Divergence, what ever the anti-population movement is, it is certainly anti-immigration.
I am for immigration.

The report Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, Productivity Commission Report (2006) could not make a definitive finding on whether immigration benefited GDP (a measure the anti-pops hate without understanding it)

"Any analysis of the labour market adjustment arising from immigration needs to accommodate a relatively high degree of labour market segmentation (for example, labour differentiated by skill and occupation). This is especially the case for Australia, where migration policy targets immigrants in specified occupations and skills."

This is currently what is happening now with Government policy.

Instead of population growing, it is levelling off in many European nations as well as some developed Asian nations. Africa is a different matter but even then, the UN isn't using single lens theory, ie, the sum total of our critical faculties revolves around the notion of population. There are colonial factors, corruption, tribalism, etc.

The finite resources argument is specific to non-renewables. The earth is an open system with energy being driven by the sun but that's another issue. When we run our of zinc, iron ore and about a dozen other metals, there will be universal rooning but glee on the part of the anti-pops.

The finite world argument on metals is right. No doubt about it. It's strange that the anti-pops preclude technology from addressing some of the problems of energy use (alternatives), or development of synthetics, or restocking our fish stocks ...They blame technology like Pol Pot blamed education.

In Australia, the various anti-population movements will probably get a few votes as they will run a fear campaign. But they will be targeted as racist throwbacks. They are Pauline Hanson with a beard and a science degree.

(cont'd)

People become aware of source of the problems, as shown by Boylesy's link to the poll. Even those who haven't connected all the dots are still unhappy about the crowding, high housing and utility costs, and crumbling infrastructure and public services, unhappy enough to throw out governments.

The problem is that the people at the top still benefit from population growth, even though the ordinary person receives no benefit and may even be made worse off. This is because more people still mean a bigger total economy, and the distributional effects associated with the growth benefit owners of capital at the expense of everyone else. Land near jobs and infrastructure becomes extremely valuable, for example. So we are indeed "enemies of the state" for opposing population growth, if that state is run by and for the top 1%, but we are friends of the people.

In the final stage, the society is approaching collapse. The elite start to realise that further population growth is a threat to them and not just to the average punter. If that growth is coming from natural increase, you then start to see really nasty population control measures such as forced sterilisations. Far from promoting such things, we are trying to avoid the need to have to choose between such brutality and a collapse that will kill enormous numbers of people.

Hehe Cheryl. Restocking our fishstocks :)

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/massive_outbreak_of_jellyfish_could_spell_trouble_for_fisheries/2359/

You don't seem to understand how things interlink in that natural
world out there, you should get outdoors more.

The Japanese are learning the hard way. We'll go out and plunder
those fishstocks. Next the fish which used to eat the small jellyfish
are gone and whole villages had to stop fishing as all they were
catching was ever more Nomura jellyfish! Only a lot of pain will
ever wake up some of you, so learn the hard way.

In the final stage, the society is approaching collapse"

Well Divergence, why don't you and Yabby get together and re our depleted fish stocks, use market capitalism to not only renew them but make a few bucks at the same time. It'd stop your whinging and with a mate like Yabby, he's bound to know a few things about aquaculture.

Because both of you know bugger all about economics or Marxism.

As it happens Cheryl, I know a fair bit about aquaculture. As they
say, if you want to make a small fortune in aquaculture, start with
a large one. So all I'd need is a few dopey investors such as
yourself and I'll enrich myself, whilst helping you lose your shirt.

But now you want me to take grain from those starving African
and Indian babies, which we cannot feed now and feed it to the
fish. You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole here, Cheryl.

Have you ever thought of a bit of family planning for the third
world? You just need to convince the pope. Not even he will use
his billions tucked away in the Vatican Bank, to feed the starving
babies.

Cheryl,

As far as I know there is agreement that more people do mean a bigger GNP, at least in countries such as Australia. But why should you care if the pie is getting bigger, if your own slice has stayed the same size, or even shrunk, and no longer has a cherry on top.

This is from p. 154 of the 2006 Productivity Commission Report, where they modelled the effects of a big increase in skilled migration.

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grows more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages."

This is consistent with the findings of other reports around the world, such as the 1997 Academy of Sciences report in the US and the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK. Prof Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) writes in the (London) Telegraph 5/7/06:

"As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

When I discussed tough population control measures, I was thinking of places such as India and China, not Australia, because immigration and thus growth could just be cut off here if necessary. The Chinese certainly believed that they were averting collapse.

Zhao Baige, vice minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission - "The one-child policy was the only choice we had, given the conditions when we initiated the policy."