Thanks Mark (popnrelish) for your fulsome reply.

“One of my prime concerns,” (Tanton) wrote to a large donor, “is about the decline of folks who look like you and me.” He warned a friend that “for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/17immig.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't think it's fair to judge a man by the friends he keeps but as you are running for the Australian Senate on an SPP ticket, discretion might have been the better part of valour.

I also enjoyed reading your articles at Social Contract Press - you might have gone further in your population arguments if you had actually studied demographics at ANU - rather than lamblast them as being soft lefties. You owe Paul Harrison big time for your liberal use of The Third Revolution.

Every time you and the SPP make a statement on population, you can hear the laughter from the fourth floor of the DEEWR Population and Labour Strategy branch in Canberra. Oh that's right, they're growthists. Ha!

Any comment of the 12.5 per cent of GDP thing? The $200K infrastructure spend per person?
Any comment on the SPP's sociobiological roots?
Any comment on Bill Bourke's quote in BRW that the SPP isn't about immigration?

Hi Rhian,

You stated “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.”

My response is simple, birth rates are irrelevant, 9 billion people not a nightmare, I guess you are just like Malcolm, you don’t get it.

As to living standards, well this was true until about 1970, since then real living standards have been built on credit (debt) which the piper is now calling in.

Additionally I don’t propose to stop any increase in population, no one can, my previous post points out why!

Perhaps, instead of thinking about living standards, you could consider the world wide and growing rate of fishery collapse, the loss of biodiversity, rapidly increasing rate of species extinction, bee and other insect mortality due to over exposure to pesticides etc and too many other natural world problems, never mind the spiralling per capita wealth loss occurring, inequity between the haves and have-nots…..blah blah blah.

But of course you don’t want to discuss these things because like Malcolm, you are comfortable in your own confirmation bias.

Rhian,

What happens when this happens?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

So, Malcolm is not a Catholic, and his family does not have a vested interest in endless population growth. Malcolm says that he is in "labour strategy and the media."

Come again? Is that a euphemism for "Public Relations officer for the growth industries?" Perish the thought that you could have any self interest in this topic. But Ummmm, who is paying your wages?

Of course, you do have to feel admiration for Malcolm. Trying to convince people that endless population growth is good for you is a hard sell. He had to think up something, anything. And I suppose that hinting darkly that anyone who opposed endless population growth is a racist eugenicist, was all that was left?

Well, if it was, could I award you 10 out of 10 for effort. And 10 out of 10 for cheek. First class spin doctoring job you did there, Malcolm. Saatchi and Saatchi, or Mojo, will head hunt you, for sure.

King himself appears devoid of ethics and honesty.

The social engineering he promotes to the benefit of property speculators and those groups which base their business model on endless
population growth, is totally discredited.

Ralph

Poirot
That’s not a meaningful comparison. India’s population is 1.24 billion. Australia’s is 22.9 million.

In a rich country like Australia, what happens long before this is that science identifies the problem and at best, proper regulation addresses it, or otherwise, alternatives sources are found are developed.

Geoff
Word real per capita GDP has risen by 84% since 1970, according to UNCTAD. In developing countries, it has risen by 250%.
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

We’re still waiting for evidence that Malthus was right.

This article is about population growth in developed countries, specifically Australia. Australia’s fertility rate is below the replacement rate, as is true for most developed countries. Our population continues to grow due to a combination of demographic momentum, which will taper out in a few years, and migration. Migration does not add to global population, it merely rearranges it. So most of the argument in this thread that rely on the purported effects of global population growth are irrelevant to the question of Australia’s population growth, which in policy terms is almost entirely a question about migration.