I obviously cannot speak for Cheryl, Fester.

>>But aren't you and Cheryl claiming that Australia faces economic catastrophe unless it maintains high immigration?<<

But no, I have never once made that claim.

Having to ask the question, though, is an admission that you haven't understood a word I have written on the topic.

In a similar vein...

>>Perhaps with some more detective work you might discover some covert funding for Eben's research by the Bearded Gnomes Association?<<

Resorting to ridicule is nothing more than a realization that you have nothing of interest to say.

<"would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children">

Yes Pericles, maybe I exaggerate, but isn't it your opinion that cutting immigration is economically harmful? That would seem to conflict with the conclusion you drew from the data that Eben used.

As for for bearded gnomes from the Adelaide Hills, I thought I might as well mention them before Cheryl did. Cheryl always has an amazing amount of character insight to contribute, arguably bordering on clairvoyance. In that vein, perhaps you would like to remind all the anti-pops that they are really motivated by xenophobia?

Personally, I want more immigrants to live here. I would strongly consider giving those with excellent business ideas tax breaks. The great infrastructure building era in Australia was done by 'new Australians' post WW2. They should be given a medal.

Lets look at stable pop cities - there's no such term. Cities are only as stable as their reach to markets. You'd think the anti-pops with their systems thinking would know that. Not an economic geographer amongst them!

Markets make cities and nations. The anti-pops are living in some futuristic anti-capitalist fantasy where every flat will have a bio-fuel helicopter and will grow wheat grass on their roofs for their morning breakfast gruel.

The anti-pops seem to have an incredibly bizarre take on Marx (get rid of the proletariat - there's too many of them), of major capital returns through technological development in trade goods, benefits accrued of economies of scale, to name just a few.

Indeed, even economics is the 'science' of minimising resources yet selling them at the maximum (or sustainable) market price.

If you have as your central tenet the firm belief that the world will end - which it will one day - and no other social science, no other branch of mathematics or critical analysis except population is needed to explain phenomena, then there's not much use talking further.

I have rather enjoyed these discussions but the bottom line is that I'm worried about our education system. If we are producing people who are so dogmatic, yet so shallow in their thinking, so locked in to clearly biased sources, then I fear the problem is not the anti-pops but a fundamental flaw in how we teach logic, process and critical thinking.

But people do think critically, and that is why they question the growth mantra. They see the ballooning infrastructure debt from population growth. They see the housing crisis. They question whether growth is delivering an economic benefit to all. They look at vibrant economies with static populations. They question the predicted doom from an ageing population or a cut in immigration. They see the abuse and belittlement for their difference as a weakness of argument, not a strength.

So perhaps the pop growth cargo cultists should instead be lobbying for the removal of critical thinking from the syllabus. And perhaps they might like to improve their own standard of logical presentation: If the argument for growth is so good a story, then it is being presented in a very slap dash fashion.

Great article Dave.

It is all just so eminently sensible. I mean; how utterly stupid is it to have a system that is based on never-ending expansionism, where continuous growth is purported to be vitally important and that if we were to stop growing or even slow down a little, we’d all be in deep poo?

What a mindless croc of crap! How on earth did we ever get to this stage of absurdity??

<< This takes the wind out of the sails of many local economic development bodies who do the bidding of growth profiteers (real estate developers, homebuilders, construction industry, mortgage banking, etc.). >>

Well it does in terms of logical debate. But unfortunately it doesn’t help much in the real world, because the vested-interest big-business lobby will continue to espouse the false virtues of rapid growth, and governments will continue to do their bidding, and any arguments in favour of a stable population and a steady-state economy will be ridiculed or just ignored by our decision-makers.

Unfortunately, good old common sense and logical argument don’t count for a lot while this very cosy relationship exists, which it does at all levels of government throughout western democracies (or pseudodemocracies) the world over.

THIS really is the big problem, not the logical analysis of continuous growth versus limits to growth.

However, having said that, I wish you well with your documentary: ‘Growth-busters: hooked on growth’, and I hope to goodness that it counts for something in our efforts to wean our society off of our growth addiction.

That's just classic, Fester.

You make an accusation:

>>But aren't you and Cheryl claiming that Australia faces economic catastrophe unless it maintains high immigration?<<

And when I call you on it, you come up with this excerpt from one of my posts:

<"would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children">

Let me remind you of its full context.

I made the point that:

"If you ask people the question "would you like more people in Australia", the majority would indeed answer "of course not". But that is only half the question. If you completed it by saying "or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children", you might get a somewhat different response."

Only a thoroughly warped perception could manage to turn this into "Australia faces economic catastrophe"?

No wonder it is impossible to maintain a civilized discussion. You simply invent stuff.

And then, to cap it all, you have the thoroughgoing chutzpah to lecture us:

>>...perhaps they might like to improve their own standard of logical presentation<<

Pffft.