I wonder if the knives will be out for progressives when recent migration turns sour. Migrants could congregate in enclaves with those of the same country of origin, fail to to learn the language of their new country and remain welfare dependent for years. Resentment could erupt for those already doing it tough in the host countries as services are stretched and jobs are rationed. Angela Merkel could be singled out as she actually welcomed the influx before demanding that other countries she didn't consult must share the load.

Apart from population another strange blind spot of progressives is future energy needs. They assure us that we will need less in future and it doesn't have to be as reliable. Perhaps their extensive travel is not hypocrisy but getting it all done before it's stopped. Progressives impose sacrifice on everybody else so they can feel better. My solutions to these problems are to spend the migration money closer to the point of origin and to have more energy not less. I call that pragmatism.

I lost count of the number of times the word "progressives" was used in this article. Left-wing wackos describe themselves as progressive, but they are anything but progressive: they want to put the brakes on everything until we end up living in caves again.

It's one thing for idiots to give themselves totally inappropriate and false monikers; but it is quite absurd for for normal people to describe these wreckers of society as progressives.

The political 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists do fly below the radar, which is not surprising given the 'progressive' agenda of the ABC and some other media outlets.

It is simply astonishing how many ex-Labor PMs are professed Fabians and are forever using the 'progressive' word with deep meaning (it must be their secret handshake apparently) but retired wealthy international jet-setters themselves (despite their more humble family origins).

By way of example, Hawke - speech to the Fabian Society in Melbourne on the 8th May 1984
“I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own government to Fabianism”. He also said in that speech, “The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism, the abolition of private property, in this case to own land. They then align themselves with the non-violent arm of Marxism by accepting the non-violent road of patient gradualism to total government.”

To take another example to underline the Fabians mission of collectivism and abolishing private property (hypocritically despite their own ownership of expensive property assets) ex-Paul Keating is still going on about removing the main residence exemption from CGT for your home. Imagine the effect of that on retirees, or workers forced to move for their employment. 'Progressives' love new taxes though.

There is no surprise that 'Progressives' are not progressive but regressive and that they have compartmentalised minds. It is because they are Marxists, just as ex-PM Hawke says they are and he should know.

Regarding population, the 'Progressives' faux concern for sustainability and environmental issues is displaced by their stated goal of a One World Order of International Socialism.

The 'Progressives' are all, "Do as we say, not do as we do".

Some conservatives don't get population, and you (Simon Ross) appears to be among them! What he fails to grasp is that in most of the world the population issue is already being adequately addressed, and it is only continuing to rise because people are living longer.

The exceptions to that are where there's a perception of underpopulation, where women are disempowered (which you acknowledge that the progressives are concerned about), where there are religious objections to contraception (mainly from the Catholics; fortunately the new Pope seems to be taking a less dogmatic stance) and where people can't be confident their children will survive long enough to have children of their own. That last reason is why population growth rates are higher where there's extreme poverty, and it's also why popultation growth rates are higher around conflict zones.

It's true that boostinng the population in already developed areas puts a strain on the infrastructure, but it is also true that having a higher population can be used to fund infrastructure improvements that benefit existing residents as well as incomers.

Population is not the limiting factor you assume it to be.

I don’t much care for the label “progressive”, because it is used as a self-description by people with such radically differing views that it’s not very good at indicating what a person believes, or why – as the gap between Aidan and Simon attests.

Global population growth is slowing. It’s already below replacement in many developed economies, and declining in most developing ones. Average living standards are rising despite population growth, because production is rising faster than population. Global poverty rates are falling.

We need to find ways to produce more sustainably, but challenge will not be affected materially by population policies.

Population alarmists from Malthus to Ehrlich have been proven wrong. If we really want to sustain progress, we should focus our efforts elsewhere.

An extremely well written and argued article by Simon Ross. It is refreshing to see that the concept of unrestricted population growth is once more being examined. It seems that it had become a non issue among environmentalists and "social regressives" for too long. Those of us who have been around for a long time, may remember that today's Green Party was a product of the old ZPG (Zero Population Growth) party. The "Greens" opposition to immigration did an about face when they realised that "refugees" and poverty stricken new immigrant groups would be an additional source of votes that would gain them political power.

Old "Social progressives" are lunatics like Corbyn, and that moron who is running Greece at the moment. They may be well educated, but they lack the common sense street smarts of the average, mature working class person. Most "progressives" are young and they will eventually grow out of their shallow idealism and start thinking straight. But young people have high ideals for making a better world for themselves, and while they are young they fall easy victims to a left wing ideology which promise a quick and easy fix for everything, Especially when their egos are being preened by continually being bombarded through publically funded left wing media, that those who advocate the social progressive line are morally and intellectually superior people.

This is why it is so difficult to deprogram them. Their entire self esteem comes from defending a left wing ideology which, if they ever bothered to think about it, makes no sense. Socialists want money to pay for social programs that will buy them votes, then attack every proposal for development which will make money. They want to save the environment but support endless immigration. They want an end to fossil fuels but refuse to consider nuclear power which just happens to be the only viable and affordable alternative. They want world peace but can not understand that population pressure and the fight to gain resources that will ensure the survival of particular groups, is the leading cause of human conflict.