The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Stable Population cuckoos invade Australia > Comments

Stable Population cuckoos invade Australia : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 4/7/2013

The SPP is using environmental and heritage groups - much as cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of other birds - to hatch their anti-immigration message in the lead up to the September federal election.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
The commentariat has said it all and there is nothing left for me to say except, "What a load of bull."

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 4 July 2013 3:53:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Democrats were well rid of Dr Coulter and his anti-population push. JC was always a little behind the times - as was his post. Who can forget his call on the last Parliamentary sitting day in Canberra, to tax air fuel on environmental grounds just before he hopped on a plane back to Adelaide?

It's very odd and troubling that in the past, poverty was condemned because it degraded people. In the latest ecological version of Malthusianism, poverty is both the direct or indirect cause of environmental degradation. The poor are to blame.

The search for limits (finite or other wise) always seem to distract the SPP and their followers. The fatalism regarding future innovation reveals that the real limit which preoccupies them is not so much that of land or of resources, but their own limited view of human potential. This pessimism is combined with a cavalier analytical procedure which declares that all the problems facing the environment are by definition associated with the number of people.

For those who are genuinely concerned with the environment, the answer does not lie in population control. With more innovative forms of social organisation and technology, conservation measures can and are being mounted and new approaches found.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Thursday, 4 July 2013 3:59:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VivienneO
I don’t think Malcolm is saying people who oppose population growth are cuckoos. He’s saying that the right-wing anti-immigration strand of anti-population thinking is infiltrating the institutions and organisations of left-wing environmentalist strand to push what is at root a racist agenda. I’d add that there is internal contradiction in the position of some on the left who simultaneously support multiculturalism and oppose migration.

LEGO
You say “Malcolm seems to support the idea that planet Earth can absorb any amount of population increase”. That’s just nonsense. Support for moderately positive population growth in Australia’s current circumstances is entirely different and entirely reasonable. I know I won’t live for ever, but that doesn’t mean I should die today.

Geoff of Perth
You say “humans cannot change their fundamental behaviours”. How is it, then, that most western countries have birth rates below replacement rates?

You also say “a planet of nine or 10 billion looks like a nightmare”. Not to me it doesn’t.

I can imagine Malthus, writing when the world’s population was about 1 billion, would be equally appalled to be told the population would double within 150 years. And yet – contrary to his expectation – living standards rose massively during that period, as they did with the next doubling.

Given the power of demographic momentum, I also wonder what measures you propose to stop that increase that would not be far worse than the “nightmare” you anticipate.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 4 July 2013 4:35:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm

You got it wrong about Madeline Weld, and although you're retracting that bit, you've got it wrong generally. It would be easier to deal with you if you weren't as nasty and insulting. But you are, so let's get on with it. John Tanton is a bit right wing but neither a racist nor eugenicist. He stayed with his wife and daughter in my (left wing) house for several days some years ago and, indeed, I went to Washington in 1991 at his expense to work in the FAIR office. FAIR is not racist, simply wants to get immigration levels back to those recommended by Barbara Jordan in her Commission - about half a million a year. It could be said FAIR is actually fighting against racism because high levels of Hispanic legal and illegal immigration have displaced African-Americans in the workforce, or driven down wages to a point where the latter are not earning a living wage.

I attended the writing workshops sponsored by the Social Contract in 2010 and 2011 in Washington and while they were a bit right wing for me (anti-Obama and pro-Republican), they nevertheless had a lot to offer. Immigration is out of control in the US and surely they have a right to talk about it and seek solutions. Population is growing by 3 million a year and infrastructure is not keeping up. Schools are deteriorating to a point where parents are home-schooling their children in those states with rapidly growing populations as a result of illegal immigration, specifically California and Arizona. (continued next post)
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 4 July 2013 4:35:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
as I was saying...

The craziness of those who protest against groups such as FAIR and Social Contract was illustrated when they demonstrated in 2011 at the annual conference of Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR). See http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/ This is an organisation led by a black woman lawyer, Leah V.Durant. The deputy is Professor Philip Cafaro, the most genuinely liberal and progressive person you could meet. They are real progressives. They are not anti-immigrant; they are not racist. They want a fair go for existing Americans, whatever their colour but, like FAIR, they see excessive immigration as damaging environmentally and socially in that it is driving down wages.

As for SPP in Australia, accusations of racism are sheer nonsense. There is not a skerrick of evidence for it.

Malcolm King is one of those economists who is in deep need of ecological training. If he can't manage that then he needs to look at resources in an objective manner and deterrmine whether there are sufficient to maintain population growth at its current rate. There's also the question of wastes and whether the biosphere can absorb them (they can't - that's why we have climate change). But I doubt he can grasp even the basics of science - his assertions managed to be largely evidence-free.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 4 July 2013 4:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm states “For those who are genuinely concerned with the environment, the answer does not lie in population control. With more innovative forms of social organisation and technology, conservation measures can and are being mounted and new approaches found.”

This confirms my belief that Malcolm is no more or less clueless than thousands of other people who write about the Big Issues.

Malcolm suffers from the pattern taken by so many delusional people, he support the usual optimistic narrative and obligatory hope in the face of overwhelming contradictory empirical evidence which precludes hope and optimism.

If Malcolm had any basic understanding of human nature and the observable trends, particularly the innate urge to grow our populations and therefore consumption, he would realise that technological innovation or social organisation will only exacerbate the problems we face on this planet. Malcolm has no idea that empirical evidence precludes any basis for humans pinning their hopes on a positive outcome into the future.

Those of us who know that the worst is coming, based on a good enough view of human nature and observable trends which inform it, see why people like Malcolm are clearly deluded.

Malcolm doesn't have the self-awareness required to see through his own confirmation bias (whereby he unconsciously selects only the information that supports his pre-existing beliefs) to see that he's offering up more of the same rubbish which prevents rather than promotes effective action to fix the enormous problems we humans have and will continue to create.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 4 July 2013 4:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy