Andras,

It wouldn't have done you any good to deny being Andrew Smith, as you are well aware. I would have just copied and pasted one of his rants next to one of yours and let people draw their own conclusions. You haven't exactly been issuing conflict of interest declarations on your posts. Nor do I see any reason to reveal my real name. My arguments stand or fall on their own, or are backed up by credible authorities.

As for the substance of your arguments, this thread is about Australia's population, not the global population. Arguing about whether population or consumption is more to blame for our global predicament is like arguing about whether the size of a rectangle is determined by the length or the width. Population multiplies the impact of average consumption. Some consumption is necessary for survival, and considerably more is necessary for anything like a decent quality of life. The Global Footprint Network has estimated that it would take the resources of approximately 3 Earths to give everyone in the present population a modest Western European standard of living.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/

It is good news that fertility rates have come down in much of the world, but there is still a lot of demographic momentum and a lot of people who haven't gotten the message. The population of Syria has more than quadrupled since 1960, for example.

Your idea about temporary workers here in Australia might make sense if we had full employment. The ABS definition of unemployment is absurdly restrictive. Roy Morgan Research just asks people if they are unemployed or if they want more hours if they are working part-time. By their figures nearly 20% of our working age population is unemployed or underemployed. We are already supporting or heavily subsidising most of these people.

http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/unemployment/underemployment-estimates

Once all of these people have full-time jobs and we have raised the retirement age for people who aren't worn out or disabled, then we can talk about temporary workers.

There is neither evidence, nor a picture of how a 'low population (growth)' nirvana will look?

Regarding unemployment and population, according to research:

'In fact evidence from Australia and internationally shows that immigration actually creates jobs. In his book, Immigration and the Australian Economy, William Foster’s surveys over 200 studies on immigration and wages. He found there was, “a marginally favourable effect on the aggregate unemployment rate, even in recession”.'

http://www.solidarity.net.au/mag/back/2012/48/immigration-is-not-to-blame-for-cuts-to-jobs-and-wages/

Footprint network, anyone with analytical skills should be sceptical when they hear 'neo Malthusian' expressions like 'sustainability', 'steady state economy', 'zero population growth', 'carrying capacity', 'limits to growth', 'overshoot' etc..

This suggest an 'autarkist' economy, of which there are or have been numerous examples, but have any worked? It seems more about preserving privilege for the elite?

Further, all roads to lead to Rome, i.e. the Club of Rome, sponsored by VW and held on the Rockefeller's estate, you know global presence in fossil fuels, pharma and banking (lets not discuss their earlier obsessions about 'humanity'....)?

The same old names keep popping up, well known in USA in black, hispanic etc. media, but not elsewhere, i.e. the Footprint Network's advisors in the shadows are Lovejoy, Rees, Herman Daly, Myers etc.

Herman Daly developed the 'steady state' ideas, along with Ehlrich colleague of Tanton's at Zero Population Growth (Phillip Adams asked him why are large parts of his biography missing? For good reason...), Garrett Hardin 'Tragedy of the Commons', et al.

While presenting as concerned environmentalists' based on Club of Rome's ideas (not empirical science), but difficult to disprove, i.e. plausible, they are often the focus of ADL Anti Defamation League and SPLC Southern Poverty Legal Center..... for the 'types' they assoociate with in the USA.... 'good old boys'.

For a viewpoint on 'Greenwashing Nativism':

'From climate change to deforestation, FAIR (Ehrlich, Tanton et al) is pushing xenophobia as good eco-politics.'

http://www.thenation.com/article/greenwashing-nativism/

It's a good fit for 'illiberal democracies' wishing to keep the status quo, but it's not much to do with humanity let alone the environment.

For Xmas some reading about 'Using climate change to question immigration' https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2015/12/12/using-climate-change-question-immigration/1449838800273

Anyone who thinks that either population or consumption can grow without limit on a finite earth is an idiot who doesn't understand elementary mathematics. Warnings about various limits to growth aren't just coming from fringe organisations, as Andras the population booster wants to imply. They are coming from mainstream scientists who publish in Nature and Science, our very top journals. See, for example, this one, which attempts an overview of the total picture

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

open version: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

No doubt Andras will tell you that the authors, the referees, and the editors of Nature are all closet Nazis.

No one is proposing that we stop all immigration. That would be silly. The question is whether we want to keep doubling our population every 40 or 50 years. Andras needs to explain why countries with very little population growth or immigration, such as Denmark, are still performing well economically and giving their people good lives. If immigration on a massive scale is such a boon, why has growth in our GDP per capita been anemic since 2007 and why has National Disposable Income per capita been going down since 2011?

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/09/gdp-at-0-2-did-the-aussie-economy-just-snap/

Why is the decline worst in Victoria, which has had exceptionally high immigration? Why have wages for most American men been stagnant or declining in real terms since 1973? The US opened up to mass migration in 1965, although it took a while to build up steam. Why hasn't it made ordinary people better off?

Hi Divergence,

Still sore :)

You rightly note that: "Anyone who thinks that either population or consumption can grow without limit on a finite earth is an idiot who doesn't understand elementary mathematics."

Of course. I wonder who would be that stupid: 'without limit'. Or even 'at current rates'. In calculating future Indigenous university student and graduate numbers, extrapolating current growth rates well into the future, I've been guilty of something similar - from memory, once when the blood was really rushing to my head, I extrapolated to 2050 or 2060 and found that the entire Indigenous population were graduates, including babies and young children. So I sort of tweaked my figures, then eventually abandoned the whole future-enchanted project. Up to 2030 is an acceptable time-frame, with one in four Indigenous adults a graduate, but not much beyond that.

Currently, [i.e. not necessarily in the future], population growth seems to have stalled in Europe, Russia, Japan; and will start to do so shortly in China, South Korea and perhaps Mexico. Growth rates in many countries are only positive because of immigration - Australia, perhaps Canada and the US, for example. Growth rates seem to be slowing in South America and Africa, as people move to crowded cities, and more slowly still, as women gain more of their share of education.

One interesting factor about urbanisation is that ex-rural people have fewer social supports, and more pressure is put on women to work (and, indirectly, for girls and young women to get a better education) - at the same time as children come under the purview of authorities who require them to go school, and thereby become a cost rather than an economic benefit (the wonderful John Caldwell wrote eloquently on this shift in 19th century Europe, the US and Australia). The eventual consequence of these factors is a decline in fertility.

So it is just possible that the end is not nigh, not just yet :)

Cheers,

Joe

Actually Loudmouth our politicians do believe that you can have
infinite growth in a finite world and they are neither madmen or economists.

I was told by a minister of the government that service industries do not use energy !

Every post on here so far has missed the point.
The government, both parties are all spouting GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH !

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN !

In fact the drive for a larger population will not happen either
because it would require too much ENERGY !

We are fast coming up against it and you will see it when the price
of oil & coal rise. The reduction in energy demand is starting to
feed through into the banking system and will surface as an increase
in nonperforming debt.
The government is budgeting on an increase in revenue due to an
increase in GDP. If they get it this year they will not get it next year.
The economists have not realised the significance of the gap between
the highest oil price the economy can afford and the lowest price
the newest oil sources can break even on.
That is why Saudi Arabia is fast going broke, they are betting the
house on going broke second.

The masters of the universe do not realise that Goldilocks is dead !

Hi Bazz,

I'm not sure if your two sentences go together:

"when the price of oil & coal rise. The reduction in energy demand is starting to feed through into the banking system and will surface as an increase in nonperforming debt."

Actually the reverse is just as likely, a drop in resource prices (as more sites come on-stream, Roy Hill, Adani [wait and see] AND a rise in energy and manufacturing demand, e.g. India.

But as you point out, a drop in resource prices means that soon enough, some producers drop out - it's cheaper not to produce than to produce - well, you lose less money that way. The Saudis. Russia. Venezuela too. Then it's a different ball game.

Joe