The issue is not population. Never has been in Oz. See Africa.

The problem is the SPA and SPP's allegiance to John Tanton and Roy Beck. See below for a profile from the New York Times on Tanton.

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

See below SPA and SPP head honcos glad handing with Roy Beck from the SPA newsletter (interview p2-3)

http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/newsletters/nl201302_108-web.pdf

Note also Bindi's story on the front page. Beck had just written her essay for her.

The SPA and SPP have been in email communication with Beck for some years. They not only endorse his tactics and philosophy but employ them in Australia. See my previous articles on preference distribution from the SPP at the last Federal election. Very snuggly with the far right. Classic example of direct external influence in Australian domestic politics.

One other small but important point is that the SPA is a registered charity acting as a political lobby group.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King

That seems a reasonable and responsible newsletter you linked to in your post.

It contains articles on people such as Bindi Irwin, makes references to findings by the US National Academy of Science, and contains reviews of book from a number of academics, and published with well known publishers such as Allen and Unwin.

It also contains statistics and data regards our overpopulation, and that comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

So I can’t see anything alarming about the newsletter, and they seem to be doing a good job highlighting the most likely future for Australia.

I can sense the anger, hate and contempt for the newsletter by those very few in the country (maybe 1% or less) who might profit from immigration.

But for the rest, there does not appear to be any gains, economically, socially or environmentally.

The crux of the matter is that anyone who advocates increased anything
just does not understand what is going on.

That statement applies to everything everywhere.
With a situation of fixed or reducing quantities of everything, any
increase in population will mean less for everyone of everything.

This the fundamental that our politicians do not understand.
For evidence, watch the kerfuffle going on in Canberra over the budget.

Exactly, Bazz

Globally, we have 7 billion people going on 10-11 billion (from the UN medium projection) on a planet that can perhaps sustainably support perhaps 1-2 billion in modest comfort. We are only getting by now because so many of us are living in appalling poverty and because we are running down our environmental capital by depleting nonrenewable resources and using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. We are suffering from losses or shortages of arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, cheap fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our agriculture and other technology, and the capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. Warnings on all these things are coming from reputable mainstream scientists. See for example this talk on peak mining by a geologist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

Australia has less capacity to feed people than France. We have 47.7 million hectares of arable land, while France has 18.4 million. In 2912, Australia was able to produce 2.2 tons of grain per hectare, while France could produce 7.5 tons. Multiply out and you can see that France can grow a third again as much grain as Australia, even when we are having a good year. Because of far more reliable rainfall, France can count on this sort of harvest every year, but Australia only got 1.1 tonne to the hectare in 2006, a drought year. Our soils are particularly low in phosphorus, which is getting expensive and in short supply. See the following and the comment by Durwood Dugger:

http://oilprice.com/Metals/Foodstuffs/Doomsday-Will-Peak-Phosphate-Get-us-Before-Global-Warming.html

Without affordable oil and phosphate, and without enough water (a real possibility with some of the nastier climate change predictions), our agricultural productivity will drop like a stone.

NSW alone now has 1000 plant and animal species on the endangered list

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

Back in 1994, when the evidence for all these problems was a lot weaker, the Australian Academy of Sciences recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit for our population.

Imagining that this is all about Tanton and Beck, people (whatever their faults) who actually care about the environment and their fellow citizens, or "racism" is delusional. From Black leader T. Willard Fair's testimony to Congress (link in a previous post above):

"The reality is that less-educated black men in America today have a variety of problems -- high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor performance at work and school -- that are caused by factors unrelated to level of immigration.

"But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn't be a cure-all, it sure would make my job easier. Take employment -- immigration isn't the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it's not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it's something we can fix relatively easily.

"Think about it this way: If there's a young black man in Liberty City, where I live, who's good with his hands and wants to become a carpenter, which is more likely to help him achieve that goal -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

"Which is more likely to help an ex-convict or recovering addict get hired at an entry-level job and start the climb back to a decent life -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

"Which is more likely to persuade a teenager in the inner city to reject the lure of gang life and instead stick with honest employment -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

"And it's not just a matter of jobs. Whatever your views on government social programs, everyone can agree that resources are not infinite..."

Paddy's and Andras' motives are not above suspicion.

"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."

On current trends, the population of Western Europe will also be smaller at the end of the century than it is today. Japan’s population is already going backwards. Even China will reach a peak population in 2025, after which it too will start to shrink. But not Africa. The SPA/SPP never talk about Africa.

It is ludicrous to even posit Australia will run out of food. According to the National Farmers Federation, there are approximately 134,000 farm businesses in Australia. Australian farmers produce about 93 percent of Australia’s daily domestic food supply.

Australia’s farm exports earned the country $32.5 billion in 2010-11, up from $32.1 billion in 2008-09. About 70 per cent of arable land is currently under crops. Of that 70 per cent, farmers keep about 10 per cent fallow for rotation.

Australian live cattle exports totaled 694,429 head in 2011/12 valued at A$629.4 million, according to ABARE (2012). According to Australian livestock export industry statistics review (2011) the nation exported 2,458,448 sheep in 2011, valued at A$328 million.

We import a little under $10 billion in foodstuffs per year – mainly packaged goods - and about one third is due to reciprocal trade agreements with New Zealand and other nations.

I am not greatly concerned about the anti-population movement including Divergence and the ACF. Remember Erik Von Daniken and his alien conspiracy theories in the early 1970s? I am more concerned with the right wing ideology buried within their systems thinking. Ask yourself these questions:

• Is it not odd that a movement that allegedly supports democracy actually wants to reduce the number of democratic participants?
• It is not bizarre that as the speed of Australia’s population growth slows, that the SPA/SPP (same thing) want to drive birth numbers even lower than the 1.7 per female average? (they want a one child pop of 7 million).
• Is it not the height of audacity that a bunch of blokes with science and engineering backgrounds want to meddle in women’s contraceptive rights and sexual health?