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 > Migration, population policy and colonial exploitation > Comments

Migration, population policy and colonial exploitation : Comments

By John Töns, published 11/6/2010

Before we head for a Big Australia we need to determine how we can satisfy the needs of our existing population.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Rather than increasing population we must start thinking about reducing population; not just in Australia, but globally.

There are simply too may people. Australia will soon be unable to feed itself, let alone export food to other countries. Two-thirds of our fish is now imported because the loons with power want to 'save' our stocks. While we are 'saving' our stocks, the countries we import fish from are taking twice our catch per capita out of areas measuring a tiny fraction of Australia's. We think that we have the luxury of preservation, while the Third World we import from will fish out their stocks and start to starve before we do. Try keeping Indonesia fishermen out of our waters then!

The nutbag environmentalists also want to deny irrigators of food in the Murrumbidgee and Murray basins even more water: talking about a 60% cut to the former area, and 39% in the latter. Both are struggling now in the name of the "health of the river". As the author says, it is these same plonkers who think it's OK to increase our population.

It would be best for Australia to quit the nonsense of globalisation, cease all immigration, and start living within our means. We are isolated at the bottom of the world, with few friends in the region, and we need to be looking after the people we have now, not bringing in more.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 11 June 2010 10:41:19 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 statistics used to base this post concerning Australia needing to import food to feed our present population, supposedly due to drought, do not take into account that much farm land has been allowed to become dormant in the past thirty years due to the low prices farmers have received for their produce. Presently much food is imported into Australia, as part of the level playing field, so consumers are kept happy. While wheat prices remain low, production will remain low. While fruit and vegetable prices to the producers remain low, orchards will be bulldozed out and land grassed over. Australia could feed double the present population if the producers were encouraged by price to grow the food crops.
Posted by Country girl, Friday, 11 June 2010 11:59:57 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
I think the past four decades have proven that the quality of life of the existing population is an issue our pollies could not POSSIBLY care less about than they already do.
In fact, I seriously doubt they actually even HAVE a plan, nor do I think they particularly care about future consequences.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 11 June 2010 12:27:57 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
Hazza :) they DO have a plan mate.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/blighs-husband-to-head-new-department/2007/10/19/1192301036894.html

http://www.envex.com.au/index.htm

I'm afraid the plan is.. "get and keep power..and fund it through the Green industry"
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 11 June 2010 6:26:29 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
My motivation in writing this piece was firstly to put the population debate on the table as it were - all the problems that we face be it climate change, water shortages, food security are exacerbated by policies that ignore the reality that population pressure is a major problem both globally and here in Australia. The second motive was to encourage people to join Stop Population Growth Now - we need 500 people to take out membership to be a registered party and therefore our name will be on the ballot paper. We know that the major parties take note when a movement threatens their hold on power. Regardless of whether we are successful in getting anyone elected - we see great value in getting the words Stop Population Growth Now on the ballot paper and on the boards on election night - we just might be able to get our pollies to abandon their infatuation with population growth.
So if you agree with the sentiments in the article and expressed on our website take the next step and join - mention OLO and we will reduce the membership fee to $2! (Donations much appreciated!)
Posted by BAYGON, Friday, 11 June 2010 6:27:30 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
All good points,John,with the exception of continuing to allow family reunion and refugee intake.This smacks of the usual sop to the dreamy do-gooders in the community.

As we have already overshot our sustainable(in the long term) population level,probably by 100%,there is absolutely no room for further immigrants,whatever the source.This includes illegals,who should be automatically deported to their country of origin.That would very quickly dry up the source of the current expensive farce of the "boat people".

Re your setting up a political party - This is the third such party to be established recently(that I know of),all with the same laudable objective.Could it be that this is scattering the seed too widely? Would 1 or,at the most,2 parties suffice and be more effective?
Posted by Manorina, Saturday, 12 June 2010 7:35:16 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
Yes it is yet another party - however, the various sponsors are in touch with one another and once an election is called will work together to ensure that there is a national co-ordinated response - our shared objective is simple - to ensure that Australian voters have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who acknowledges the need to stop population growth.
With respect to the refugees and family reunion programme I have spent much of my working life working in the area of multiculturalism and migration.
As currently structured neither programme will have an adverse impact on our total population.
However, the ultimate logic of any population policy should be to determine the total number of people we can support at any moment in time - this includes: tourists, those on student visas, those here for short term work etc. Once we can quantify that number we are able to determine how many, if any, more people we can take.
Posted by BAYGON, Saturday, 12 June 2010 11:21:49 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
Ah, phosphate, the bete noir du joir of the environmental doom-mongers.

What they tend to overlook (deliberately? Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign!), is that phosphate can be recovered and recycled. At the moment it's just easier to mine the stuff.
Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 12 June 2010 11:40:33 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
John,
You have rung the bell for the ill informed to vent their collective spleens. Yet again.

The article you put forward is surprisingly myopically lopsided in its focus.
e.g. Like many demographers you seem to neglect the "after they're gone effect". Yep, I'm talking about the 'Baby Boomers', the biggest demographic undigested bulge in the intestine of this country.

We as a demographic have driven the societal needs for 60 years. While there will be issues about how we're going to be looked between 2025-2040, give or take. Our collective demise will relieve the country of between an estimated 4-6 million inhabitants.
Also freeing up real estate etc.

Broadly speaking the western world will experience a similar shedding.
If we factor in the other factors of reducing fertility rates be they as a result of better education or toxicity in the environment/lifestyle etc.

We are also told that our generation may be the last that can expect to outlive most of our progeny.

I would suggest the problems are more of our profligate lifestyles and expectation rather that solely a matter of people per se.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 12 June 2010 4:14:31 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
JOHN TONS and your ZERO CARBON NETWORK..

stop peddling your 'Capitalist in Socialist Drag/Kyoto' rubbish please.

Your web site says:

"Kyoto was created by Scientists and Politicians in 1997 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change."

YES INDEEDY... under the auspices and networking skills of one MAURICE STRONG.. the UN "UberEnvironmentalist"

Here is his self promo
http://www.mauricestrong.net/

-Stockholm Summit
-Rio Earth Summit
-Earth Council
-Earth Charter Movement
-World Resources Institute
-International Institute for Sustainable Development
-Stockholm Environment Institute,

That's the good news....now for the BAD.

-OIL FOR FOOD scandal .. see the million dollar cheque made out to him here.
http://old.nationalreview.com/pdf/strong.pdf

-INSIDE TRADER. Molten Metals Technology. Strong and Gore hyped up the company.. (Strong has major share holding in the Co.) and the share price skyrocketed. Then he heard "Gov't to pull plug on funding"
He sold his shares b4 anyone else knew.. made a cool $15,000,000 and when everyone else found out..share price plummeted to $5.00 (from $40)
Here is the LAWSUIT which followed:
http://securities.stanford.edu/1008/AxlervMoltenMeta/001.html

CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AS SOON as you mention "Kyoto"...you are also mentioning "Cap and TRADE"...LAWS!

Then...(I didn't see this coming) we find STRONG is a director of one of the the biggest CARBON TRADING companies in the world.

Here is the link.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67

Strong wants GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. and guess what..HE is connected to the major players in the world economy.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 14 June 2010 7:36:37 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
Well stated Examinator.

The BB's wrote the book on selling out. All that love and peace stuff in the 60's which lead to unprecedented greed in the 80's and continues to this day, the difference being that "greed is good" is hidden under a load of doublespeak like: 'workchoices', 'unregulated' financial sector, 'free' trade and so on.

Can only hope that the inevitable demise of the BB's leads to a warning to those who accede to the positions of power. Not gonna hold my breath though. At least some open space will be created.

AGIR - ever thought of writing in sentences and paragraphs, without all the capitals? Just a thought.
Posted by Severin, Monday, 14 June 2010 9:23:27 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 dont think we are in disagreement. It would be dangerously naive to assume that if only we address population growth all the problems would be solved. It is for this reason I was careful not to specify a number of people who could be accommodated. We also need to make a deliberate decision about what sort of lifestyle we can reasonably demand. The lifestyles enjoyed by much of the developed world are only viable because they are able to source food from the underdevloped world. (The Iceland eruption highlighted the UK's vulnerability good article on this issue can be found here http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/jeremy-harding/what-were-about-to-receive)Our starting point has to be making the transition to a lifestyle that enables us to meet our needs without relying on imports. Once we have done that we have some idea how many people this country can support - however to keep on adding people without having any idea about how many people this country can support is irresponsible
Posted by BAYGON, Monday, 14 June 2010 11:19:59 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
SEV...I write with a particular style.. for clarity.

I lost interest when I see a tight 'paragraph' Life is too short.. I need 'headline' then explaination.. thats why I use 'HEADLINE' and then..sentence etc.

I am not 'shouting'..I am trying.. to make a piece well spaced and enable the reader to see quickly what I'm on about.

Thanx for the criticism...though you don't quite understand my method.
Hopefully now you will.

Newspapers are constructed along the same lines as I write.

HEADLINE...then story.

They do it for a reason. Can you imagine a front page of 'tight paragraphs' :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 14 June 2010 11:32:07 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
Of course another vector of analysis is that most of the anti-people lobby seem to come from the green verdant hills of Adelaide - and oddly, many are former failed Democrats. Coulter and Kanck. You have got to be kidding me!

If you went to a pet shop to buy a dog and the shop owner said, I'm sorry, we're all sold out of normal dogs can I interest you in a box of droolers? And you went over and peeked inside, you'd have Kanck and Coulter slobbering up at you - going cheap too.

Why Adelaide? Well you've got a barking mad protestant free settler ethos which deludes them in to thinking their ideas are enlightened and reasonable. I could blame the Murdoch one paper monopoly but it's not that.

It's simply that their thinking is the product of a box of droolers.
Posted by Cheryl, Monday, 14 June 2010 12:43:15 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 all the anti-immigration brigade seem to forget is that Australia does not live alone in the world.
We do not have the resources needed to supply ourselves with everything we need- in isolation.

So imagine if we now said to all the other countries in the world
"Ok guys, we are now closing our doors to all newcomers from all other countries."

The first thing that will happen will be an uprising of current citizens wanting their relatives to join them here in Australia.
Then, other countries will be harassed by their citizens wanting to come to Australia.

These countries will then say "if you don't want our people, then we won't send you our goods and services, and we won't buy anything from you either."

Imports and exports as we know it will be in disarray, and businesses will go broke and we will have shortages of cheaper goods we have been used to having- eg cars, whitegoods, clothing, tinned foods and OIL.

Think about it carefully before you suggest no more immigration.
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 14 June 2010 10:07:20 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
Exactly, Suzie.

Look at Japan. Despicable mono-cultural and almost mono-racial country. Wont have any immigrants, so all the other countries wont trade with them. Japan is an international pariah, worse even than North Korea and Iran, an other countries are always saying things to the Japanese like, "Well, our people aren't good enough for you, so you can stick your goods and services." And look at the total economic basket case Japan has become as a result. Yes, a total mess, and I think the they are facing an imminent invasion because of their despicable selfishness. Totally serves them right.

Yes, every time I see a Japanese person I see past that phony veil of politeness, intelligence, diligence and decency, and see them for the racist anti-immigration rednecks that they are. But the best part is that the rotten racist Japanese would be enjoying vastly higher living standards if only they had realised the huge benefits of immigration.

Japans loss, Australia's gain.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 14 June 2010 11:12:00 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
suzonline, that's got to be the most absurd and hysterical response to the "immigration debate" I have seen anywhere.

So you're saying if a country refuses immigration, no one will deal with them?

Like they don't deal with Japan and South Korea and others who take to migrants at all?

Of course we can end immigration if we desire, the reason we don't is the fear of a declining population and tax base, that's what drives government and the politics.

It has nothing to do with threats such as you outline.

"first thing that will happen will be an uprising of current citizens", what utter fallacious rubbish, when have Australians "risen up", and why would they care ?

Dear me some people live in a fantasy world, and seem to think they can throw around idiotic threats of revolution if we dare change our ways. This is bizarre.

The world has changed, and continues to - what was acceptable 10 or 20 years ago may not be today, and we reserve the right to open or close our borders, regardless of the fears of little people. That's what makes us a free country.

Why do we sign up to the lunacy of the UN anyway, methinks we should be reassessing our role in signing up to all their conventions and review all the ones we have signed up to.

Then put it to the people, whether we want our locally elected leaders to have open slather on deciding what they commit Australia to internationally .. because it is not with my permission or assent!

Perhaps in election campaigns we could cover what our politicians intend to do on the world stage when they achieve government, that might make a difference to getting votes .. god knows what the Greens would respond with, that would be amusing if nothing else.
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 14 June 2010 11:17:45 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
Amicus, you don't think there would be some very upset Australians if we stopped our immigration intake now? You are very naive then.

Ok Amicus, let's put aside my 'absurd' suggestions for the moment and talk about the ones you yourself bought up:
<" Of course we can end immigration if we desire, the reason we don't is the fear of a declining population and tax base, that's what drives government and the politics."

Can Australia financially deal with a declining population and tax base? Why did we abandon the 'white Australia' policy and open the doors for other immigrants? Because we weren't increasing our population fast enough to provide enough tax dollars for our economy.

We are one country that didn't come out too badly during the past world financial crisis did we? Do we want to put ourselves in a vulnerable situation for the next crisis?

No, we don't.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:55:03 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
AGIR:SIGWB

>> I lost interest when I see a tight 'paragraph' Life is too short.. I need 'headline' then explaination.. thats why I use 'HEADLINE' and then..sentence etc. <<

How do you manage to read the bible?

>> I am not 'shouting'..I am trying.. to make a piece well spaced and enable the reader to see quickly what I'm on about. <<

Yes, you are (shouting). It is common internet etiquette that the use of capitals equates to shouting. You have been informed of this in all your personas on OLO.

>> Thanx for the criticism...though you don't quite understand my method.
Hopefully now you will. <<

I do understand, you think that by screeching in small info-bites your proselytising will work. It doesn't. It merely reveals your lack of respect for others.

Which fits in with your lack of understanding on immigration and population. If you don't respect others who are different from you, you are unlikely to empathise and therefore cannot offer anything of worth to this topic.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:09:11 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
suzeonline Would there be upset Australians? Irrespective of what policy a government adopts on any issue - it will upset some folk; to reject a policy because it may upset people puts a government in an impossible situation - for no matter what it does or does not do it will upset some folk.
Our post war migration policy was brought about by fear not by the need for taxes. WWII had taught us that we were very vulnerable - we had virtually no manufacturing base, our supply lines to the UK had been cut and, with a small population we were in no position to resist the Japanese. So Caldwell was instructed to source immigrants in a hurry. The preference was for British stock but there was one problem - immediately after the war there was no shipping available for migrants - there was shipping for refugees so we took in Europeans - to ease Australian concerns Caldwell made sure he was photographed with some very blonde Estonians. The post war migration programme was all about fast tracking a labour force - when supply from Europe began to dry up it (in the seventies) we relaxed provisions by abandoning the white Australia policy. (It was sold as "aren't we good.")
Ironically we are now in a situation where we have adopted a lifestyle that is dependent on imports - our manufacturing industry is virtually dead and food security is a major concern.
As other posters have indicated a stable population and a no growth economy is not the end of the world; there are plenty of nations that have successfully gone down that track.
As a migrant myself I made a point of studying the history of migration - space does not permit to provide details here but our migration policy is a history of ill-conceived and poorly executed policies. (A good introduction is There Goes The Neighbourhood or if you can find it I contributed a chapter on migration to the Social History of South Australia.)
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 4:58:19 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
Thanks for that info Baygon, you are right, I wasn't totally aware of all the reasons for the change in immigration policy after the war.
Obviously I had forgotten my history lessons!

So I still think that if we say no to immigration, we will lose some imports from some countries. I don't believe any country can live in isolation these days and everyone will just have to learn to live together.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 5:48:33 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
suze .. "We are one country that didn't come out too badly during the past world financial crisis did we? Do we want to put ourselves in a vulnerable situation for the next crisis?

No, we don't."

I have no idea what you're on about. The fact we came out of the GFC has many elements, I don't believe it has anything to do with immigration but lots to do with mining and that the countries finances were in fantastic shape after being husbanded by conservatives for 11 years - now that the ALP has the levers, it's all coming adrift, but I digress - how does this relate to the immigration question?

Ah .. I see in your later post "So I still think that if we say no to immigration, we will lose some imports from some countries."

So you reject all the arguments that countries do not run on emotion, like the way you would run the country? If you were in charge and say Robin Williams called us rednecks, would you cease relaitons with the USA .. of course you would!

"I don't believe any country can live in isolation these days" Only North Korea lives in a form of isolation and some Islamic regimes of course, but generally everyone trades if they can and they do not start and stop it because of someone's immigration policy which is their Sovereign Right

"and everyone will just have to learn to live together." of course they should, and the Easter Bunny will be along in a minute .. neither is a reality, and that's something you accept in life or flail in frustration at the unfairness of the world .. try religion, it works for some people.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 1:05:47 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
If all that were the case Amicus, why isn't there full scale ceasing of all immigration by the countless numbers of countries in the world who do allow it?
I suppose you know more about immigration and economics than all the experts?

You have your opinions and I have mine, but we both know immigration is allowed by far more countries than not allowed.
They could all be wrong I suppose.

I tried religion Amicus, and it failed me miserably.
Obviously I am not alone, after reading yesterdays papers which told of the vast numbers of people in Australia no longer attending churches, or considering themselves as Christian.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 2:28:45 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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