Words fail you SV….and apparently any semblance of logical thought as well.

Could you proffer anwers to the questions that I put to Kiashu in my last post?

Those who say it is up to the populace to choose the politicians we want are joking. The only politicians we can vote for are those already chosen by other politicians.
It is a bit like the blind leading the blind.

ericc.
Thank you for pointing that out but my point/response still stands;
• From the times of Thatcher / Reagan Economics theory was rationalism. In the intervening times there have been how many Nobel prizes for Economics most favouring ‘the ideological corrective power of rational economics’. In that same time we have had several ‘Economic gotchas’ 1987, Asian meltdown, dot com and now sub prime yet every country all ran consistent modelling.
• I doubt that assumptions for Europe or USA are the same for Aus? CONTEXT or GIGO. Were the models ideologically and/or methodologically consistent? Were the results consistent?
• If anything is evident about Aus it’s that what applies OS may not apply here. Therefore the model would have an extra layer of assumptions to compensate.
• Modelling is fine for generalities (even they admit some factors are ‘too hard to define’) but to make specific conclusions on aggregated unmeasurable imponderables? (See the debate over climate modelling).
Then there are my other observations. In scientific terms you haven’t made your case.

VK3AUU.
You make an ultimate point which in the absence of absolute information is correct there will come a time if things stay the same when science &nature may not be able to save our sorry tails. Some say that time may not be that far off.
My points were
• The 3rd world poverty leads to environmental degradation and over population.
• Literature states enough food is grown world wide to feed every one however capitalism creates needs imbalances in the distribution of food and science world wide.
• If there were a mechanism to distribute both food and science hunger, environmental derogation and over population would decrease if not reduce to sustainable levels. However all things aren’t equal and until human nature become less me and more we, I simply plug on making observations. Hoping to be noticed in the background of sensationalism and instant fixes. ;-)

Collinsett,
Valid point. I can understand that my comment may seem to gratuitous criticisms.
In my defence however I hold follow the principals.
• I hold authors to a greater level of proof than commenters because THEY are making the case.
• Therefore one assumes that they are knowledgeable on the subject
• have thought the issues through,
• And have done the research. Primarily a time/space issue.
Commenters however
• Have a more limited time and space to comment.
In my case most of my responses take anything from 1 to 8 hours to write. (Limited skills perhaps) to research and put what I would consider a reasonable response would take days and 1000’s of words.
How do I explain technical info/reasoning in common English with references and still remain readable? Specifically the inherent flaws in modelling? Especially when much of it comes from 27 years in Computers including code cutting etc.

Tragically I’m a detail person so I tend to be verbose prone to over explaining anyway.

I fear my responses would finish up more turgid than they are and more like a badly written thesis. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything just someone with an open mind, an incisive mind and an eclectic factual reading habit.
Hence I tend to stick to offering logic processes I hope readers can follow.
I try to respond as reasonably as the comment to me.
Hope this gives my contextual modis operandi.
Regards
Examinator Ant

Kiashu if you want more immigrants, for more diversity that is fine. Just understand that there are no economic advantages for the average person, the environment will become more degraded and there will be less resources for us to use. I don’t believe that the diversity brought by high immigration offsets those problems. I don’t see diversity of ideas and cultures being significantly diminished with net zero immigration.

The world’s population is getting too high for the world’s resources to provide a high quality life for everybody. It is hypocritical for Australia to tell the rest of the world, “You should reduce your population, but we are going to try to increase ours.” The best long term policy for us and the rest of the world, is to try to become more sustainable. We will have to become sustainable some day. We should start now, when it is easier.

In my 2004 article, my point was that population growth had to stop some day. If it didn’t, there would be 46 billion people in 200 years, which nobody thinks is possible. If population growth has to stop someday, some generation must face the ageing population scenario. I propose that we start now, when it is easier.

The comment about “economics and technology” solving poverty was in reference to the arguments that the PROPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH make. I don’t think “economics and technology” can solve world poverty. I think that “economics and technology” would have an easier time solving most problems, if there were less population pressures.

Senior Vic net zero immigration, does not equal closing the doors. The Ming dynasty shut down coastal facilities and forbid foreign trade except by the government. More relevant is that China is currently expanding its contacts all over the world, with much lower rates of immigration than Australia.

Humanitarian immigration is less than 10,000 per year, skilled immigration is more than 150,000. Current immigration policy is NOT about humanitarian needs, it is about the rich getting richer. See DEMOS “more sheep means more fleece.”

"Literature states enough food is grown world wide to feed every one however capitalism creates needs imbalances in the distribution of food and science world wide."

Determinator. I afraid you had better go and read some more up to date literature. Countries such as China, who used to be net exporters of rice, are now having to import, to name just one.

The next Nobel Prize for economics should go to the person who can demonstrate a system whereby the world maintains a stable economy whilst living on recycled resources. That probably means about 2 billion people who live very frugally on non-fossil fuelled energy.

David