@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.