So it's like republican style citizen's referendum initiative - you can knock back those people you don't like (catholics, muslims, blacks, liberals) building next door? I'm all for it!

can't we just tow western Sydeny out to sea they seem to be the ones causing all the fuss.

Oh dear Mr. Howell,

I sometimes wonder if socialists ever consider how transparent they are. It always starts with the word “democracy” doesn’t it Philip? Then we get the “we” word, a few references to “local decisions”, a dash of some things “would be permitted”, and then the reassuring words “There would be no other controls”.

I have a filter system for proposals like this. It goes something like this.

Is this citizens/assembly empowerment?
Does it position itself as “Democratic”?
Does it bypass elected representation?
Is there a “new” authoritive entity proposed?
Does the proposal contain “emotive triggers”?
Is it elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself?
Are there elements of polarized us-versus-them mentality?
Does it employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt?
Does it promote the end justifies the means?
Does it distort/exaggerate a problem as cause for its solution?
Does it embrace Autopoietic Networking (like selecting like)?
Are there elements of “Socialization/Social Engineering”?
Does it adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés")?

Congratulations Mr. Howell, your ”wewilldecide” scored a 100%.

If you are tempted to respond that would be interesting and welcome.

When it comes to immigration and all the development associated with it, I agree that we need a much more bottom-up approach. If we had this, we’d get a whomping great cut in immigration straight away, which would curtail a great deal of the urban expansion that we would otherwise have imposed upon us.

But a bottom-up approach regarding particular developments is not likely to work all that well, as we would get nimbyism prevailing. We need a coordinated approach, which would largely mean a top-down decision-making methodology, with appropriate consultation at the local level always included. We need an overall planning strategy rather than a piecemeal one dependent on the whims of local residents.

As for many other aspects of our governance, I don’t think a bottom-up ‘we will decide’ approach would be all that effective. For instance, people would always vote to lower taxes, rates and all manner of costs, wouldn’t they? They may be better off paying a bit more and getting better services and infrastructure as a result, but they will always vote for a minimisation of the cost burden, I would presume.

What we really need is a good government which consults effectively at the local level, and which is not biased by the donations, favours and very strong personal associations of the rapid-expansion-supporting big-business sector.

The key is not to implement a bottom-up decision-making system. It is to make our government much more independent, so that it will listen more to the ordinary people and less to the all-powerful vested-interest profit-driven property-developers and other sectors of the big-business fraternity.

You're a hard man Spindoc, but I like you.

Now back to the problem of depopulating people we don't like. I'm personally for creating a citizen initiated referenda against my passive aggressive lesbian neighbours who start their lawnmower up at 7.30 am on a sunday morning.

I'm not keen on the lebanese around Maroubra either, so they'll have to go. As for fat people - gone! Ugly people - see ya later. Actually, screw representative democracy altogether. This is exactly the path the anti-populationists are heading down.

Hi Cheryl,

Your nominations gratefully accepted. I do however feel that yours is a list of victims. The guilty party’s that should really be expunged from our society globally are as follows.

Fellow travelers and useful idiots
Humanities Academia
Human Right Lawyers
Peak everything Activists
NGO’s
British aristocracy
American democratic aristocracy (Al Gore)
Western lib/democratic/Labor parties
Greens/Deep Greens
Disaffected independents
Bureaucracies / self styled regulating classes
Intelligentsia
High percentage of journalists, public broadcasters and media interests
Industrial/commercial/financial opportunists
Celebrity Advocates

spindoc, there is an ommission in your list:
people who use grocers' apostrophes.

Whilst some of the comments are moving into the direction of humorous or grotesque, I try to remain serious.
I think all of us agree that growth (population, economic etc.) can not carry on forever - we live in a limited world. Unfortunately we carry a very heavy baggage stemming from the history of previous centuries when space and resources were seemingly unlimited. The "go west" mentality is also very strong, people believe that we always can find new resources, open up new land for subdivisions etc. This approach MUST be changed before we can expect any positive movement.
This needs education. Few week ago I talked to our federal representative, who had no idea what carrying capacity means. He supported all development, growth, population increase, you name it.
And these people govern us, bring down legislation and set the direction of the nation.
Therefore we can not expect any solution from above. The bottom up solution will not work for two reasons: 1. most the people are passive 2. soon or later small pressure groups will take over the initiative.
I would love to be more positive, but as time goes by, I am growing more and more pessimistic. We will carry on business as usual until the stock lasts and then we bang our head into the wall. (see the fate of carbon charge, solar panels and similar attempts).
The only remedy so far is more ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Pocika,

You started well with the line “I try to remain serious”.

After that I spilled some of my precious Margaret River Petaluma, a lovely cherry red drop from WA. Is this you being “serious”?

If the laughs had continued I could have forgiven you but in retrospect even the slightest stain of wasted Petaluma offers no compensation for your crass, infantile, peak population, morbid, patronizing garbage, funny though it may be, is no compensation for lost quaffing opportunities.

If you are going to continue your career as a comedian, you need to consider, timing, punch lines, variety, delivery and at least some contact with reality.

Get yourself an agent and work through some of your issues with reality, then try again. Don’t bother with “Australia’s Got Talent”, you won’t even make the semi’s.

Troll on Spindoc if it gives you relief. In the meantime, a serious question: do you believe the world has the capacity to cope with an infinitely large population, or do you believe that the capacity is finite but just much larger than it is at present? I'm not having a go, just interested.

If you wish to address concerns regarding population growth from immigration, the last thing you should be doing is restricting the rights of people to develop property. All you end up with is an obscure and corrupted development process. And with the potential profits from this process all the greater with high immigration, it is hard to see government conforming to the public decree for long, much like happens in Oz currently.

But with fewer restrictions on development, there is much less opportunity for corruption, leaving government without the corrupt spoils and the big problem of providing infrastructure.

For once I actually share Cheryl's cynicism of people wishing to restrict your rights so they can give you what you want: Such is the oxymoron of development restrictions.

This article could have been written by US based anti population and anti immigration advocates under the umbrella of the bigoted "John Tanton Network", or Sustainable Population Australia, Stable Population Party, Dick Smith etc.

Why? There are claims of over population, high population growth and high immigration, without any empirical evidence of direct causal links, and what appears to be democratic (for those suggesting the system) is in fact authoritarian......

Who chooses? If we had such a system in the past, Australia would never have received the benefits of immigration from and ongoing links with Europe and now other regions such as Asia, Africa, South America. I think that's the point isn't it?

We can have the benefits of immigration within a framework of a stable population: low birth rates and emigration leave plenty of room for a good number of immigrants and refugees.

Yes indeed Candide. I reckon that’s exactly what we’d have if our government could divorce itself from the future-destroying influence of big business and start listening to the ordinary people instead.

Hi Candide,

You posed a “serious question” for me, do I “believe the world has the capacity to cope with an infinitely large population?”

How can anything be “infinitely large”? I thought you said it was a serious question?

Before you try to use “scary words” like infinitely, Google it first.

I do think those who concern themselves with such issues as peak oil, peak food production, peak populations or peak anything for that matter, are just inventing a “threat” so that they can offer their ideological solution, because that’s what ideologues do.. They do this by employing a range of tactics.

2. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, the group and/or the leadership has a special mission to save humanity.
3. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
8. Crisis Creation - They employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt.
9. All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create.
17. It believes 'the end justifies the means'
21. It supports extreme obsessiveness regarding the group orthodoxy, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
29. Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"
33. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.

We can go through these in more detail when you get back to me.

Spindoc,

What about all those warnings from the scientific community about shortages or losses of fresh water (for example aquifers being pumped dry under the Punjab), arable land, biodiversity, fish stocks, cheap fossil fuels and minerals, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes, leading to riots over pollution in China, for example? In your view, those scientists must be either fools, so that even laymen like yourself or Cheryl know better, even if you have no scientific education or experience working in the particular field, or they are lying and part of some vast global conspiracy. How likely are either of these alternatives?

What about continuing high commodity prices, for crude oil, phosphate rock, food, etc.? See the chart in this link for crude oil prices since 1946.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

It is true that prices are down from the peak in 2007/2008, before the global financial crisis reduced demand, but they are still a lot higher in real terms than they were before 2007 and show no signs of coming down. From the chart linked to, crude oil prices are more than double what they were in 2000 in real terms. If there were no real material shortages out there, no hard physical limits, you would expect competition and the wonders of the free market to bring prices back down.

It is hard to see how you can drink wine and keep your head in the sand at the same time. I actually think that our problems with high population growth go well beyond the livability of our cities, but that is certainly one of them. You and Cheryl are trying to use ridicule to distract attention from the idea that people should have any say in what happens to their neighbourhoods, but without coming out and saying so.

Sorry to have blown your brain with 'infinitely large', Spindoc: try 'a thousand billion' instead. Now stop ducking the question.

Candide/Divergence,

Candide, so when do you anticipate we will reach a “thousand billion” population? I like big numbers as much as the next man but I would have to say that any extrapolation over such time would be near impossible, but I could hazard a guess.

We currently have a global population of 7.103 billion people, (as at July 4, 2013) with a predicted 9.3 billion by 2050. That’s 2.206 billion increase per 37 years. That is 13% growth per 37 years. Accepting that the growth rate is non-linear, we can expect the population to reach a “thousand billion” in 100,000,000 years. (100 million years) which takes us to the year………? Oh for pities sake, stop being so freekin’ stupid Candide.

Divergence, at least your dialogue bears some resemblance to the issues that have an impact on population sustainability.

You sort of spoiled it when you said << even if you have no scientific education or experience working in the particular field >>, to which I would respond with, so what are your qualifications in this field? Please advise?

I think you misunderstand what has happened to you. This issue for you is not about facts, figures or reality, it is about ideology. Like I said to Candide, you “invent” an unsubstantiated problem, oversimplify it and try to deliver an oversimplified solution.

If you wish to buy into Candide’s problem that could potentially emerge in about 100 million years, be my guest.

If on the other hand you wish to analyze the issues, many of which you correctly identified, (misrepresented but correct as factors), then you need to stop representing them as un-weighted issues and add them as “assumption” based, as any worthy analyst would do.

If you assign a value to these based upon ideology they will always be wrong. As weighted factors however, they will be absolutely crucial, but not over 100 million years.

Go Gal, looking forward to hearing from you.

Candide,

This post is especially for you.

What is the difference between 100 million years, one year and infinity?

As Prof Ian Goldin of Oxford University says, the anti immigration and anti population growth advocates have no evidence for their claims, it's simply beliefs and opinions

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/07/04/europe-needs-migration/

As many in the USA know, much of the anti immigration and anti population growth movements are based on a neo Malthusian philosophy, and the reality is "racism wrapped in a fancy green wrapper".

... or Pauline Hanson dressed in a rented koala suit.

Well, I'm sure that the Nazi party had a few good ideas, but when I listen to Wagner, I listen to the music: An idea needs to be assessed according to merit, not its supporters. Would you trash Wagner's music on the basis of his character?

A starting point for considering population growth and its effects is an acceptance that living standards are based on education and infrastructure.

Thus, for Afghanistan you have uneducated population + bugger all infrastructure = cesspit.

In contrast, for South Korea you have educated population + excellent infrastructure = great country.

So for Australia, we might consider the per capita education and infrastructure needed to support a given standard of living. What might be the per cost of this?

If there is no effort to make the argument quantitative, then it will degenerate into tiresome name calling.

Hi Fester,

One of the criticisms I made against the peak everything brigade, was the oversimplification of very complex issues in order to promote grossly oversimplified ideological solutions.

You offer us education and infrastructure as the keys?

The parameters by which we measure a society’s capacity for anything are social, political, economic, religious, ecological and scientific. Each of these entities contains tens of thousands of individually variable elements.

Each of these elements has to be evaluated, weighted and quantified before being assigned to algorithms for entity relationship analysis (ERA).

Then and only then can expert assessments be started.

But I guess if you can’t get your head around reality, you can sound intelligent by proselytizing oversimplified utter rubbish.

Thank you so much for making my case for me.

Spindoc,

I have a first class honours degree in Physics, so I do know something about how science works. No need to worry about what will happen in a hundred million years: we will be hitting thermodynamic limits to growth in a few hundred years if our energy use continues to grow at the present rate, long before standing room only, just because the waste heat that we have to emit in the process will cook us. A/Prof Tom Murphy explains this very well

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

He has some other interesting articles on his blog such as “Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist”.

A great many fields of science are involved in my list. I don’t pretend to be an expert in marine chemistry, soil science, hydrology, conservation biology, atmospheric physics, etc. The difference between you and me is that I am prepared to listen to the experts, not because they are infallible, but because they are more likely to be right than laymen who believe what they want to believe.

Many people like yourself see the world like a cartoon of Mickey Mouse. The face is the economy, while the environment and the society are the less important ears. Wrong. The real picture is one of concentric circles. If you trash your environment, you trash your society and your economy. The laws of physics trump human social constructs every time.

Andras Smith's childish accusations of racism are getting tedious. Are Australians really so stupid that they can't object to overcrowding, gouging on housing costs, or miserable long commutes unless some American like John Tanton tells them to?

Hi Divergence,

Many thanks for your response and for the very informative link, great reading.

Your degree would no doubt embrace many other associated fields and scientific processes. Congratulations.

If I could just draw your attention to my reply to Festus above, you will note that whilst you might be eminently qualified in some of the sciences, there are five other huge discipline regimes that impact where growth, energy consumption, population and food production might go in the future. (Social, political, economic, religious, ecological and scientific).

As the author of the article, Tom Murphy points out, “I will admit from the start that the assumptions underlying this analysis are deeply flawed”. Regardless, it is an interesting exercise in thermodynamic limits. Its other flaw is that it is done in complete isolation from the other five domains. That is probably why he ended up with a linear curve.

I remember some papers floating around about six years ago related hitting the limits in density for P-N-P substrates for micro chip production. Since then I think they have quadrupled.

Never tell engineers it can’t be done, they make it happen.

I also had a good read of some of the other linked scientific papers, I particularly enjoyed these.

“Global Warming no Threat” paper.

http://www.scitizen.com/future-energies/global-warming-is-no-threat-_a-14-3742.html

“Peak Oil” is Nonsense… Because There’s Enough Gas to Last 250 Years.

http://www.scitizen.com/future-energies/-peak-oil-is-nonsense-because-there-s-enough-gas-to-last-250-years-_a-14-3755.html

I always enjoy real science, thanks again for the link.

Hi Spindoc,

The concept is pretty basic, I agree. But the idea that people need infrastructure was acknowledged by Professor Goldin, the author of Andras's link. What would you think the per capita cost is for Australia? And while I would agree that in the long term migrants might well pay this cost with their endeavours, in the short term an infrastructure debt is incurred. The infrastructure shortfall and government debt in Australia would suggest that high immigration can only be maintained with further debt and shortfall.

I cant think offhand of any developed countries growing populations as fast as Australia, and my knowledge of developed countries with slower rates of growth is that the infrastructure tends to be better.

Feel free to provide some real examples to make your case, S.

Sometimes Fester, talking to you is like asking what time it is and getting the answer, “it’s a green one with a zipper down the side”. Context and relevance are lost somewhere along your thought processes.

I explain just how complex it is, you say “The concept is pretty basic”. I assert that you oversimplify everything to make room for your over simplistic ideological solutions and then you offer an oversimplification to justify your simplistic understanding.

Then you immerse yourself and us in the meaningless rhetoric of ideological trivia. What goes on between your ears is a mystery.

I sometimes think you actually believe you understand things but my teenage grandchildren exhibit a greater understanding of issues than you.

I think it is down to “Google heads”. You pull data and other people’s opinion from the internet and try to represent it as your original thought, reasoned analysis and reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think you are just a juvenile con artist craving attention because you think you deserve it. Your similar peers are in awe at the product of your rhetoric engine which you pass off as intellect.

A sad indication off both the times and the failings of our education system. You missed out on so much I have no idea where to begin.

Hi S

The idea of infrastructure and education supporting living standards is simple. It doesn't deny that economic complexities of population growth, but it does imply a short term cost if living standards are to be maintained.

Now, you maintain that the economic implications of population growth are quite complex, seemingly to a point where it cannot be simplified, much like some fractal monster: Is such a thing possible? Perhaps then it might be more sensible to base your argument on real examples. Or you might even like to raise some other point of discussion.

Hi Fester,

You say << Now, you maintain that the economic implications of population growth are quite complex, seemingly to a point where it cannot be simplified, much like some fractal monster: Is such a thing possible? >>

The issue of population growth is indeed very complex, since you’ve asked the question is analysis possible? I’ll take your question as genuine and try to address it.

It is very complex, but it can be analyzed and there are many commonly used techniques for doing this.

Imagine a very large enterprise, like an international company. They have $120 Bn in revenues, operate across 35 countries and employ 60,000 people. The key factors for them are the same as any complex entity. They must consider all the permutations of the factors governing their business, which are social, political, economic, religious, ecological and scientific. (SPERES factors).

Imagine each of the six domains as a pyramid, the more you go down the sides of the pyramid the more the number of issues. In addition the further you go down the pyramid the more the issues overlap with the next pyramid. So it gets more and more complex.

Think of a combination lock with six wheels each representing 0 to 9. The six thumb wheels represent 0 to 999,999 permutations but each wheel (pyramid) can only represent 0-9 in isolation.

If science alone is applied to solving a social problem, it can never offer a solution in isolation, it can only be applied in context with the other domains.

Education is one very small part of the Social domain and the type of economics required only small part of the economics domain. So your analogy refers to only two small parts of only two wheels of the combination lock.

The processes for analysis are enterprise mapping, process engineering and entity relationship analysis.

These processes are designed to value, link, prioritize and establish relationships with all the factors that affect an outcome. They identify and distill down the key drivers.

A fraction of two of six elements can never produce an outcome.

Hope this helps

Thank you, S.

Yes, it is helpful. It sounds a bit like computers generating simulations with large numbers of independent variables and chomping through vast amounts of data, much like climate change simulations. Would the economic simulations be more accurate? And of course in the case of climate change, the finger tends to point at one variable, so would it not also be possible for one variable to be significant in an economic simulation? Even in heath sciences which deal with very complex disease processes, risk is often modified by a small number of variables.

I guess that this should make me a population growth sceptic.

Hi Fester,

Great points and you have identified a fatal flaw in the CAGW debate.

Firstly the complex analysis used in such as entity relationship analysis, process engineering and enterprise mapping have one outstanding difference, they do NOT involve computer modeling, computers are not even required to produce results other than producing the report and graphs. The variables must be actual (empirical), not simulations.

These tools mandate examining what is real, tangible, measurable and quantifiable which is why these tools are so powerful. We also know that they work because most large enterprises on the planet are horrendously complex and have to work in the real world by using such tools.

I hope you can now see that CAGW as a topic involves only one of the six domains, science, and that science relies on assumptions, simulations and forecasts. Nothing is real in that sense because it is viewed in isolation.

CAGW relies on just part of just one of the “thumb wheels” of the combination lock analogy. More importantly, if CAGW were subjected to the methods we are discussing here it would be seen for what it really is, a compete fabrication.

Likewise when subjected to this methodology, the “Peak Everything” mantra will fail, it will fail because they assume that the “something” being peaked is the primary influence and ignores thousands of other factors embedded in several other domains.

Remember, no simulations, no modeling, no isolated assumptions and no such thing as independent variables, they all have a relationship and an impact.

Try the pyramid analogy, at the tip of each domain there are few entities but the further you go towards the base of the pyramid, the more the entities and the more complexities. The principle is to take one entity at a time and trace it down into the mass of complexities but only register that which has a “relationship” with the entity, ignoring the rest. Does that work for you?

Thanks for your questions and interest.

Thank you, S.

So your approach is one of optimising the system for the current conditions. That seems most sensible, and probably leaves you in the best shape to meet problems as they arise. But is there still a role for prediction? My experience of forecast accuracy leaves me with little confidence in them, especially anything long term. Freeman Dyson sees long term forecasting as far too complex to have any reliability, and so advocates not acting on them.

ongnow.org/seminars/02005/oct/05/the-difficulty-of-looking-far-ahead/

On the growth question, I also look at observations of countries where family planning programs have been implemented, and guess it is the success of these programs that leaves me sceptical of the benefit of growing the population faster than other developed nations.

Fester, it’s nice down here in the dungeon of a thread that has dropped off the radar, seems we get a quiet chance to think about things.

You ask, << Is there a role for prediction? >> No. Prediction relies on forecasting, which in turn relies on assumptions which then have to be modeled. Each any every time you change an assumption you change the outcome. Worse still, the people who write the algorithms are called “Quant’s”, sadly today the “Quant’s” are often part of the value part of assessment and that should never be allowed. (The Freeman Dyson effect)

The processes I describe rely on trend lines; this is what has actually happened and not what might happen. So of all the variables (potentially millions), the first task is to identify what in each of the six domains could have an impact and then which entity within each domain has a relationship to an outcome you wish to test. Then ask the question, which if any entities are actually changing?

What you then have is a much shorter list of “tested” entities to work with, this why such systems are vastly more accurate than modeling. Modeling is much more popular with those who wish to “drive” an outcome rather than to actually “discover” one.

I think you asked me earlier for an example. Not easy without actually going through the process on a live example. I’ll try with your “population” example.

Firstly each country will obviously be vastly different, so until you have ALL countries mapped, you cannot start on global. Within each country, each region will be different so you have to drop down to the lowest level of granularity to start.

Then you start interrogation of all the historical factors impacting population sustainability in that region. You do this for every region in every country and consolidate upwards.

Then you look at any additional factors that might apply in different countries that do not apply in others. You also need to look at issues that originate outside the country but might apply somewhere else. (Cross relationships)

Cont’d

Cont’d

So for a particular region you might look at the impacts of religion, economics, public policy(e.g. family planning), health, agriculture and culture for example. (All drawn from the SPERES domains)

Every entity must be mapped as relevant to “population sustainability” and tested for a relationship then quantified against the prevailing trend line. So the process cascades down into “relevant only” content and is consolidated upwards to produce a global picture.

You can now see that each domain (X 6) contains thousands of entities but not all are relevant to topic. Once you’ve tested a detailed understanding of all the issues that impact by region, by country and internationally and have the trend lines for each, decisions can be taken on the historical reality and not predictions. Rather these tools rely on a closed loop corrective cycle to constantly respond to any significant changes in the monitored trend lines.

As always, you can make all the decisions you like however, you will still have the problem of applying these. Unless every nation agrees to what is proposed as the “solution”, have the resources to implement them and the political will to deliver against any negative impacts, there is no point.

Consider peak population, oil, food production and resources. Each is a different aspect of the same sustainability paradigm and yes, solutions based on reality can be found but sadly, not implemented.

The closest we have ever come to a solution is a global response to CAGW. There was once a global agreement, trading markets to fund it and renewables industry to implement it. These are now gone because the science upon which these were based is flawed.

That said, had these processes been applied in the first place there would not have even been any CAGW or Peak something alarmism in the first place.

Hope this works, have a great weekend.

Yes I did thanks, S. Thanks for a very detailed reply. I guess that living in the present is complex enough, and as it is all we live in we should make the most of it.