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 > General Discussion > Greens lose the plot on population issues

Greens lose the plot on population issues

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
The Greens have abandoned any pretence that they are a party that cares for the environment with their continued failure to engage in any debate about Australia’s future population.

Instead, The Greens use obfuscation to hide the fact that they don’t have a population policy at all. The Greens use phrases such as “our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live” in their population policy in a clear affront to the reality that Australia has the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world.

Judging by the media releases found on the party’s website, The Greens appear to be more concerned with Work Choices, Guantanamo Bay and the Dalai Lama than campaigning for a sustainable population policy that that will benefit all Australians, as well as the environment.

With current immigration trends, Australia’s population will double by the year 2050 and then double again to 100 million people by 2100. This is a serious issue not only for the environment but also for Australian society which will face tumultuous changes.

The Greens should stop trying to be a party of the extreme left, and instead engage the Australian public and the federal government in a sensible debate about the serious issues of immigration and population.

http://therealists.com.au/?p=15
Posted by Efranke, Friday, 11 July 2008 4:24:39 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 despite the immediate success of this action on behalf of greens it actually resulted in twice as many seals being slaughtered. There is no excuse for ignorance."

Equally, there is no excuse for inaction, which is all we've ever seen from both the major parties on climate change until the last year or so, thirty years after the Greens started attempting to bring the issue to prominence way back in the seventies. If we'd actually listened to them then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

I for one am very grateful we've now got the Greens numbers up in the Senate so that Kevin Rudd can be held to account in implementing the measures he's promised on climate change.

The Coalition buried their heads in the sand and did nothing for eleven years. Labor to their credit are moving in the right direction but their plans are still not nearly as wide ranging as they need to be. The Greens are our only real hope on climate change and always have been. And yet we've got people who could be getting behind them and helping make a real difference choosing instead to carp and nitpick from the sidelines.

When it comes to population policy, I'm sure it wasn't Greens members who voted to increase our skilled migration by another 30 000 to bring it up to over 130 000 in total.

Judy Spence, while I've got your ear, why is the Bligh Government going ahead with a dam which is an environmental disaster on every front, particularly regarding the pumping of water which will dramatically increase emissions? Lots of work for the Bligh Government on the environmental front. I'm afraid I don't see enough evidence yet to convince me that any members of that government are in a position to be advising others on environmental policy.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 11 July 2008 10:58:02 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 greens were infiltrated by the rabid left years ago and have gone down hill as a consequence.

Thats what happens when you have Trotskyite scum running the hidden agenda.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 11 July 2008 11:12:26 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
I fully agree Efranke. The Greens have lost their way. Well….they were never really on the right track anyway.

As a former member and Qld state candidate, I think that their lack of ‘sustainabilityism’ and support for continuous never-ending human expansionism is utterly dismal.

Bob Brown is good on a lot of things, but is just a dead loss when it comes to this stuff.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 11 July 2008 11:47:42 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
What the greens say makes sense. Population alone is only one factor in our environmental impact. Furthermore it is the least important factor in Australia's context, because while our population is stabilising, our standard of living, or per capita impact, continues to rise.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#IPAT
Posted by freediver, Friday, 11 July 2008 12:34:08 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
What on earth makes you to think that our population is stabilising freediver?

It isn't going anywhere near levelling off.

The only thing that has sort of stabilised is the massive rate of pop growth!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 11 July 2008 3:38:47 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
I think this is a case of Pot calling another kettle black, but the post is sitting on a mound of black coal dust.....

The environmentalist philosophy is synonymous with sustainibility. You would have to be either an idiot or partisan to make a thread like this.

Their slogan could be summed up as, "I told you so" in this respect.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 11 July 2008 3:57:29 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
“Population is a tough issue and one very difficult to legislate.”

Judy, I don’t think so.

Firstly, it is surely one of the most fundamental purposes of governments to strike the balance between pressures on our environment, resource base, society and quality of life that are rendered by way of ever-more people…and the advantages of facilitating population growth.

No government can shirk this duty without being grossly irresponsible. Again, this balance sits right at the core of the role of government.

What right has the Qld Govt got to not only tolerate but actively encourage very rapid population growth into SEQ…into areas that are suffering critical water problems, congestion issues and all sorts of other population-growth-caused quality-of-life reductions?

The government has no qualms at all about advertising Queensland and presenting it the best possible light in order to attract both tourists and residents. But it is entirely loathe to say, ‘no, please don’t and live in this or that place until the water, health or road-congestion issues are remedied.

What right does the government have to add to the pressures upon residents who are already suffering from these things by pushing a few thousand more people into their areas?

Mike Berwick, ex-mayor of Douglas shire in far north Qld, espoused a population cap. He was re-elected numerous times with this as his most prominent policy.

Mayor Bob Abbott espoused the same thing in Noosa Shire. He easily won the mayoralty of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council ahead of the mayor of the neighbouring and much bigger council when they were amalgamated in the recent statewide local govt mergers.

So, policies of population stabilisation are NOT political suicide. Ordinary people want population caps! If local governments can do it…and they are under enormous pressure from developers and other vested-interest lobbies to not go for population caps….then so can state governments…..with the backing of their constituency.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 11 July 2008 4:12:37 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
What a nonsenical little piece of straw man burning.

The Greens as a party can certainly do things better, but it is simply silly to accuse them of a "continued failure to engage in any debate about Australia’s future population", just because their views on population don't concur with the fundamentalist opinions of the author.

How an earth is it an "affront to the reality that Australia has the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world" for the Greens' policy to include the factual assertion that “our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live”? It is an affirmation of reality, not an affront to it!

It is also a reminder that pretending population is the problem is an easy excuse for diverting attention away from the real problem, which is the grossly profligate way that we live.

The argument about whether or not the Greens are "a party of the extreme Left" and how 'Left' they should or shouldn't be is a worthwhile one to have, but it has nothing to do with population policy. From what I've seen they have a reasonably balanced approach in this area - there might be others issues where they could be accused of extremism or fundamentalism, but population certainly isn't one.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 11 July 2008 6:21:48 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
I read a report a few years ago where they
mentioned the fact that Australia could
only sustain a population of 20 million.
That has already been reached.

Now, they're predicting that our population
will reach 50 million by 2050. That's an enormous
jump.

The country won't be capable of sustaining that growth,
and logically, something needs to be done. Preferably
sooner, than later.
Yet politicians in general, don't seem to want to discuss the issue
of population control.

Being concerned about climate change, and carbon emissions, is
important, but you'd think that population control would be
where you'd begin in solving the problems.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 11 July 2008 6:37:07 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
Foxy,
I agree with you on this. We should have a population policy so at least we know where we are heading. It is not only about climate change as people are the biggest threat to our enviroment and having spoken to some Greens members about this, they know it.

The reason the major parties do not have a population is because big buisness wants high immigration to sell more consumer goods. Big business is prepared to buy the favours from the major parties, by way of large donations.

We should be looking at our sustainability and that means being self sufficient wherever possible when need be.

I think the Greens don't push this because they are courting the preferences from the major parties to retain their Senate positions.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 11 July 2008 8:52:29 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
Someone once cynically said that we get the politician we deserve and in this case I think that’s so. Democracy at its best honestly achieve consensus at the lowest common denominator.

The Greens are simply a single big issue movement that is trying to broaden their base to become a political party.

As Col obliquely implied (I think) that the greens have taken their constituent base of the more left end of politics and are trying to move into the centre. The Family First is trying to move from the more right. Leaving the Libs and Labor to fight over the centre (the majority of voters).

The differences that determine government is usually down to a comparatively small number of voters either side of the ‘mean’.

Both these minors believe (mistakenly) that they will gain government one day. To do this both parties need to amend their founding policies to appeal to more people in fact ape the majors.

The now ‘defunct?’ Democrats came into being on the premise of “Keep the bastards honest” ( a voters insurance policy against the excesses of either party. They were ‘safe’ appealing to the absolute centre leaning slightly left constituency. All they had to do was put out was reasonable policies that wouldn’t frighten the horses, women and children. This they did this for 30 yrs. Where they went wrong was that some members forgot why the public put them there.
Subsequently they were deserted by those nervous centrists. Now the public has put the Greens in this insurance role. For obvious reason this will fail.

Part of this “towards the centre push” means they have to reinvent themselves shedding their more green focus. They have to come up with centralist policy. Compromise will force them to ape the two big parties.
The average voter won’t accept giving up their right to procreate and business wants evermore workers. No mainstreamer will drink of this politically poison chalice.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 11 July 2008 8:56:12 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
Error,
The second paragrph of my above post should read.

The reason the major parties do not have a population policy is,etc. etc.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 11 July 2008 8:56:54 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
Oh dear, your last post was really quite disturbing, if I may say so Judy.

“Compared to other nations in this region we are underpopulated.”

Yes, compared to other grossly overpopulated nations in our region, which have a very much lower quality of life and environmental integrity due largely to their overpopulation, we are underpopulated.

“…we need a large pool of humanity from which to draw specialists such as engineers and scientists.”

No we don’t! Australian scientists and experts have in the past been right up there with the best in the world in all sorts of fields. This has been in general decline for a long time, despite the ongoing rapid pop growth which you espouse as being necessary to improve it!

The size of our population, or the size of our academic sector, is not important in this regard. But the continued pressure on our life-support systems, generated by continuous high population growth (or I should say, by governments that force high pop growth upon us) certainly is… in the negative. This is because a steadily larger portion of our GDP will need to be spent on dealing with the problems directly caused by this ever-increasing pressure on our environment, resource base and society, and thus a smaller portion on academia.

And… more and more academic/scientific energy will need to go into dealing with this stuff. In fact, the main focus of academics will be to find a way out of the mess created by an overpopulated and overexploitative world! Woops, it is the main focus now, and has been for quite a while!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 11 July 2008 9:18:06 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
Foxy said

"I read a report a few years ago where they mentioned the fact that Australia could only sustain a population of 20 million. That has already been reached."

Whatever report it was is obviously wrong. We can all live far more sustainably that we already are, and we;re only just over 20 million now.

Ludwig said

"compared to other grossly overpopulated nations in our region, which have a very much lower quality of life and environmental integrity due largely to their overpopulation, we are underpopulated."

The notion that people living in other countries in our region are poorer 'largely' because their countries are overpopulated is just plain wrong. But yes, by comparison Australia is very much underpopulated, which is why anyone who is concerned about basic notions of justice and human rights could not possibly argue that Australia cannot fit any more migrants in.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 11 July 2008 10:45:54 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
Bronwyn,

Australia's permanent immigration intake is closer to 200,000 p.a. - the highest per capita immigration rate in the world.

Freediver,

Given that Australia's population is on course to double at least every 50 years due to sustained mass immigration, how can you seriously claim that our population is stabilizing?

Judy,

The argument that we need to import an ever-increasing number of immigrants to remain economically competitive is utterly wrong for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it presumes that our own people do not possess sufficient innate ability to make Australia a competitive, knowledge-based economy, so we need to import foreign peoples to do the job for us. Personally, I find this to be an insult to the Australian people and believe it is merely an excuse used by business and government to skimp on training our own citizens.

Secondly, if immigration is the key to being a "clever country", then why is it that small, low-immigration countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, and Iceland lead high-immigration Australia in terms of innovation and technological advancement?

If population size and continued growth were the keys to economic progress and a high standard of living, the abovementioned European countries would all be basket cases.

The reality is that the economic benefits of mass immigration and ongoing population growth are, at best, marginal. But the cost to our quality of life is very considerable.
Posted by Efranke, Friday, 11 July 2008 10:46:05 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
Agree, Ludwig.

What makes a great and prosperous country is an educated population more so than a large population. State Governments have the unenviable task of providing infrastructure to cope with a growing population. The resulting debt takes money from education. The resultant financial burden on the young (rent, services, hecs) makes obtaining an education more difficult.

The truth is that enormous human and financial resources are being ploughed into growth for growth's sake, with little left over for technical innovation. As Finland and Denmark have shown, you dont need massive population growth or a massive population to be innovative and successful. And the research spending of a smaller and less prosperous Australia after the second world war would put us to shame today.

It is technology and education that brings prosperity, not numbers.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 11 July 2008 10:49:48 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
As for Tasmania, I consider that a doubling of the Tasmania population in 100 years would be a suitable aim or policy setting. This indicates that a population growth aim of 0.7% +or - 0.07 % per year is a reasonable and not excessive aim. I also note that Tasmania has a current growth rate of .83% which is greater than my parameter. I am unable to agree with the Business Council of Australia’s population policy aim of 1 to 1.5% as that rate is beyond social absorption.

For immigration to be used as a macroeconomic lever (which both the current and prior National Governments have done) is not an acceptable act as it only defers responsibility onto future generations.

On a Climate Change prism any population gains for Tasmania since 1990, the base date for Kyoto emissions reductions, increases the carbon load. This is due to most immigrants increasing their carbon footprint in the Australian context (I=PAT Impact equals Population, Affluence and Technology).

This is not to say we should cease taking immigrants. It just points out a folly of excessive immigrant programs beyond refugee compassion and responsibilities.

All in all would that be a reasonable policy for the Greens (or any one not to accept)?

Of course, my comments have even greater meaning for Australia as a whole as last year's population growth was, I believe, 1.63%.
Posted by Dicko, Friday, 11 July 2008 11:41:21 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
Efranke

"Bronwyn, Australia's permanent immigration intake is closer to 200,000 p.a. - the highest per capita immigration rate in the world."

I know that. I clearly stated 'skilled migration'. I wasn't including family migration or our humanitarian intake.

Another problem with our high skilled migration intake is that we are poaching trained and qualified people from countries who can ill afford to lose them.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 12 July 2008 1:30:54 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
Fester “What makes a great and prosperous country is an educated population more so than a large population.”

I would suggest the educated makes a better population however, what makes the great and prosperous country is “attitude”.

When an elector looks to everyone else to share the burden of his or her life it can be assumed the attitude is to drag all down to the lowest common level, socialism.

When electors look to self sufficiency for themselves and to support others with the surplus of their effort (philanthropy) we all benefit, libertarianism.

Now the greens, though their demand for central control and draconian regulation are the extreme socialists and thus will limit libertarian opportunity. This is the real agenda, the extreme left manifesto (call it by whatever name you like).

I prefer the libertarian attitude which benefits all by endowing the individual with the opportunity to philanthropy, rather than taxing the philanthropic values out through regressive taxation and regulation.

Someone wrote it very well a long time ago

We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.

Margaret Thatcher

So fester to your closing sentence

Yes - “It is technology and education that brings prosperity, not numbers.”

But it is individual innovation and invention which creates the technology and deploys the education in creation of prosperity.

All the “numbers” do is create consumers.

“Bronwyn “Another problem with our high skilled migration intake is that we are poaching trained and qualified people from countries who can ill afford to lose them.”

So we should deny people the improve their individual circumstances and sovereign right to migrate here ?

People are not property of countries, regardless of how those countries can “ill afford” to lose them
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 12 July 2008 10:05:04 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
Dear AndrewBartlett,

I don't agree with your perception that we don't
need population control. We have to balance the
productivity of the continent against the population
growth.

Because if the population keeps increasing at its
current rate Australia won't be able to sustain it.
We currently have water supply shortages - affecting
population centres and agriculture,
power shortages, rising fuel costs, and imminent cost of
living increases resulting from alternative energy and
water production. That alone will not make Australia
an economically attractive place to settle.

We need to find long-term solutions (100 years), to guarantee
the survival of this continent. Otherwise, Australia may
follow the path of Central Africa, Western China, parts
of South America, the "dust-bowl" of the U.S., which have
been turned into desert areas.

We only have to read the news about the ever increasing
forest fires of California indicating that part of the
country is drier today, than it used to be in the past.
As the Governor of California said, "We used to have
a fire season every year, we now have fires every week."

It is a recorded fact, that of all the continents on earth,
Australia is the driest. This problem can no longer be
ignored, population control has to be part of the solution
for a sustainable future.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:03:14 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
But Foxy, if we don't have continuous population growth, our financial base will stagnate. We have to increase the population in order to create demand. We live in a capitalistic society where growth produces power and wealth, well, at least for the ones who have a finger in the pie.
If we don't increase the population and hence, demand, how will people be able to afford that new, smaller, petrol sipping car they need in order to beat the ever rising cost of fuel? We cannot have a country whereby the financial base stalls and people have to live within their means! Fancy not being able to afford the plasma TV or a trail bike for the spoilt little brats?

The resource base isn't growing as fast as the population. In fact it's declining rapidly. We're very close to peak oil, if we've not indeed reached it already and people will be forced to live within their means and ability. Peak phosphorous is another issue which is helping to push the price of fertiliser past the farmers ability to pay for the stuff. Past and continuing practices have depleted Australia's fragile top soils to the point whereby the easiest option is to continue with more of the same, yet those farmers are struggling to do just that.

But times are changing. Old mother nature is fighting back and won't put up for much longer with an ever growing population problem. I'm hopeful that once the capitalistic system is finally dead and buried, we can engage in population debate that produces a meaningful outcome.
Posted by Aime, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:53:51 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
Col

Private, public and judicial are all limbs of the same beast. For me it is more a case of a balanced physique than amputation.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 12 July 2008 2:30:50 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
AndrewBartlett, I’m not going to take you up on this topic. You and I have been over all of this exhaustively on this forum. All that I am going to say here is that I think you gravely wrong.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 12 July 2008 4:04:13 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
Col, aren’t you getting lost amongst labels a bit or at least your definition of them? e.g no where in legitimate socialism literature does it say “drag everyone down to the Lowest common denominator”. it is equally reasonable to assert that the purpose is to raise everyone. The retiring head of Mac Bank can hardly claim his bonus is deserved unless you support the concept of end (profit) justifies the means. e.g. an insurance company using its might to deny a worthy claim. Or a car company’s executives knowingly selling faulty vehicles on “bean counting” reasoning in order to protect a profit. To me that is immoral and acting without ethics.

Andrew Bartlett et al. There is two glaring dubious assumption on all figures about Australia’s (the world’s) population carrying capacity.
• Models are based on current understanding, technology and circumstances (food production, consumption, waste etc) and these demands would continue to out strip supply.
• And that we can’t change the equation.
All this inexorably leading to a Democrat style catastrophe as if all these things are written in the heavens and can’t be changed.

When I was young and silly, alas now I’m not so young; I belonged to the Australia Party whose platform in the late 60’s included ZPG. It was then thought that Australia’s population cap was nigh. The equation changed BUT it is clear that if we as a country don’t get OFF our collective BUTT we’ll reach a point where technology won’t be able to fish us out. Clearly population numbers isn’t the only or the major factor here. That villain is our profligate consumption/usage of resources (impact).

As for the argument about accepting immigrants, Australia remaining an insulated isolated island while all about us starve, I can no better than paraphrase Viscount Montague Python (he is English ya know) when he said about the Chinese (Asians) with 4 odd Billion on our doorstep We’d better get to like them and hope they’re more tolerant than us
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 12 July 2008 8:10:38 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
*It is also a reminder that pretending population is the problem is an easy excuse for diverting attention away from the real problem, which is the grossly profligate way that we live.*

Given that the world's population has increased from 1.5 billion
to 6.5 billion in a hundred years and heading for 9.5 billion
and nobody seems to care, why should I care?

Given that hundreds of millions of women in the third world have
no family planning, are forced to have kids that they don't want
and 80 million a year are added to our human population, yet
no officials have the arse to say boo about it, why should I care?

Given that the Vatican still promotes larger families and protests
against every condom, adding to our ever growing problem of
sustainability, yet no Govt officials have the balls to challenge
them, why should I care?

Clearly the "tragedy of the commons" has merit and so does biology.
People ignore basic Darwinian evolution theory in the name of
religion, in the name of all sorts of things. Clearly humanity
is smart enough to discover all sorts of great new things, but
too stupid to live sustainably. Ok, rather then go on a feelgood
trip, which is what many Australian politicians are promoting,
I might as well enjoy life to the full and accept the realities
of nature, which Andrew seems to be denying.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 12 July 2008 10:24:37 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
Andrew Bartlett wrote, "it is simply silly to accuse (the Greens) of a 'continued failure to engage in any debate about Australia’s future population', just because their views on population don't concur with the fundamentalist opinions of the author."

If you can show me where the Greens do engage in any debate Australia’s future population, I would be most interested . Certainly, Bob Brown did not touch on population or, for that matter, Peak Oil in his media release concerning global warming on http://www.bobbrown.org.au/files/speeches/Press%20Club%20Speech%20July%202008%20FINAL.pdf linked to from http://www.bobbrown.org.au/500_parliament_sub.php?deptItemID=118

... and I have been unable to find any other clear statements on population on the Greens' web sites in the past.

Also, Andrew, I think you need to lay all your own cards on the table and make it clear to other participants that you favour a population of 40 million as you stated at
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/21/will-the-great-immigration-debate-take-place/#comment-474139

I am still interested to know how you arrived at that figure when all the other experts who have seriously studied the question (for example Tim Flannery, Michelle Graymore(1), The CSIRO) give a much lower figures for sustainable carrying capacities of this country.

Simply to argue that the fact that Australia has over 20 million now disproves those who argued that we coud not support that many is almost as silly as arguing that because our coastal regions are not now inundated with seawater that we need not fear global warming. (I am sure that many could have equally plausibly said the same of the failed Chaco Anasazi(http://candobetter.org/about#chaco), Mayan(http://candobetter.org/about#maya) and Easter Island civilisations before they all collapsed.) Clearly the signs that our country is not coping with the current human population are already there for those who are prepared to look.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:43:48 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
(continuedfromabove)

It's all very well to suggest that if we (or at least those who are not profiteering from population growth - see below) are prepared to live more frugally and that if we are cleverer we may be able to become sustainable with our existing population, but I think, until someone can provide detailed plans of how that can be done and until we see that happen, it would be prudent to assume that it won't happen and it would certainly not be prudent allow our populaiton to grow further based on any such an assumption.

One point that has been avoided by Andrew and other immigration proponents are the sectional interests who are pushing high immigration behind our backs, namely the growth lobby(2) who derive their income at our expense by using immigration to drive up the value of land and to provide customers for housing developments.

It's all too easy to attribute selfish motives to their detractors but I think that if immigration proponents would seem a bit more credible if they were prepared to acknowledge the openly selfish and sectional motivations of many of those within their own ranks, as I have written of in my article "Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" at http://candobetter.org/node/610

I also think it is time that immigration proponents acknowledged the harm that high immigration has caused to their fellow Australians, particularly the homeless and the housing stressed who are paying for the windfall profits of the property lobby as they had always intended they would.

Comments, whether critical or supportive of this article, are welcome or for any articles concerning population at http://candobetter.org/population or immigration at http://candobetter.org/immigration

---

Dear Queensland Police Minister Judy Spence,

Firstly, can I commend you for having shown your willingness, thus far, to confront your critics? If more politicians were prepared to do so, I am sure that the quality of our democracy would be considerably lifted from the depths in which it now lies

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:44:50 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
(continuedfromabove)

You may recall that on 8 December 2005, as one of many examples of the Queensland Government's deliberate encouragement of population growth, a full page advertisement was placed in the Courier Mail newspaper encouraging people to move to Queensland. It stated:

FOUR MILLION QUEENSLANDERS

Today: 3,999,865

Tomorrow: 4,000,000

(Row of photos including baby's face, farmer, blue collar worker workers,
attractive female scientist, etc)

Queensland's population will reach four million people tomorrow, Friday 9
December.

If you are visiting or thinking about a move to Queensland, you will already
know we are the nation's engine room, Our population growth is only rivalled
by our economic and employment growth. We now account for 19.5% of
Australia's population.

Tomorrow's milestone and our economic success reflect that Queensland is the
place to invest, work, live and play.
...
To all Queenslanders, I urge you to warmly welcome our new arrivals.

Peter Beattie MP
Premier and Treasurer

---

Judy Spence, Do you believe that was fair to the residents of the Mary Valley (http://www.savethemaryriver.com) who now stand to lose their homes in order that the dam said to be necessary to supply the water for the extra residents that are now hear largely as a result?

---

I note, once again, Cartman (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1970#40547) has seized upon the grossly irresponsible stance of the Roman Catholic Church against birth control to justify his own profligate selfish greed. As I wrote elsewhere (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7218#111796) I consider his objection to the role of the Catholic church to be hypocritical and almost certainly disingenuous.

If Cartman were opposed to immigration, Andrew's claim that objection to immigration is only to divert our attention away from our own excessive unsustainable consumption of the earth's natural resources would have some validity. However, Cartman is not opposed to immigration. In fact, he has argued strenuoulsy in favour of high immigration in order that Australia's mineral wealth be dug up and exported as fast as possible. I think it would be safe to assume that Cartman would be one of those who personally profit at the expense of others from immigration.

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:45:45 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
(continuedfromabove)

Footnotes

1. See PhD thesis "Journey to Sustainability: Small Regions, Sustainable Carrying Capacity and Sustainability Assessment Methods" at http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20060303.132137/index.html

2. See Sheila Newman's Master's Thesis "The Growth Lobby and its absence" at http://candobetter.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/GrowthLobbyAndAbsence-Newman-2002.pdf (2.6MB) linked to from http://candobetter.org/sheila
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:46:42 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
Those who mindlessly advocate further population growth on this dry continent (whether for claiming to be motivated by altruism or unapologetically callous greed) should contemplate the dire predicament that residents of the western regions of the United States face thanks to the past efforts of similarly reckless and irresponsible growth merchants over there.

COVER STORY: Water Woes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/sunday/main13562.shtml

The Colorado River is the water source for 27 million people in seven Western states. But years of drought and increased demand have cut the water supply in half, leaving the river at risk. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls the Colorado "a train wreck at this point," and scientists are predicting that the Lake Mead Reservoir along the Colorado could be a virtual dry hole by the year 2021. In our Sunday Morning Cover Story, correspondent Jerry Bowen looks at the water crisis in the West, and how farmers and city dwellers are addressing the very real possibility that there won't be enough water to go around. He talks with Kennedy, with the water planner for Las Vegas, with an avocado grower in California forced to stump nearly a-third of his avocado trees, and with the scientist whose research sounded the alarm about the Colorado.

For more information on the IMAX film, "Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk", go to http://www.grandcanyonadventurefilm.com

For more information on the book "Grand Canyon: River at Risk", go to
http://www.earthawareeditions.com

For more information on the Scripps Institution of Oceanography study,
go to http://www.sio.ucsd.edu

(Information provided by http://www.populationmedia.org mailing list)
Posted by cacofonix, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:05:24 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
As a Greens member I've always agitated for the party to develop a more explicit population policy, rather than the current compromise position that seeks to accommodate both sustainability and human rights concerns, but ultimately satisfies neither. It's not so much that the Greens have "lost the plot" on population issues, but rather that we are an increasingly mainstream political party with comprehensive policies that cover the full gamut of issues, rather than the single-issue environmental party that some people would like us to be.

As such, humanitarian concerns must compete with ecological sustainability when the Greens develop policies, which we do via consensus processes that tend to work against the adoption of extreme or radical policy positions - such as those who wish to impose absolute population caps etc would have us promote. In defence of the Greens with respect to population issues, at least they acknowledge that population and sustainability are closely related, and that current per capita consumption levels of energy and resources would be unsustainable even if Australia's population was capped at its current level.

I think that the Greens are the only mainstream political party that incorporates even this relatively obvious position within their policies - unlike, for example, Ms Spence's ALP or what passes for their Opposition.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 13 July 2008 8:54:31 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 would like to see the population issue treated in the same fashion as climate change by our policy makers.

For climate change, there is the requirement for very compelling scientific evidence before taking action. In contrast, the justification for population growth is on the same scientific level as water divining. What is needed is policy which is strongly supported by the evidence.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:06:02 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
Draggett and others.
I wonder if we haven’t wandered off the objectives of this article are by some of the responses.
To me there are only two valid response objectives:
1. To explain the apparent hypocrisy of the Greens stand on Population control.
I suggested that the answer to this issue lie in the different perspectives of the two entities involved.
• The greens their origins and ultimate expectation of Government in their own rights, which will require political compromise.
• And the public’s trying to shoe horn them in the “Keep the Bastards Honest “ role. (The” Power [personal egos as opposed to public demand] tends to corrupt …” dictum applies well).

2. To discuss the Population Control issue.
The whole population issue was a red Herring, an excuse to blame others or do nothing because “my” consumption/ children are reasonable!
Suppose that tomorrow visitors from Andromeda came and convinced 1.5 Billion of our population equally chosen, left with them for other worlds.
Our problems would remain. The residual effects. Now lets say that because things would be cheaper the remaining people all started to consume the over supply with its accompanying waste .They would rapidly make up for the migrants. The Result: We would still have the problem. Hence the Population is vector the problem is the consumption/waste (profligate behaviour).
The current models are set to ASSUMPTIVE rates of consumption, waste, technology and should be understood as such.
We would agree population control is (too hard, too slow ) . I suggest with this Problem Based perspective offers better more achievable options like behaviour modification, technology and political change (?) come into the mix.
One of the impediments is self interest coupled with that the status Quo of existing parties and power structures.

My point to Col was intended to show that current definitions are part of the problem not the solution. i.e. All the current systems are generalizations (the ideals are corrupted by their implementation.) and hobble appropriate thinking and imagination. Both Factors that humans excel an and models can’t reasonably allow for.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:39:47 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
Examinator,

I think it is to be expected that the discussion should wander into the more general issue of population and immigration, particularly as only one avowed Green has entered this discussion so far.

I personally don't see why the Greens should have to make any compromises in order to make a far greater impact than they are now. All they would need to do is simply take on board the decent policies once held by Labor - opposition to privatisation and the dogma of neo-liberalism, setting up a Peoples' Bank and government owned insurance companies, spend on sustainable infrastructure projects, redistribution of the wealth stolen by Australia's wealthy elite in recent decades back to ordinary people etc. etc., in addition to genuine environmental policies including the stabilisation of our population and the Greens would rocket up in the public opinion polls.

I don't completely understand the point of the rest of your post. Clearly stabilisation or even reduction of population in and of itself is not going to solve the problem and will only buy time. Of course, we have to find ways to curb our consumption of resources and make our society more efficient. A good step forward would be to ditch the ideology of 'free market' neo-liberal economics.

However, anyone who thinks that we can solve the serious social, ecological and economic problems we face without stabilising our population has no grip on reality.

---

I note that most of the normally strident population growth advocates seem, of late, to have been unable to find their voices. Could it be that they have found Fester's challenge that they provide EVIDENCE to support their case too daunting?
Posted by cacofonix, Monday, 14 July 2008 12:30:55 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
Dear friends....

ultimately politics is about survival and if you don't have power, your policies, no matter how good don't mean squat.

The Greens reluctance to talk about 'population' in my view is based on their appositional eagerness to bring "refugees" here and migrants with a predisposition to vote for those who waved their flag for them.

Those who helped.. have them indebted now... how do you payback? with your vote of course.

It doesn't matter that the numbers seem insignificant.. the Greens depend on MARGinal seats.. they know.. fully that a handful of people can actually make the difference.. and give them power.

Then..instead of the blood soaked killing fields of Camodia we will have the economic and environmental killing fields of Australia, where the possums rule and we need to get the green wombat Oracle's planning permission for our little humpy (which by now is all we can afford)
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 14 July 2008 2:11:04 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
Boazycarp: << Then..instead of the blood soaked killing fields of Camodia we will have the economic and environmental killing fields of Australia, where the possums rule and we need to get the green wombat Oracle's planning permission for our little humpy (which by now is all we can afford) >>

Boazy may have been 'born again' as Polycarp, but he's rapidly reverting to form. Same garbage, different pseudonym.

What's the point?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:30:13 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
Cacofonix (I’m an Asterix fan too)
What I wrote was in general. The opinion I put forward was mine and I don't for a moment think it's inviolable. I was just putting some context to the issue.
Raves either bashing up the Greens or defending them a matter of personal opinion often lacking in perspective, logic or deduction for that reason I didn’t express a view. To do so would have been a matter of “just so” (opinion) and no one is ever impressed/convinced by emotive thinking and therefore pointless.

All circumstances are so in a context. That context is the Greens ambitions to gain government on their own merits. To do this they need 50+1 % of the public to support their views. All people are different therefore any organization must compromise to exist. The more people the party wants to represent (logically) the bigger/greater the need for compromise/pragmatism. To a real idealist this is an anathema. That’s why very few parties are truly idealistic. Organizational theory 101 teaches that the 1st priority of an organization is its own survival.

It is naïve to believe that the Greens movement’s perceived ‘strident’ policies would gain enough public support. The Greens would know that a strong stance would lose them the support they need. If they don't compromise on some strident issues they will languish as an eternal minority. As I pointed out population control to the level required to make a difference is politically unsellable, would take too long and isn’t the real issue anyway: How the population BEHAVES is. The greens simply chose to address the route cause which is doable. Like polycarp says if you don’t have the numbers you policies are moot.

I would chose to engineer the appropriate behaviour than take the high stand and achieve nothing. That’s politics in a Democracy not perfect but besides you and I what else is?
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:26:36 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 urge everyone to read the full transcript of actor Geoffrey Rush's Speech to a meeting of Melbourne residents protesting against a frenzy of overdevelopment similar to what is happening up here in Brisbane:

http://marvellousmelbourne.org/drupal/?q=node/168

...

You know, with a site like this (marvellousmelbourne.org), I’d like to seek answers, prompt a debate and ask some really big dumb questions that baffle me e.g. We’re told we have to either go OUT or UP because there’ll be a million more people living here within the next twelve years. Has anyone ever asked Is this really such a great idea anyway? How big should a city become? What are the alternatives? I was reading stuff like The Club Of Rome and the predictions of Ralph Nader in the early seventies where the warnings about today’s biggest planetary head-aches were being flagged (food shortage, climate control, and the one everyone seems to have stigmatized - Population Growth) Probably the most serious dilemma of this new century. How come our appointed leaders wants to lower their IQ and arrogantly expand? IS THAT A DUMB QUESTION? Please don’t tell me that the answer’s anything to do with the masculine insecurity that SIZE MATTERS.

...

GEOFFREY RUSH SAYS: SAVE YUNGABA!

Also, Please note, Judy Spence, Geoffrey Rush has just added his voice to the fight to save the beautiful historic Yungaba Migrant hostel which your Government plans, against overwhelming community objections, to sell to the Singapore property development company Australand to turn into a gated community.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/star-joins-fight-to-stop-historic-sale/2008/07/13/1215887417280.html

The Yungaba Action Group is organising a legal challenge to the sale. Pleae Donate. For details of how to donate, please visit http://yungaba.org.au/
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:51:27 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
You know Dagget? Melbourne or every city in Australia was started as a settlement with and on farmland which was capable of growing enough food for it's population.It's only 25years ago when almost every household had a vegie garden.Melbourne has to get it's food now from large industrialised plots or from radiated imports and are largely owned by corporations some of which are international.(money out of the country)
Take the nomads and the animal world for instance, when they outgrow their area (food/water shortage) they move to another spot. If food is not available, the population decreases in seize until better times occur.Nature keeps it in balance.Now you might ask, if most acreages around a settlement has been built into suburbs, which btw are sitting on top of ruined (because of pesticides) old farmland,what is happening to our fertile farmland? Should we go further out and cause more deforestation and destroy our water sources also? I have a feeling that our Melbourne survival rests with
cutting off ALL commercial aquifer water pumping(like coca-cola at Bachusmarsh/Castemaine) as it has been dropping the total ground
water level in the district and is not helping the Murray river.
The more people we get on our shores the worse the problem becomes.
'Just my ounce of spring water worth'
Posted by eftfnc, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:58:52 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
Firstly, I need to correct the clumsy grammatical error in my post of 12 July 2008 11:45:45 PM +10:00 (comment #40557 on this page). I should have written:

Judy Spence, do you believe that was fair to the residents of the Mary Valley (http://www.savethemaryriver.com) who now stand to lose their homes in order that the dam, said to be necessary to supply the water for the extra residents that are now here largely as a result, be built?

(I mis-spelt 'here' as 'hear' and neglected to add 'be built' at the end of the sentence. My apologies.)

Even though I made a mistake, the point I was trying to make still should have been clear and I am still waiting for an answer.

Judy Spence, I have found your Government to have been particular dishonest and evasive in regard to the question of the critical question of population growth. The most dishonest of all in my experience was former Premier Peter Beattie, and Anna Bligh does not appear to have been much of an improvement.

In August 2006, at a public meeting outside Parliament House to discuss the water crisis, I put to Peter Beattie the question: Would he acknowledge that population growth was the cause of the water crisis and would he at least from now on use his authority as Premier of this to discourage further population growth.

He thanked me for asking what he said was a good question. He then told the audience (contradicting the advertisement quoted above and many other stances he had taken in public) that he wished that so many people would not come here. He then went on to say that Queensland desperately needed more skilled people as opposed to unskilled people. Then his argument seemed to morph into an implication that roughly another 1 million residents were required to fix the problems caused by previous population growth!?

(tobecontinued)
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 3:56:06 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
(continuedfromabove)

Since then Peter Beattie has openly come out in favour of Australia increasing its population to 50 million as has been discussed on another OLO forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=984&page=0 so clearly when he told me in August 2006 that he wished that so many people wouldn't come here he was being less than forthright.

The residents of the Mary Valley, Wyaralong, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, West End, etc., etc., etc. are being made, through dictatorial powers assumed by your government, to bear the costs of population growth that your Government has consciously and deliberately imposed upon Queensland.

---

Thanks eftnc for your incisive observations. Brisbane has and continues to lose farmland (even if degraded with pesticides and other facets of mechanised agriculture) thanks to the collusion of current and previous Queensland Governments with the property developers. If the Mary Valley is flooded even more valuable farmland stands to be lost along with the endangered lungfish, the Mary River tortoise and the Mayor River Perch all to satiate the greed of the property lobby who are able to profit from the impoverishment of everybody else and future generations.

Redland Shire, with its rich red agricultural soil now largely covered with concrete and asphalt, absurdly has to import strawberries for its annual Strawberry Festival, yet the Queensland Government is attempting to force the popularly elected anti-growth Redland Shire Council to accept unwanted development.
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 3:58:55 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
Fester “Private, public and judicial are all limbs of the same beast. For me it is more a case of a balanced physique than amputation.”

Similar to the meek, the limbless are not going to inherit the earth either.

Private organisations can be regulated by government but who regulates government?

Interested in seeing what you would replace them with, fester

Examinator “Col, aren’t you getting lost amongst labels”. . .

Possibly,

“no where in legitimate socialism literature does it say “drag everyone down to the Lowest common denominator”. it is equally reasonable to assert that the purpose is to raise everyone.”

Any system which fixates on equality of outcomes relies on levelling, regardless of how it is written.

“All the current systems are generalizations (the ideals are corrupted by their implementation.) and hobble appropriate thinking and imagination. Both Factors that humans excel an and models can’t reasonably allow for.”

That is why I prefer libertarianism, because the number of decisions nodes and individual variables exceed the modelling capacity of any system of social modelling.

Libertarians support smaller government, with less pretence to control the endeavour of individuals, as the more realistic option,

versus the controlling, interfering arms of the nanny state, which pretends they can plan the outcomes of anything.

Examinator, the ‘labels’ are just shorthand for ideas. Imperfect I know but expedient and remember, politics is the art of the possible (expediency by any other name)
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 11:27:10 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
Col

If you have discovered Utopia then I am all ears. Until then, I'll settle for the empirical. I tend to look a little earlier than Margaret Thatcher, and see that the civilisation we enjoy is based on the great effort and sacrifice of many over the centuries.

When things started it was all libertarianism. Things have changed since then, Col.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 6:21:07 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
fester "When things started it was all libertarianism. Things have changed since then, Col."

Not according to history, fester.

It was all "authority of the King and Church"

What the French did in the name of "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality" was move from a Sovereign Tyranny to Republican Terror and ultimately to a military despot.

'Libertarianism' as a political idea did not get a look in until the Americans penned their famous declaration and as the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the earth, it says alot for the merits of an imperfect system.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 17 July 2008 3:52:10 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
"Not according to history, fester.

It was all "authority of the King and Church" "

And what about the time before King and Church, Col? And what sort of freedoms did earlier hominids have? The behaviour of primates probably gives a clue or two. But I suspect that at some point libertarianism had less to offer a developing civilisation than formal structures to control behaviour.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 17 July 2008 5:48:02 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
fester "And what about the time before King and Church, Col? "

.... "But I suspect that at some point libertarianism had less to offer a developing civilisation than formal structures to control behaviour"

prehistory?

anyones guess.

In those days, not alot of trade, mainly a semi-nomadic 'subsistence' existence. Doubtless formed around an affinity to the family and extended family, tribal in fact.

So are you suggesting we go back to pre "division of Labour" days, you grind your grain and I grind mine?

Libertarianism can only evolve as a democratic principle when people have time to think about the future, when the desperation to feed and shelter a family have been resolved.

But one great libertarian would some similarities with those dark aged and before days, the family / tribal effect

"There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

So maybe the reality of 'kinship' and extended family and the network of friends is what people are motivated by?

For sure, I am convinced no politician or bureaucrat in Canberra gives a rats about me and (this might pop your bubble) they don't give a rats about you either.

Until I can shake hands with "society" I will support a the libertarian ideals of smaller government imposing less interference on the sovereignty of the electorate and trust to the people Margaret Thatcher gave support to, individuals, their families and (although not in the quote), their network of friends.

Adds new insight into "six degrees of separation".
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 17 July 2008 7:10:19 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
"So are you suggesting we go back to pre "division of Labour" days, you grind your grain and I grind mine?"

Not at all, Col. I was only observing that civilisation evolves.

"There is no such thing as Society."

Indeed there is, Col. Look in a dictionary. But more importantly, there is civilisation. As to what is ideal, I have no certainty, though I dont think it as simple as you seem to. As to what politicians think of me, I dont care. What I want from them are decisions based on sound analysis, not ideology.

Out of interest Col, what do you see as the ideological drivers of population growth? My ideological view is of a spectrum from egalitarianism, which is probably similar to your libertarian ideal, to feudalism, its antithesis. I tend to view advocates of population growth as being of the feudal end of the spectrum.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:32:21 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
Fester “Out of interest Col, what do you see as the ideological drivers of population growth”

The biggest driver of population is hardly ideological, I would reckon it is lust mixed with undue urgency and haste.

Even when it may start with “love” and tender feelings, it generally tends to end with a bit of a frenzy.

“I tend to view advocates of population growth as being of the feudal end of the spectrum.”

I am an advocate for population decline, so in your terms am at the libertarian end of your spectrum ((rather than the feudal/growth end).
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:51:07 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
What ever you decide, please make it quick,
I'm sick of you monkeys destroying my precious planet.
And stop pretending turning off a light bulb or recycling is going to make any difference as you spread through my country like a filthy cancer at an increase of 3000 per week, squeezing every other animal, insect and plant into oblivion.
Posted by moploki, Friday, 18 July 2008 10:53:51 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 most interesting comment was put on my web site the other day. I have turned it into the short article:

"Will Rudd Government's high immigration program turn Australia into Argentina?" at http://candobetter.org/node/666

It makes a strong case that the principle cause of Argentina slipping from what was considered an advanced prosperous country in the early 20th century (as a result of which Australia required favoured treatment to protect its meat exports to Britain from Argentinian competition BTW(1)) into the impoverished third world nation that it has become today was its program of high immigration.

I would be most interested if either Andrew Bartlett, with his extensive knowledge of the case for immigration, or Judy Spence, whose Government is as enthusiastically in support of high immigration as is the Federal Labor Government, could explain why this fear is misplaced.

FOOTNOTES

1. "Armed and Ready - the Industrial development and defence of Australia 1900-1945" (1995), Andrew Ross, p80 cited at http://candobetter.org/node/457
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 20 July 2008 11:43:00 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
Andrew "Open Borders" Bartlett wrote: "It is also a reminder that pretending population is the problem is an easy excuse for diverting attention away from the real problem, which is the grossly profligate way that we live."

In the case, isn't adding another million profligate consumers to the population every three years through immigration completely reckless? Wouldn't it be more sensible to cut back on immigration until Australia's pattern of profligate consumption has been reversed?

"..anyone who is concerned about basic notions of justice and human rights could not possibly argue that Australia cannot fit any more migrants in."

Australia is not a giant lifeboat for the world's hardluck cases. Nor is there anything particularly noble about turning Australia into Lebensraum for the populations of Asian countries.

As you well know, most of the immigrants coming here are skilled, not refugees or poor peasants. As another poster mentioned, our current immigration program is poaching skilled people from countries which can least afford it. Hardly charitable. Moreover, even if Australia doubled or tripled its already massive immigration intake, it would do absolutely nothing to alleviate global poverty or suffering. Such a policy would only serve to degrade our quality of life by transforming Australia into another overpopulated, Third World country. In short, we would be destroying our own environment, society and quality of life for nothing.

[Post continued below]
Posted by Efranke, Thursday, 24 July 2008 11:44:48 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
Personally, I find it breathtakingly hypocritical how you can profess concern about justice and human rights while supporting an undemocratic policy that will inflict nothing but misery on the existing population of Australia.

Do you care that the natural, social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations of Australians is being irreparably degraded as a result of mass immigration? Or does your warped and misguided sense of charity to foreign peoples completely outweigh any concern for the plight of your fellow Australians?

I believe Mark O'Connor, conservationist and advocate for immigration reduction, succinctly summed up the mindset of pro-immigration "humanitarians" such as your yourself:

"In short, for those emotionally committed to immigrationism the optimum population debate is a morass. It involves issues many of them are either not expert in or simply don't care to think about. Many immigrationists prefer to see their creed simply in terms of human charity, of helping people. Yet, like the Unjust Steward in the Bible, they try to give away what is not quite theirs to give. In a more modern analogy, the would-be charitable immigrationist is a bit like someone who writes a check to the Salvos [Salvation Army] on someone else's account - and without even finding out if the account has the required funds."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_318.shtml
Posted by Efranke, Thursday, 24 July 2008 11:52:56 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
Andrew Bartlett “But yes, by comparison Australia is very much underpopulated, which is why anyone who is concerned about basic notions of justice and human rights could not possibly argue that Australia cannot fit any more migrants in.”

So what, anyone concerned with justice and humnan rights would recognize that it is the people of Australia who should be the ones to decide who comes here and how many.

Just as the people of, say India or China, should decide on their own immigration policy.

And Efranke’s observation to your comment

“which is the grossly profligate way that we live.”

How each of us live is up to each individual to decide.

Determining “How we live” is not the exclusive domain of any here-today-gone-tomorrow politician or political party.

Politicians are elected to represent the will of the people and not to determine nor constrain the aspirations or lifestyle of the people.

This is something which will bite Krudd and Co hard in the bum when the truth about carbon tax hits the family pocket of the electorate.

I hope Krudd gets done all he wants to do in one governmental term, because his carbon tax and the lie it is predicated on, is going to be a winner for the liberals.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 24 July 2008 4:13:00 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
Since both Andrew Bartlett and Judy Spence presumably support the Rudd Government's decision to ramp up immigration to its highest levels in Australia's history (a decision that was made without any public consultation and without any effort made to examine the full impact of higher immigration on the existing Australian population), perhaps they would be kind enough to answer the following questions originally posted by Dr John Coulter on the Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) website.

• How does increasing our population by more than a million every three years make our climate change/greenhouse emission problem easier to solve?

• Every city in Australia is water stressed. How does increasing our population by an additional 5% every three years make our urban water problem easier to solve?

• It is doubtful whether in a climate changed, post peak oil world Australia can maintain water supply to its farmers. How does such rapid population growth make it easier to maintain our rivers, soils and food production?

• Australians have one of the highest per capita environmental impacts in the world. An increase in the Australian population has a larger global impact than the addition of a person just about anywhere else in the world. How does the Rudd Government morally justify increasing Australia’s demand on the global environment at the expense of many peoples far less well off?

• Australia has an acute housing shortage. More and more Australians cannot afford the rising price of a house or rent. One of the main drivers of this situation has been clearly identified as our already high immigration intake. How does Kevin Rudd justify making this situation even worse for ‘working families’?

• Australia has approximately 5% unemployment and another 5% of under employment. How does the Rudd Government justify bringing in unskilled workers when there are Australians unemployed and underemployed seeking work?

• There is a rapidly growing global food shortage. Increasing Australia’s population is leading to more and more high quality, well watered, food producing land going under housing and related urban infrastructure. Where is Kevin Rudd’s much advertised Christian morality?

http://www.population.org.au/
Posted by Efranke, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:11:59 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
Another question: What happened to Judy Spence's posts?
Posted by Efranke, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:17:11 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
Efranke, Judy was a stooge; an impostor. So the posts were deleted….which has left a couple of my posts that were written in response looking quite detached from reality.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; whenever a post gets deleted, the administrator surely needs to insert a note in its place saying why it went and who it was from.

Have all these questions from John Coulter been put directly to Rudd, or any of his relevant ministers, or to the opposition with the request that they probe the government on them?

This is vitally important stuff. We really need to know the answers. Sustainable Population Australia needs to push as hard as they can for a comprehensive response.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:25:55 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
Ludwig,

Can you say where you heard that the person posting as "Judy Spence" was an imposter?

If it was, then he/she sure had me fooled, just as I was fooled earlier by the person said to be posing as "Ross Garnaut" on another thread. All that he/she wrote appeared to be what I would have expected Judy Spence to have said.

Am I the only person here that was taken in by those posts?

I would certainly be interested to know whether the administrators had conclusive proof that the posts were made by an imposter or whether they had acted on a claim from Judy Spence that that had happened.

What appeared to have been happening was that a senior politician had done something which very few do these days, that is place herself in a situation where she can be scrutinised in a way that few of the journalists charged with interviewing our politicians are prepared to.

If you happen to be a member of a government such as the Government of Queensland which has behaved so immorally in recent years in regard to its encouragement of population growth, its decision to dam the Mary River and its decision to expand the coal mining industry when the Greenland Ice shelf is melting into the North Atlantic Ocean, then I could well understand that if, hyothetically speaking, a Queensland Government minister had put herself/himself in such a position that he/she could well have a motive to pretend that the posts he/she made were made by an imposter.

Efranke, good questions.

I recommend you read the article in yesterday's Sydney Mornig Herald at http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-reality-check-on-rudds-rhetoric/2008/07/27/1217097054279.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 12:41:49 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
Daggett, I guess there is no problem in saying that Graham Young specifically told me that Judy was a fraud.

I started a general thread; titled ‘Queensland nude beaches – an example of chronic hypocrisy in law and governance’ specifically because I thought that Judy Spence, Qld Minister for Police was on our forum. I addressed it to her. Graham edited out my reference to her and privately emailed me to tell me that she was a fake.

A damn pity. We really do need the likes of Judy Spence and Ross Garnaut on this forum.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 7:34:29 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. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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