But of course, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, when you get around to it, could you point out the apparent contradiction. Either this, or admit that there is NO contradiction here, if you would be so kind. No rush. Take the whole weekend if you like.<<

It will be my pleasure.

Your starting point:

>>...which is more important to you – effectively dealing with congestion or allowing our population to rapidly increase with no end in sight?<<

Your proposition is that EITHER you can deal with congestion, OR you must allow population to rapidly increase with no end in sight.

Seemed a little harsh. But under questioning, you elaborate that this is in fact your position, that these are the only choices available:

>>...it IS INDEED a matter of being either genuinely concerned about congestion or being a high-population-growth advocate<<

This leaves no valid alternative scenarios available to you. Such as being concerned about congestion, but at the same time being able to advocate low population growth. This, according to the strict instructions you have given us in the... shall we call it the "INDEED" position, is inadmissible.

But lo, what light through yonder Ludwig breaks?

The inadmissible appears now to be... admissible!

Your second position:

>>Yes we can support a LOW population-growth scenario while genuinely working towards improving congestion<<

Oh dear.

Wikipedia (yes, I know. But I don't have all weekend) describes this as follows:

"In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other."

Egg, meet Ludwig's face.

Red, isn't it.

Have a great weekend.

(cont'd)

Of course Australia could support a much bigger population on a Bangladeshi standard of living, but why should we sit still for it? I have linked to the 2006 Productivity Commission report into immigration, which showed that per capita economic benefits from mass migration are trivial (see graph on p.155) and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, while wages are depressed for everyone else (see the graph on p. 147). Our current 1.5% population growth rate will double the population in 46 years (hardly moderate), so it isn't surprising that our goverment can't keep up with the infrastructure requirements, even though it is taking a bigger share of GDP than in the 1970s when tertiary education was free and the aged pension wasn't means tested. All that a bigger population means for the average Australian is more competition for jobs, housing, public services, and amenities in a more unequal society

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=620&page=64

This is a high price to pay for making Pericles richer.

There is also a price to pay in terms of the environment. Every additional person means extra pressure on the environment, and Australia already ranks near the bottom of the developed world on environmental management.

http://epi.yale.edu/epi2012/rankings

The government's own State of the Environment and Measuring Australia's Progress reports show every environmental indicator progressively getting worse, apart from urban air quality, where a lot of the pollution has been "offshored" and there are some good technological solutions.

Wow, you threw that together quickly Pericles… and doesn’t it show!

Example 1. NO CONTRADICTION PRESENT!

We CANNOT effectively deal with congestion if we allow our population to rapidly increase with no end in sight.

What is so hard about this for you to understand? And why are you so desperate to label it as a contradiction when it is patently obvious to any readers of this thread that there is no contradiction present?

What is your weird game plan here Pericles? To destroy your credibility entirely in the eyes of all those who are reading this debate??

Example 2. NO CONTRADICTION PRESENT!!

If you are a high population growth advocate, you CANNOT be genuinely concerned about congestion in our major cities!

Now for goodness sake, before you go out for drinkies with your mates on this Friday evening, do wipe that silly looking egg off your face!

Oh, and remember this minor point – high population growth is not the same thing as low population growth.

Now do go out and have a lovely evening with your chums.

And don’t drink too much!

This is getting very silly, Ludwig.

If you are unable to see that there are more possibilities than your straight alternative "either deal with congestion, or love rapid population with no end in sight", then it will take a lot more than my meagre intellect to set you straight.

Maybe someone else, more patient than I, can help you out.

"Ahhh, there is SFA that we can do about it. In fact, I think that our best possible efforts will only result in one thing - drawing out the inevitable a bit longer and increasing the magnitude of the crash."
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 4 October 2009 9:47:57 AM

Well done Mr Trevor.

Thankyou for scrolling back through my old posts, or for remembering this significant statement for more than three years. I’m impressed!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9515#152088

.

Come on Pericles, you can do better than that!