“Equally important are ethnic and religious differences within societies to our north.”

And therein lays the real problem for Australia. Forget the reasons, and face the facts. Ethnic differences are now the biggest threat to our future.

The author’s claim that “.. many Muslims are still marginalised and discriminated against in areas of education employment and housing” is wrong, though. Muslims marginalise themselves with their medieval religion. Their religion keeps them in dark: not the actions of other groups.

Incidentally, Peter Curson confuses ‘ethnicity’ with religion, as so many ‘experts’ do, but the problem of Islam is there, nonetheless. And, Australia’s stupidity in refusing to accept the fact that, although we need to get along with our neighbours, we are a bastion of Western civilization in the region is the other problem of our own making.

A very interesting appraisal of the demographics, particularly in our own area. I have always been a great follower of Dr Paul Erlick and his prescient view of the "population Bomb" over 40 years ago. While a not entirely accurate view at the time, he was very close to the mark, close enough to realise that nature and the reaction of human instincts in an over populated world had consequences which should have been recognised by many more governments at an earlier stage rather than encouraging and subsidising the human race to breed. This is of course exacerbated by a system of differing cultures, religions and tribes, a vast number of which do not accept democracy and are dedicated to ultimate domination.

Snake

Dr Paul Erlick’s (I presume you mean Ehrlich) predictions were so far off the mark they’re now a standing joke

His forecasts include

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

"a minimum of ten million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century"”

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies -- often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance of survival”

His dystopian view of the world and loathing of humanity, which looks on the starvation of the poor and not only inevitable but desirable, ranks him as one of the more loathsome green gurus of the 20th century.

According to Wilipedia,
The Population Bomb made the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century in 2003 and was #11 ("honorable" mention) in Human Events Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Muslims are marginalized because "ISLAM" marginalizes them.

If they are not taken up as 'Cashiers' for reasons of them being Muslim, is it "discrimination" or is it "reaping what they sow"?

I would be happy to accept a Muslim as a cashier in a supermarket PROVIDED that he/she agreed without question to handle EVERYthing which needed to come through the checkouts. Including PORK, BACON and ALCHOHOL and TOBACCO (much as the last 2 are loathesome to me personally)
http://www.collegerecruiter.com/career-counselors/archives/2007/04/muslim_cashiers_at_target_refu.php

MUSLIM DISCRIMINATION against SECULAR SOCIETY.

-Some Muslim Taxi drivers won't pick up passengers carrying any alchohol.
-Some Muslim Target workers will not touch/scan pork/bacon.
-Muslim Mayor denies Ham sandwiches to other residents in Hume shire(Melbourne)

"small wonder many are pushed into radicalism" says the author ...

Nope..sorry, they are pushed into radicalism by the following:

a)They feel victimized (because of their religion being incompatable with the West.
b) Their propensity to violence.
c) Their unwillingness to adapt culturally.
d) The radical/extreme/hateful nature of the Quran and hadith.
e)Its 'our' fault not theirs that they are marginalized.
f) Marginalization results in increased sense of 'us/them'
g) With a stronger sense of 'us/them' employers are MORE reluctant to take them on and provide opportunities.
h) goto "e" above for a few more loops then proceed below.

i) Silver tongued orators inflame their sense of victimhood.
j) Radicals use skilful but deceptive propoganda showing all manner of Muslim victimization by Western powers, ignoring totally the attocities perpetrated by Muslims, such as teaching a 12yr old boy how to carve off the head of a man suspected of treachery.

k) Disgruntled Moderates are made more extreme by "g"
l) Plans are made and attacks considered against the "enemies of Islam"
m) We now have 11 men in Sydney and 13 in Melbourne on trial charged with 'terrorism'.
n) They are just the ones against whom the police consider the evidence is sufficient to win a conviction.

So what is your conclusion Rhian?

Do you think Ehrich’s timelines were way out, but the underlying message is sound?

Or do you think that his message about population growth is fundamentally wrong and that we can keep growing the population with no ill-effect?

Ludwig
I think he was totally wrong on three counts.

Firstly, he didn't anticipate that population growth was going to slow of its own accord (the “demographic transition” discussed in the article), without the need for policy intervention or encouraging the starvation of the world's poor.

Secondly, he failed to appreciate the capacity of humanity to innovate and hence sustain economic growth.

Thirdly, he failed to understand that the causal relationship runs in the opposite way to the one he expected - that improving human welfare, reflected in economic growth, falling poverty rates, rising life expectancy etc was the cause of population growth, rather than population growth being the cause of a drop in living standards that he anticipated by which never happened.

He’s a malevolent false prophet, responsible for many people adopting a fatalistic indifference to the fate of the world’s poor. I think the people who voted his book one of the most harmful of the 20th century were dead right.

Thanks Rhian. An interesting reply.

Firstly, to what extent has population growth really slowed? While the percentage growth rate may have slowed a little, the increase in real numbers has not dropped much at all. The thing that matter is that it is still increasing very rapidly. And the combined effect of the number of people and the average per-capita impact on the resource base and environment is increasing more rapidly.

Secondly, the capacity for humanity to innovate is a double-edged sword. As well as improving the lives of millions and increasing efficiencies in resource consumption and waste production, it has facilitated population growth and an ever-increasing rate of resource consumption. So our innovative brilliance has worked directly towards taking us closer to the precipice of resource and environmental crisis and social collapse, within a much shorter timeframe than would have happened if we’d been a whole lot less innovative. It is an oxymoron to talk about sustained economic growth. The availability of that most amazing of resources – oil – has facilitated this innovation and expansion of humanity. And we are fast approaching the time when it will become much more expensive and less readily available.

Thirdly, it is a bit premature to say that a drop in living standards won’t happen due to population growth, or due to pop growth in conjunction with resource crisis. Again, this is bound to happen in a massive way as the availability of oil and the economics of everything associated with it (with means just about everything, full stop) changes radically.

I think Ehrlich was a visionary. He should have been heeded. His timelines were wrong, but his message was profound. His books; the Population Bomb and the Population Explosion are by no means harmful. I for one completely reject the notion that they are thought of as being amongst the worst books of last century, and I’ve got to very seriously question where people who think like that are coming from, in terms of their appreciation of continuous growth and sustainability issues.

Ludwig

It is a statistical inevitability that if something’s rate of growth is slowing in percentage terms, its growth in absolute terms will not be slowing as quickly, and may even continue to increase for a while.
US Bureau of Census historical data show that the world’s population growth rate peaked in percentage terms in 1962-63 at 2.16%pa, and has since fallen to 1.17%pa. That’s a pretty steep drop. The absolute annual growth rate peaked in 1989 at 88 million, and has fallen to 77 million. It also projects growth decelerating in both percentage and numeric terms to the middle of the century:

http://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askcensus.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=365&p_created=1079980014&p_sid=BuzjUgBi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTYmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2P

UN population projections show the same historic trend but anticipate an somewhat more marked deceleration on the next few decades.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006_tables.xls

Ehrlich called for Indian males who have three or more children to be forcibly sterilized, and suggested adding “sterilents” to the domestic water supply in the USA. He called for an end to global food aid, and condemned “the assorted do-gooders who are deeply involved in the apparatus of international food charity.” He called for “luxury taxes” on cribs, diapers, and toys.

It is because we innovate that the catastrophes that eco-fascists like Ehrlich anticipate so gleefully never have, and never will, eventuate. But his apocalypic worldview continues to do enormous damage.

Rhian,

If an agronomist like William Paddock, who ought to have been able to understand the potential of the Green Revolution if anyone could, was also predicting famines in the 1970s, why would you expect an entomologist like Ehrlich to know better than he did about his own field? People, including you, make predictions on the best evidence available at the time. Sometimes they get it wrong.

It is true that population growth can be slowed down or stopped by affluence in combination with the empowerment of women. This is the very best outcome, but there are other ways it happens, such as a collapse in the market for labour, turning children from assets into liabilities, or a general economic collapse. (See Virginia Abernethy's book "Population Politics".) It would be nice to make everyone affluent, but where do you propose to get the energy, resources, and capacity to dispose of wastes? We are already in environmental trouble with the present population, even at its present miserable average level of consumption. Technology doesn't always come to the rescue. It didn't save the whole communities that were being wiped out by the Black Death or the Irish Potato Famine.

China and India were at about the same level of development in the 1950s. China didn't wait for affluence: it adopted tough Ehrlich-style policies. India didn't. Lets see where they are now (CIA World Factbook). Population growth rate: China 0.606%, 13.45 births per 1000 population; India 1.606% , 22.69 births per thousand. Infant mortality: China 22.1 deaths/1000; India 34.61 deaths/1000. Male life expectancy: China 71.13 years; India 66.28 years. GDP per capita (Purchasing Power Parity): China $7,600; India $3,700.

Rhian

You may think that some of the ideas that Ehrlich came up with about how to quell population growth are ‘ecofascist’, but have you spared a thought as to why such things were suggested?

The fact is that unbridled population growth is in no one’s interest. Even strong methods of reducing population growth can be in everyone’s interest, if they enable the demand imposed by the population on its life-supporting mechanisms to remain within the ability of those mechanisms to cater for the demand, in an ongoing manner.

That’s the essence of sustainability, and it has become the number one imperative for the planet.

It is a cold hard fact that the further we get out of balance, the harsher the restrictions are going to have to be to restore the balance. But those restrictions won’t be anywhere near as harsh as the restrictions imposed on all of us if the life-supporting systems collapse.

That’s all very basic. And that was the premise under which Ehrlich suggested things like forced sterilisations.

Far from being ecofascist, this outlook is fundamentally moral. When the population growth rate is set to exceed the basic supply rate of resources, then the moral thing to do is to suggest ways of fixing the situation. And quite frankly, only strong and immediate factors that very significantly reduce the birthrate, such as mass forced sterilisations, would have a chance of working, in many places.

True ecofascists are those that advocate and facilitate continuous growth.

“It is because we innovate that the catastrophes that eco-fascists like Ehrlich anticipate so gleefully never have, and never will, eventuate.”

Oh dear! Can’t you see that the vast majority of our innovations have facilitated population growth and greater per-capita impacts on the planet? Our innovations are very largely counterproductive in the longer term!

Unfortunately, one or more of the catastrophic scenarios that Ehrlich, a moral visionary, has warned us about will happen, due largely to the actions of true ecofascists.

Divergence,
I think you’ll find China’s economic growth owes more to its embrace of the benefits of globalisation – trade, the exchange of ideas and investment, and the move towards a more market-driven economy – than to population control. India saw the light later, but its growth accelerated from the early 1990s when it implemented programs of deregulation, and its real per capital growth is now pretty strong. Indeed, the CIA fact book you cite suggests that the one child policy is one of the most significant threats to China’s longer-term growth, because “ one demographic consequence of the "one child" policy is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world”

People have made predictions of economic collapse due to resource exhaustion for centuries, and all have been wrong, because they fail to understand what economic growth is and how it works in a market economy. Most growth is not about producing and consuming ever-increasing quantities of the same old things in the same old way, it’s about innovation - finding new things to sell and better ways of producing the old ones.

As some resources become scarce and their prices rise, alternatives are found. Innovation substitutes cheap and abundant resources for expensive and scarce ones – the telecommunications revolution would not have happened if we still needed to send signals through copper wire. As economies get more affluent, an increasing proportion of consumption is of services rather than goods.

You’re right, technology didn’t solve the potato famine or black death. But these weren’t caused by over-population. Being human is always a risky business, but that not a reason to wish there were fewer of us.

We need to get policy settings right, and that means, particularly, correcting for stuff the market won’t do on its own, like addressing global warming. But if we do, I’m confident we can sustainably raise the living standards of the world’s poor

Ludwig
I didn’t call Ehrlich an “ecofascist” only to be insulting, I did so because his views echo fascism, notably:

– that individual freedom of action and conscience is secondary to what is perceived to be the collective good;
– that it is acceptable to inflict suffering on the innocent if is serves some “higher” purpose;
– that the state can and should exercise control over the totality of human life, including its most intimate and personal dimensions;
– that a central authority is best placed to determine and effect policies for the good of the polity; and
– that the use of force is the natural and appropriate means of achieving these objectives.

I can understand that you might disagree with allowing people to make their own choices about fertility, but I can’t see how this can be called “true ecofascism”

Rhian,

The potato famine was indirectly caused by overpopulation. Before the introduction of the potato, the Irish, like most Europeans, kept their population in balance with resources by ensuring that the land was inherited intact by only one of the sons (the youngest son in Ireland and the eldest in Britain (primogeniture)). If the family were reasonably prosperous one or more of the daughters might get dowries so that they could marry someone else's heir. The other childen didn't get to marry. If an unmarried daughter became pregnant she was liable to be turned out with nothing.

When the potato was introduced, they found that, under Irish conditions, many more people could be fed from the same area of land. Parents came under pressure to divide the land among the children rather than leaving it all to one of them. The population grew to the point where it could no longer grow enough grain to feed itself and was completely dependent on two varieties of potato. Those varieties happened to be vulnerable to the late blight. After the collapse the population of Ireland was reduced to less than half of what it was in 1848 and stayed that way for much of the 20th century. (See the relevant chapter in Abernethy's book and her references.)

It could also be argued that the Black Death spread so readily because of a poor population living crowded together under insanitary conditions. According to the lecture on the 14th century in the ABC's Thousand Years in a Day series, the wonderful living standards enjoyed by the survivors of the Black Death weren't matched until the late 19th century, despite the technological progress of the intervening centuries. See the references in Jared Diamond's Collapse for other collapses, some directly attributable to overpopulation, such as the Easter Island one.

Why would the Chinese stick with an unpopular one child policy if no benefits exist or they are not outweighed by the aging problem? Why do you think that some selfish moron's right to breed should take precedence over other people's right to a decent life?

Rhian

“– that individual freedom…”

Individual freedoms are foregone for the collective good all the time. Practically ever law is a restriction of our freedoms, implemented for the collective good. The more stressed or threatened the collective good is, the tighter those restrictions on our freedom would need to be. Simple. So it comes down to perceiving the threats to the collective good and implementing restrictions on individual behaviour accordingly. That comprises are very large part of effective governance.

“– that it is acceptable to inflict suffering…”

Any restrictions to our freedom can be deemed to amount to a degree of suffering. Of course, significant suffering needs to be minimised. But the degree of restriction has to be significant enough to improve or protect the collective good. Unfortunately, the implementation of restrictions is going to affect different people in different ways. Some are going to suffer more than others. We would all like to minimise significant suffering for those who get the rawest deal out of any restrictions. But you’ve got to realise that the protection of the collective good is all about minimising significant suffering on a societal or national or global level. And if that means that the majority have to suffer to a limited extent or a small minority to a significant extent, then so be it.

continued

“ – that the state can and should exercise control over the totality of human life…”

The state should exercise the appropriate degree of control for the situation. If population growth is rapid and the outlook is grim in terms of quality of life and environment as a result, then strong measures regarding fertility are surely appropriate.

“– that a central authority is best placed to determine and effect policies…”

Well, a strong central authority in China implemented fairly effective fertility-reduction measures. I would argue that in that instance, they were in the best position to decide what was necessary for the collective good. But in a democracy, central authorities don’t have the same sort of power. Successive governments in India tried to deal with the population growth issue, but failed because the people wouldn’t accept it. I would argue that the people got it wrong and democracy failed in that instance. This is the great quandary of governance – the battle between authoritarian rule and participatory democracy. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

“– that the use of force is the natural and appropriate means…”

Once laws have been implemented, they need to be upheld. If this requires the use of force, then so be it. This is perfectly normal in our society and in societies around the world. Why should it be different when it comes to enforcing fertility laws?

Rhian I think your distaste for Ehrlich is badly misplaced.

Divergence

I think you’re wrong about potato causing inheritance laws to change. Though the potato was introduced in the mid 17th century it wasn’t widespread in Ireland until the late 18th century. Sub division among all sons was mandated by the Popery Act of 1703. Anyway, the practice dates back far earlier and was common practice in many Celtic cultures (including Wales, where I once lived).

It is probably true that the potato facilitated population growth by increasing the land’s carrying capacity, and that food insecurity was created by reliance on a single crop and exacerbated by the practice of sub division. I don’t deny that is a likely effect in subsistence economies. But it was not uniquely so – the Great Irish Famine a century before perhaps killed more people and was due to poor weather over several growing seasons.

Crowded and insanitary conditions doubtless contributed to the black death, but again this is not due to over-population – economic and security factors tended to make medieval towns and cities quite densely populated. The population of all of Europe at the time of the Black Death was less than 50 million – less that the UK (or France, Germany or Italy) today. And this was hardly the first plague in history – over hundreds of years previously, pandemics has similar devastating results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonic_plague)

It is not surprising that living standards after the black death were higher than before – the accumulated wealth of centuries was suddenly available to less than half the pre-existing population, the price of scarce labour was bid up and land was left uncultivated for want of workers. If two thirds of Australia’s population were wiped out tomorrow then the survivors would find houses, cars, farms, TVs, jewellery etc suddenly much more affordable. But these things would be there for the taking only because of the labour of the dead.

Of course China believes its one child policy to be necessary, but that doesn’t make it true. My bet is that they’ll abandon that policy some time in the next decade.

Rhian,

Whether a country is overpopulated depends on the technological level. Australia would probably only support a few hundred thousand people if we were all hunter gatherers. When the ratio of resources to people is very high, then prosperity may be limited by the labour supply, but there is a tipping point where resource shortages become more significant. Eventually population growth is stopped in pre-industrial societies because not even slave labour can increase production enough to feed itself. If labour supply and the accumulated wealth of centuries were most significant, then you would expect 19th century people unlucky enough to be born in North America or Australia to migrate to Europe at the first opportunity. In fact, migration ran the other way, because it was resources per person that mattered.

There is an article by Rowan Callick in the May 14 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on a conference in Shanghai where it was announced that population growth trends in China are being revised downward and that this means "productivity, per capita income and living standards will rise faster". From the same conference: "Dr. Laurent says, India is struggling to keep pace with its continuing population explosion, with a third of children never becoming literate - even on the most basic test, that of signing your own name." It is reasonable to assume that the Chinese government knows what it is doing. Of course, the one-child policy was never intended to last forever, unless the Chinese want to commit national suicide. Fertility rates are already below replacement level.