Yes and given most displaced people are fleeing conflict caused by power hungry madmen, one has to believe, we have no other option than to remove the cause of this massive exodus; be it the surgical removal of power hungry madmen or just endemic generational poverty, caused by things like repeated drought and consequent starvation by folks living as ever, from hand to mouth.

And a must do, least we live in a world without borders?

And therefore a world where the traditional laws and customs no longer hold sway; and it deteriorates into a hell on earth, where you are only safe behind impenetrable or totally hidden defenses!

WE have a natural moat and could if we so chose to,repel all boarders, sink or shoot down all attempts to take over/steal what we have or have created for ourselves and our children!?

However, I believe it is a better option to treat this problem at source; and by sending a cruise missile through a sleeping dictators bedroom window, if that is what it takes to end the bloodletting that keeps him or her inpower!

The only reason we have failed with this model in the past, is we didn't stay the course as law giving occupiers; until all the power vacuums were filled by a more population friendly model, be it universal suffrage/democracy, or the benign dictatorship, that precedes it?

But mostly I believe, we can improve the common lot just by providing the affordable carbon free or carbon neutral energy they need to till the ground and pump the water (recycled or desalinated where and as necessary,) so as to provide sufficient food and economic opportunities where they are now.

And then having done that, set about creating cottage industries and an education model that treat the other half of the population as equals before God and or the law!

We need borders and the laws they make possible along with the freedoms they guarantee!
Rhrosty.

Professor Curson, your “borderless world” is a parallel universe. In the real world, the other key in the equation is the multi-national corporation. And for honest taxpaying workers struggling to cope, it is unethical ; “Critically we also need to try and fully integrate them into our society, provide training, ensure access to education, housing, and social and health benefits and make sure that their children are allocated slots in day-care facilities or local schools.”

Yes, lines such as borders need to be drawn somewhere to prevent the spread of epidemics, crime and terrorism.

But this is where it should stop. There should be no other agenda for having those lines and once a person is clear of the above, they should be allowed to pass: nobody has a right to block another's path on God's blessed earth other than in self-defence.

Having said that, just because a person had physically crossed those lines, does not entitle them to any benefits such as social or national inclusion - these are completely different matters.

Humanity has achieved plague proportions and as a plague does will move on seeking new areas to lay waste and destroy until there is nothing left.

Hi Ateday,

Sorry to tell you, but the End is not Nigh. Birth-rates around the world have been falling for years. Populations may be rising mainly because people are living longer. Women are getting better-educated, hence postponing fecundity, and having fewer children. Except in the Muslim world, of course.

If anything, soon enough we will have labour shortages.

Is that what you are going on about ?

Cheers and merry Christmas,

Joe

I find it really disturbing the anti-Muslim sentiment, racism in reverse will not help the plight of the Jewish people, only turn more people against them. Its really disturbing. If given their way the Jewish communities exclude others who are not the same as them and think others are less than them, one reason why its become so bad for them, by their own discriminations they cause their own problems and cannot handle the consequences, not all Jews of course. I am sure there must be good and fair Jewish people, but the west is becoming more and more aware and outraged at what the Jews have done to Palestine and continue to do so to the Arab nations. Before the Ottoman empire was invaded by the west, all religions were accepted, why can this not be so today. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, it is obvious as described by the name sake of land and people. I want to have a fair opinion of both Jews and Arabs, but the persecution of the Muslims is becoming a genocide of their people and I was taught as a child that two wrongs don't make a right and I see the Jewish nation as making this mistake. I am not a supporter of a world without states. Identities as nations are important to a sense of belonging, without this we are nothing but rats in a cage.

In principle, I cannot agree with the principles behind this article. Firstly, it is very humanist in its focus and takes a very anthropocentric view, in terms of world living. The article also I believe wishes to 'select Australia' (in terms of border removal) in an underlying way, but does not wish to admit that.

Many people (in poorer or war torn countries) have serious rights to be concerned about their future. I have no idea what it is like for these people, in terms of day to day living, as I have not (and never will), live in a country of very low standards.

As a very (financially) well of country (and I will no doubt be attacked for that), I believe Australia has an obligation to assist people to live in their own home country, as much as possible. Australia cannot take in every person from elsewhere.

People should not feel pressured to leave their own homes, through communities of violence, poor living conditions or terrorism. This very much occurs when overseas communities are not assisted (through the United Nations) or when the foreign aid budget is cut or not raised substantially by a government.

Also Australia's policies re accepting other people from other countries are appalling. For example in a radio interview people can hear how some countries (in this case Australia) "steal" qualified employees from poorer countries, which have been trained at that countries expense.

The interview also takes into consideration environmental impacts (in terms of Australia) which is vital for earth as a whole and its future.

https://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/government-population-policy-interview-with-sandra-kanck/

Also using points like "an aging population" as a reason for accepting more people into Australia (which I am not totally against by the way, like refugees, asylum seekers and some business migration when needed) but the ageing element is petty, and does not add seriously to this discussion.

http://www.redlandcitybulletin.com.au/story/1921461/exploding-the-myth-that-a-ageing-population-is-bad-news/

All countries need to have environment as a number one high priority, and not put it at the bottom of the shopping list.

NathanJ,
Agree wholeheartedly that the Environment must take top priority.
No Environment No us.
Pretty simple really.
Human plagues are fleeing world troublespots because of conditions being caused by, or exacerbated by, overpopulation.
The world population cannot sustain a growth rate of 83 million a year.
It matters not if the birth rate stays level or even falls as the nett result is even MORE people and will be for a looooong time
yet.
While ever a rate of greater than replacement is maintained the problem exists.
Pretty simple really.

RHrosty has hit the nail on the head. It is a problem created by a few self-survivalist power hungry groups of people, but non the less it has been created and now has to be uncreated. To do this would mean we would have to live in a world where money does not exits and I am all for this. There is a model by ZeitGeist that shows how this can be done and it is so simple, but does require us to loose the ideology of necessity of money. Exclusion from crossing borders is ridiculous and people in need should be helped and assisted. People do not flee their lands if life is good and of course we should help them. All things should be for free, that is a free would, but rules/guidelines need to be established for order and peace. It is my understanding that is the reasoning behind religions and now it's about who's is right and who's is wrong, also ridiculous, with the underlying issue of money.
People can talk until they are blue in the face about it, but until real action is taken and the global consciousness changes and understands that money is not real and the people who are in positions of power and wealth; who can do something about this; stand up for a world without money, history will continue to repeat itself over and over. If everyone started to promote a world without money and started working towards the Zeitgeist model, the world would heal quickly. The health system is a money making industry and is why we have an ageing population in a sick world, but non the less in a healthy world people would live longer also, so I agree the ageing population is a non-issue and a diversion from the real issue as to why their are so many people migrating all over the world; its really all about money and power;take that out of the equation and we equall peace and stability

Hi Eillidh,

Your dream is already partly achieved - there are now millions of people in and from Syria who have almost no money. As well, there are perhaps hundreds of millions of people in India and across Africa who also are free of such a burden. And you're right also, that those without money also luckily have absolutely no power.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could go to where they are and tell them of their good fortune.

As for migration, you could also advise them that, in a perfect world, they could all migrate to Australia but never be paid for any work they may do here.

That should gain some response.

Joe

Four pages and not one word about the real pull factor, Centrelink! In the case of Australia and other names in other countries. These "Refugees" land in Greece and Italy but their welfare is not gold standard so off they go to Germany, Scandinavia and the UK. Same here in Aus they want our welfare to wring every dollar from us and complain interminably about how bad we are!
Tony Abbott should be Australian of the Year for his actions stopping the boats. We should also enforce TPV so if they arrive and then want to fly back "Home" they can, but cannot return. Then ensure no job or contribution means no citizenship.

Hi Loudmouth
Im sure the starving and dying people already know the evils of money and how it should be, for it is the oppressed and poor who dream up the dreams of a better world, but for now the people you speak of just need to focus on their immediate survival. I encourage you to watch ZeitGeist and know that what I dream up is achievable. I have been financially poor where I did not eat anything other than broccoli leaves and flowers with a bit of damper for just over two weeks; that was when I was at my lowest over a period of three years of not much to eat; I ended up very unwell over that time. My ancestors had to flee Ireland due to war and famine, so I am able to imagine what it is like, only I starved for a short time and without the guns and bombs. Is that the kind of response you are looking for.

Hi Eillidh,

I should imagine that what the desperately poor dream of is money and what it can buy, if only they had more of it: they could get a daughter out of prostitution, a couple of sons out of debt slavery, the youngest's first pair of shoes for school, maybe pay back Auntie so-and-so for the rent. And keep dreaming of having an electric light.

Money is not an evil in itself, but only in its unequal distribution. Seriously, when you were starving, were they the happiest weeks of your life ? Would a few quid have made a difference ? Say, to buy just a few pounds of potatoes ?

As for your strange attack on Jews, your lack of knowledge of the Middle East's history is amazing: how do you think the Muslims extended their empire out of Arabia, if not by conquest and extermination ? What do you think the Ottoman Empire was but an Empire ? The name gives you a clue. The Muslim aggressors rampaged across Asia and North Africa and into Europe for more than a thousand years, say from the Berber invasion of southern Spain in 712 AD or so, to the attack on Vienna in 1699.

As for the Jewish belief that, once one places a foot on land, it is always one's own thereafter, that is precisely the Muslim perception: both are, of course, ridiculous. But Jerusalem WAS Jewish and Christian long before it was claimed by Muslims, after Muhammad flew there on his winged horse and climbed up Jacob's ladder to Heaven: ipso facto, Jerusalem became Muslim. [But did Muhammad place his foot on land there ?] And Muslims prayed in its direction for a couple of hundred years afterwards, and built their early mosques facing in that direction, not towards Mecca.

So whether people living in a city for a thousand or more years, being expelled, and returning, OR a bloke flying to it on a winged horse, is the more likely justification for ownership claims - I'll leave that up to you.

Joe

Hi Loudmouth
History has many faces and assumptions are just that aren't they.
no money, no poor, no prostitution, no slavery. Maybe you and I are reading different books.