Ludwig...

correct, most of my post was kinda off topic. I do hope you looked at the last portion of my 'dying off' post and saw my view on the overall issue.

Sustainablity. 1.8 children is not "sustainable" .... its negative and will without question result in racial disharmony if any other group becomes large.

Regarding "am I fearful of being outbred by certain groups".... A RESOUNDING YES... I think my 'breeding' stats above illustrate the potential at least. I mean.. 2 people, after 3 generations amounting to 5.8 ? until grandpa and grandma die leaving a massive total of 4.8 compared to 700+ ? The reason I raise such demographic material is that it the very same stuff found on such web sites as
http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html read specially under the heading of 'demographics' down the page.

The PLO regards birth rates as a weapon against Israel.

On refugees. I've pretty much said what needed 2B said about that earlier. I thought I'd explore the idea on a more broad basis. Refugees, if welcomed without constraints or limits, would see not 10s or 100s arriving here but MILLIONS, we both know this. So, demographics are relevant. If we don't know our own situation well, how can we craft meaningful sustainable policy ?

My urge to have more children is to at least 'reach' sustainablity and to avoid the need to 'import' skilled tradespeople which, if not done carefully with regard to social/cultural/religious/political considerations might just bring our nation undone.

The relative harmony we enjoy here is only because of an overwhelming majority of UK backgrounded people, which produces a majority of population who feel by default that they have little to worry about, hence peace. Malaysia on the other hand having Chinese 35% and Malays 45% (around that) they had massive race riots.

It doesn't take much to trigger racial problems, just look at a few simple drawings at the moment.

By the way, I deliberately put an extreme position sometimes to stimulate thought. Failure to see all sides and implications due to fear of criticism is not my cuppa :)

Ludwig

My comments were in response to BOAZ's ludicrous and offensive conjecture. My apologies if it was overly intemperate and too widely encompassing.

I am sometimes overly sensitive on this topic because I have had so many debates and arguments with people about it over the years - including people such as John Coulter in the Democrats - and far too many of them have (often quite quickly) ended up in Pauline Hanson territory.

That is not to say that people aren't entitled to hold those views, but I am not going to debate sustainability when it is just being used as a cloak for xenophobia, prejudice or worse. I realise this does not apply to all anti-immigration people, but in my experience it does seem to apply to a lot of them once you scratch the surface.

Back purely to the sustainability argument - having worked in the migration area for so long, I simply cannot see massive reductions in migration numbers being achievable, let alone socially or economically just. It is a global world and becoming more so, and population should be addressed globally. It just seems excessively selfish to me to say that (virtually) nobody else is allowed to live here, because we already consume too many resources per head.

There is already more demand than there are places in our current family migration intake. Even if humanitarian stayed as it is, and skillled/business intake dropped to zero, the family intake would still have to drop in order to enable a net zero intake.

Plus, socially and politically, it is already hard enough to get public support for refugees settling here. If there were even more of them and a huge cut in anyone else being able to settle here, the resentment would skyrocket, as would the suspicion (and possibly the reality) about bogus asylum claims.

Not meaning to be rude, Andrew, but don't you ever feel that there is some corrrelation between the changes in AD policies since the Chip and Coulter days and your current political fortunes?

To all sudanese, nigerians and other African refugees,if you want to live and enjoy the rest of your life in Australia,(doesn't sound good but its the truth)reproduce with Anglo Australians .
Its seem to be the only way,blended in as best you can.Because racism isn't changing anytime soon. One kid two kids ,doesn't matter to the racist cause its not their race,they already have the stereotype of the over reproudctive Africans.Try to enjoy life.

David

The notion that a fertility rate of 1.8 is not sustainable needs further explanation. In simple terms, a population cannot be sustained at the same level with a fertility rate below replacement level. But;

1. The age structure of the Australian population has a very significant impact on the growth rate. Births are currently a long way in excess of deaths, which means that the effective national fertility rate is well above 2, despite an individual fertility rate of 1.76. This is occurring because there is an ‘excess’ of people in their reproductive years compared to what there would be if the age structure was typical of a stable population. With the current fertility rate, and net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for three or four decades and then would take another few decades to fall back to the current level. We could therefore say that the current birthrate will sustain the current population level for about a person’s lifetime.

2. You can’t divorce immigration from birthrate unless we go to absolute zero immigration. It is not mutually exclusive from the individual fertility rate or the age structure and therefore the effective fertility rate.

3. This whole sustainability debate is not about sustaining the same population level, it is about balancing resource consumption with supply capability, and environment with quality of life, in perpetuity. It doesn’t imply that the population itself has to remain the same.

You have put something in quotation marks attributed to me that I did not write; "am I fearful of being outbred by certain groups" Exact words only should go in quotation marks. I’m sure you meant no misrepresentation, but this has meant is that you haven’t really addressed my question.

I asked; “Are you afraid of current Australians or white Australians being bred out or overwhelmed by faster birthrates among non-whites or immigrants?”

The link you provided shows how Muslim birthrates are well in excess of those of other groups in some parts of the world. But is this a significant concern in Australia? Is it significant compared to sustainability?

Andrew thanks for the explanation. I fully accept your comments on concerns about xenophobia within the anti-immigration or low immigration mindset. But in my experience, those with this motivation are in the small minority.

The Sustainable Population Australia members’ forum and public forum (PublicPopForum@yahoogroups.com) are full of comments and discussion about sustainability issues and rarely touch on issues that could be interpreted and xenophobic or prejudiced. I think this is a very good indication of the true motivation of the vast majority. Afterall, racial, ethnic and related matters are connected to population concerns in some ways and are therefore fair game for discussion.

You write; “I simply cannot see massive reductions in migration numbers being achievable…”

Why not? Bob Hawke (or was it Keating) lowered immigration very considerably. As soon as the sustainability ethic pervades our political scene, immigration will be able to be lowered very significantly very quickly.

“…let alone socially or economically just.”

I don’t understand this at all.

“It is a global world and becoming more so, and population should be addressed globally.”

Of course population growth should be addressed globally. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t also be addressed nationally and locally.

“It just seems excessively selfish to me to say that (virtually) nobody else is allowed to live here, because we already consume too many resources per head.”

I think this twisting the argument backwards. All sustainability advocates are concerned about both continuous pop growth and per-capita overconsumption. With the peak oil scenario just around the corner, consumption will be greatly lowered, which is all the more reason to cut immigration now.

We are starting to go over some of the same really basic ground here. But we are still not getting right to the crunch of the issue.