SPP and other anti immigration anti population growth advocates rely upon statistical inflation to impose their point about high immigration and population growth.

The "immigrants" cited include permanents of course, but they are outnumbered by temporaries including Australian citizens.

Question for SPP, if there was cap on NOM of say 200k annually which has been cited, what happens with Australian citizens previously not in the estimated resident population trying to return home for more than 12/16 months, if the annual cap has been met? (not unlike Australian residents being stopped from returning during white Australia times if they did not pass a 'language test').

Obviously nowadays we are only talking population numbers i.e. quantitative not qualitative, aren't we?

Paul Ehrlich who wrote the "Population Bomb" had been a collaborator with John Tanton, The Sierra Club and FAIR Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform but parted ways or distanced himself upon discovering that FAIR had accepted funds from the 'white supremacist group' the Pioneer Fund http://www.swans.com/library/art16/barker66.html

More sensible academic research, analysis, discussion and conclusions can be found via:

Prof Ian Goldin et al http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ian-goldin/what-do-7-billion-people-_b_1064352.html

and

the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College:

' PopDev, Spring 2006 Fears of overpopulation are pervasive in American society. From an early age we are taught that population pressure is responsible for poverty, hunger, environmental degradation and even political insecurity. Conventional wisdom, however, is not always wise...' http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40

As Goldin stated in an interview on Philip Adam's Lateline, not only are we observing significant slowdowns in population growth, but in future most of the world will be competing for workers, professionals and immigrants from Africa, with flows of money, culture and ideas in both directions, the best form of international development

G'day Andras, thanks for the links; good post.
G'day Fester, while I would certainly agree that contraception is a helluva lot more fun than abstention, my contention is that family planning is only a part of the problem, and possibly not even the larger part.
As far as overpopulation goes, let's look at those countries mentioned in the article again.
Afghanistan ranks 173 on the world population stakes, with a population density of 39 per square kilometre.
South Sudan 202 with a population density of 18/sq.km
Timor-Leste ranks 135, with a population density of 71/sq.km.,
Somalia 211, with a population density of 15/sq.km.
Ethiopia 121, with a population density of 81/sq.km.
Compare this to say the Netherlands, which always ranks fairly high in average wealth and happiness: 497 per sq. kilometre. Or Singapore, 7,543 per sq.km.
I'm pretty sure these 2 countries have full access to family planning.
Actually, if we treated Singapore as “normal”, we could probably fit the entire human population inside South Australia.
I seem to recall one female Asian academic mounting an argument some years back, that the World Bank was deliberately stopping third world countries from becoming wealthy, by deterring them from building up 'optimal' populations.
People make wealth.
The stats show clearly that over population isn't the problem in the countries mentioned, and even if families in war torn countries had access to contraceptives, it's doubtful the majority would use them.
That's just the view of a baby BOOMER.

<People make wealth.>

But they need education and infrastructure to do so. In places like Ethiopia and Sudan you have little of either. And uneducated voters are ripe for corrupt governance, which worsens their plight. In contrast, Singapore and the Netherlands, and Japan for that matter, have high levels of education and infrastructure.

<The stats show clearly that over population isn't the problem in the countries mentioned,>

Really? Consider fertility rates:

Afghanistan : 5.64
Ethiopia : 5.97
Somalia : 6.26
Sudan : 4.17
Timor Leste : 3.06

The Netherlands : 1.78
Singapore : 0.78

Would you conclude from this that high population growth rates do not correlate with poor infrastructure, poorly educated populations and corrupt and inferior governance?

<and even if families in war torn countries had access to contraceptives, it's doubtful the majority would use them.>

Could you provide an example? Where family planning programs are provided, they tend to result in lower birth rates, so obviously some people use them.

I believe that people should have a choice to control their fertility and that governments should not interfere.

G'day Fester,
thanks for reinforcing my point. Can you not see the irony of the author writing about over population, then citing under populated countries?
Yes, the problem in Sudan etc, is not enough hospitals, schools and infrastructure constantly undermined and destroyed by conflict and war, as I mentioned in my first post.
Yes, the imperative to have more children is less in well populated, orderly and lawful countries (as I pointed out).
This is more because they are well populated, orderly and lawful than because they have access to birth control.
You want “an example”?
I didn't think signing off as a baby (post-war) BOOMER was a terribly subtle hint.
An example? Have we truly gone so far down the road of sex is purely recreational, that we've forgotten what it's actually for?
Most children aren't just mistakes, or errors of judgement, even before contraceptives or where they are not available (arguably less so in heavily male dominated societies).
As a early OPEC minister was quoted as saying; “(before we found oil) we were very poor. Our women would have 6 or 7 babies, in the hope that just one would survive”.
I agree that people should be able to make their own decisions, and that birth control is a wonderful thing for controlling population growth.
I just think good hospitals, schools, minimising infant mortality and ending war are even better.

Grim,

Do you seriously think that all land is equal, that desert, steep mountain slopes, or semi-arid rangeland has the same carrying capacity as prime agricultural land with plenty of water and deep, fertile volcanic soil? Australia's average wheat production per hectare is about 2 tons, according to the World Bank. In the Netherlands, it is 8 tons. In addition, some countries, especially city states, can have much denser populations than they could support with the local agriculture, because they produce goods or services that they can trade for food. It ought to be obvious that this isn't a strategy that everyone could follow.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation World Food Price Index has been extremely high since 2007, and the high prices are strongly correlated with social unrest.

http://au.businessinsider.com/food-prices-and-social-unrest-chart-2012-11

Don't you imagine that if it were easy to produce a lot more food, we would already be doing it? According to the Global Footprint Network, which has done the numbers, we are already in about 40% environmental overshoot because we are using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. Think of aquifers being pumped dry under the Punjab.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf

The global fertility rate has declined, down to 2.4 births per woman%, and some countries have gone down to or below replacement level (2.33 globally, 2.1 in developed countries), but the growth is from a much larger base, so we are still adding about 80 million people a year. Even if all countries brought their fertility rates down to replacement level, it would take up to 70 years to stop population growth, because the children are being born to the large young adult generation, while most of the deaths are occurring in the relatively tiny elderly generation. Australia is still growing by demographic momentum, even though the fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976.

Hi Grim.

The article is about high population growth as a result of high fertility, not high population density.

<Yes, the problem in Sudan etc, is not enough hospitals, schools and infrastructure constantly undermined and destroyed by conflict and war, as I mentioned in my first post.>

And also because there are not the skilled people nor resources to provide the needed infrastructure for the growing population even in times of peace. We obviously disagree on this point, which is why I ask you for real examples. For example, can you provide an example of a nation with a high fertility rate which has good infrastructure, an educated population, and good governance? Why do you think that none exist?

<As a early OPEC minister was quoted as saying; “(before we found oil) we were very poor. Our women would have 6 or 7 babies, in the hope that just one would survive”.>

Have you ever wondered whether the women referred to agreed with the statement? Do we understand their reasoning for having children? I dont, nor is it my business, but I would like to to see them empowered to choose how many and when they have children.

I think comments from women in developing countries about contraception are important. After all, they are the most relevant subjects in this discussion, aren't they? Perhaps Grim, seeing as there are no examples to support you views at a national level, you could find individual examples? Maybe you can give an example of a woman in a developing country who has had many children, seen them all educated to a high standard, and who comments that it was her choice and made her life easier? With billions to pick from, surely it should be a cinch.