OK, doom is coming .. and you have written an ebook on it .. yep, sales pitch that it is in the domain of other books by famous catastrophists.

so what are we to gain from reading it?

Your piece makes lots of assumption, raise temp 1 degree C and rice crops fall by whatever % it was, with no reference to whether increasing CO2 might abrogate that.

Perhaps the world will reach a balance for things that grow from rising temps and CO2. Of course everything is taken as the worst possible case, to be amongst serious alarmists, to be up there with the big guys.

Whether the CO2 is rising or not, is incidental to changing climate is it not? Perhaps increasing CO2 is bad, it might be good, who knows, it certainly does not appear to be driving temperature the way most alarmists would prefer it .. CO2 continues to climb and temperature is not .. what's going on?

Have we reached stability? Is the raise of temperature over the last 150 years, of 1 degree C, stability itself?

Does stability exist, or is that the problem here, that skeptics accept the climate changes and we cannot affect it, and that alarmists cannot accept it and want to stop the change?

Surely the climate changes whether we have an effect or not, it changed before humans even existed.

So given the horror of rising population and immigration, what should be done?

Why should this shape public policy? You don't exactly say.

Are people now using the environmental hysterics to their own ends to justify a drop in immigration? Is this thinly veiled populism?

Or do I have to buy the book to find out?

" There is now a considerable body of research voicing concern about water stress and coming ‘water wars’ (‘peak water’); the possibility of ALL of the world’s top soil VANISHING in as little as 60 years (‘peak soil’)"

Is this similar Research that told us that all the Worlds' Glaciers would be melted by last Wednesday and that that Mount Everest will lose its Ice by Friday Week ?

Fiona
you cite a lot of sources, but you don't realise that it would have been possible to make the same arguements, and cite authoritative sources to support it, for at least 80 years. There are references to strong concern over over-population in literature of the 1930s.

I can recall warnings in the 70s that everything would collapse in 20-30 years. In particular, it was said, oil could not possible last more than another two decades or so. Those warnings were all been given on the best authority. However, if you scratched around at the time, you would also have uncovered another lot of voices pointing out that the authorative voices who got the publicity were talking a load of nonsense.

Score to date - doomsayers 0; catastrophe sceptics 100.

Perhaps you can tell us why you think your particular warning should receive any more attention than all the other past warnings?

Sobering article Fiona; we need more of this analysis and more lateral thinking as to how we can live sustainably.

There's two reason that 'catastphists' are not merely over anxious or scaremongers Curm. Population and consumption curves are and have been exponential or at least ever-increasing for the past century or so. Blind Freddy can see this cannot go on for ever. Either humans work together to change our behaviour i.e. make a few sacrifices make some inconvenient changes to our habits, or there will be increasing catasprophes that will force change.

So rather than denying it how about some constructive discussion of solutions?

On recent threads we have tried to predict where the alarmists go next. Our call was "overpopulation".

Fiona, can you just hang on a few weeks until the last alarmist phenomena collapses? We are still a bit busy with the last one from the warmertariat.

We'll get back to you when we've mopped up the current mess, Thanks.

Spindoc, how long do you intend to live, do you think you will be still around when this mess is fixed?

The more people, the more items for disaster will be presented, it will just continue without abate or proper debate.

We will never have an answer cause the issues just keep altering to suit whatever they need to keep themselves all feeling like they are doing good without any actual doing on their part.

Curmudgeon likes to point out that the mid-20th century scientific community gave too much credibility to Freud, and this is true, but they were also right about a whole host of other things, from radar to transistors, to lasers, to DNA. Right now, we are facing a host of environmental issues and resource constraints, unlike the 1960s, where the main issue was low agricultural productivity (and yes, we got lucky with the Green Revolution). Now it is more like a fat lady trying to squeeze into a dress that is too small for her. She can sew on a popped button or seam, but is likely to pop another one somewhere else.

It is easy to cast doubt on climate change because it involves complicated computer models, but it is harder to argue that marine chemists can't measure pH when they talk about acidification of the oceans (another effect of carbon dioxide), that hydrologists can't measure how deep the water is when they talk about the pumping out of aquifers under major food bowl regions, that biologists are lying about high extinction rates, collapsed fisheries, etc.

There have been numerous collapses in the archaeological record. Why do you assume that it can't happen to us? If you don't like scientists, perhaps you would be prepared to believe the German military analysts

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-13/review-bundeswehr-report-peak-oil-section-22-tipping-point-nov-2010

or Jeremy Grantham, an expert on commodities, whose firm has $107 billion under asset management

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

Roses1
population curves exponential? Nope. Try again. There have been several attempts to fix the global population peak, but all they can really say is that it will be later this century. Anyone got a better fix on it?

Consumption curves exponential - closer, particularly with China growing as it has been. But when china and India start to catch up with the West that should slow. Just look at the recent discussions over why Mexico is not growing as it once did. Resources prices will then fade to their long time downward decline.

Is there any cause for concern? The main cause for concern is whether China will fall over spectacularly or gracefully.

Attempts to fix limits on resources have all proved collosal failures. As for the problem with topsoil, I have been hearing about topsoil losses for the past 20 years or so. I'm surprised that there is any soil left to farm.

Collapseology - adjective describing last two years of Gillard Government.

Dear Cheryl

I know time flies, but Julia has only had 1 year as PM, I know with Abbott's never-ending whining it seems longer......

With neither major party working towards a sustainable future I concur with Heinrichs view.

I am fairly certain that if the author were my daughter, I'd be immensely proud of her enthusiasm for "the cause". It reminds me so much of the sixties, when youth suddenly found a voice and took to the streets to protest against... whatever it was at the time.

Ah yes, nuclear disarmament. That went particularly well. The doom-mongers were convinced that we were minutes-and-a-red-button away from a) total annihilation or b) a nuclear winter. As a result of their commitment to the cause, catastrophe was averted. The proof of which is, of course, that we haven't had a nuclear war.

The problem is, I think, that we have far too little to worry about any more. Human nature is to worry. "Where will we find the next mammoth to kill for supper?" was a constant threat to our ancestors' peace of mind. I expect there were folk who predicted the end of life on earth back then, too.

Fact is, we adapt pretty well to changing circumstances. And I expect we will do again. In the meantime though it won't stop the cause-mongers.

And nor should it. They are all thoroughly well-meaning, earnest and worthwhile people, who act as a form of thought-nanny... as in "nanny knows best, dear". I just wish sometimes that they would stop this habit of turning everything into a sound-bite - "peak oil", "peak water", "peak soil", "peak food" and so on. This is terminology that has had all the meaning wrung out of it. Even if it had some to begin with, which is arguable.

I notice that Fiona is "23, an Arts graduate who recently completed an Honours thesis entitled: ‘Transgressing Motherhood: Reconfiguring Feminine Selfhood and the Social Construction of Identity from the 18th to the 19th Century’."

She has a fine career ahead of her. But if she were my daughter, she'd better arm herself with some more substantial data and arguments before she decides to tackle the topic of population growth with me over Sunday lunch.

I'd still be impressed by her enthusiasm, though.

Divergence

I'm glad you recalled my point about Freudian psychology. It is an excellent example of just far off the rails the scientific debate can go, if the issue is an attractive one. Sure scientists actually discovered a few things that were right back then, but they could also be collectively entirely wrong for decades.

In reference to your first link, the German military analysts must have entirely overlooked a complete revolution in the energy sector. Although it mainly involves gas (google, fracking), it has pushed residual peak oil concerns onto the back burner, so to speak. Gas production for thos newly released reserves often also involves production of smaller amounts of oil.

As for your expert on commodities 'Grantham' I glanced through the item you linked to see this gem "There is little productive new land to bring on to production"... Bbbbwwwwhahahahah! Where has this guy been? You did know that farm land is falling out of production in Aus and the US at least? ABS put on a release on farm land in Aus recently. You also have considerable land now being used for biofuels, rather than food. And the problem in europe has alsways been over production.

He does have a useful point to make on a slowing increase in the rate of agricultural productivity.. that is a concern, I'm just not sure if its a serious concern.

You'll have to find some more links.

@Curmudgeon: I'm glad you recalled my point about Freudian psychology. It is an excellent example of just far off the rails the scientific debate can go

Actually, it's not. Freud was not a scientist. In fact Freud was so of those who drove Karl Popper to write his essay on Science as Falsification http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . Quoting:

"Among the theories which interested me Einstein's theory of relativity was no doubt by far the most important. The three others were Marx's theory of history, Freud's psycho-analysis, and Alfred Adler's so-called "individual psychology."

@Curmudgeon: In reference to your first link, the German military analysts must have entirely overlooked a complete revolution in the energy sector.

Well, its nice to see you have got past your "new oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico are the biggest the world has even seen" delusion you used to spout as an answer.

But no, those Germans didn't forget anything. Unlike you, they realise methane is not dense enough to use for we put 70% of petroleum to: transport. Gas to liquids conversion is its only hope, but it is only 50% efficient and the plant cost is huge - roughly $30k/barrel/day. Australia consumes roughly 1M barrels/day, so that is $30 billion to cover just our local consumption. Those figures are suspect because they come from a paper that claims they can produce synthetic crude at $40/barrel. If that was true the GtL plants would be popping up like weeds right about now.

But if AGW doesn't concern you (and clearly it doesn't) then it might be a solution to transport in a decade or so's time.

@Curmudgeon: Where has this guy been? You did know that farm land is falling out of production in Aus and the US at least?

Err, looking at population growth figures perhaps? He did say the US should be OK, and obviously food isn't a problem for us. So my guess is he looking with some concern at what will happening beyond his own back yard. Starving people don't always go quietly, and wars can be dammed expensive things.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more smug, smarmy, sarcastic, conceited, pompous and self-righteous bunch of people anywhere. Maybe a fundamentalist compound in Utah?

There's a pattern at the environment forum of OO. Any article that strays outside a certain cliques conservative dogma is automatically swamped with comments that are extraneous to the topic and are usually ad hominem attacks on the author. Is that a natural human response when someone is confronted with realities that challenge their ideological notions? Or is it a state of denial that is cultivated, a la Monckton variety?

It's obvious that these personal attacks occur because the mountain of empirical evidence is pretty hard to argue with.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3249394.htm

Behind the sophistry are infantile tantrums. When your opposition to a thesis is backed up with solid science you may gain some credibility. I personally find it tedious wading through the dross to find counterpoints worthy of consideration. That's time I'll never get back from petty thieves.

Your self congratulatory tone in attacking a young woman reveals your truly pathetic nature. What brave culture warriors you are!

Curmy, you must already be aware that the majority of Australia's cropping land is of low fertility and relies quite heavily on inputs of fertiliser to maintain productivity. One of the problems with that is a developing shortage of the world's supplies of the raw materials from which these fertilisers are produced, the consequences which will inevitably be a decrease in output.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

David

sardine shows us the way "comments that are extraneous to the topic and are usually ad hominem attacks"

with .. "smug, smarmy, sarcastic, conceited, pompous and self-righteous bunch of people anywhere. Maybe a fundamentalist compound in Utah?"

"petty thieves"

I didn't realise we were all merely posting to gain merit from your holiness, oh great sardine .. thank goodness you don't lower yourself to insulting personal attacks .. oh wait, you do.

you sound "smug, smarmy, sarcastic, conceited, pompous and self-righteous"

You added absolutely nothing to the discussion except to have a tantrum and rant at other posters, did you consider any of the questions or points raised by other posters?

Your self congratulatory tone in attacking "other posters" reveals your truly pathetic nature.

There you go, fixed.

Thanks for confirming the critique rpg.

Well done Anne. I would add to your reference list John Michael Greer's theory of catabolic collapse which explains why collapse is a process which occurs over an extended timeframe and also not as apocalyptic as some would argue.

I also think that defining collapse is important. I prefer Tainters definition of a rapid reduction in socio-economic complexity.

Curmudgeon, I would recommend reading David Hughes paper for the Post carbon institute on fracking - its hardly the panacea you make it out to be.

Gawd 'elp us.

Monckton is on his way back. Leaves me speechless that Climate Change DENIERS (as opposed to true skeptics) put more weight in a British toff, than scientists.

"Monckton’s climate trickery revealed

CLIMATE Denial Crock of the Week video journalist Peter Sinclair offers some of the most lucid and clear presentations debunking climate change deniers available anywhere.

He’s recently turned his attention to Lord Christopher Monckton, who is heading back to Australia in late June 2011 for a second nationwide tour. See my piece on ABC’s The Drum, which shows how last time, Lord Monckton was backed by some of Australia’s mining royalty.

Sinclair finds that the best way to debunk Monckton, is to use the man himself. This video reveals Monckton’s tricks of cherry-picking data, misrepresenting science papers and using short-term trends. Sinclair forces Monckton to give up his sources and finds him wanting. Sometimes, Monckton seems to just plain make stuff up."

Watch the video here:

http://www.readfearn.com/2011/05/monckton-bunkum/

@Ammonite: Watch the video here http://www.readfearn.com/2011/05/monckton-bunkum/

That was just awesome. A highly enjoyable way of wasting an hour. It's a guilty pleasure though, as it is like watching a monkey throwing poo in a zoo. In polite company you aren't supposed to laugh out loud at the monkey.

Lets hope Monckton has a much rougher time of it this time around. I can understand our press being unused to a British Peer showering them with torrents of bs on the his first tour, and thus allowing themselves to be snowed. No such excuse this time. They know what they are getting, so if they have any integrity at all they will treat him the same way they treated Gail Dines. Which is to say they will put him on a pedestal, so we can all take a guilty pleasure in laughing at the monkey.

And thank you. Today I subscribed to a youtube channel for this first time. Maybe this is the future of journalism.

VK3AUU
Oh quite so.. in fact that's been the case for decades. WA has been likened to a giant flowerpot.. you get out what you put in.. As I also noted, the rate of increase in productivity is lower than it was, so that may be a point of concern but I can't see any indication of collapse.. as noted marginal land here is going out of production after decades of clearing..

Well done Fiona! Your carefully documented article puts to shame the claque that has tried to intimidate you. And you identify with deadly precision the dishonesty of Tony Burke's spin tricks.

rstuart
And yes, you're quite right to say that Freud was not a scientist. The problem was that he thought of himself as one and so did a lot of others, and his nonsense infected not only psychiatry, with whole learned journals dedicated to his "science", but other disciplines as well.. sociology comes to mind.. they even invented a displine, psycohistory, proponents of which can still be found.

And all of that occured without a single scrap of what could be described as clinical evidence to back it - just a few dodgy case studies reported by Freud, which were later found to have been misreported.

Fiona: congratulations on an amazing book - I couldn't stop reading. It traverses rich and complex subject matter with an accessible and engaging style. The depth and maturity of your work is quite extraordinary. Don't be put off by the customary trolls on OLO - as you may have noticed, most of them can't write a coherent sentence much less grasp the second law of thermodynamics.

Good on you and keep up the great work!

Great writing Fiona. Congratulations on your book.

@Pericles: I am fairly certain that if the author were my daughter, I'd be immensely proud of her enthusiasm for "the cause".

The ebook is only 20,000 words, which I take it you haven't read. Until you do your words look like pure sophistry.

You dishonour your nick, Pericles.

Ah yes. The book. Thanks for introducing it, iDreamofjeanie.

>>Great writing Fiona. Congratulations on your book<<

It is of course entirely traditional that students should go through a "property is theft" phase, before they are forced to come to grips with basic economics. And necessary too, that any form of commerce is depicted as inherently evil.

Although one must try to avoid scoring an own-goal if possible.

"...the university system is profiteering from, and exploiting [international students]"

It will eventually dawn on Ms Heinrichs that the "profiteering" and "exploiting" that the universities conduct is largely for her benefit. It allows them to keep her own fees low, and also to employ better qualified lecturers who would otherwise gravitate to more serious institutions overseas. That outcome would also introduce to her the concept of irony, somewhat forcibly.

In keeping with the essentially undergraduate theme, business is represented as the root of all evil. Especially in the language used.

Major Australian businesses are described as "rulers of our destiny".

This is not presented as a good thing, however. We find that they "howled with rage and pain" when the prospect of lower immigration was raised before the last election. Those individuals who see growth opportunities for Australia "gleefully advocate" them. And of course, solutions can be found, we are told, "with a few crumbs from the rich cake Australian corporates have".

All of which confirms the mythology held by all students, that big business is perpetually and uniformly rapacious, and eternally greedy.

Actually, it has to be said that the writing style rather falls apart, the further one reads into the book. By the time you get to the paragraph headed "Conclusion: Immigration as a Political Weapon of Class War", there is little left except a soap-box. As for the final paragraph of Chapter 4, even the soap-box is insufficient. A Nürnberg Rally would be required to do it justice.

But I certainly must agree that overall, the writing isn't bad. The ideas will polish themselves in the years to come.

You revive my hope for humanity Fiona...the next trick is to find more young ones with your sense and the ability to record and publish.

Well done Fiona!
A useful and well researched contribution to the debate. We need to hear more from people like you.

Great stuff Fiona. Never mind Pericles the Patronizing - if he was my father I'd move into an orphanage. There are lots of instant experts who don't read past the first paragraph. This great mind didn't spot the link to your book until iDreamofjeanie mentioned it. Of course his generation didn't get slugged with uni fees, which were only re-introduced to pay for middle class welfare and corporate tax cuts.

Congrats Fiona !

A terrific distillation of the current bungling policies on population.

The billions invested in more of our plague animal species....an investment in pollution.........could have been spent on research into emerging technologies, health, free tertiary education and appropriate family planning foreign aid. This is the "opportunity cost" of population growth.

Cheers,

Ralph

Patronizing? Moi?

>>Never mind Pericles the Patronizing - if he was my father I'd move into an orphanage.<<

It is impressive that I seem to have motivated some members of Fiona's fan club to sign up for OLO, simply to reassure her that she is simply tops, the bee's knees, the greatest intellect since whenever etc. etc.

But you're not helping.

Praise simply because you want to encourage someone is not praise at all. In fact, it is somewhat insulting.

"...people are trained to use praise as reward, as a manipulation to get people to do what they want... In a family, we are taught that if you praise and compliment children daily, they are more likely to do what you want. Teachers do the same in school to get children to work more. And managers in industry are trained to do this, showing them how to use praise and compliments as rewards."

http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/encouragement.html

I guess this gives Fiona a choice. Would she rather perceive herself as being patronized, or would she prefer to be manipulated by a bunch of people who want her to continue to think the way they do, as opposed to think for herself.

Most people like to continue to learn, and to take on new ideas and new perspectives as they find out more about the world. You may consider that to draw her attention to some of the pitfalls that lie ahead, should she continue to ignore the aspects of the world that she dislikes, is patronizing.

I'd like to think she is smarter than that.

Fiona, I just finished reading your eBook and you are to be congratulated on the thoroughness of your research. It should be required reading for all politicians. No doubt the people who are watching the "Go back where you came from" documentary on SBS tonight will take issue with you about some parts to do with immigration, but I think that you presented a very balanced case for a reduction.

OLO readers are at present divide 14 to 6 in your favour. Even with such a small sample, I would suggest that this possibly represents the feelings of the Australian population as a whole. Keep up the good work.

David

So by your logic, Pericles, if Fiona gets a positive comment she's being manipulated and if she gets a negative comment she's being taught how to think for herself. Got that? Patronizing just doesn't do it justice.

And FYI Fiona, only two new people have signed up to this debate, and I'm one of them, so the positive feedback is not coming from anyone you know.

Cheers

Very well done Fiona . Don't be discouraged by the sleepwalking majority. Very refreshing to see the younger generation who are not brainwashed by the enormous growthist mob .
wild

People who have followed this issue online in Australia over the last few years may have seen my comments here and there so I can hardly be accused of being a ring-in or fanboy.

I think you write well Fiona. You have drawn on a diverse range of research and coalesced the material into a coherent and very readable article. I wouldn't pay particular attention to your age other than to say that I've had strong convictions on various social and environmental issues but it still took me years to 'join the dots' regarding the importance of population growth as the critical issue even though it was plain as the nose on my face. It takes a keen intellect to avoid distraction and zero in on the key issue.

Judging by the comments from imperious, paternalistic and condescending twits, I'd say you've ruffled a few feathers with your effort. Well done. It is a useful resource for challenging the dogma and propaganda of pro-growthers and "Big Australia" boosters.

Oh well, I tried.

But I'd just like to point out to the shrill-brigade that takes exception to my critique of Ms Heinrichs' effort, that being constructive requires more than just spluttering indignation.

How dare I criticise the lady's approach to the topic! She's so young and has a way with words, surely that's enough!

Well, not in my book.

Presenting the argument in the manner that she does is mere polemic. Any and all contrary positions are not evaluated, they are simply sneered at. Industry is described as permanently corrupt, as are politicians who disagree with the position she has adopted. It can only possibly carry any weight with her cheer-squad.

The proposition - that "collapseology should be shaping Australian public policy" falls into the trap of using sound-bites, instead of reasoning. Is this the way we would like our students to think? As if they were reporting for Today Tonight?

And on the topic of thinking...

>>So by your logic, Pericles, if Fiona gets a positive comment she's being manipulated and if she gets a negative comment she's being taught how to think for herself. Got that? Patronizing just doesn't do it justice.<<

You didn't read the reference I provided, did you Emma*? Or if you did, you clearly didn't understand it. If you look at the supportive comments here, it is quite possible to form the view that none of them has read the document in question.

This one from wild is typical:

>>Very refreshing to see the younger generation who are not brainwashed by the enormous growthist mob<<

And you call me patronizing?

How... refreshing.

Seriously Pericles, you need to get a grip of yourself...(or let go, whichever is bothering you).

The article addresses many of the arguments growthers use. These arguments are systematically dismantled and rebutted using referenced material.

On the other hand, what have the critics here offered to defend their positions? Who is "sneering", "patronising", "spluttering indignant" etc.?

Until you present arguments based on the issues in the article and stop attacking the author on the basis of her age and gender you'll come across as nothing more than the half-baked sideshow clowns.

To reiterate my first comment, just grow up and deal with the substance of the arguments for once. Or is that all just too hard?

@Pericles: Presenting the argument in the manner that she does is mere polemic.

No, what she said clearly it isn't mere polemic. It consisted of polemic mixed in with a fairly liberal serving of fact and quotes. You are choosing to address the only polemic, thus conveniently managing to side step to main thrust of her argument.

The example you quoted of profiteering, exploiting university system is a case in point. Yes, the girl is obviously a starry eyed socialist. This is, as you say, a common failing of youth.

But that doesn't make her her central thesis wrong, and the reference she quotes nails it: "The universities aim to seek full fee-paying foreign students and as Universities Australia, the peak body representing the 39 Australian universities makes clear on its website, are strong advocates of continuous immigration to Australia and economic growth." The universities have indeed been forced into the position of needing to fill lots of places with foreign full time students to bridge funding gaps, and they did react as you might expect when the tie been education attainment and residency was cut, causing a drop in numbers.

Her point is a strong one. It wasn't like this 10 years ago, so in less than a decade we have creating an industry that needs immigration to survive. And surprise, surprise, along with it we have create a vocal support group of "big Australia" in a highly influential part of society.

The irony in the way you are critiquing her is you are doing the very thing you are accusing her of. You mention her youth, her politics, make vague unsubstantiated claims on "mythology held by all students", you say her "writing style rather falls apart" but in the next breath "overall, the writing isn't bad". What on earth has any of this got to do the main thrust of her argument or the facts she rests it on?

The problem is not your reference Pericles, its your fatuous rhetoric. Sardine and rstuart have summed it up quite well. If you can't identify either errors of fact or errors in logic in Fiona's work, what's your point?

Ok, let's have a look.

>>...what she said clearly it isn't mere polemic. It consisted of polemic mixed in with a fairly liberal serving of fact and quotes.<<

It's more a collection of opinions, really. Normally one would expect a few facts to go along with them, but it is simply polemic, supported by nested opinions, one inside the other.

Tell you what, I'll give you an illustration of my opinion of her opinion, then you can come back with "a liberal serving of fact". Fair enough?

Here goes.

"In examining the massive research about Australian immigration – books, academic journal articles and opinion pieces in the print media, I was reminded of the tradition of apologetics in theology where defences are made of Church dogmas. Similarly, the massive pro-immigration works trade on power politics and intimidation, typically using the ‘racist’ master card to silence debate."[68]

The "evidence" for this is provided in one of the 326 footnotes. Not surprising, since finding a place for it it within the text would be beyond the capability of most. Here it is:

[68] "See for example Buttrose, I. ‘The Shadow of Hanson’s Smile on the PM’s face.’ The Australian. 9 July: 2010, p.12, ‘Gillard’s Refugee Policy Panders to our Latent Racism.’ Further, Barry Cohen observes that ‘The advocates of a big Australia have bundled a range of immigration issues – asylum-seekers, refugees, cultural integration and economic growth – into one debate and branded opponents as racists, rednecks or worse: Hansonites.’ Cohen, B. ‘Most People have Little Doubt Bigger Isn’t Better.’ The Australian. 6 August: 2010, p.14."

Does this strike you, even with the rosiest-tinted spectacles, as evidence that "...the massive pro-immigration works trade on power politics and intimidation, typically using the ‘racist’ master card to silence debate"?

Supporting your opinion with someone else's opinion is merely that: someone else's opinion.

It might help, if those opinions were worth taking seriously. But they're not. What are Ita Buttrose's qualifications, that she should be called as a credible source?

And Barry Cohen? You mean, this Barry Cohen?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/opposing-gay-marriage-doesnt-mean-im-barking/story-e6frgd0x-1226038720460

Polemic. That's all. Your turn

My point, Emma*?

>>If you can't identify either errors of fact or errors in logic in Fiona's work, what's your point?<<

My point is that there are no facts presented, simply a collection of other people's opinions. Nor is there logic with which to disagree, because it always leads to more opinions.

The opening chapter sets the scene.

“Andrew Markus, James Jupp and Peter McDonald argue in their book... A Galaxy Poll for The Sunday Mail of 1,000 people found that 66 percent of the sample believed... 72 percent of locally born Australians favoured ... 55 percent of those living in Australia but not considering themselves Australians, also favoured … Over half of all respondents (52 percent) thought that … a poll by Essential Research of 1,000 people yielded similar results: 75 percent of the sample believed... over 60 percent wanted... the majority of the sample believed... over half of the sample rejected the idea... Another survey by the Lowy Institute think tank of 1001 Australians found that 69 percent of the sample... A larger survey of over 3,000 people by Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research also found that 69 percent of the sample... 75 percent of women in the survey did not want... a survey by global research organization TNS of over 1,300 people, found that 69 percent of the sample... 80 percent of respondents believed...”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trawling for statistics that demonstrate the opinions of the Australian people on various topics. If this were presented as such, it could make an interesting snapshot of.. something or other. Possibly the manner in which news is presented, possibly the general ignorance (or perspicacity) of the populace at large, something along those lines.

The fact that it is misleading, is clear from Sardine's contribution:

>>The article addresses many of the arguments growthers use. These arguments are systematically dismantled and rebutted using referenced material.<<

But they are not “dismantled”, are they. Just quotes from a bunch of supporters, selected because they agree with the author.

Very 1960s. Very Aldermaston. Very commendable.

""The important thing is to be able to have a mature and intelligent debate about immigration without ... the instant (that) issues are raised, people rushing around with accusations of racism." Tony Abbott Jan 2010

"In the same sentence, speaking of irony, Hamilton condemns Howard’s “Hansonite xenophobia” then describes immigrants as “foreigners”. Worse, Hamilton actually wants Australia to adopt a “policy of zero net migration”, which puts him squarely in One Nation territory." Tim Blair 2006

"Then as now commentators tainted by racism and carrying the same old world dreads, told tales of Armageddon in Oz; of masses arriving to our north to take our jobs and tear at the fabric of our society, always to the shrill cries of “they won’t assimilate”. "Jack the Insider Blog | May 28, 2010

A typical selection of online comments on the immigration debate-

"As the scion of a working-class, left-leaning Labor family, I’ve been appalled at the seemingly in-grained hostility to refugees amongst my cohort. From each, as I’ve claimed that their attitudes are racially prejudiced, of which this country has a long, disgraceful history, I’ve received the same response: ‘no, no, we’re not racist, but….’"

"He instilled the fear of immigration and tore-up multiculturalism and replaced it with xenophobia and racism. "

"if we move on a little from P we get to R for racism and as most of these refugees are as dame edna would say "tinted",i think this explains a lot.i doubt that the dog whistling and the other more explicit methods would resonate in the community if they were white people."

Any debate on immigration and population will attract similar comments. Opposition to mass immigration is often conflated as racism directed at refugees. So for Pericles to disingenuously challenge the original claim reinforces why he has been called a sophist.

Fiona

You are raising the issue that too many others, especially in academia, are avoiding, as it is not politically correct to question population growth.

Keep up the good work.

Bob Couch
Convenor
Stop Population Growth Now Party

@Pericles: Tell you what, I'll give you an illustration of my opinion of her opinion, then you can come back with "a liberal serving of fact". Fair enough?

Sure, although you are making it easy for me.

Here are quotes from the text, with a narrative from me just so you understand the point she is making. I am only quoting points where the references (and often double checked by me) look sound. Turned out many links she gives, particularly to abs.gov.au, are broken but you can find the relevant document easily enough using Google.

First she demonstrates Australia's population is growing rapidly. It is happening because of deliberate policy settings by our political overlords, and this is against the wishes of the majority of Australian's.

- Rudd in 2009 ... made ‘no apologies’ for a ‘Big Australia’

- Australia’s population growth double the world average and faster than anywhere in Asia

- 72 percent of locally born Australians favoured a cap [on immigration rates].

- 69 percent of [Australian's] were opposed to Australia’s population increasing to 36 million by 2050

Next she shows there is a growing body of informed opinion on why such growth might not be a good idea. I would not accept most of her supporting references here on reputation alone, but these are OK:

- In recent times there has been an emergence of a genre of research theory that could be called collapseology.

- The idea that the world has reached critical limits is also seen in many scientifically respectable reports

Thus ends the introduction. Chapter 2 is a bit of a mishmash. Firstly she presents critiques on the "growth is desirable" arguments:

- ‘Australia’s population is projected to increase by 65% … by 2050. During the same period, the government is committed to cutting our carbon emissions by 60%.

- arguments is based .. population growth ameliorates the ageing of the population ... Even large differences in the level of net overseas migration will have a relatively small impact on the age distribution.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

- the Howard and the Rudd governments have imposed a 33 percent or greater hike in infrastructure requirement by doubling our population growth within a decade.

- justification for record high immigration: namely to provide scarce skills for the resources industry. ... Almost all the net growth in overseas migration currently located in Australia’s major metropolises or the adjoining growth areas like the Gold Coast.

Secondly she presents an overview of the population growth discussion in Australia. She expends a lot of words here, with a lot of referenced quotes. As a nerd I am much more comfortable with numbers than illustrative samples of 1. To put it bluntly without numbers I think she is just expending hot air on discussing hot air. But that is a nerd's view of politics, so I don't feel qualified to comment on her efforts.

The 3rd chapter is the heart of her book for me. Her argument stands or falls on whether she can show the world is heading for some sort of calamity. What I am looking for is this: models that convincingly reproduce what has happened, followed by projections from those models showing unpleasant things happening, which taken together add up to the purported calamity.

- The peak of oil discoveries was reached in the 1960’s ... The U.S. Joint Forces Command Report ... predicts that by 2015 the shortfall in world oil output will be about 10 million barrels a day

- Heinberg quotes a number of scientifically respectable sources[243] who have concluded that peak coal is likely to occur within 15 years at present usage rates.

- The orthodox view now is that since 1980 the average global temperature has increased by approximately 0.5°C and warming is occurring at a rate of 0.16°C a decade.

- peak oil (and energy) also means peak food as well

- each dollar of extra GDP generated in Australia requires 10 megajoules of fossil energy…37 litres of water and three square metres of land disturbance

(cond't...)

(...cont'd)

A nerd is looking at an arts student here, and I can't pretend to be impressed. While there is enough above to justify her central thesis that scarce resources will lead to collapse, there is far more evidence than she has presented. The explanation of the models is so weak I fear she doesn't understand the concept. She also weakens what should have been an overwhelming torrent of hard evidence by interspersing what she does present with opinions from various supporters, thus making the entire chapter feel like an opinion piece. Still, you asked for supportable facts and positions. They are there.

Chapter 4 is another mishmash of political opinion which I shall ignore, and more critiques of pro growth arguments:

- Western countries’ immigration rate, no matter how high, can never absorb enough people to have a meaningful impact on global poverty.

- the quality of life in Australian big cities, measured by declining indexes of livability, is falling and could get worse

- Even if immigration ceased altogether, Australian capital cities will still grow by around 50 per cent within two decades, with a cost to each resident for congestion of $ 1,000 per year

- Any reduction in emissions made through a cap or tax would be cancelled out by the subsequent increase in emissions of aggravated population expansion

Obviously she presents are lot more facts and references than I have listed above. As it is I have broken the 350 word limit twice in one post. Nonetheless I am hoping you will accept this as a "liberal serving of fact".

The ball is in your court, old boy.

Sounds like you agree with me on practically everything, rstuart. No shame in that.

Let's take a look.

>>First she demonstrates Australia's population is growing rapidly. It is happening because of deliberate policy settings by our political overlords, and this is against the wishes of the majority of Australian's [sic].<<

The policy part is true. The “against the wishes” part is arguably true, although much depends on the framing of the question. If you simply ask “do you think there are too many people in Australia?”, you will get an emotional, not a factual reaction. If you asked “would you like to be better off than you are?” you'd get an emotional response also. One thing is certain, you won't get an answer that is based on all the facts available.

>>Next she shows there is a growing body of informed opinion..<<

I am certainly willing to accept that the opinions are factual, i.e. haven't been invented. But they are still opinions. It was my task to show you the opinions, you were going to respond with facts.

>>‘Australia’s population is projected to increase by 65% … by 2050. During the same period, the government is committed to cutting our carbon emissions by 60%.<<

I would have thought that is a good thing. That's a 75% reduction in per capita emissions. Bewdy.

>>Even large differences in the level of net overseas migration will have a relatively small impact on the age distribution.<<

Depends whether you consider a 5.5% reduction “small”. Using the figures provided, that gives more than 60% increase in working-age people, compared with a zero-increase policy.

The rest of the polemic focusses on “peak” predictions. These are as valid today as Malthus' “peak food” predictions were in 1798, William Jevons' “peak coal” in 1865 or Ehrlich's 1968 “population bomb” were in their own times.

There was a time when oil was not used as fuel, but was considered a nuisance to farmers. I have no doubt we will find energy when we need it.

That's my opinion.

Pericles, once again, your reply is just based on your opinion. Talk about the pot calling the kettle "Black".

David

Fiona. So much trashtalk out there. Keep up your superb work. You totally get it. You're young, you're informed, you're smart and deeply aware. Your pen is your most powerful weapon, and you wield it like a master already!
If you haven't already done so, check out http://www.populationparty.com/Home/About-Us
You might consider joining (I did) and becoming a political activist as well!

Ummm... isn't this the right place for those opinion thingies, VK3AUU?

>>Pericles, once again, your reply is just based on your opinion. Talk about the pot calling the kettle "Black". David<<

As I have said, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. I have many of them, as do you, as does Ms Heinrichs. However, I don't attempt to pass off my opinion as being some kind of scholarly examination of facts, reaching a tablets-of-stone conclusion about an immensely complex topic.

I am simply pointing out to the author that her facts-lite approach does her cause no favours. And if she is serious about it, she will take note of the vast lacunae in her presentation, and do a better job next time.

If she carries on the way she has started, she will end up in the clutches of some self-regarding groupuscule such as that offered by Peterslaz:

>>Fiona. So much trashtalk out there. Keep up your superb work. You totally get it. You're young, you're informed, you're smart and deeply aware. Your pen is your most powerful weapon, and you wield it like a master already! If you haven't already done so, check out http://www.populationparty.com/Home/About-Us You might consider joining (I did) and becoming a political activist as well!<<

So much praise. Enough to turn a young gal's head.

Join them at your peril, Fiona, they will simply feed your ego until you stop thinking altogether, and march instead in lock-step with a bunch of lookit-me narcissists.

I suspect you might be better than that.

@Pericles: The rest of the polemic focusses on “peak” predictions. These are as valid today as Malthus' “peak food” predictions were in 1798

I was going to go to some effort to respond to this.

It's wrong on so many levels. Malthus was right. Look up the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe The title is unfortunate. Malthus didn't predict a catastrophe. His actual words quoted at the start of the article aren't a prediction. They are an accurate observation about the world mankind was living in at Malthus's time, and had been living in since time began. That not longer after those words were written the industrial removed food restriction doesn't mean he was wrong.

Anybody familiar with the maths Malthus uses knows this can only be a temporary suspension. It is only a question of how long it will last. Tim Fischer, CSIRO Plant Industry specialist in grain crops appeared recently on http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2011/3209647.htm : "can the world hope to feed 10 billion people in the future? ... It's a good question. I'm a supply-side person ... population increase in the next 20 years is going to be the hardest one ... Current growths of productivity are inadequate to need."

And you're right, those "peak" predictions are as sound Malthus's observations 2 centuries ago. Did you know production of several minerals have already peaked? http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3086 Since it has only been a few minerals so far we have been able to recycle and substitute. But the planet isn't a magic pudding. Most minerals and energy sources we are currently using will peak this century. Energy is a problem, as you can't recycle stuff you've burnt.

So I was all fired up to show that just like AGW, this peaking is the overwhelmingly accepted position of experts our western scientific culture has created. But then you said this:

@Pericles: author that her facts-lite approach

in response to an ebook that quoted more references than any article I've seen on OLO. I may as well be trying to produce a cargo cultist all those worldly goods were in fact produced by old fashioned hard work.

Are you sure about that rstuart?

>>Malthus was right. Look up the Wikipedia article<<

I don't usually take Wikipedia as the final word - more as a convenient starting-point for research - but since you refer to it, I'll use it here.

"...given the current (relatively low) population growth rate, the Malthusian catastrophe can be avoided by either a shift in consumer preferences or public policy that induces a similar shift."

This view takes into account human nature, as well as the mathematical ratio between exponential growth and arithmetic progression.

The other argument that I find persuasive is that we are not the slaves of mathematics, but the masters of it. When the population exceeds the earth's ability to feed itself, the population will "adjust itself" (i.e. people will either die, or fail to be born) accordingly. Rich-country interference in this process via food-aid and medical-aid programmes is part of the reason that this essentially natural management process is hidden from us.

We are currently sharing our material wealth and know-how with these less fortunate people, which is just as it should be. Should we however ever find ourselves in a position where this is detrimental to our own survival, I suspect - human nature being what it is - that we will stop.

At which point "nature will take its course". I.e., a lot of people will die.

In the meantime, of course, we will continue to develop alternate resources that presently are either inefficient or unaffordable.

And this is an irrelevance

>>...an ebook that quoted more references than any article I've seen on OLO<<

The vast majority of the references are merely the cited opinions of like-minded folk. Where it does tread into potentially authoritative reports, it falls flat on its face.

The reference to "A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia" is classic. That report states grandly that

"Population growth increases the size of the economy. It does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita"

Oh, really?

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html

But it does, doesn't it. Factually speaking, that is.

Dear Pericles,

There is no association between population growth and per capita economic growth.

See Bob Carr (Chair), Sustainable Development Panel Report: An Appendix to A Sustainable Population for Australia Issues Paper, Department for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, 2010 pp. 20-21, including Figure 4.1: Population vs per capita GDP growth.

You can download Carr's report from http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/publications/issues-paper.html. It's Appendix 3.

A measured response Pericles. Thanks.

@Pericles: At which point "nature will take its course". I.e., a lot of people will die.

Which I take means you acknowledge the possibility of Malthus running riot in a few places on the planet, just not here in Oz. So we are closer than I thought.

@Pericles: The vast majority of the references are merely the cited opinions of like-minded folk.

Granted it is a majority. But that is as you would expect. You would hope most of the stuff she is aware of supports her position. Nonetheless even in the references I quoted she presents, references and critiques the strongest pro-growth arguments.

@Pericles: But it [growing population] does [grow GDP per capita], doesn't it. Factually speaking, that is.

Given the simplistic way the question is put I'm inclined to say all of you are wrong, factually speaking. Or at the very least deliberately distorting the true picture.

There is no doubt in my mind there is a virtuous cycle of greater population leading to greater rate of technological advancement, leading to increased productivity which means greater GDP per capita. So yeah, in some sense you are right.

But you are only right when certain conditions are met. It hasn't worked so well yet in Africa or Australian Aboriginals because they haven't these preconditions. Things like that big population being well educated, with lots of well staffed, stable institutions, and having both disposable income and lots of infrastructure at their disposal. Infrastructure such as houses, roads, hospitals, banks, electricity, dams, water, sewage and.... When you try to write it down it is a very long list. More to the point it is dammed expensive to build. My wild guestimate would be one working Australia's lifetime is needed to build the infrastructure they and their dependants use.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

So if you grow the population instantaneously by 10%, the first thing that happens is everybody's living standard drops by 10% because they have to share that infrastructure. If you don't know what that feels like, I suggest asking someone in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne or Perth. Or perhaps take a peek at your last electricity bill. So in that sense "A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia" is right. Expanding population lowers per capita GDP for a decade or two.

But this "you are both right" answer hides a greater truth. That population / technology / gdp feedback loop you are relying on to be right - there is one minor point you overlooked. You are using it to justify population growth in Australia, but the benefits we experience from it has very little to do with our population growth.

All those wonderful new technologies we keep getting - mobile phones, cheaper PV solar, high efficiency diesel cars, ipads, the internet, microwaves, LCD TV's, electric bikes - they didn't come from us. Yes, they have come about because of a rising world population forcing the pace of technological development, but our contribution to this was minuscule. We are riding on the coattails of the rest of the world. I am not saying we don't do our bit, just that our bit is commensurate with what you'd expect from 22 million in a world of 2 billion or so well educated people.

To put it another way, ask yourself what would Australia look like now it we had frozen our population when I was young, at 12 million. Would we not have microwaves, dryers, eftpos, laser guided tractors, computers, traffic lights, CNC machines - all the things our productivity has risen on the back of, and that have allowed us to put women back into the workforce? Of course we would.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

So what would what effect would freezing out population have on standard of living in 50 years time? My guess is stuff all. It's the anti carbon tax argument in reverse. Just as whatever Australia does energy wise will have little effect on world CO2 output, whatever we do growth wise will have little effect on now technology advances and thus our GDP per capita. Ask Luxembourg. Their population growth 1960..2009 was 58%, ours 112%. Their GDP per capita in that period rose 451%, ours 170%. (Figures from: http://www.google.com/publicdata/overview?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_ & adjusted for inflation.)

I've just had to split this post into 3 posts, and whew, there is no need to point it out Pericles; I have spent far too many words explaining a point that could and perhaps should have been in Fiona's ebook. My excuse is I am trying to keep the score line tidy: successful rebuttals by Pericles to factual points made by Fiona: 0.

That was indeed the report from which I quoted, Jane Grey.

>>There is no association between population growth and per capita economic growth.<<

I didn't claim that there was. I was simply pointing out that the claim "[population growth] does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" was plainly in error. As the (presumably factual) statistics show, Australia has simultaneously a) increased its population and b) increased its per capita GDP.

>>So yeah, in some sense you are right.<<

That would be in the sense of factual accuracy, would it not rstuart.

>>You are using it to justify population growth in Australia, but the benefits we experience from it has very little to do with our population growth<<

I'm not "justifying" population growth. I'm trying to explain that it is not the bogeyman, or the slasher hiding behind the curtain, or the evil monkey in the bedroom closet. It happens as a result of perfectly normal human beings going about their daily business, and being good and worthwhile citizens.

As far as I am concerned, we experience a reasonable standard of living in this country. In fact, compared to many others, we are living it up, big time. It personally wouldn't worry me a scrap is we trebled our population, while maintaining the same GDP-per-capita. On current trends, we'd still be ahead of most.

And this is more than a little little cheeky:

>>successful rebuttals by Pericles to factual points made by Fiona: 0<<

I just gave you the contradiction in footnotes 325 and 326. That makes it precisely one-nil, to me.

Pericles,

You haven't refuted anything by showing that both population and per capita GNP have gone up. Correlation is not causation. A number of European countries rank very high on both the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index and the UN Human Development Index with very little or no population growth.

Globally, our standard of living is not sustainable because we are in overshoot, using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished, quite apart from depletion of non-renewable resources. If we consumed at the global average, we would have a standard of living about like that of Romania and, without the overshoot, about like that of Ghana. Nor is this (mostly) due to greedy Westerners consuming too much. The top billion are responsible for about 38% of consumption. See

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

In Australia, we export about 60% of our grain in an average year and much less in a drought year. China and other countries are buying or leasing agricultural land overseas precisely because they are not confident that the international market will be able to supply them in the future. We already have serious conflict over water, and our cities are putting in desalination plants, even though desalinated water costs 4 to 6 times as much as dam water. With peak oil, peak phosphorus, etc., agricultural inputs are going to become scarcer and more expensive. Your idea of blithely tripling the population is incredibly irresponsible. However, I suspect that there is as much chance of convincing you otherwise as of convincing runner of evolution.

@Pericles: I was simply pointing out that the claim "[population growth] does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" was plainly in error. As the (presumably factual) statistics show, Australia has simultaneously a) increased its population and b) increased its per capita GDP.

I am finding it difficult to believe you aren't being deliberately disingenuous. You are using a sample of 1, and assuming correlation implies causation. If you don't understand what this means Google "correlation causation", "anecdotal evidence" without the quotes. All that aside, did you bother to look at the reference Jane Grey posted? Figure 4.1 suggests if there is a relationship between population growth and a countries GDP/capita, it is the reverse of what you are suggesting. You are not debating runner or Philo here Pericles. No one is going to be convinced by convoluted reasoning or sleights of hand.

@Pericles: It personally wouldn't worry me a scrap is we trebled our population, while maintaining the same GDP-per-capita.

Nor would it worry me. But this is meaningless. This is like you saying "would you mind racing on suburb streets at 200 km/hr knowing there would be no accident?" We export roughly 50% of our food production, so if we trebled our population we would become a net food importer at a time when food prices are rising and our top agricultural scientists tell us the world is moving to a food deficit.

@Pericles: I just gave you the contradiction in footnotes 325 and 326

I missed it. Could you do me a favour and spell it out in simple terms?

@Pericles: And this is more than a little little cheeky

Maybe cheeky, but definitely accurate. You've posted 10 times here. Only one of those 10 contained a referenced rebuttal to the facts and reasoning presented by Fiona, and it was hopelessly weak. You haven't done us the common courtesy of digesting the arguments presented, and putting some thought into your replies.

Are you suggesting that it is coincidence, Divergence?

>>You haven't refuted anything by showing that both population and per capita GNP have gone up. Correlation is not causation.<<

The claim "[population growth] does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" could quite possibly be true, but there was no evidence presented for it.

You can argue causation until the cows come home to roost, whether an increase in population is the driver of higher per-capita GDP. But what is certainly true is that the two have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years.

Riddle me this. If the figures had been trending in the opposite direction, i.e. that all the time Australia's population has been growing, GDP per capita had been declining - would you have accepted my argument that they were totally unrelated facts? Be honest. You would have laughed me out of court.

rstuart, feel free to answer that one too.

Pericles has provided us with a fine examples of the intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation that passes for debate and argument these days.

"You can argue causation until the cows come home to roost, whether an increase in population is the driver of higher per-capita GDP. But what is certainly true is that the two have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years."

Did you see where I showed that countries with low population growth grew gdp per capita faster than high pop growth countries (There are too many people in the world)? Any assertion that growth in gdp per capita is a consequence of population growth is demonstrably false. The data I provided suggests that population growth inhibits growth in gdp per capita.

While those that would arrest human pop growth are often called misanthropists, I contend that the growthers who are willing to push humanity to inevitable misery and tragedy on a unimaginable scale are the true misanthropists. Are you relaxed and comfortable in this cocoon of materialistic self interest?

Have you any proof that the Earth isn't a finite entity? If you concede that it is finite then we can only assume you will also concede that unchecked human population growth will result in systemic collapse?

@Pericles: Riddle me this.

Ye gods. We are all begging you to give us reasoning from referenced facts instead of high falutin logic, and you pose a riddle?

@Pericles: rstuart, feel free to answer that one too.

Initially I wasn't going to, but then I realised answering gives me an opportunity to illustrate continuing the debate on this level is a waste of time.

@Pericles: If the figures had been trending in the opposite direction, i.e. that all the time Australia's population has been growing, GDP per capita had been declining - would you have accepted my argument that they were totally unrelated facts?

No we, or at least I, would not have accepted it. There are two reasons. Both have been given in previous posts. I am hoping you didn't understand what I said that time around, and if so it is probably my fault for not being clear. Which is another reason for taking the opportunity to have a second stab at it.

Firstly it's a sample of 1. Cherry picking an example to "prove" a point is not an uncommon deception here on OLO. You could have overcome that objection by referencing a graph like figure 4.1 of appendix 3 in Jane Grey's link. And of course it would have to demonstrate there is no simple relationship between the two. Two truly unrelated variables should have a uniform smattering of dots, like a blast from a paint gun.

The graph doesn't look like that, which brings us to the next reason. A best fit straight line on that graph data points shows a negative correlation between population growth and per capita growth. Ie, that graph seems to show "higher population growth implies lower per capita growth". So the two are related somehow. But it may be in a very distant way, so you can still prosecute a "they are aren't meaningfully related" argument with a bit of effort.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

The out is "correlation does not imply causation". To take a concocted example lets say our data is the heights of two buoys, floating on the tide. Clearly their heights will be strongly correlated. But does this mean the height of one buoy is directly determined by the height of the other? In other words, if we mechanically lifted the buoy, would the other follow? The point is, unless you are familiar with buoys and are aware there is a there is a third element involved here, the tide, that explains the strong correlation there is simply no way of knowing. Maybe the buoys are just two peaks on a hidden iceberg. It is logically impossible to derive that understanding just from looking at the data. So you have to supply model of what is going on, so people can understand why is it likely there is no direct connection. That involves some effort in presenting it, which you didn't do in this example. Because you didn't do it there is no reason to believe you, or disbelieve you for that matter. In fact there is no reason to believe you have a clue about what is actually going on.

Which brings me back to my original point. You didn't present a model that explained why the relationship in the data isn't causal, but this was only an hypothetical question so perhaps fair enough. The problem is you have repeated this pattern in all of your 11 posts here. In fact in all but one you haven't presented any new data at all. The nett result is you have expended a lot of words, but have not progressed the discussion, nor have you contributed to anybodies understanding of the topic. That is why there is no point in engaging you if you continue in this vein. The sad bit is, I'm know you are capable of something better than just repeating your beliefs like some religious mantra.

I'm not sure why you folk are deliberately misunderstanding my point here.

(Well, actually, I think I do know, but I'm too polite to point it out.)

You are both, Sardine and rstuart, reading what suits you into the facts that I am stating. In doing so, you are yourselves indulging in the "intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation" of which you accuse me.

>>Did you see where I showed that countries with low population growth grew gdp per capita faster than high pop growth countries<<

Well, yes, I did. But as you are both at pains to point out, correlation is not causation. You are drawing "conclusions" from data taken from a wide assortment of countries, and applying them to "why this should be shaping Australian public policy".

As the narrative associated with Figure 4.1 points out:

"The chart shows little clear relationship between per capita GDP and population growth for the majority of countries."

To then select only those examples that support your theory is surely putting the ideological cart before the statistical horse. And to apply those broad, global generalizations to Australia is a logical step too far. What conditions, economic, social or political, exist that make a comparison with Saudi Arabia, Gambia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Liberia, relevant to the Australian situation?

And this, I'm afraid Sardine, is totally irrelevant - but sadly, utterly typical...

>>Have you any proof that the Earth isn't a finite entity?<<

No, I don't. Given the subject here is a dissertation on Australian public policy, what is your point? That we should implement some form of global population control out of Canberra?

>>The sad bit is, I'm know you are capable of something better than just repeating your beliefs like some religious mantra.<<

Back atcha, rstuart.

So Pericles, if you say that "correlation is not causation" (after I have shown that, in similar Western economies, population growth appears to inhibit growth in GDP per capita), what evidence can you provide for your assertion that population growth and GDP per capita "have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years"? Have you any statistics and graphs at hand to support this claim?

You ask whether I believe "... we should implement some form of global population control out of Canberra?"

Yes. Domestic and foreign policy should both address this pressing issue. Providing a temporary 'release valve' for a problem that will continue is no solution to the problem.

What is your motivation to support domestic population growth? Is it economic? That link has been categorically disproven. Is it humanitarian? In which case why don't we boost humanitarian intake from a pi$$y 12,000-15000 p.a. asylum seekers and refugees and boost it to 50,000-70,000 p.a. so that we can carry some international responsibility (without growing our population)? If we do that, to remain socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, we'll have to ditch all forms of economic immigration. No problem in my book as, statistically, population growth in similar economies is shown to inhibit growth in GDP per capita.

Just the facts, Sardine. Just the facts.

>>...what evidence can you provide for your assertion that population growth and GDP per capita "have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years"? Have you any statistics and graphs at hand to support this claim?<<

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html

(You might need to cut-and-paste this one, for some reason the OLO editor cuts off before the closing bracket)

Here's the ABS version:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1383.0.55.001Main+Features132009

And here's the chart of population increase for you:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:AUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+increase+australia

You could have checked these yourself, you know, it's not that difficult.

So, rather than call it "my assertion", let's start calling it "the reality". Both statistics, population and per-capita GDP, have risen over the past thirty years. There hasn't been a single year when the population has increased and per-capita GDP has not.

I am not implying that the one leads to the other. I am simply pointing out that Australian history does not support the opposite assertion: that Australia's population growth causes a drop in per-capita GDP.

>>What is your motivation to support domestic population growth?<<

I don't "support domestic population growth", as you put it. In the same way that I don't "support" criminal behaviour, or urban decay, or online gambling. What I do object to is excessive government interference in the way we run our lives. And telling people how many children they may or may not have is interference of the most fundamental nature.

But you are clearly of a different mindset.

>>Domestic and foreign policy should both address [global population control]<<

You see, I find that attitude quite scary.

Pericles,

If you look at the figures in, say, the CIA World Fact Book, you will find no correlation between population size, density, or growth rate and GNP per capita among developed countries (i.e., scattering of datapoints). There is a negative correlation between population growth rate and GNP per capita among the poor countries. So it is hard to see how you could claim that there is a correlation in Australia and not other developed countries. Mining and agriculture, which furnish a lot of our wealth, employ relatively few people, so it could be argued that population growth dilutes the average person's share of the wealth from resource extraction. In Alaska, another resource rich place, the state actually pays dividends to the citizens rather than taxing them.

In any case, it is quite possible for GNP per capita to rise while the average citizen is no better off. Wages in the US have been more or less stagnant since 1973 for the bottom 90% of the population, with all of the benefits of growth going to the folk at the top. More people also mean more pressure on the environment and amenity. Australian ranks near the bottom of the developed world in international comparisons of environmental management, and our own government's Measuring Australia's Progress reports have shown progressive environmental deterioration.

http://epi.yale.edu/Countries

I doubt if anyone here is proposing any limitations on Australians' freedom to have children, as they are collectively making the right choices. What foreigners do is a matter for them. The Australian fertility rate is slightly below replacement level and has been since 1976. Without net immigration, we would get perhaps another million people before the growth ended. We could then stabilise or let the population slowly decline to whatever level we considered optimum. How is it any less a violation of people's freedom if the government forces unwanted population growth on them through mass migration? Or forces them to subsidise large families through the tax system, apart from heavily means tested welfare payments, when the extra people will be of no benefit to them or their children?

@Pericles: I am simply pointing out that Australian history does not support the opposite assertion: that Australia's population growth causes a drop in per-capita GDP.

You seem to be a little confused about who is asserting what. It is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship between population growth and GDP. Some people who want to see the population grow in Australia use "out per capita growth depends on it" as a justification. This is what is being refuted. It isn't difficult to do as the evidence is beyond weak - as the graph demonstrates if there is any relationship it is the reverse of what the people who want population growth claim. But don't get tripped up into thinking we are arguing there is a negative relationship. We don't care that it's negative.

Your nick implies a liking for philosophy. In philosophical terms, the argument being made by the people who promote population growth is "population growth _implies_ per capita growth". Ie A implies B. It is not at all uncommon for people to believe arguing against "A implies B" means you must be arguing for "A implies not B", ie "population growth _implies_ no per capita growth". This is what you are doing here. It is wrong, as in a 1+1=3 type of wrongness.

@Pericles: To then select only those examples that support your theory

No, we didn't do that. For the most part we don't have a theory. As I said, it is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship - hence no theory. That is the default state of the world - there are almost an infinite number of things with no relationship to each other, so asserting there is no relationship is not "having a theory". You are one the who seemed to be asserting there is a direct and positive relationship. But you seem to have backing away from that now. Good. Game over. We have won that round. Lets move other to the other arguments why population growth in Australia may or may not be a good idea.

@Pericles: Domestic and foreign policy should both address [global population control]. You see, I find that attitude quite scary.

Then I suggest you go hide in a box and pretend our scary world doesn't exist.

Because in the real world, we humans are now more interconnected than a colony of ants. Just like the ants if you broke down our social structures we would all die in short order. If the man in South Africa doesn't mine the diamonds to give to the man in Japan to make the drill bit the man in the Saudi Arabia uses to drill the for oil the man in Brisbane uses to produce diesel the man in Biloela uses the farm food, then you die. There is no fat on the land left for you to survive on, even if you knew how. We eat all that ages ago - just ask the Aborigines in central Australia. We now depend on each other to make what we need to survive.

And just like those ants, sometimes the colony has to make collective decisions on what is best for the colony. Decisions on things like "how many individuals can we safely support", or for that matter "which side of the road should we drive on". There is no escape from this because if our "colony" does not seek to protect and adapt in a changing world it will die. If it dies you die. As I said, if this scares you the best you can do is retreat into the rabbit hole Peter Hume or Jardine K. Jardine live in.

It didn't used to be like this. Millennia ago when we lived in small autonomous groups band of 100 or so people could choose their own destinies, if they so wished. Subsequent population growth has taken the choice of living like this away from us.

Blimey, I never thought it would be this difficult to get one simple point across.

I understand why you have called yourself Divergence. Once again, we diverge from the point.

>>There is a negative correlation between population growth rate and GNP per capita among the poor countries. So it is hard to see how you could claim that there is a correlation in Australia and not other developed countries<<

Actually, I'm not entirely sure that sentence makes sense. But one thing needs to be said, and that is, for the absolute last time, I am not claiming a correlation.

Not. Any.

Once more into the breach...

The article we are all supposed to be discussing refers, in its footnotes claims, to "A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia", which claims that:

"Population growth increases the size of the economy. It does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita"

I am simply pointing out that the history of Australia, at least since 1980, demonstrates the opposite trend. While the population has grown over that period, per-capita GDP has also grown. So the sentence could be more accurately rewritten as follows:

"Population growth has increased the size of our economy. It has also made Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita".

I make no comment, observation, claim or assertion as to cause and effect. I have merely pointed out a glaring disconnect in the reference material used by our sainted author.

And where on earth did this come from, rstuart?

>>It is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship between population growth and GDP.<<

Who is the "us" of whom you speak?

Because I could draw your attention to a number of folk, including the author of the article we are discussing, who clearly assert the opposite.

I don't know about you, but I am now completely confused as to who is arguing what, and with whom.

But do me a great favour, and stop inventing stuff that you think I mean, and start reading the words I have written.

Pericles, I've already given examples of low pop growth nations increasing GDP per capita faster that fast pop growth nations. Japan's pop is decreasing and the GDP per capita is increasing.

http://tinyurl.com/3wf47y3
http://tinyurl.com/3pxlkza

Other contributors get it, why do you still labor under the misapprehension that growth in GDP per capita requires population growth?

"I am simply pointing out that Australian history does not support the opposite assertion: that Australia's population growth causes a drop in per-capita GDP."

I didn't say that. I wrote that on prima facie evidence (based on comparisons between similar economies), higher population growth rates correlate with slower growth in GDP per capita. That's not a drop, it's inhibited growth (i.e slower growth rate) and it is empirically demonstrable.

Perhaps you are not dishonest after all, it may simply be that you lack comprehension?

"And telling people how many children they may or may not have is interference of the most fundamental nature."

There is a difference between telling people how many children to have and having policies that provide incentives to breed.

"You see, I find that attitude quite scary." What? The concept of governments governing?

In your latest comment you wrote "But one thing needs to be said, and that is, for the absolute last time, I am not claiming a correlation."

Is that right? Well why did you write this...

"Population growth increases the size of the economy. It does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" (quoting the article)

Oh, really?

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html

But it does, doesn't it. Factually speaking, that is."

and this in reference to the same quoted extract...

"I am simply pointing out that the history of Australia, at least since 1980, demonstrates the opposite trend."

I expect more verbose sophistry to explain how you didn't really mean what you wrote. Not related to Tony Abbott are you?

How can we take you seriously?

@Pericles: It is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship between population growth and GDP. ... Who is the "us" of whom you speak

I guess that would be the people who are rebutting the following argument, which I will quote from the post: "population growth _implies_ per capita growth".

@Pericles: But do me a great favour, and stop inventing stuff that you think I mean, and start reading the words I have written.

Fair enough. As you spotted I did apparently manage to misconstrue these words of yours:

@Pericles: "Population growth ... does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" Oh, really? ... But it does, doesn't it. Factually speaking, that is.

I removed the double negatives arising from the quote and response, and read "Population growth does make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita". But that chain of reasoning has lead me astray.

You now make it plain:

@Pericles: I am not claiming a correlation.

I hear you. So you are just pointing out two random uncorrelated facts, "like the price of eggs rose in China" and "I fell over my slippers today".

@Pericles: I am simply pointing out that the history of Australia, at least since 1980, demonstrates the opposite trend.

Ahh, but wait you now saying in the same post they demonstrate a trend. But doesn't a trend mean if the price of eggs rise in China again, I am likely to fall over my slippers again? But if that were true they wouldn't be uncorrelated events.

I fear you will say I am confused yet again. So help me, Pericles, you are right - I don't understand your words. What do you really mean?

@Pericles: I could draw your attention to a number of folk, including the author of the article ... who clearly assert the opposite.

Don't be so bashful Pericles. Quote them. It makes it so much easier to discuss something when if is clear what particular instance you are referring to.

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

I don't know how many times I need to say this, but given the scorn, sarcasm and plain nastiness that seems to have become the norm here, I will try to spell it out, just one more time.

1. The article claims that "Collapseology should be shaping Australian public policy"

2. The author states in justification that "[The Sustainable Development Panel's] conclusion was that Australia is not living sustainably even now [325] and that a ‘Big Australia’ is not required for economic prosperity [326]."

http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/publications/pubs/sustainable-development-panel-report.pdf

3. Footnote [326] referred to the statement in the report that "Population growth increases the size of the economy. It does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita (the most accepted measure of living standards)."

4. I stated that this is inaccurate, and provided statistics that clearly show that i) the population has increased and ii) per-capita GDP has grown as well. I made no claims as to causation, simply drawing attention to the massive discrepancy between the claim, and the empirical evidence.

The report offers simple sentences, written in English. The statistics are genuine, ABS-sanctioned numbers. The two - the sentences and the numbers - are completely and utterly irreconcilable.

Why you are unable to accept this, is entirely beyond me. Which part of it remains a mystery to you?

You're a rich source of irony Pericles. We might need to put a tax on that.

"This is Alice in Wonderland stuff."

Yeah, that would be appropriate.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

And speaking of scorn:

"given the scorn, sarcasm and plain nastiness that seems to have become the norm here"

And that would be when I arrived here. You were awfully brave when you attacked a soft target like a pack of wolves weren't you? And now here you are manfully batting away your own 'no balls' while braveheart snipers like cheryl/malcolm et al have deserted you and scuttled off into the shadows as is their usual M.O.

Just to be clear here Pericles, you have asserted directly that growth in GDP per capita is correlated with population growth with the inference being that the former is a consequence of the latter.

Have we reached a point where you'll concede that, even with cursory examination of data, you were wrong and the reality of the relationship in advanced Western economies appears to be the opposite?

To be honest Pericles, I don't think your response will matter much as I've seen enough of your psychopathological pink bits. Someone has to have the decency to stick a fork in your ar$e and flick you off the hotplate. You're done.

Excellent researched book. The problem is worldwide, not just Australia. Yes, including the U.S.

Ocean fish stocks are being depleted. Coral reefs are dying from fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide runoff from lawns and farms. Fish farms are using antibiotics that are finding their way into the oceans. Land based farms are doing the same. The escaping antibiotics are nurturing drug resistant microbes. Aquifers are being drained. Water tables are dropping. The stress of so many people on the planet is polluting the air and water, and ground in some places. In America the once mighty Colorado River is now only a trickle as it exits the U.S. into Mexico. The once mighty Rio Grande is well on its way to a similar fate and the Chattahoochie River is the subject of a great deal of intense contention for water use. The Mississippi River also has problems arising from over population that would require much more explanation than should appear in The Forum.

Studies that tell us we can feed 7 billion people do not tell us the rest of the story, the damage caused by the stresses of producing that much food.

That myopia also predominates pronouncements of growth. Whether there is economic growth or not is taken as though it is progress. The fact is that there is no definition of progress, or there are at least 6 billion different definitions depending on your attitude.

Economists are highly educated, brilliant people who can measure economic activity to 15 decimal places, accordingly that is where they put all of their focus. It would be interesting to read an economist who talks about the impact of growth on environment and quality of life.

<End of Part 1>

<Part 2 begins>

One comment in The Forum opined that the over population problem in Mexico might be moderating. Mexico's working age population increases by 1,000,000+ more people than Mexico creates new jobs - EACH YEAR! That 1,000,000 is migrating to the U.S. looking for jobs here. I am sure the international press has kept the reader up to date on the difficulties in the U.S. job market and economy.

I have personally met, gotten to know and worked with many immigrants (all legal) from many different nations, African as well as Latin and South America and all have been good, hardworking people. The individual immigrants are not the problem, it is the sheer numbers and we are having numbers problems here.

Man plays God all of the time, but takes credit for it when it is something that feels good. Man has eliminated small pox, almost polio, saved billions of lives through medical research. No one talks about that being an instance in which Man has played God, but God's original order of things relied on a balance which has now been destroyed.

Alteration of God's original plan as we have has to be balanced with self control as to the size of the human population we demand the Earth (i.e. God) support. It is good to relieve grief and stress saving lives but to preserve God’s balance Man has to take responsibility for self discipline in producing new lives. Many of the children who have suffered so horribly in the droughts that have lasted years were conceived after the droughts started. Immigration controls alone cannot fix the problem.

Mother Nature is not nearly so benevolent as Man when imbalances are corrected.

We have met the enemy and it is us.

Pure delusion, Sardine.

>>And that would be when I arrived here.<<

What makes you think this is about you?

>>You were awfully brave when you attacked a soft target like a pack of wolves weren't you?<<

Ummm, where did I do that? When I questioned the writer's flimsy logic, absence of fact and selective supporting opinion? Well, boo hoo.

>>Just to be clear here Pericles, you have asserted directly that growth in GDP per capita is correlated with population growth with the inference being that the former is a consequence of the latter.<<

Just to be clear, that is absolute bull, and you know it.

The only reason you are still blustering along is because you know this to be the absolute opposite of my position. I merely pointed out (how many times does this need to be said, I wonder) that the available statistics are completely contradictory to the assertion found in the report, which in turn was used to support the author's argument.

If there was any correlation happening (and rstuart thinks there wasn't, so it may be moot) it was in the use of the report to support the author's "collapseology" theories. And if there was not, what was the point of referring to it in the first place?

Here's your own contribution on the topic.

>>Did you see where I showed that countries with low population growth grew gdp per capita faster than high pop growth countries<<

Are you by any chance drawing an inference here? No faux-indignation about causation and correlation there, eh.

And you must be proud of this parting shot.

>>To be honest Pericles, I don't think your response will matter much as I've seen enough of your psychopathological pink bits. Someone has to have the decency to stick a fork in your ar$e and flick you off the hotplate. You're done.<<

Classic. You need to freshen up your insults, Sardine, as well as your comprehension skills.

Incidentally, where's your response to "which part don't you understand"? Too busy composing that scintillating valediction, I guess.

Goodbye.

@Pericles: Why you are unable to accept this, is entirely beyond me. Which part of it remains a mystery to you?

You sound surprised we can't get past this. If so this is one thing we agree on. It seems to be such a simple thing and at least by OLO standards both sides have put considerable effort into getting past it.

I don't think putting more effort into it is going to yield anything. We have hit the limitations of what can be achieved on a web forum. That is, at least to me, an interesting thing in itself.

Thanks Pericles, for the considerable time you put into attempting to understand the other side of the debate. Doing so is a virtue rare enough on OLO to be worthy of praise when it is seen.

... and with a theatrical flourish Pericles flounces out of the room/ exit stage right.

That's something of an admission, rstuart.

>>I don't think putting more effort into it is going to yield anything<<

The fact that you consider recognizing the discrepancy requires "more effort" should be of some concern to you. If anything was plainer, more obvious or more crystal-clear, it would leap out from your keyboard and whack you over the head.

Nice try, Sardine.

>>... and with a theatrical flourish Pericles flounces out of the room/ exit stage right.<<

I was under the impression it was you that was leaving.

@Pericles: If anything was plainer, more obvious or more crystal-clear, it would leap out from your keyboard and whack you over the head.

Now now. We are currently staring at each others posts and seeing the same thing behind them - an intransigent, stubborn old fart who clearly can't see something as plain as the nose on his face.

For some reason, this has me chuckling to myself. That has to be an improvement on my reaction a few decades ago, which would have more one of frustration and anger. Some things do improve with age.

<Population growth has increased the size of our economy. It has also made Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita>

Utter baloney, Pericles; and you know as much. Now, if you could show that people would not have prospered as well without the population growth, you might have something. And I think that the ballooning infrastructure deficits and government debt, and declining housing affordability would suggest that population growth has a downside. I mean, you pop growth people are always telling us how we must save enough for retirement. Have you ever considered that massive infrastructure costs and high house prices could be a significant impediment to this aim?