Cheryl deems the article to be "Mindless anti-empirical apocalyptic commentary."

To the contrary the article mindfully explores the simple and unavoidable empirical implications of the exponential function operative within a finite environment.

Unsurprisingly it is Cheryl's comment which offers no empirical or mindfully specific content. People who deny the prevailing limitations to exponential growth can only rail rhetorically and emotively in support of their physically limited and thus essentially flawed ideology.

Curmudgeon states, "Like CherylL I want to join the growth lobby, but I suspect that it does not exist in the form that Sinnamon suggests".

Again this avoids rational contention, this time by evoking the author's promotion of an un-substantiable conspiracy theory, thus insinuating that both the text and the author are not just wrong, but are not credible.

To begin to see the screaming reality of the author's proposition, consider the Property Council of Australia's consolidated form, effort and power to advocate on behalf of the property speculation sector. Exhibit 1 should be the Council's powerpoint prospectus to members, outlining the organisation's mindful strategy of goals, methods and accomplishments.

Until recently this file was downloadable from their website. The link isn't working today. Maybe a passing glitch. Maybe they've realised how embarrassingly revealing it is. I will try to find an active link. Otherwise I can forward it by request.

I am forever amazed at how people can seriously deride so called 'conspiracy' theories when the prime statutory function of Corporations, and cartels of corporation, is to conspire to maximise their market size, market share and profitability. For the sake of genuine progress, can people please get up to speed and coherence with the elements of reality that are basically necessary to inform a useful conversation?

In response to Cheryl I should have also added that James' article considers the empirical range and sectoral distribution of advantage and disadvantage due to urban growth.

From that outline of imbalance and motive to unfairly profit, and then unfairly invest a proportion those inordinate profits toward the creation of even greater imbalance, it is possible to better identify empirical views of the political and PR efforts made by those beneficiaries, as well as the empirical extent of political corruption made manifest by their efforts.

rpg,

Even proponents of landlordism implicitly acknowledge it to be exploitative as did Noel Whittaker in an article "Why Investing in Real Estate is so special" printed in Brisbane's Courier Mail on Friday 23 June 2006. I showed this in the forum "Housing affordability squeezed by speculators" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697&page=43#103886

In May 2004, I heard, with my own ears on Radio National's "Australia Talks", an economist working, as I recall for the Real Estate Institute of Australia, actually predicting that immigration would soon be in increased and when it did the woes of the property investment 'industry', being the (somewhat bizarre) topic of the day, would end.

So the growth lobby got their wishes, when Prime Minister Howard, behind our backs, ramped up our rate of immigration to record levels.

So, should anyone be surprised that the cost of shelter has since climbed from the straosphere, where it was in 2004 to the Mesosphere?

For more information, see "Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" of 23 June 08 at http://candobetter.org/node/610 (For those who have read the excellent "Australia Overloaded" by O'Connor and Lines, this article is quoted from on page 158.)

That this Federal Government continues to maintain such high immigration levels in the light of this undeniable cause and effect shows up their purported concern for housing unaffordability as being disingenuous.

---

Those who profess to support high immigration for reasons of altruism should carefully consider what company they keep.

One who never loses an opportunity to browbeat the Australian government into maintaing high immigration is Rupert Murdoch (see "Rupert Murdoch urges Australia to open door to migrants" at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25015115-953,00.html).

Does anyone here seriously maintain that the man who helped the worst President in US history steal the 2000 elections and then kept him in power for 8 years and who misled world opinion on WMD's, etc, etc, and thereby made it possible for the bloody destructive invasion of Iraq to be launched, supports immigration out of any concern for humankind?

James Sinnamon, author

Keeping the doors open to a liberal immigration program to entice more people is totally foolish. We can't just have one-dimensional economic policies that ignore our on-going capacity to support millions more people in Australia. Money and profits cannot and should not be the bottom line to any policies! We have to consider present resource consumption, projected population growth here and globally, changing conditions, climate change and our environment. We have a housing stress caused by a rapid increase in population, and southern states are in the grip of a long-term drought. Adding foreigners while we are suffering is foolish and could even jeopardise our ultimate survival. We are already overloaded with people in Australia. Only humanitarian cases and one-off family situation should be considered. We can't assume that our country is expanding and can support millions more people! Already we are top-rate exterminators of wildlife species - surely a warning that our ecosystem is already highly stressed!

Need I say any more. Several commentators on this topic, with whom I often disagree have in this case got it right, much to their credit. As I have said on previous occasions, we have to realise that we live in a finite world. The current economic paradigm has got us into this stupid mindset that we must have growth, growth, growth. Mr.Rudd is doing his best to continue this crazy idea as did JWH.

How we accomplish zero population growth is a task which will need some brilliant minds, but it will need a massive education campaign to convince the unwashed multitude that it is our only hope of ultimate survival. We can't rely on plagues or famine or even (and I apologise in advance for this) natural disasters or even wars, to keep our population in check. We will have to fight against the dictates of the Catholic Church. We will also need another John Maynard Keynes to devise a new economic system so that the disadvantaged are not further downtrodden. We need to have more incentives for those who are underemployed to find useful work. The population at large needs to have more regard for the welfare of their fellows.

It would be nice if people like Cheryl and her cohorts could explain how she expects us to continue going the way we are without causing grief.

Keep up the good work James. I am with you.

David

Ludwig,
You are rightly concerned about population stabilization and I agree yet when I've asked how you either don't answer or do so with vague assertions and statements like “it will be difficult “. Both you and the author are doing the equivalent of fiddling with the tea money.
As I pointed out innumerable times that population control doesn’t exist in a vacuum…stop migration and all will be well is BS.

We in the West (less than 30%) of the population consume 80% world’s resources.
And 20% of then consume 60% of that 80%. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or Norman Lindsay to work out that ‘the magic pudding’ is childish fantasy.

The problem is also our steroidal consumption and the associated pollution and waste.

We need a new paradigm. A system not based on the magic pudding.
To test the validity of your conclusions ask if eliminating 3 billion people tomorrow would it achieve anything except the collapse of the system and a lot of misery?
At least CJ is heading in the right direction (less people not just SEP [someone Else’s Problem]).

James,
Apart from the title you contributed precious little to the debate. One can see from your emotive language you are a balance thinker….you have a chip on both your shoulders