a good quote which sums up a big part of the problem well. If we acknowledge the the rational preposition that we have limits and that we're actually consuming beyond these limits now, then we can have a mature discussion on how best to move forward:

Archdruid Report's John Michael Greer: 'We have a national mythology that limits are always bad – to be limited, to be limiting. This from people who depend every moment on the floor limiting their capacity to fall into the basement. In fact, we have a national phobia of limits, and we need to get past that. We need to deal with the facts that limitations are real, that limits are actually good for us. You know, Mom’s hands holding us up when we were trying to take our first step, those were very powerful limits. They kept us from bruising our nose on the floor. And many limits function the same way.

We need to come to terms with the fact that we don’t have limitless energy, we don’t have limitless resources, we don’t have limitless time. All of these things are specific. They function within a finite world. And engaging in hand waving about well, human ingenuity is limitless. No, it isn’t. Okay, it may be immense, but it’s not limitless.'

I couldn't help it but to think about this State intervention thing anew, Pericles - the scale has been lifted from my teeth - it was the article about the impact of the population in the north of Australia on the koalas that did it...

Enough of this fissparting around waiting until there is better resource management. We need action now and I know where to draw the line.

Fortunately, the solution is simple - I propose that, effectively, we close Queensland with the extirpation of all placental mammals from it.

[I considered the idea of invoking national service for dole recipients to relocate the dingo fence – it is a pest-exclusion device after all – to the NSW, NT border but wasn't sure if that was a step too far?]

We can't create population growth issues in other states because of the hassles they create, as described by others, above – so the human mammals will just have to go somewhere else. To their maker, maybe? Whatever. Not my problem.

There are several advantages to this proposal. It took no effort to think it up, other people will have to do it, figures can be used to prove its advantages along with any number of self-evidently justifiable claims, for example 'the greater good' or the 'well being of the majority of Australians', objections can be dismissed as personally selfish or 'vested-interests', plus it won't affect me in the least or cause me any concern.

Oh, and Blair the koala won't have to worry about being hit by a car a third time but he will have to cope with his chlamydiosis by himself. Nature can be a harsh mistress, but I'm told some like that sort of thing.

Personally I'm more concerned for numbats and propose an accelerated selective breeding program – like Belyaev did with silver foxes. In lieu of cats, they'd be great to have around the house and simultaneously help stop the termites eating it.

Whether or not they are the final type, this finding solutions stuff is easy, and more fun than merely complaining.

Well at least someone's paying attention, its a pity Canberra isn't. Last month Cubby Station, this week 15000 prime agricultural hectares in WA - productive assets sold off for short term cash injections by a government incapable of properly costing population growth
http://m.businessspectator.com.au/businessspectator/#!/article/Dutch-disease-GFC-economy-SME-NAB-commodities-mini-pd20121114-ZZQR7?OpenDocument&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=132978&utm_campaign=pm&modapt=commentary&modapt=commentary

Pericles, our disagreement about the immigration intake being rapid or moderate is moot.

It still requires justification.

The current immigration rate is NOT the fall-back position whereby every other scenario would need strong justification except the current one!

The very notion of this is just plain crackers. It needs to be justified just as much any other scenario.

Well, at long last, under great duress, you have finally given us some idea of your reasoning, or I should say; lack thereof:

<< My reason is, quite simply, that we have an acceptable rate in the context of maintaining a solid economic performance, one that benefits all Australians >>

Simple is right! A solid economic performance does not translate into a solid per-capita economic performance while we have very rapid population growth accompanying high economic growth. It benefits new Australians, but it doesn’t do much for the average established Australian citizen.

And of course, your positive outlook would be somewhat different if you didn’t outrightly dismiss all the major issues that I mentioned a couple of posts back, which you say exist only in my head, like traffic congestion, stressed water supplies, over-burdened and under-maintained infrastructure and services of all sorts, etc, etc.. . all of which are actually worsening under the high-immigration regime.

Your dismissal of these things really is amazing. I still can't quite believe this extraordinary development in our discussion. All of these things only exist in my head eh. Wow!

Your justification for RAPID population growth is extremely flimsy, selective… and just plain wrong.

Moot, Ludwig?

>>Pericles, our disagreement about the immigration intake being rapid or moderate is moot.<<

I was under the impression that this is in fact the central issue: you regard immigration as rapid, I regard it as appropriate to the circumstances. Fit for purpose, to borrow the jargon.

>>It still requires justification.<<

And that is exactly what I am attempting to discover from you, the justification for changing a perfectly adequate and appropriate policy, simply in order to meet your personal views on the impact of immigration. I feel no similar compulsion to "justify" the status quo, for the simple reason that I consider that there are greater dangers in interference, than in letting it run.

>>The current immigration rate is NOT the fall-back position whereby every other scenario would need strong justification except the current one!<<

As you see, we can disagree on this point also. Change requires justification, except where the existing position is causing damage. You have yet to point out this damage, unless you count unsupported gestures towards "traffic congestion, stressed water supplies, over-burdened and under-maintained infrastructure and services of all sorts, etc, etc.. . all of which are actually worsening under the high-immigration regime."

I would happily join a street demonstration on the topic, where we chant:

"What do we want?" "Maintain the status quo!" "When do we want it?" "Now!".

For some reason, they don't seem to happen much.

It may look differently from your eyrie in FNQ, but as a city type I can tell you that the immigration/population problem is minuscule, compared to the abysmal management by successive governments of exactly the problems you identify.

Oh, and before I go...

>>A solid economic performance does not translate into a solid per-capita economic performance<<

Sorry, but that is precisely what it has done, according to the official numbers. If you have a problem with those, discuss it with the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I wrote:

>> Pericles, our disagreement about the immigration intake being rapid or moderate is moot. <<

You answered:

<< I was under the impression that this is in fact the central issue >>

Not at all. It is still the same level of immigration no matter what you call it. And it still requires justification.

<< And that is exactly what I am attempting to discover from you >>

None is none so blind as he who refuses to see. All the compelling evidence that Divergence, Matt Moran and others have put to you, you choose to just simply dismiss!

This is so extraordinary. On the one hand you purport to be partaking in a sensible debate on this subject, but on the other hand you are completely off the rails.

How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously if you just outrightly dismiss the issues that I mentioned, for the umpteenth time, in my last post, or those that other posters put to you?

I mean, anybody reading this discussion, even those who desire high and continuous growth, would know full well that these issues are real and are connected to population growth.

You might be able to argue that these negative impacts of population growth are outweighed by positive factors, but to just dismiss all of these things and say that they only exist in my head, is beyond ludicrous!

<< I can tell you that the immigration/population problem is minuscule, compared to the abysmal management by successive governments of exactly the problems you identify. >>

You can tell me that if you ignore traffic congestion, stressed water supplies, over-burdened and under-maintained infrastructure and services of all sorts, etc, etc, then the current immigration intake / total population growth rate is minuscule.

continued