Wizofaus,

According to recent news reports, the IPCC is saying that the global warming situation is even worse than they had predicted. From the environmental footprints and per capita greenhouse gas emissions, an additional person in a developed country is many times the disaster for the planet of an additional person in a Third World country. I recall reading that an average person who moves from India to Mexico and adopts the average level of consumption there increases his
GHG emissions by 5 times, and by 20 times if he moves to the US. There are simply too many people to give them all a decent standard of living (see my previous posts). We face a lot of other problems, both globally and here in Australia, such as mass extinctions, the pumping dry of aquifers under some of the world's most fertile agricultural lands, and peak oil.

Where do you get your idea that we are "turning the corner" (apart from a few indicators like urban air quality)? If the likely extinction of the lungfish and the permanent water restrictions in our major cities don't convince you there is a problem, what would?

You also create a situation where people look to a personal solution via emigration rather than the hard work and risks involved in fixing their problems: high birthrates, low literacy, corrupt and incompetent politicians, cultural patterns that have become dysfunctional, etc.

"I also think sheer economics will give a reasonably good indication when we're simply not capable to increase our population much further - a point we're not at yet, by all available measurements."

Some might differ with you, and it also raises the question of why Australia should be increasing her population simply because it is technically feasible? Population growth is certainly not increasing the per capita prosperity, so why subject the population to such risk?

I share your optimism for technical fixes, but as ozzie points out it is unwise to assume the solutions will come and continue this high immigration lunacy on this basis.

I'm getting sick of the fat old immigration emperor dancing about starkers. The humour has long past and now it is just obscene.

cacofonix: "Daggett asked me to post the following on is behalf"

Now James, you really are stretching it - not only do you apparently need to post under both your real and pseudonymous identities, but you also have a sock puppet to call in on your behalf when needs be. And it seems you've been at it for some time:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91028

Dear oh dear. Suddenly you don't look very credible - or honourable - at all. It's really quite disappointing that whenever you scratch a population/immigration nut, there's a disingenuous racist just below the surface.

Very sad. Why don't you just argue honestly, as yourself, with solid and verifiable evidence?

CJ Morgan,

Before you make accusations against others I think you should examine the evidence a little more closely.

At the start of the forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#90904

... the author James Sinnamon using the account name of 'daggett' identified himself, but neglected to identify himself in his next post at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91014

My guess is that this was an innocent mistake.

Then, because of that omission another poster RobbyH accused the author of concealing his identity at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6261#91027 :

"James, interesting that you choose to comment on your own article but using a nom de plume, Daggett."

As the author had already identified himself, I had assumed that RobbyH was objecting to the author merely commenting on his own article. This caused me to naively ask of RobbyH:

"Could you please explain what is wrong with authors responding to comments made by others about their own articles?".

So, could you please explain what was wrong with that?

Did you read the post immediately below? It was from OLO editor Susan Prior:

"James has no need to explain. He has quite clearly identified himself as the author if you look at his first comment."

Since I opened an account on OLO on 22 July I have posted all of 15 comments. On about two occasions including yesterday afternoon, I have posted on behalf of 'daggett' and have openly acknowledged having done so.

Daggett asked me to post on his behalf because of your damaging allegation that he had anonymously commented on this author's article. Because of the limits on OLO he would not have been able to post until later this morning.

He has politely demonstrated to you that he was not attempted to conceal his identity, but you have chosen to ignore his arguments and instead clutch at another imaginary straw in an attempt to make the mud stick.

I note also that you have, as is typical of immigration advocates, as daggett has noted, resorted to the labelling of your opponents as 'racist' in order to avoid any discussion of the substance of their arguments.

I’ll answer that for Scotty, Wizofaus.

I take exception to your claim that skin colour does not make a country great. Take a look at every dysfunctional country in Africa, Asia, or the Middle East, and ask yourself it white people would not have done a lot better. You could take the entire population of Afghanistan and swap it with the entire population of Australia, and in 100 years, Afghanistan would be a productive and stable country and Australia would be another dysfunctional third world cesspit riven with tribalism, extreme poverty, and war.

The problem as I see it, is that the dumb people on this planet are breeding a lot faster than the smart people. In addition, the dumb people appear to be getting more successful in getting the smart people to finance them. Just look at the aborigines. I would love to believe that “all men are equal”, but such an unrealistic appraisal of human intelligence can only be maintained by blaming white people for the dysfunctional societies that are the product of cultures created by races who are not very bright.

Get it through your head that some ethnicities are collectively not real bright and consequently they just happen to be a pain in the butt everywhere they go. Be it the USA, Africa, the Middle East,or the Caribbean, wherever these some ethnicities infest is a great place to keep away from. Bringing such people to Australia is simply going to repeat the same mistakes that made so many other places uninhabitable for civilised society.

If you want to bring people into this country who are collectively renowned for their high levels of criminal activity and welfare dependency, then you had better start figuring out which hospital, school, and scientific research budgets you wish to trim to finance the construction of more dole offices and prisons.

What we see from the author of this article, is the usual “blame the whites for everything” philosophy so popular among the inspirational nouveaux wannabees who never tire of attacking their own successful culture and making excuses for every failed one.

Redneck,
Your last post would be offensice to the majority of Australians. However I believe what you say is probably close to the truth. If you look around the world, the people's who are cooperative, restrained, and less violent tend to have the more developed countries. These ar ethe countries that now everyone is trying to migrate to. The USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, France etc. All advanced western white countries. No one is trying to migrate to China, India, Turkey, Greece etc etc. These countries are all dominated by greed, corruption, disorganisation and fighting.
I've been interested in this subject for a few years now. There is now a new book by a Prof of economics who believes that England was the first country to industrialize because its population had evolved to live in such an economy, where it was an advantage to work, save and be cooperative.
The more I look around, I see that those people from well off countries are quiet, considered, and less prone to emotional outburts. A guy in my class at Uni from Nepal ( doing his degree courtesy of the Aust taxpayers) told me how much he liked Australia because here when we have an argument we generally solve things without violence. He stated back home when you have an argument you kill the other person, and that this was common.
To believe that all people's on the planet are equal is just a lie. I mean no one any harm, but I believe as a general rule people must learn to live in their own countries and develop them for their own good, instead of bludging of other countries.