of course, there are many people devoid of spiritual values and totally lack any awareness beyond themselves and the immediate. However, their limitations shouldn't deny or ridicule those who are enlightened and want to practice their faith. It has become fashionable to be dismissive of all religion particularly Christianity. The weight of both history and contemporary society shows that people of faith have in their ranks many of the greatest minds and intellects that have ever lived. Many of those leading minds, rather than believing that religion and science are opposing forces, argue strongly that there are more than more points of intersection as humanity comes to understand more about life and the universe - at both its most microscopic and infinite levels. Philippians 4:8 states: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.”

Having just heard the discussion on ABC radio about the ALP coup, I am inclined to agree with Realist. My enthusiasm could seem naive and unwarranted at this point. Population policy was not the only factor in Rudd's displacement. But from a Canadian viewpoint, let me give you some perspective. The phrase "sustainable population" is not even in the Canadian political vocabulary. The mere fact that a PM would call a portfolio "The Ministry for Sustainable Population" is in itself a huge step in the process. It represents a breakthrough in consciousness. Is it sufficent? Of course not. Gestures are not actions. Nothing will happen if you don't keep up the pressure. Don't just "wait and see". Keep pushing. We would love to be where you are at right now. Tim

Mr Shorten said voters had been critical of the Government's climate change policy and its explanation of the mining profits tax. Rudd's unpopular "big Australia" penchant, and non-apologetic attitude, has been down-played by the media as a triviality, a minor unpopular policy but unworthy of any reason for his real down-fall in the polls. Even the Liberals assume that we must have limitless, perpetual population growth in the name of "prosperity"! (We have always had immigration since Colonial times, and it is part of our tradition, our heritage, our history, and must continue!). The ETS was doomed to fail. We cannot be addressing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions whilst at the same time be increasing our population at world-record rates! It was contradictory in nature, despite Senator Wong's "de-linking" population growth from greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth, and the support of business leaders, had priority over climate change, so ETS had to be sacrificed.