Hi Greg,

Understandably, from your cultural background you are a Specist. That is, this country and the world is only for the benefit for One Species.

Vibrant, stable population economies, not dependant on property developers and land speculators, are obvious in for example, the Scandinavian countries.

I would like to leave you with Population Perspectives.


1. Our precious bushland ( read unappreciated ancient forests ) destroyed, species that cannot vote.. destroyed, our best farmland covered over/destroyed and families that "never" see happy parents because of mortgage and time stress.

2.There is enough of our species.

3,Balanced migration ( emigration = immigration) and around 2 children at 30 years of age ( births = deaths ).....is an achievable , internationally transportable policy for a healthy world and a healthy Australia.

Very best wishes,

Ralph (Bennett) Mob. 0402 335 080

Greg,

From the ABS Statistics, our per person GDP is falling, as population growth is increasing.

Denmark with 5 million people exports all over the world.

USA with massive population growth is heading towards being a "basket" case.

The last thing the "poor" in society needs, is more competition for scarce resources.

The "Opportunity Cost " of population growth means that the Billions of Dollars spent on endless real estate infrastructure/services ( an investment in pollution ); could have alternatively been spent on research and development into emerging technologies for export, health/education and appropriate foreign aid.

Greg.........please don't forget that we are posting in "boom" times an average of 2 billion dollars a month, current account deficit. That is , everyone on average in Australia is consuming more than they are producing. We have to borrow and keep borrowing year after year for every extra person. It is NOT an a sustainable economic design. Stabilisation will reverse the current account deficit and will also free capital for productive investment.

Cheers,

Ralph

Jorge,

Japan is only about 40% self sufficient in food. There have been recent dramatic increases in food prices on the world market, only partly due to biofuels, although the situation has eased somewhat since 2008 when there were food riots in 34 countries and a number of food exporting countries shut down exports to protect their domestic populations. See

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/rosegrant20080507.pdf

World grain production per person peaked in 1984. In a world facing peak oil, peak phosphate, water shortages, inadequate arable land, and likely risk from climate change, do you really think it is a smart idea for them to grow their population even more? They are going to find money rather indigestible when there is not enough food on the world market.

Shrode brought up the Philippines. Thailand and the Phillipines had about the same population in 1960, approximately 27 million. Thailand really supported family planning. They now have a population of 66 million growing at 0.6%. They also export food and have a GDP per capita of $8,100. The Philippines have a population of 100 million growing at 1.9% (36 year doubling time). They import food and have a GDP per capita of $3,300. (Figures from CIA World Factbook, apart from 1960 census figures). Not much of an argument for high growth.

It is really quite simple.

Every environmental problem all over the world is essentially caused by the pressures of increasing human population(s).

And there are countless environmental problems, micro, small and large.

Ever heard of the very real existence of water wars?

Please Greg clear this up. Are you saying that we are all hopeless and couldn’t possibly solve our problems without the help of a huge and increasing number of immigrants every year? Are you saying that immigrants are geniuses for a few years after they arrive and then when they turn into Australians, they turn hopeless and we have to bring in a bunch more? Does this ever stop?

You say that we need a steady stream of immigrants to have economic growth. The Productivity Commission and several overseas studies say that the average wage drops due to high immigration. It also says that the big end of town does very well out of high immigration. Is the economic growth you are talking about the kind where the rich get richer and the average guy has his wages reduced?

You say that we need immigrants to increase our capacity for innovation and new business opportunities. Newsweek just published their list of the 100 best countries and one of the topic areas was economic dynamism. All the top countries in economic dynamism have low population growth (0.5% per year) and all the countries that are the least economically dynamic have high population growth (2.1%).

Your quote about Gary Becker is a little porkie pie, Greg. He was talking about developing economies not developed economies like Australia’s and he was repeating a comment that has been made for over 20 years. There is no reason to think that Australia’s environment will get better with a higher population and are you really trying to imply that we would use less water with a bigger population?

Lets have 70,000 immigrants per year, not 200,000 or 300,000. Lets invest in the people that are here now and build the country from within and then help the rest of the world get sustainable too. http://www.theage.com.au/business/postponing-prosperity-20100818-12f7x.html

why is it that so many who demand a slow down in population also insist on higher pensions and welfare payments. They don't seem to get the simple fact that taxpayers fund these things. Ironic that we kill our own unborn and then have to bring so many in.