The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The low-tech, no-tech solution > Comments

The low-tech, no-tech solution : Comments

By Eric Claus, published 30/6/2006

Some solutions are just so simple - drastically reduce immigration to Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. ...
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. 25
  17. All
Yuyutsu, a confederation is a great idea, 9 independent states with a (Canberra) confederation headquarters. Everything except national security state controlled, with no immigration between states unless authorised.

Confederation representatives elected by the people of each state. Wouldn't take long for the country to run competitively and securely.

Immigration would then be a state problem, the federal government should be the confederate government, that way we get more say.

BTW, we can produce most of our oil requirements from algae, add solar, biofuels, wind, tide and hydro, problems solved.

David latimer, give us a break, a logical approach to energy needs instead of a monopolised approach, is what will give this society a chance of survival. People will die to reduce the planets problems, history shows us thats the case. This country has the best chance of surviving any chaotic population invasion, we should embrace that and let the rest of the world take care of itself.

Other than that, we have nothing but disastrous chaos to look forward to.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 6:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davo, I didn't mention the holocaust. You did. I didn't mention Israel. You did. I didn't mention Germany. You did. You did all that because you thought my surname somehow made them relevant to this discussion. But your assumptions are both prejudiced and mistaken. Know that traditional Jewish customs are matrilineal. Whereas Anglo names are patrilineal. You get your name from your father and your Jewishness from your mother. My mother's Roman Catholic. I'm Atheist. Even if I were Jewish, I fail to see the relevance of any of this to immigration policy in Australia, although you seem to think it highly pertinent because my name is Goldstein. So for the sake of keeping this discussion going, I'm going to assume your comments were made in jest, instead of being the ignorant, prejudiced, offensive statements they appear to be. The one thing you got right is that this isn't Germany. The Germans apologised to the victims of the holocaust ;-)

What's fragile about multicultural society in Australia? In what way is the debate hidden? It has been openly disputed for at least 2 generations. And it's only got stronger in that time. I would think that continuing to grow through 30 years of public disputation says everything you need to know about the "fragility" of Australian multiculturalism.

Our children's generation aren't agonising over multiculturalism – they're living it. And time is on their side.

Among the many other things that are "not debatable" is that there's enough rainfall in the NT every year to irrigate the whole of SE Australia. Since that's "not debatable" I take you have no objections to turning the rivers inland - then we won't have to worry about how many people are coming here? (Alan Jones would be so proud of me right now :-D )

BTW, has anyone else noticed that in the last 30 years, Sydney's sky has changed from a lead-choked mustard-yellow haze to, on most days, a pristine blue? Perhaps I'm the only one who sees it because being an intellectual in a choked, congested city affects my vision so badly.
Posted by Mercurius, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 8:58:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric, I'll flesh out my high-immigration stance with you on another occasion where I have more than 350 words.

Your analysis of the immigration situation in Australia seems both astute and correct. Immigrants boost the economy, many people won't accept lower immigration, and politics is the art of the possible. That is why the government isn't listening to you. Ergo, you are wasting your time pushing a barrow that the Australian public won't accept. Your position reminds me of the radical Marxists who are still trying to bring about the revolution despite the fact that Australia emphatically chose a different road 2 generations ago. Your talents and enthusiasm for protecting the environment would be better spent devoting your time to what Australians will accept, not what you want them to accept.

However, if you and your supporters just want to dream on about your immigrant-free nirvana like the Marxists want to dream on about their workers' paradise, you’re quite entitled to do so. It just seems a waste of good ideas and energy, that's all.

And why do both you and Ludwig claim some sort of rhetorical victory because I understand the trivial and obvious point that having more people makes environmental management more difficult? It does not oblige me to accept that low immigration is the answer, any more than it obliges me to accept forced sterilisation is the answer. The most remarkable thing about your article is that you managed to spin such a non-sequitur out to 1000 words.

I say that smarter technology, not lower immigration, is a more humane answer, and I look forward to continuing that debate with you another time.

And aren't you a little embarrassed by the extreme sentiments some of your fellow travellers expressed? Some of them, by their remarks, do indeed fit the profile of a head-for-the-hills, shotgun-and-can-of-beans, tub-thumping soapbox loony, complete with a side-helping of anti-Semitism. Probably another reason that anti-immigration parties have trouble getting votes, just as the dishevelled Marxist set are routinely ignored.

PS – Alchemist, you forgot to add: “we’ll all be rooned!”
Posted by Mercurius, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 9:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric,

excellent article - thanks.

As someone else mentioned, I hope that Andrew Bartlett and his fellow Democrats are advised to read the article and comments very carefully. (In case contributors are not aware, in another OLO AB stated that he and the democrats are pro increased immigration and propose a population of 30 to 35 million in oz)

One question, you indicated that "Australians produce about 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per person every year." An article in the Australian last Saturday, confirmed this but also indicated that electicity generation accounts for 19.1kg CO2 per head. Can you explain the 27,980 kg difference between the two numbers? Do you have a link to the source info. If the numbers are correct then there would seem to be huge scope for savings through conservation.

I just cannot understand why anyone should think an Australia with 35 plus million is going to be a better place than it would be with a population of say 10 to 20 millions.

What is so good about more people? Whats the attraction? If on adds PO consequences and desertifcation into the mix then I can only say of our legacy inheritors "poor bastards"
Posted by last word, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 10:02:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mercurius

You might achieve more by arguing the per capita economic benefits from high immigration with more than "Immigrants boost the economy". The Productivity Commission's recent report on immigration suggested a trivial benefit, and it made no consideration of the costs required to support such growth, which could put any benefit from such growth far into the red. The report was not commissioned by neo-nazis in greenie camouflage, but by a government which extols the benefits of high immigration as an article of faith: This makes the findings of the report all the more surprising, as a break even proposition implies that any profit derived by one from high immigration can only come at the expense of another. Surely the purpose of government is not to pursue such policy? Nor does this sound to me like something that people would want. “What’s in it for me?” is a question more often asked.

Then there is your claim that supporting high immigration is the humane choice. Linking moral virtue with a political stance has never been an accurate measure. W.C. Wentworth provides a good historical case in point. His public stance on the importation of cheap labour from southern Asia changed from total opposition, on the grounds of maintaining the racial purity of the colony, to one of total support. This change in opinion coincided with his loss of convict labour, which had given him some commercial advantage over his competitors. Some might see this change as an intellectual enlightenment, but I tend to think that his character stayed the same.

Mercurius complains that he cannot put his case in a mere 350 words, yet he has only put four meaningful words toward it.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 10:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mercurius, as a former long term resident of Surry Hills and now 'born again hillbilly', I find your allusion to head for the hills etc a touch offensive. Both Sydney and SEQ can solve the problem of excessive migrant numbers any time they want.

All they need to do is to stop building new infrastructure. Tell them that Sydney has already had more than it's fair share of the capital works budget and there is no room for their kids at school. But be sure to tell them that there are plenty of spare places in Moree, Mudgee and Wagga Wagga schools and spare beds in their hospitals. In fact, there are hundreds of towns where a few extra families would be all it would need to justify an extra GP to enable the existing one to take a holiday before his marriage breaks up from overwork.

But back in the real world, Sydney can never have too much of anything and admitting that it it might actually be the cause of it's own problems would be a big ask indeed. But severing it from the rest of NSW, and SEQ from the real Queensland, sounds pretty good to me. They could form their own federation and call it "Gluttony".
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 11:25:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. ...
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. 25
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy