""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.