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).

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.

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

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]

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

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.