regarding homeless:
http://mobile.news.com.au/news/thousands-of-kids-among-homeless-as-national-rate-of-homelessness-rises-by-17-per-cent/story-fnejlrpu-1226515283870

how much more of this is ok with Pericles, Dallas and WMTrevor?

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/how-much-can-the-koala-bear-20120216-1tas3.html

you need to make up your mind because the window is closing very quickly. Or perhaps you have already and you simply don't care.

<< You have somehow convinced yourself that this country has problems with "water supplies, stressed services and infrastructure, congestion, environmental degradation, quality of life, more restrictions, etc, etc." Problem is, these compaints exist only in your mind. >>

Okaaaaay. Only in my mind eh?? Hmmmm. I wonder how many people would agree that all of those concerns are non-existent in the real world?

Pericles, I think you have just shot yourself down in flames by completely dismissing these very real and enormously significant issues. In fact I’m amazed that you would go so far. This is an enormously polarised statement. You could have played down some of these issues to some extent or questioned the connection with population growth, but it is just crackers to dismiss them altogether. Even the most rampant pro-growth business leaders and politicians wouldn’t go that far, for fear of complete ridicule!

Now, you reckon that our government is doing too much when it comes to impositions upon us. And yet they are inherently lazy do-nothings that would do even less if immigration was brought right down!!

Um... that really doesn't add up.

They are bad for making lots of rules, regulations, taxes and levees and at the same time bad for being lazy, but very good for keeping the immigration rate right up!

Now that just totally doesn’t add up!

Another nutty statement:

<< …especially when their revenues start to dry up, as they inevitably will under your stagnation plans. >>

No of course government revenues will not dry up if our population is stabilised.

Your post is entirely negative towards a stable population but you have offered nothing to support high growth. You haven’t answered my question.

So I ask again: why on earth do you want near record high immigration, or as you would call it; moderate immigration?

What is it going to do for us? How is it going to improve our lives and future wellbeing?

Pericles says

“You have somehow convinced yourself that this country has problems with ‘water supplies, stressed services and infrastructure, congestion, environmental degradation, quality of life, more restrictions, etc, etc.’ Problem is, these compaints exist only in your mind.”

But what Pericles has not told everyone is that he lives in the prestigious upper north shore suburb of Wahroonga part of a district Wikipedia describes as

“The affluent area is known for its clean leafy streets, stately homes and high property prices…The region is home to hundreds of parks and reserves”

Not fortress Australia but near enough to fortress Wahroonga
It is far far far removed from most of the noise, the pollution, and congestion.

No wonder he can shout "squeeze a few miilion more immigrants in"

I'll bet not many end up living next door to Pericles.
And those few who make it to Wahroonga will be well heeled

The next thing Pericles will be doing will be telling the rest of us to eat cake.

What a hypocrite

That is hilarious, KarlX

>>But what Pericles has not told everyone is that he lives in the prestigious upper north shore suburb of Wahroonga<<

The reason why I haven't told everyone this is that it is entirely and completely wrong. Not even close. Even Ludwig could have told you that I am a city person - Wahroonga is beyond the Black Stump as far as I am concerned.

>>I'll bet not many end up living next door to Pericles.<<

Wrong again. Not that it has anything to do with either you or this discussion, but I live in one of the more densely populated areas of Sydney.

Pretty pathetic, though, to start your own personal class warfare, in lieu of coherent argument.

Equally bizarre is Matt Moran's koala defence. Putting the survival of animal species ahead of the well-being of humans, verges on self-hatred in my book. Where do you draw the line? That's a serious and entirely germane question, by the way.

And it seems that we are still operating in imagination-land, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, I think you have just shot yourself down in flames by completely dismissing these very real and enormously significant issues.<<

Merely asserting that the issues are real and enormous doesn't make them so, you know. You need some factual data to back up your views, not just idle speculation, wondering "...how many people would agree that all of those concerns are non-existent in the real world?".

Incidentally, just another word about that black/white thing. For most people, the opposite of "real and enormous" is not "non-existent". Just sayin'.

>>No of course government revenues will not dry up if our population is stabilised.<<

As your stable population ages, which it inevitably will, fewer people remain in the workforce, while more become dependent upon government handouts for their survival as they age. Government revenues from taxation will diminish, while expenditure increases. Which part of that equation remains an impenetrable mystery to you?

As an advocate of expanding government control over our lives (for our own good, of course), you should take that calculation to heart.

Pericles,

Here is a link to the 2011 State of the Environment Report for Australia, including a summary:

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/index.html

Alarming enough for you? Australia also ranks near the bottom of the developed world in international rankings of environmental management.

http://epi.yale.edu/dataexplorer/tableofmainresults

But you know better than Ludwig, who studies aspects of the environment all the time, right? Your attitude towards other species just goes to show how divorced urbanites like you are from the biophysical basis of their survival.

If a stable population is so bad economically, then why have countries such as Switzerland, Finland, and Japan, with very little or no population growth been performing so well? These countries already have the age structure that is frightening you so much. As someone who debates Arjay so credibly, surely you understand that immigration to keep the population young is a Ponzi scheme? Those young migrants (and a lot them aren't so young) will grow old too, just like everyone else, and we won't be able to deport them once they outlive their value to the economy. They will also need health care and pensions. What happens then? More and more migrants until we reach standing room only?