One area of politics that has been left well alone too long ... sustainable human population.

Mostly because Greens, and the old parties, will not touch it. Maybe for fear of the backlash from some sectors of the community, maybe because no one has come up with any good ideas yet.

Greens differ from the old parties in that we are a grass roots party and so grass root members can forward change on policies from the ground up.

So people, Greens supporters and other's that would like Population on the political radar, what sort of policy would you like the grass roots of the Greens to forward for policy.

Come on people, we can do better than this.

How about what if we dump the baby bonus.

Do the opposite to the NSW conservative state government and support foster carers rather than slash the cash they get for caring for dumped children so decreasing the number of potential foster carers in the future.

Lets focus on better parenting via free classes and programs to teach aspects of parenting, so parents are not isolated and left on their own ... and then if they do make the occasional cock up, are not crucified by the media and or courts.

Lets shift to community child caring. Children no longer seen as someone's possession, seen more as an asset of humanity. Better quality children rather than just more.

Shift the economy away from the continual growth mentality, which is unsustainable towards other values. Since continual growth requires continual increase in the number of consumers. 

If we can not think of a silver bullet to sort population, then lets start by working around the edges.

Any more ideas off the top of your heads?

Agree, human population will crash, yet is starvation and war the best tools ... or do we start now so circumventing the worst case option?

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 8:51am:



any suggestive link I could educate myself with?

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 4:05am:


But how do you justify 'sustainable population' on the one hand, with the push to increase the number of refugees and immigrants on the other hand??

The two ideas are mutually exclusive...

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:


Now that works.....
However, what IS the 'sustainable population' of Australia????....no one ever seems to say it...(just curious)

Basically because, between breeding and 'importing' refugees, there has to be a balance......i.e bring in a 40 yr old, who can join the workforce NOW, doesn't deal with the problem of who replaces him/her, in 20 or 30 years time.....We still need babies to replace current workers....thinking of the future etc....

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:


Ummm no, I'm not...I'm thinking along the lines of a sustainable economy...which means having enough shop assistants, hairdressers, mechanics, doctors, nurses etc etc to keep the economy functioning into the future.....
We have an 'aging' population....so who's going to replace our workers when they retire......we can't really rely on imported workers forever.....we will need to breed and train replacements....whether their parents were born here or not doesn't matter, but people who move to new countries tend to have kids, so where do you draw the line on reproduction????