Thanks for the reply Malcolm.

But….

You have completely failed to address either of the questions I asked of you.

You’ve got to admit; these two questions sit right at the heart of the population issue.

So could you please have a go at answering them. Thanks. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16101#279541

Could I request a fact check here? Who is saying what about what and to whom and in what way exactly?

The essay gives a list of 'GENERAL' anti-population legislative measures. Yet within the surrounding context of the essay, it's implied that these are the ACTUAL policies of both the SA Greens and the Stable Population Party.

Yet to look at both parties websites, these are NOT what either party is saying they either want, or intend, to do. Both parties reject any form of coercive population strategies.

After reading the author's sinister revelation that 'The SA Greens quietly added the new anti-population policy on its website just after Christmas', I followed the link to find ... nothing of the sort!

Oh, well ... just another day in the life of the most innuendo-smeared, mud-slung, brush-tarred party in Australia's political history - where guilt by association and implication is always the best substitute for reality.

And BTW, Malcolm, how do you know they were 'quiet' when they performed this truly sinister task of adding something to their website? Perhaps they went about it quite noisily - maybe even sang a few Christmas carols.

Great post, Killarney

Rhrosty,

I don't often agree with Pericles, but I think that he has you dead to rights (see the comments on the March 11 Social Infrastructure thread). If you had a few science degrees like me or an engineering degree, you would understand what he is saying. People come up with ideas for wonderful new technologies all of the time, but most of them end up foundering on insurmountable difficulties. When Luis Alvarez discovered muon catalyzed fusion in 1956, he believed that he had solved all of mankind's energy problems forever. Unfortunately, no one has managed to solve the problem that it takes more energy to make the muons than you get out from the fusion. I don't know if you are old enough to remember "electric power too cheap to meter" or President Nixon's War on Cancer. Cancer is still among our top 2 killers, maybe even the leading one. I lost a friend to it last year, and another dear friend appears to be dying of it this year and is suffering terribly. Why haven't we fixed it, if new technologies can solve anything?

Any new technologies need to be carefully researched and tested. There need to be pilot programs to look for unforeseen side effects, some deal-breakers. You do all that and show us a green and fertile inland Australia, and we can talk about a bigger population. In the meantime, we should accept that Australia is what demographers call a big, little country - lots of territory, but most of it uninhabitable. By managing it wisely for the future it can provide a good life for all of us here, even if it can't support a huge population. Why throw our advantages away chasing pie in the sky?

"Yep, it sucks being a realist."

A big population is not necessary to defend Australia. Look at Israel and its hostile Arab neighbours. It is technology that counts, not people lining up on the beaches. A small, rich united country will be far better placed to successfully defend itself than a large, poor divided one.

Wow Malcolm, you so keenly responded to my first post, putting up your reply less than ten minutes after I posted. Then you rather less keenly responded to my second post, putting up your reply more than three hours later… and completely not addressing my post at all.

Then you failed completely to respond to my third post.

You won’t be drawn into debating even the most basic questions about the very subject that you have again raised!!

You wrote:

<< My interest is the rise of far left, far right and sociobiological groups such as yours. >>

What a telling statement!

You seem to be completely disinterested in the actual philosophy that they are espousing or the debating thereof. Your interest seems to be entirely in building straw-man cases against these groups; in finding anything that you can use against them and blowing it out of all proportion.

This is truly extraordinary.

So how about it? Address my questions and entertain any debate they might arise out of your answers and let’s see if there is any real substance to you… or whether you are just simply all about conducting a witch-hunt of certain groups and individuals, without really understanding what it is that you are condemning in terms of their political/social/environmental message.

The SA Greens have really exceeded themselves by not only following the old 'greenwashing' strategy http://www.thenation.com/article/38036/greenwashing-nativism

but also like Cory Bernardi via ALEC, can now be linked to John Tanton's network in the USA...... as many others are in Oz, while thinking or claiming they are progressive, tolerant and socially aware.

SA used to be a really 'right on' liberal sort of place, obviously not anymore.

Andras Smith,

I suspect that the vast majority of Australians who are concerned about population growth have never heard of John Tanton. He is a 80 year old retired American ophthalmologist from Michigan who set up some immigration restictionist organisations, such as Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). From what I have read about him, I suspect that he is just a very old man who no doubt shares some of the prejudices of his generation, although this is what he says about his views:

"Nobody ever questions the integrity of immigrants and the domestic supporters of open immigration when they speak and act out of self-interest. The same cannot be said for the established population of the United States when, for reasons of self-interest, they call for reductions in mass immigration.

"Most Americans oppose mass immigration not because of any animosity toward immigrants, or because immigrants look different, speak different languages, or practice different religions. They oppose mass immigration because mass immigration is not in their interests. They are guilty of looking out for themselves and their own perceived interests - exactly as the immigrants and their supporters do.

"Americans oppose mass immigration because they do not see massive population growth to be in their interests. They do not see the loss of their jobs or wages to immigrants to be in their interests. They do not see the crowding of their children's schools with large numbers of kids who have language and other difficulties to be in their interests. They do not see rapid cultural and linguistic transformations of their neighborhoods to be in their interests."

http://www.johntanton.org/answering_my_critics/puppeteer.htm

You keep trying smears about John Tanton because you can't go to the Numbers USA or CIS websites and link to anything racist. In fact, there are black immigration restrictionists with links to these organisations. Presumably they are racist too.

https://www.facebook.com/BALAorg

cont'd