The Forum > Article Comments > 7 reasons why some progressives don’t get population > Comments
7 reasons why some progressives don’t get population : Comments
By Simon Ross, published 30/9/2015When population concern was more popular, many progressives supported it, including Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Pete Seeger and Jane Fonda.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
-
- All
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 12:11:02 PM
|
You have previously admitted that you are
Andrew Smith, Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre
From the Centre's website:
"Central Europe and Turkey education & training services and consulting including market development, digital marketing & promotion, recruitment, study application, visa, migration referral, accommodation assistance and marketing services.
"Marketing services & consulting focuses upon digital channels to increase awareness, range, depth and breadth of an institution's potential market.
"AIECS's focus for market development and student recruitment is between Australia, Europe and Turkey (& Turkic Republics)."
You are very much a part of the immigration industry. While it is good to have some foreign students, our universities have been debased by the need to cater to huge numbers, often with inadequate English, who are motivated by the prospect of permanent residency, as a number of them have told me, as well as functioning as holding tanks to disguise unemployment among the domestic population. See
http://theconversation.com/australian-unis-should-take-responsibility-for-corrupt-practices-in-international-education-40380
Hans Rosling is interested in how human well-being has improved. It has, but you might also feel great while you run through an inheritance or lottery winnings. It is also true that the global population growth rate has fallen, but the growth is from a bigger base, so we are still getting 70-80 million more people a year. Rosling is not an expert on marine biology, marine chemistry, conservation biology, climatology, geohydrology, etc. That Nature article I linked to is about as peer reviewed as you can get. So far as Austalia is concerned, you might consider the conclusion of the Population Working Party in the 1994 Australian Academy of Science report, not updated since, to the best of my knowledge.
"In our view, the quality of all aspects of our children's lives will be maximised if the population of Australia by the mid-21st Century is kept to the low, stable end of the achievable range, i.e. to approximately 23 million."
You started the "smearing" with your insinuations of racism.