The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Zero immigration and sustainable populations > Comments

Zero immigration and sustainable populations : Comments

By Eric Claus, published 5/11/2008

A high immigration intake does not benefit the average Australian.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
it's like this, mate: for graziers, more sheep means more fleece.

so too with politicians.

if the sheep ran the station there'd be fewer sheep, deeper grass, and no fleecing, because no fleece. in politics, this is called 'democracy', but you don't need to know about democracy, because it beyond the capacity of ozzies to participate in democracy. they heard "4 legs good" and believed it. so i can't get them to stand up.

yes, as i've been saying for years now, parliamentary rule is not good for ordinary ozzies. but it's too good for them too: people who think they cannot rule themselves must take the rule of others. if you don't get a mugabe, be humbly grateful. and be patient, someone like him will be along soon.
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 9:31:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article Eric. Surely one of the most important articles ever posted on this forum.

Now let’s see…can I find anything in there to disagree with.

Mmmm, search…..search…seeearch…

Oh wait…yes…possibly…..or maybe its just a matter of interpretation….

“It would be easy to blame business for lowering our standard of living and politicians for being their accomplices, but that is wrong….It is up to the citizens of Australia to vote in the politicians who will best serve their interests.”

I don’t think it is that black and white. What big business does and what governments do reflects very strongly on what the common person does and how they vote. It is a circular momentum.

All elements of the circle need to take on much more responsibility if we are to direct our society onto a sustainable basis in time to make it happen before a whole kaboodle crashes in an almighty heap. It is not good enough for businesses to be only interested in their balance sheets and rely on governments to keep them in line. And it is not good enough for governments to only pander to what their big biz buddies want or what their constituency appears to want. They’ve got to show leadership as well. All sectors have got to embrace the move away from the continuous growth paradigm and strongly towards genuine sustainability.

But in the first instance, what we desperately need is more people like Eric Claus to get out there and really spread the message that the achievement of a sustainable society is the most important thing of all and that reducing immigration down to net zero or close to it is of the highest priority….and that things like climate change, peak oil and the financial crunch are at best only subsets of the big sustainability picture and at worst horrible distractions from what we really should be concentrating on.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 9:52:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every line in the article was ringing true, up until he Eric said:

"What really mattered to her, and to all politicians, is what the majority of voters think."

No Eric. That is patiently not true for euthanasia, where some 80% of the population supports it, yet it is still doggedly opposed by our politicians. And as far as I can tell it is not true for population growth either - although unlike euthanasia I have not seen the results of polling on the subject. Anyone got a link to a poll on the subject?

I don't know why a larger population is almost universally supported by our pollies. I do wish I had more of an insight into their thinking. Your pointing our it has short term negative economic consequences just makes it more perplexing.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:02:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Immigration to Australia should have ceased years ago. There was a time when there was not much effect to be seen in immigration, but now the effect is all to the bad, with governments in thrall to the growth lunacy actually increasing the numbers of unneeded people coming here.

These same dumb governments, manipulated by economists and big business, have made no attempt to enlarge infrastructure, have blithely ignored the fact that most of the country does not have enough water for the existing population, and have put aside the fact that two thirds of Australia in uninhabitable desert!

In supposedly intelligent country, we are committing suicide by steadily increasing the population.

The authors deals with the ‘skill shortage’ well; and let’s not forget that successive governments have taken the easy way out and imported labour rather than trained our own. The Howard Government was notorious for this, and the Rudd Government is shaping up to be even worse, with 200,000 migrants threatened for this year.

The ‘need’ for growth and our ‘ageing population’ are just two more mantras which have been repeated often enough and long enough to sucker our not-very-interested-in-anything-but-their-own-dunghills population into believing immigration is good. The author’s: “What really mattered to her, and to all politicians, is what the majority of voters think” hits the nail on the head. The dopes are indoctrinated into ‘thinking’ what the spin doctors want them to think, and all politicians want is most of the votes – no responsibility to work for the good of the country and its people for them! The votes are all they are interested in.

Well, immigration is bad, and it will have done its damage well before the average drone wakes up to the fact. But, as the author says, politicians will be kept in power by doing the bidding of big business, and the drones seem to be happy with that.

There is not much hope for us
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:21:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author seems to be on a different planet from those running the country - Why?

It leads me to suspect that he believes the current crop of politicians aren’t statesmen; that he thinks our politicians, guided by the democratic expression of the electorate, have little regard for the welfare of the nation.

Sadly, he seems to have piled up enough points to backup his thesis to suggest he is right. Could that be the reason Australia’s social, economic, and environmental amenity is steadily nosing downhill at a fast clip?

However, I quibble about “Politicians don’t need to clutter their minds with logical arguments, as long as they are on the same page as the electorate”. Political parties running election campaigns don’t clutter their cerebral processes with what the electorate would like. It is the dominant pressure groups influencing electorates with funds, advertising, and media exposure, which occupy the echoing corridors of their minds.

Voters have Hobson’s Choice: Howard gloried in the escalation of housing assets during his tenure; Kim Beazley, as leader of the opposition, was persuaded to exhort Australians to be as populous as Java, to merit significance in world affairs – could he be so ignorant of the constraints upon his native land?; politicians on both sides almost wet themselves with enthusiasm, repeating disinformation from their favoured pressure groups that immigration is needed to address an ageing population – totally contrary to demographers of all persuasions.

Politicians have been on the same page as those favoured pressure groups for quite a while. In 1992 Professor Russell Matthews, as the most respected man in his field, published “Immigration and State Budgets” for the Bureau of Immigration Research. His finding - each immigrant was a total cost to state and federal governments of the order of 26,000 dollars for the first five years. An unwelcome result, its findings were not publicized. Later, less comphrehensive, studies with more “favourable” results have been released by concerned authorities. But, even the findings of the Productivity Commission have not been all that “favourable”.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:36:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Woe unto us for we are undone."

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:48:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article, Eric.

The comments are also very good. You should take note, though, of the control of the mass media, and therefore the shaping of public opinion, by the same business elite that donates heavily to the politicians. This shaping has been less successful with euthanasia, which is also against the economic interests of the business elite, because people often have personal experience of friends or relatives dying in agony.

This graph from Club Troppo shows the share of national income going to the top 1% of the population in various developed countries over time.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/08/24/policy-and-perhaps-culture-matter-for-income-distribution/

Note that these rich people do relatively best in the Anglosphere, where immigration rates also tend to be the highest, and that inequality was lower in the middle of the 20th century when there was little mass migration. The US cut back immigration to near zero net in 1921 and kept it that way until 1965.

Reasoning with growthist politicians about the dangers of collapse or the harm they are doing to disadvantaged people is likely to be a waste of time. If you are concerned about what unending growth of population and/or consumption is likely to do to our environment and our children's prospects, the only weapon we ordinary people have is to put the growthists last on each and every ballot paper, and incumbent growthists last of all.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:48:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A long overdue article, carefully crafted with expert evidence to back it up. Those of us who have long raised legitimate concerns about previous and future outcomes of high immigration, such as the author mentioned, have been labeled as racist for far too long and we're sick of it.

Now some other lot can be slapped with racist red herrings, not the immigration naysayers.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:00:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Eric,you are preaching to the choir.I`ve been saying this for years,its time to shut the gates Australia,do it, do it now.
Posted by no privacy, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Eric,you are preaching to the choir.I`ve been saying this for years,its time to shut the gates Australia,do it do it now.
Posted by no privacy, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very good article and I cannot find anything to dissagree with.

Except how he perceives the relationship between big business and government. I also think posters are too kind on the governmet in this regard.

The reason governments favour high immigration is simply because big business makes large donations to both the major parties. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune". The author explained why big business wants high immigration. So it does not matter which of the majors is in power.

Bov Hawke brokered a deal between the major parties NOT to openly debate Immigration issues, so there is no debate and we do not get a say or have any influence over what is decided.

The Greens have a low immigration policy but keep mum on the issue because they want Labor preferences to get their senate seats. They are just hypocrits and the two majors are fraudulant.

I will copy this article and distribute as far as I can. We really need to force this issue.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 2:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another top article pointing out very relevant facts.
I suspect the pollies are somewhat held to ransom by the Pauline Hanson effect: Stop immigration and you have lots of minorities branding you racist. There will be many legitimate families begging for the rest of their family to be allowed to join them.
Then there is the media: when it goes to war on an idea the politicians are not going to use mere facts against the irrisistable force and mandatory friend of Media. So it is easier to pick a target with a chance of winning than to attack someone else's sacred cow.
The fact that the Press is so enamoured of dodgy theory and so negative on journalism (*any* balance = "left wing bias") is really a big issue!
Then there is the loony religious section (alas, no longer fringe) who believe God gave them Earth as a playground to soil and abuse as they wish. For them any scientific idea is suspicious. These ultimate "kidults" are probably the biggest danger going forward for they can be goaded into *any* militant stance by the correct application of dis-information.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 2:33:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi,
Every line in the article was true.We are committing suicide by steadily increasing the population. Immigration is bad, and it will have done its damage well before the average drone wakes up to the fact.

simon
[url=http://mls.fastrealestate.net]MLS[/url]
Posted by sim0101, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 4:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric,
There has to be one, I guess I'm it.
As a pile of popular truism goes it was a good collection. As a meaningful logically constructed argument weeeell!
Economics is at best informed guesses (assumptions) based on economic flavour dogma of the time.
Modelling conclusions are therefore defined by those assumptions. If some of those assumptions are wrong, over/understated the modelling will reflect those errors (GIGO).
To the above contextual restraints add that current circumstances (that Economics professors who admit the discipline’s flaws and claim we are in uncharted waters) one is entitled ask how meaningful is this article given it’s reliance on one source.

I would also add that your conversation with the Member of Greenway is a red herring as written means nothing. Its inclusion makes me wonder if what this article is simply a personal wheelbarrow (opinion). This is especially so given you offer no analysis of your own of the issue or of the source etc.
The article has the same level of

Let’s be clear where I stand on the topic, I tend to think we have too many people in the world given our current Science and its distribution along with the means to implement it.
In essence I see the debate in terms of upgrading the steerage passengers to first class on the Mary Celeste.

We need sensible population humane debate/practices world wide including in Aus rather than dubiously founded jingoistic mishmash of selfish, fears, prejudicial agendas from our leaders.

Eric I think more research, objective thought is required.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 5:49:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for all your comments. I think you make some very good points. With respect to Louise Markus’ comment, I probably should have said “She and other politicians only care about whether they will get re-elected.” It is true that politicians have found that they can avoid an issue because it is not an election factor, and still win the election. One such issue is euthanasia. Possibly another is immigration. This is especially true in Australia where people vote for the party rather than the individual.

On the issue of leadership in government, I still believe government representatives should follow the will of the people. When I hear commentators saying government should show “leadership” on destruction of ecosystems or renewable energy, I have mixed feelings. I’d like to see the government set aside more land for wilderness and I’d like to see the government fund (like $500 million) renewable energy through taxes on fossil fuels, but I don’t think the average voter agrees with me. If some government showed “leadership” on those issues, then they might also show “leadership” and cut education and health spending in half.

On the relationship between big business and government, I don’t think it makes sense to sit around the house crying “Those no-good bastards cheated.”

One thing business does very well, is get out and sell. They are used to selling their products and they are used to dealing with the media, so they make sure that they get out and sell the issues that they are in favour of. High immigration is one of those. They should be admired for pursuing those issues. Some of their fronts have even published on Online Opinion, so who am I to take a superior stance. If they are doing it in some illegal way then they should face justice, the same as anybody else.

If business thinks the best policy for Australia is high immigration, they should get out and sell it. We should expect nothing less. If they sell immigration as being good for the average Aussie, though, that is just a lie.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously if we want to change government policy on immigration, we need to oppose the candidates and parties that support high immigration. As pointed out, that is just about everybody. Even the Greens don’t say net zero immigration. As pointed out, most parties are worried about being tarred as racists if they oppose immigration, because the famous racist Pauline Hanson opposed immigration from Asia (I don’t think she opposed immigration from Europe).

One thing we can do with respect to business is vote with our wallets. Gerry Harvey is a very vocal supporter of high immigration. It makes me shop elsewhere. Richard Pratt from Visy is the same, although it is harder to boycott Visy products, because they only carry the stuff you buy. If you are aware of others who favour high immigration rates, publicise it. Maybe there will be a backlash.

Divergence – Thanks for the graph from Club Troppo. I read in the SMH that in the 8 Bush years the US economy has grown 18 percent, the median salary in the US has dropped 1.1% and the top one percent’s salaries have increased by 300%. There was no source, though, so it may be wrong. David Rothkpf’s book “Superclass” had something similar, but I can’t find it quickly. Sorry.

Examinator – Fourth dot point top of the article “these results are consistent with research both in Australia and overseas (page 161).” Check Paul Krugman, this year's Nobel Prize winner for Economics. Please list your sources, economically modelled or otherwise, showing the opposite of my claims
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator.

Surely cold hard logic says that we have limited resources, particularly water, so we should be very mindful of how we husband them. We live in a system where we are reaching the limit to the population which we can sustain. You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to draw that conclusion. If you can't see that then there is no hope for you.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:01:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Claus writes, "If the economic case only benefits the capital owners and makes the average citizen worse off economically [...] why is it being done?"

Because a society is about more than money.

As anyone who's ever worked high hours and never seen their family knows, it's possible to be financially better off and worse off in every way that really matters.

A multitude of cultures benefits the country in non-economic ways. Diversity gives resilience, strength, new ideas for progress both social and technological, and so on.

Back in 2004 Claus was playing the same tune [http://tinyurl.com/clauspopulation ], telling us that in 200 years there'll be 46 billion people in the world - when the people who actually study the matter (WHO and the UN) tell us that it'll top out around 9-10 billion around 2050. So he's long been worried about population, but not had a good grasp of where it's going.

In 2004 he said,

"If there are any concerns about the 2 billion people living in serious poverty on our planet, these concerns can be sorted out with economics and technology."

It's unclear why "economics and technology" can magically solve all their problems if they stay in their home countries, but can't solve their problems if they come to live here. Apparently, the economics which in 2006 he thought was brilliant and could solve everything is in 2008 hopeless.

In 2006 he wrote against nuclear power [http://tinyurl.com/clausnukes ], and slipped in a whinge about the migrants then, too.

"If Australia reduced net immigration from 120,000 to 20,000 over the next 12 years that would mean 1.2 million less people living in Australia. Without the additional demand for electricity, presumably we would not need those two nuclear power plants."

So... "don't let in so many foreigners or we'll have nukes!"?

The theme running through all three pieces is, "they shouldn't come here." Sorry, mate, we had a politician who said that, she ended up in prison, wheedled her way out of prison but not into the Senate. Most Australians recognise that unless you're Aboriginal, you're a migrant.
Posted by Kiashu, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:33:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, an excellent article from Eric Claus. Being a fan of multiculturalism, I appreciate the myriad ways in which Australian society and culture have been enriched by the contributions of migrants since European colonisation. However, as an environmentalist it's been obvious to me for some time that we've reached the point where our population can no longer continue to grow sustainably.

Zero net immigration would go a long way towards making Australia's population ecologically sustainable. The only qualification I would add to Claus's analysis is that we should continue to accept bona fide refugees on humanitarian grounds, perhaps at a level less than or equal to that of voluntary emigration.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 6 November 2008 6:27:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kiashu,

You are ignoring the environmental aspects of this problem. You might go to the Worldwatch Institute website and read the statistics, if you have any doubts about losses or shortages on a global scale of arable land, fresh water, fish stocks, biodiversity, fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our technology, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. It is generally true (with exceptions like Saudi Arabia) that if you make people richer and give them developed country services, they will have fewer babies. This would fix the population problem, but makes the consumption problem worse, and we are already in serious trouble. With current technology, it would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living (see graph on p. 10 of 7/10/07 New Scientist).

No democratically elected government is going to cut average Australian consumption back to Third World levels, and migrants consume much the same as other people in the host society. Their children certainly do. In the US, migrants cause 4 times the greenhouse gas emissions as they would if they stayed home, and if emissions due to immigration to the US were assigned to a separate country, it would be the world's 10th biggest greenhouse gas emitter. See

http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions

The Australia Institute has found that it is twice as much here, i.e. 2 net migrants = 1 extra Australian baby.

No doubt if some of the climate scientists turn out to be right, people whose land is being inundated or turned to desert can console themselves that people like you gave a big, warm, multicultural welcome to a few of their fellow countrymen.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 6 November 2008 8:59:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Kiashu, what do you want our immigration program and population policy to be like?

You are happy with our current immigration intake and policy of endless population growth, yes?

Or would you like us to be taking in more migrants?

At what point do you think it should all stop? I mean, surely you can see that there has to be a limit at some point?

It is interesting that you are quite familiar with Eric Claus’ writings, and you are presumably familiar with the whole argument for reaching zero net immigration and a stable population. But while you have pointed out some of Eric’s arguments and poo-pooed them, you haven’t given any counter-arguments.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A really outstanding article. Congratulations!

One point to note for the commentators - a stable population does not need to mean zero immigration. You can operate a one-in, one-out system like Norfolk Island.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Thursday, 6 November 2008 11:23:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator: Don’t neglect your own needs regarding more research.

Kiashu: “Most Australians recognise that unless you're Aboriginal, you're a migrant.” Our long-suffering continent would recognize that Aboriginal Australians were the first migrants, 56,000 years ago on best estimates.

They caused some ripples in adjustment to the environment blanketing the place and, after lots of see-sawing of numbers, at 1788 a sort of calm interdependence existed between environment and one million humans. Humans living rather frugally compared with ourselves.

By increasingly living off our capital, the environmental/physical resources we depend upon, we have pushed this continent’s human numbers up from the initial one to about 21.5 million. Having depleted these resources considerably, we are intent on increasing pressure on them by increasing our numbers by about a million every three years: equal to another city the size of Canberra. Each year, with deliberate intent.

In every way that really matters - our society, the natural world around us, the foundations of what sustains us, is being degraded under pressure from Australia’s present numbers.
Kiashu – I wonder as to your thoughts:

Do you advocate alleviating human trauma of the world’s most deprived via migration? The world is already a crowded place all over. The most deprived societies are projected to increase by 800 million during the lifetime of granddaughters of present mothers. What proportion of these unfortunate humans should we bring to Australia, knowing we are already diminishing our fundamental resources?

Would you, instead, contemplate providing aid within the deprived country? In this way more can be achieved for the same money.

Would you consent to giving assistance to such countries in the matter of female emancipation and rights enabling them to limit their fertility where they wished it – as a means of improving the lot of all in such deprived circumstances?

And I also wonder, do you get out at all, or are you closeted within your own group unaware of the grand diversity which already throbs within Australian society?
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:09:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to say that this is the saddest article and set of comments I've yet seen on OLO. Any student of history will tell you that the most successful societies are those that are open to people and ideas. A quick look at the decline experienced by Imperial China after it closed its doors to the world illustrates the point.

Leaving aside the economic nonsense in Eric's article, surely our sense of humanity obliges us to provide refuge to the world's poor as well as we can, given the circumstances at the time. As for the so-called environmental limits, this is just 'original sin' theory masquerading as science: Man is at fault for spoiling paradise and must therefore be condemned. Words fail me.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Words fail you SV….and apparently any semblance of logical thought as well.

Could you proffer anwers to the questions that I put to Kiashu in my last post?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who say it is up to the populace to choose the politicians we want are joking. The only politicians we can vote for are those already chosen by other politicians.
It is a bit like the blind leading the blind.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 6 November 2008 2:15:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ericc.
Thank you for pointing that out but my point/response still stands;
• From the times of Thatcher / Reagan Economics theory was rationalism. In the intervening times there have been how many Nobel prizes for Economics most favouring ‘the ideological corrective power of rational economics’. In that same time we have had several ‘Economic gotchas’ 1987, Asian meltdown, dot com and now sub prime yet every country all ran consistent modelling.
• I doubt that assumptions for Europe or USA are the same for Aus? CONTEXT or GIGO. Were the models ideologically and/or methodologically consistent? Were the results consistent?
• If anything is evident about Aus it’s that what applies OS may not apply here. Therefore the model would have an extra layer of assumptions to compensate.
• Modelling is fine for generalities (even they admit some factors are ‘too hard to define’) but to make specific conclusions on aggregated unmeasurable imponderables? (See the debate over climate modelling).
Then there are my other observations. In scientific terms you haven’t made your case.

VK3AUU.
You make an ultimate point which in the absence of absolute information is correct there will come a time if things stay the same when science &nature may not be able to save our sorry tails. Some say that time may not be that far off.
My points were
• The 3rd world poverty leads to environmental degradation and over population.
• Literature states enough food is grown world wide to feed every one however capitalism creates needs imbalances in the distribution of food and science world wide.
• If there were a mechanism to distribute both food and science hunger, environmental derogation and over population would decrease if not reduce to sustainable levels. However all things aren’t equal and until human nature become less me and more we, I simply plug on making observations. Hoping to be noticed in the background of sensationalism and instant fixes. ;-)
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 6 November 2008 6:08:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Collinsett,
Valid point. I can understand that my comment may seem to gratuitous criticisms.
In my defence however I hold follow the principals.
• I hold authors to a greater level of proof than commenters because THEY are making the case.
• Therefore one assumes that they are knowledgeable on the subject
• have thought the issues through,
• And have done the research. Primarily a time/space issue.
Commenters however
• Have a more limited time and space to comment.
In my case most of my responses take anything from 1 to 8 hours to write. (Limited skills perhaps) to research and put what I would consider a reasonable response would take days and 1000’s of words.
How do I explain technical info/reasoning in common English with references and still remain readable? Specifically the inherent flaws in modelling? Especially when much of it comes from 27 years in Computers including code cutting etc.

Tragically I’m a detail person so I tend to be verbose prone to over explaining anyway.

I fear my responses would finish up more turgid than they are and more like a badly written thesis. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything just someone with an open mind, an incisive mind and an eclectic factual reading habit.
Hence I tend to stick to offering logic processes I hope readers can follow.
I try to respond as reasonably as the comment to me.
Hope this gives my contextual modis operandi.
Regards
Examinator Ant
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 6 November 2008 6:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kiashu if you want more immigrants, for more diversity that is fine. Just understand that there are no economic advantages for the average person, the environment will become more degraded and there will be less resources for us to use. I don’t believe that the diversity brought by high immigration offsets those problems. I don’t see diversity of ideas and cultures being significantly diminished with net zero immigration.

The world’s population is getting too high for the world’s resources to provide a high quality life for everybody. It is hypocritical for Australia to tell the rest of the world, “You should reduce your population, but we are going to try to increase ours.” The best long term policy for us and the rest of the world, is to try to become more sustainable. We will have to become sustainable some day. We should start now, when it is easier.

In my 2004 article, my point was that population growth had to stop some day. If it didn’t, there would be 46 billion people in 200 years, which nobody thinks is possible. If population growth has to stop someday, some generation must face the ageing population scenario. I propose that we start now, when it is easier.

The comment about “economics and technology” solving poverty was in reference to the arguments that the PROPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH make. I don’t think “economics and technology” can solve world poverty. I think that “economics and technology” would have an easier time solving most problems, if there were less population pressures.

Senior Vic net zero immigration, does not equal closing the doors. The Ming dynasty shut down coastal facilities and forbid foreign trade except by the government. More relevant is that China is currently expanding its contacts all over the world, with much lower rates of immigration than Australia.

Humanitarian immigration is less than 10,000 per year, skilled immigration is more than 150,000. Current immigration policy is NOT about humanitarian needs, it is about the rich getting richer. See DEMOS “more sheep means more fleece.”
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:34:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Literature states enough food is grown world wide to feed every one however capitalism creates needs imbalances in the distribution of food and science world wide."

Determinator. I afraid you had better go and read some more up to date literature. Countries such as China, who used to be net exporters of rice, are now having to import, to name just one.

The next Nobel Prize for economics should go to the person who can demonstrate a system whereby the world maintains a stable economy whilst living on recycled resources. That probably means about 2 billion people who live very frugally on non-fossil fuelled energy.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 6 November 2008 11:08:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article Eric. I agree wholeheartedly with your last couple of lines, "It is up to the citizens of Australia to vote in the politicians who will best serve their interests. Both major parties now serve the interests of big business."

I also find many of the positive responses to your article to be pretty well on the ball but I will point out to some that the Greens, although they are generally bashful about addressing the issue do at least have a population policy that is very much a step in the right direction. And in any case who else can you vote for if the two major parties are not serving us well? They won't change no matter how many of their voters want them to unless they see the issue as one that will sway the votes.

Bob Brown had something to say about the subject in the Senate not too long ago which is worth noting. Refer below: -

http://candobetter.org/node/806#speech
Posted by kulu, Friday, 7 November 2008 2:29:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Senior Victorian why don't you put together some facts to substantiate your criticisms?
It is strange how critics of things like zero population growth and climate change practically never embellish their criticisms with facts of any kind. Come on! Give it a try in this case..
Posted by kulu, Friday, 7 November 2008 2:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Kiashu, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 11:33:42 PM

Kaishu,

I was wondering where you got the idea that to have a "multitude of cultures" we had to have positive immigration?

If you look at the immigration statistics from teh Australian Bureau of Statistics you will see that most long term immigrants to Australia come from New Zealand, who recently overtook the UK.

Please don't confuse population planning with racial intollerance. The former requires study and a scientific methodology, the latter requires ignorance and hatred. They are therefore, by definition, mutually exclusive.

Posted by Senior Victorian, Thursday, 6 November 2008 1:46:10 PM

Senior Victorian,

No one is talking about refugee intake. We are talking about immigration intake. They are counted speratately. But if you insist;
In 2007 Asutralia took in a paltry 13,000 refugees. Not all of them are still here but I can't get firm figures. In the same year 25,000 Asutralains permanently emmigrated.

We could easily take more refugees if the ridiculous immigration program was abolished.
Posted by T.Sett, Friday, 7 November 2008 6:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must correct my last post. Permanent leavers from Australia in 2007 was in the order of 75,000. I read the wrong column and quoted the 2002 statisctics. For that I apologise.
Posted by T.Sett, Friday, 7 November 2008 6:43:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator, I didn't understand your initial post, but I think I have got it now. I think you are saying humanities impact on the planet would be lessened if Australia accepted more, not less immigrants. And more generally, the planet would be better off it we concentrated on the well being of poorer nations.

The reason I didn't understand your first post is because the article isn't about humanities impact on the planet, or the well being of the worlds population in general. It's point is a rather more selfish one, and is summed up nicely on the OLO front page: "A high immigration intake does not benefit the average Australian". None of your arguments seem to address that directly. By the by income (ie poverty) is not the main predictor of fertility rates, it is women's education.

That aside, I believe the only thing we in Australia can do to reduce mankind's ecological footprint that has a hope of working is to control our own population. You speak of getting other countries to control their population - as though if we just showed them the way and gave them the means they would leap at it. On the contrary. They show as much enthusiasm for control their population as we do ours, and would almost certainly regard any such efforts as an unwanted intrusion into their internal affairs. And as for suggestions that we somehow make 3rd world countries like Zimbabwe improve their food production and distribution - that is a joke, right?

Finally, the suggestion that allowing more immigrants in would somehow reduce our impact on the planet is just fantasy. Aside from Australian's have a bigger footprint than most other nations, if we tripled our population by accepting 40 million immigrants in one year, that would still not account for one years world population growth which is currently around 60 million per year. So while it would destroy our own fragile ecology, it would have almost no impact on the rest of the world.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 7 November 2008 9:22:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy