Hiya Yabby,

You were saying, "there was silly old me, thinking that those
vast rainforests in Africa, South America and Asia, were considered
the lungs of the world, sucking up CO2 and releasing oxygen."

And there was silly old me, thinking that people in Africa, South America and Asia had not only the right to the sort of lifestyles that you and I have become accustomed to, if they wished, but also had the intelligence to know how to protect their environments.

Little did I know that their destiny was to protect the world's environment for the sake of Australian inner-city middle-class professionals, and to eschew any thought of economic, social or educational development, for OUR good. What nice people.

It comes as a surprise that you are actually a Green, Yabby. Say it isn't so !

Joe

No-one has the "right"

To a profligate lifestyle

Even you and me

*It comes as a surprise that you are actually a Green, Yabby. Say it isn't so !*

Ah there you go Joe, wanting to put me into a little box, just like
Cheryl. I don't belong in any of them. I try to understand issues
and find win-win solutions.

Frankly, if humanity lands up stuffing the planet, its not going
to affect me or my offspring. Its actually my prediction for
humanity, ie a species smart enough to invent interesting new things,
but not smart enough to use them wisely. It'll have been a waste
of a cute planet, as it spins with cockroaches and ants on board,
not much else. So be it.

I've had to laugh at economists trying to value biodiversity.
Biologists would point out, that without biodiversity, there won't
be a humanity, so your economy really won't matter much.

If you think that the world's rainforests are in safe hands, being
looked after by the locals, perhaps you need to think again Joe.

Just chop em all down and see what happens. But remember, you only
have one chance at this. If you get it wrong, your grandkids will learn
the hard way. So be it.

Cheryl,

The "anti-pops" don't all think the same, any more than the rabid growthists, however, I suspect a lot of us would go along with Kelvin Thomson's 14 point plan. Why don't you address it, instead of some fantasy of your imagination, such as people being dragged off to be sterilised?

http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/Editor/assets/pop_debate/091111%20population%20reform%20paper.pdf

Pericles,

I included the US because it is one of the top 10. As for the other graphs, you have been claiming that population growth has economic benefits for the host society as a whole, not just a relatively small elite. The graphs show that the majority of the US population had more income growth and social equality before the era of mass migration. The only real beneficiaries have been owners of capital and the migrants themselves, contributing to higher social inequality. This was one of the conclusions of the 1997 US Academy of Sciences report, and the Productivity Commission report in Australia says something similar. See page 151.

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

I suspect that the aging population after stabilisation will be far more manageable than you think. Dependency ratios will be no worse than in the 1960s, as we will have more elderly, but fewer children, who are far more dependent for far longer. We may have to adopt a more rational attitude to prolonging dying, however, as this is hugely expensive. Even if you are correct and a stable age structure will be a disaster, surely you realise that growth can't go on forever in some gigantic Ponzi scheme? Why not bite the bullet and stabilise while we still have some environment and quality of life left?

Loudmouth,

It would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone a modest Western European standard of living with the existing global population. Reducing the population of Europe would make relatively little difference. See

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2624/26243101.jpg

So Yabby, let me see if I've got this right ..... The people of Africa, South America and Asia are supposed to sacrifice themselves for our lifestyle ? Or are you striving to live in the way that THEY have become accustomed to, and are expected to stay accustomed to ? Do you have air-conditionning ? Do you use a car ? Then why can't they ? I'm not saying that you can't, or shouldn't, just that others in the world should have the same rights that you or I expect.

The question is, can the world develop the technology to make our lifestyle sustainable, for everybody ?

And vice versa: we should be prepared to make some of the same sacrifices that we expect others to make.

Divergence,

Hi. Yes, I understand that: Malcolm Caldwell made the same points back in about 1973, before his murder in Cambodia [check out his 'Wealth of Some Nations']. The whole world can't live as we do, yes. So how do we

(1) develop technologies to minimise long-term damage, and at the same time

(2) slowly reduce world populations, especially of those high resource-users that you speak of, i.e. us ?

Perhaps a world-wide sterilisation program, of people from countries whose use of resources is unsustainable ? i.e., us ? I've had my kids, so that sounds fairly equitable to me :)

Joe

You must be thinking of some other guy, Divergence.

>>...you have been claiming that population growth has economic benefits for the host society as a whole, not just a relatively small elite<<

I didn't mention "elites" anywhere. Go check.

But I'm glad you found some material that supports my position anyway. This, from the link you provided.

"Migration has a neutral to mildly positive effect on overall living standards."

The report also provides a forecast through to 2025, based upon a "50 per cent increase in the level of skilled migration". Here it is:

"population is higher by 3.3 per cent... (GDP) is 4.6 per cent larger ... GNP increases by 4.0 per cent... income per capita is higher by about 0.71 per cent... average hours worked per capita are higher by 1.18 per cent"

Sounds all good to me. What was the point you were making again?

The last prediction intrigued me a little - the increase in working hours - until I looked at the next sentence.:

"The distribution of these benefits varies across the population, with gains mostly accrued to the skilled migrants and capital owners. The incomes of existing resident workers grows more slowly than would otherwise be the case."

Obviously, the incoming skilled migrants will be working harder and longer than the locals. No wonder they are going to be better off.

And you might like to rephrase this to make it clearer:

>>Dependency ratios will be no worse than in the 1960s, as we will have more elderly, but fewer children, who are far more dependent for far longer.<<

Is your position that we had a) a higher or b) a lower proportion of elderly in the 1960s?

And that children are a) a higher or b) a lower cost burden than the elderly?

And that children are a cost burden for a) a longer or b) a shorter period of time than the elderly?

Perhaps you have access to another report that supports your position?