“Obviously, Adelaide has reached the limit of population that is sustainable at current standards of living and that limit is set by the particular critical resource that is currently least available – water”.

Yes. The idiot Premier, Mike Rann, is still squawking about population growth, and the only attempt at providing more water is a pip-squeak desalination plant which will provide only 25% of CURRENT WATER USE. If the population is increased as the maniac envisages, the suburbs of Adelaide will look like Baghdad.

Australia’s current population growth is insane. The people driving it are insane.

Excellent stuff Michael.

Anyone who considers the points that you have expressed in this article and your previous one can’t help but realise just how absurd rapid continuous population growth is in Australia.

So the great question is; how do we get our government to take up a policy of very low immigration, population stabilisation and a little further down the track, a steady state economy?

You mentioned one of the major obstacles in your last paragraph: the political donations regime, which so very strongly sways governments towards the vested-interest desires of property developers and other big business entities. This is so serious that it profoundly and fundamentally corrupts our governmental system.....and corrupts our future by leading governments to take us down a strongly unsustainable route at a time when the achievement of a sustainable society is of vital importance.

I think that if we could just get past this factor… and the influence of big business entities on public opinion if governments don’t do what they want, then we’ll have the problem solved.

Governments no matter what their persuasion would then follow a sustainability path, with overwhelming support from the community.

Community support for the achievement of sustainability is there, if latent in most people. With a bit of the right sort of leadership, it could be brought to the fore.

Ludwig
"You mentioned one of the major obstacles in your last paragraph: the political donations regime, which so very strongly sways governments towards the vested-interest desires of property developers and other big business entities.

It is ironical that the one thing holding back those who favour population policy for reasons of sustainability is the institutionalised legal corruption that characterises democratic government: the very institution they presume to be trustworthy and capable of fixing the problem. Can't you see, if the original problem is that people in general are too dim or too bad to do the right thing, that same problem cannot be corrected by giving it to government, because government is made up of the same people and takes its entire justification from the claim that it 'represents' them.

"Community support for the achievement of sustainability is there, if latent in most people. With a bit of the right sort of leadership, it could be brought to the fore."

Translation: if we can just bring enough police to bear, we can force people to comply with our opinions and pay for our values by sacrificing theirs.

Fester
You have evaded, but not answered, my question in the last post: Why not make your response one that is decided by voluntary action, not by violence or threats?

This is the issue. Please answer it directly on point without evasion of any kind

So the author would seriously suggest a one child policy and try to reduce immigration along the lines suggested in the article? Wow! It would be almost worth electing the author to Parliament to see him try. Good for a few laughs. Fortunately it is unlikely to come to that. There is a lot to dispute in this article but "starving to death". Look at the agricultural production figures produced by ABARE www.abare.gov.au - agricultural production has been increasing, with the occasional, temporary reversal due to drought, for decades (actually, probably since the first fleet).. Best to look for something else to worry about.

Michael,

You have written two of the best articles on this issue that I have seen yet. People who are concerned by the environmental and limits-to-growth issues that you have raised and want further information should take a look at the site of the Worldwatch Institute, which is supported by a number of respected US foundations, the German government, the Norwegian government, and the UN Population Fund.

http://www.worldwatch.org/

Another place to look is at the site of the UN-sponsored Millennium and Ecosystem Assessment, which presents "the consensus view of the largest body of social and natural scientists ever assembled to assess knowledge in this area".

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.aspx#2

Additional valuable sites are the environmental footprint sites of Redefining Progress and the Global Footprint Network. It is obvious to anyone who looks at these even casually that limiting consumption cannot be the only answer, that if we stopped overexploiting the environment (burning the furniture to keep warm) and divided all the resources equally, that we would all be as poor as the average person in a poor Central American country. These are people so poor that many are sneaking into Mexico as illegal immigrants to "do the jobs that Mexicans won't do".

Those who want to think with their emotions about these issues need to reflect on the hundreds of thousands of people who died prematurely and horribly from tobacco because politicians and other members of the elite were in denial about the dangers, as Bernie Masters appears to be on this issue, or simply willing to tell lies for money.

Peter Hume,

You assume that violence and threats are only to be associated with governments. A libertarian system can only be anything other than another sort of tyranny if there is a very high ratio of resources to people. Poul Anderson understood this, and so does Col Rouge on this forum. In a socialist system, a man gives me orders, and I have to obey because he speaks for the government and is ultimately backed up by another man with a gun. In a libertarian system, a man gives me orders and I have to obey because he control the resources that I need to survive, and his property rights are ultimately backed up by another man with a gun. In the libertarian system, the property owners ARE the government. Ownership of critical resources gives them enormous power, which they can then pass on to their children. No one else will get a look in, unless perhaps they are extremely talented. People who do own a small amount of property will also often be forced to sacrifice long-term interests in preserving that property for immediate survival. Ordinary people can only acquire bargaining leverage in such a system if they go on a reproductive strike. It is no accident that a great many libertarians want open borders.

Michael,

I am definitely on your side regarding the population growth problem but could not quite get what you were driving at in the section "Education of women is the key to reducing fecundity".

It may not be the key but it is one of many ways of attempting to address the problem and of course needs to be backed up with the provision of the wherewithal to actually allow them a choice in the matter.

On a different tack, all those concerned about population growth in this country should consider joining Sustainable Population Australia (Google it). Having a peak body with a strong following can only improve the chances of being heard and listened to.

Michael,
I have some concern that the results of your articles were someway short of their intended objectives. Apart from being fatally flawed in a number of areas it was base on at least two egregiously myopic assumptions. In so doing the conclusion was a bit of an anticlimax.

That the world isn’t a magic pudding (never ending) is clear and incontestable but in the short to medium context your next assumption was never proven i.e. that we have too many people.
One is therefore entitled to ask on what basis do you make that assumption?

Presumably you assumed ‘as we live today’.
You then assume that we need less people…. Not if you consider 1st world rich consumption and carbon foot print. Monstrously disproportionate.

Estimations by UN bodies concerned with such issues have said that world is currently producing enough food to feed every one. Logically then the problems are of distribution and our version of capitalism. Change the system then that will change the conclusion.

Unrealistic? Far more achievable than infanticide and a successful out come of international population control.

The straw argument on education ignores the rest of that equation that BOTH affluence and education tend to curb fecundity.

The argument does include arrogance, chauvinism, and moral hypocrisy in that you wouldn’t sacrifice your family but you’re prepared to sacrifice others presumably because you don’t know them and they’re not like you or Aussie.

Why else would you ignore the kiwi invasion that in reality are not fleeing abject poverty or threat of life as many other immigrants are? (African, Tuvalu)

The examples you gave of one out one in are furphies on a number of grounds in that both are small communities.

Then the argument that immigration at current level is going to make a fig’s difference in the more pressing problem of ACC.
They didn’t help your cause or make your case.

PS I do agree (qualified) with the premise we as a world are close to fullup and believe something needs be done….BUT WHAT & HOW?

Curmudgeon?

Troll would be more appropriate.

Examinator,

One way or the other we have too many people on this planet. Whatever area you look into we are using up our resources at an ever-increasing rate. Each resource is finite and bottlenecks are appearing everywhere. Potable water, wild fish stocks, arable land, oil, phosphorous, forests, atmospheric, marine and terrestrial sinks etc. They are being depleted at the rate they are a) because of population numbers, b) because of the each individuals consumption of resources and c) I add, technological capability.

How does one define “too many people”? I for one would understand it to mean that at the current AVERAGE rate of resources consumption the complex society in which we all live cannot be sustained for more than a couple of generations (ie not couple of centuries or millennia but a timeframe with which we can all relate as there are probably people alive today who may still exist when the “end” comes).

In my view it serves no useful purpose to argue about whether population or consumption growth is unsustainable as clearly both are and we need to address both wherever and however we can. In the first instance using force or coercion to get people to produce fewer offspring or reduce resource consumption may not be desirable or even possible but eventually there may be no alternative other than to apply some form of force to avoid a free for all and violent scramble for the limited resources that remain.

'We need to decide which human right is more important - the right to unrestricted reproduction or the right not to starve to death.'

What a load of emotive crap. We have enough food in this country to feed 10 times our population.

So the best response to having too many people on the planet is to keep as many of them as possible out of Australia?! Good way to encourage people to think globally!

There isn't enough space to counter all the logical and factual flaws in this piece, so to pick just a few:

"there is one very important difference between growth of consumption and growth of population. Consumption growth is easily reversible but population growth is not."

I haven't seen any sign of Australians reversing the growth in our individual consumption - and if we keep shifting the blame to migrants, we can keep pretending we don't need to. Still, if we just keep those Bangladeshis poor (and in Bangladesh), there's obviously no problem.

"birth rates fall when perceptions of plenty are replaced by perceptions of thrift."

So the problem all those starving sub-Saharan Africans with high birth rates have is their perceptions of plenty! They obviously need to be made even poorer until they develop appropriate perceptions of thrift, then their birth rates will drop.

"Believe it or not, it is actually possible to have immigration without population growth. One simply operates a “one in, one out” policy."

So any Australian who wants to marry a foreigner has to tell them to wait in a queue until enough people die so they can be allowed in? True love waits, I suppose. Though if they already have children, the kids will have to wait a bit longer. And another few years for parents and siblings. Not that we'll have enough nurses or doctors to treat them if they get sick anyway, because they'll be sitting in the queue.

And every refugee we bring in from a refugee camp in Africa will mean everyone has to wait that bit longer for the fiancee, child, parent, sibling, doctor to enter - which will really endear refugees to the Australian public. Still, those refugees suffer from perceptions of plenty already, so best to leave in the refugee camp. They'll never develop the appropriate perceptions of thrift if we allow them into Australia.

Andrew, what about the core issue here – that of continuous population growth with no end in sight?

Can you just tell us straight up if you are in favour of this or whether you would like to see a limit somewhere along the line, both globally and in Australia?

Assuming that you do advocate an eventual limit on both these levels, what sort of numbers do you envisage and how are we going to achieve it? (Yes I know, this has been asked before. But I don’t recall seeing an answer)

You and I have had occasional exchanges on this forum for the past two or three years. What you’ve had to say has left me very unimpressed indeed.

“So the best response to having too many people on the planet is to keep as many of them as possible out of Australia?! Good way to encourage people to think globally!”

YES Andrew, this is a VERY good way to encourage people to think globally. If we put a concerted effort into addressing our population-growth and sustainability issues and show the world that a country with a great deal of growth pressure can achieve a sensible balance between its resource base and environment, and its population and affluence, then we would be going a very long way towards being a good global citizen and encouraging other countries to do likewise.

What is the alternative? Allow very high immigration for decades to come, thus screwing our environment and resource base to the point where we can offer a quality of life that is no better than many of the countries that generate refugees and desperate poverty, or much worse?

How could Australia maintain a very high immigration intake and maintain a half-decent quality of life for them and existing citizens?

Net zero immigration or net emigration or at least very low net immigration is an essential prerequisite for the achievement of a sustainable society. Isn’t it??

We do not have the firepower to sustain a smaller population. We would be taken over in no time.

Slug wrote: "We do not have the firepower to sustain a smaller population. We would be taken over in no time."

That is the argument that has been used by Hitler and Stalin when they gave awards to overbearing women. We must have people to defend us.

Within limits it is not our population size that protects us. Indonesia has over 200 million people to the north. To them it does not matter whether we are 15 or 40 million. We are part of the developed world, and I think it unlikely that any nation from the less developed world is likely to try to take us over. No less developed nation has succeeded in that attempt, and I doubt that one will do so. Israel is part of the developed world and exists with its small population relative to the much greater population of the surrounding and opposing Muslim states because with its power and the support of the US the surrounding states cannot put an end to it even though the neighbouring states have received large shipments of arms. We are in a better position than Israel because our neighbours are not as opposed to us, and the population imbalance is not as great. If Australia was reduced to its Aboriginal population it would be invaded by neighbours. As it is I think we could continue to exist with a population of 15,000,000 or even fewer.

<Why not make your response one that is decided by voluntary action, not by violence or threats? I have answered your question. Please answer this last one of mine.>

Peter

I think you are making some false assumptions here. One is that any forced action implies totalitarianism. Many of the freedoms enjoyed today have resulted from either sanction, violent action or the threat of violent action. That is their irony. The black civil rights movement in the United States is a recent example of this process.

Things like equality for women, access to education and the availability of contraception seem very mundane in a place like Australia, yet their attempted introduction in some parts of the world would be met with violent opposition. Would you consider people trying to make forcible change in such places totalitarian? I think that the least that can be done is to engage in an active cultural exchange with these parts of the world, so that some of their citizens might at least have a life experience of another civilisation. At least by this means they might see the benefits of change and not have to reinvent the wheel.

On the question of population, the rights that have been mentioned are adequate to stabilise the population. So the only intervention or force you will observe where such rights are present is for the purpose of increasing the population.

If you think I am being evasive with this answer, please tell me where and I will try and make my answer more specific for you.

Gee, this guy is a glutton for punishment - and Clive Hamilton thought OLO was being hijacked by climate cynics!

I really think the Greens should take this anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-family stance to an election. The electorate would see the far left of their party for what they are. They are hijacking an important issue (environment) by going down an anti-humanist path. They will be wedged so badly and then blown out of the water.

It has been at least 30 years since I've seen socio-biological arguments rear their ugly head.

The hilarous part of the Greens is that they manifest severely when a Christian speaks about the need of redemption because of our Adamic natures (any fool can observe man's nature). Though many holding the Green dogmas live and behave like animals they claim some sort of immunity from being full of greed immorality hate etc.

Now here we have the height of hypocrisy where the Greens see people as the enemies of the planet. You know let the man eating shark live while we all sit and eat fish and chips on the beach. Lat man starve while the kangaroos eat the crops. They really are a bad joke with many deluded followers.

I think most of us would agree that there is a limit to the number of people this planet can sustain. It may be 10 billion or 100 billion but there is a limit. The only debate is over what the limit is and how do we prevent the human population from reaching the limit and destroying the planet.
We are currently witnessing planetary degradation such as diminishing water supplies and agricultural land. We also have increasing species extinction, and reducing resources. In fact there is talk of peak everything.
This is an extract from Richard Heinberg’s book Peak Everything.
Link: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/34357
The great transition of the 21st century will entail enormous adjustments on the part of every individual, family and community, and if those adjustments are to be made successfully, rational planning will be needed. Implications and strategies will have to be explored in nearly every area of human interest - agriculture, transportation, global war and peace, public health, resource management, and on and on. Books, research studies, television documentaries, and every other imaginable form of information transferral means will be required to convey needed information in each of these areas. Moreover, there is the need for more than explanatory materials; we will need citizen organizations that can turn policy into action, and artists to create cultural expressions that can help fire the collective imagination. Within this whirlwind of analysis, adjustment, creativity, and transformation, perhaps there is need and space for a book that simply tries to capture the overall spirit of the time into which we are headed, that ties the multifarious upwellings of cultural change to the science of global warming and peak oil in some hopefully surprising and entertaining ways, and that begins to address the psychological dimension of our global transition from industrial growth to contraction and sustainability.
The sooner we accept that there are limits the sooner we can work towards creating this brave new world.

Andrew Bartlett wrote: "I haven't seen any sign of Australians reversing the growth in our individual consumption - and if we keep shifting the blame to migrants, we can keep pretending we don't need to."

If that case, wouldn't it be wise and logical to place a moratorium on further immigration until Australia's growing per capita consumption rates have been reversed?

"Still, if we just keep those Bangladeshis poor (and in Bangladesh), there's obviously no problem."

I wasn't aware that Australia was required to accept the world's poor masses and clothe, feed and shelter them.

Care to explain why the Australian people are obliged to share not only their wealth but also their country with foreign peoples who have already ruined their own countries largely through overpopulation?

Call me a cynic, but there doesn't appear to be anything particularly "humane" about Third World countries dumping their surplus populations on Australia. In fact, one could argue that it is nothing short of a policy of Lebensraum.

Generally speaking, Andrew, it seems to me that you are emotionally and ideologically committed to ongoing immigration-driven population growth irrespective of the substantial environmental, social and economic costs it inflicts on Australia. You care not one iota for the wellbeing of your fellow Australians. Rather, you are concerned solely with "helping" the citizens of other countries pursue their own neo-colonial ambitions.

I think Mark O'Connor summed up the attitude of "immigrationists" such as yourself rather well:

"In short, for those emotionally committed to immigrationism the optimum population debate is a morass. It involves issues many of them are either not expert in or simply don't care to think about. Many immigrationists prefer to see their creed simply in terms of human charity, of helping people. Yet, like the Unjust Steward in the Bible, they try to give away what is not quite theirs to give. In a more modern analogy, the would-be charitable immigrationist is a bit like someone who writes a check to the Salvos on someone else's account - and without even finding out if the account has the required funds."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_318.shtml

For whom do you speak
Populationist freak?
I'll read what you wrote
If it's a suicide note

From your ivory te-nure
You hurl your ma-nure
Not a toss do you give
To "live and let live"

Why so terrified
of people multiplied
If climate disaster
Will grant your wish faster?

Slug wrote: "We do not have the firepower to sustain a smaller population. We would be taken over in no time."

Why would Indonesia, China or any other Asian country bother with an armed invasion of Australia when they can simply send their populations here legally through the front door?

Just because a "takeover" occurs through waves of peaceful immigration rather than through armed force doesn't make its impacts any less profound. Indeed, I would argue that the largely unconsidered result of past and present immigration policies is that Australia is in the process of a dramatic demographic transformation probably unprecedented in human history except for situations involving the military conquest of a society by a foreign aggressor.

Dear Reyes,

Peaceful immigration is not the same as a military takeover. Chinese coming here no more take over the country than English or Italians take over Australia. They change Australia, but Australia changes them. My wife and I have asked a younger Chinese friend to be executor of our wills. We asked her because we are closer to her than with anyone with whom we share ethnicity.

<Care to explain why the Australian people are obliged to share not only their wealth but also their country with foreign peoples who have already ruined their own countries largely through overpopulation?>

That is unfair, Reyes. For people who may have next to no rights in the governing of a country, what role exactly do you see them playing in its destruction? The people in power in these parts of the world no doubt profit substantially and protect their power via rapid population growth. Look at how feudal these places are in comparison with Australia. They have a few very wealthy and powerful citizens who own everything, and a mass of dirt poor citizens, devoid of assets and education. There is no middle class. Educate the citizens of these countries, and things will change. But do the rulers of these places want things to change?

What Australia could share is her knowledge. But I think you might find that the citizens that Australia is interested in are the educated ones: She pilfers them from such parts of the world. So through immigration, Australia may in fact be decreasing the chance of these countries improving the lot of their citizens.

Kulu, ALL
I'm not arguing for population business as usual merely that the articles were poorly thought through often based unsubstantiated assumptions and was playing to the converted.

FYI I joined the Australia Party before the inhalating Dems. Their policy was ZPG in 1968/9 for the reason we are now witnessing.

The whole idea of smaller number equal good is pitifully simplistic. I would remind everyone that our lifestyle here generates one of the largest eco footprints in the world. Here are we by comparison living the life of Riley telling 3rd world nations they need to cut back on their children!

These articles miss the 3rd world’s perspective.
Quoted before. A tribesman was told that because of disease hunger that statistically of his 6 children only 1-2 would make it to adulthood he reasoned to have more children to help provide for the family now and in his old age. The issue there is survival and security. The only way to negotiate that is to provide education and the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. When there is clear movement towards these needs then negotiation may be more fruitful.

Ludwig
Last time we spoke on this subject. I asked you then how?
Your response was by negotiation and then ‘it would be difficult’ end of. Therefore one could make the unimpressed statement about your offerings on this subject too.
Now *you’re* demanding a solution. I offer a more plausible strategy in that Population Control can’t be single mind set rather a suite of carefully thought through actions. The 3rd world doesn’t give a desiccated scat what we do unless it’s us (the rich) telling them (the poor) to sacrifice… it is all about their needs W2FM. Andrew is right in poking holes in the gunho mentality for controlling other’s Population.
In reality an extra person born in the West will do more to exacerbate ACC than a tribal one in Africa. Sacrifices need to be at least equitable. Perhaps you should think a bit wider. Our profligate life style it at its end which ever way it goes.

Examinator wrote ,"The whole idea of smaller number equal good is pitifully simplistic. I would remind everyone that our lifestyle here generates one of the largest eco footprints in the world."

Examinator, who amongst those arguing here against population growth, has ever denied that the ecological footprint of Australians is larger than those of the Third World?

I certainly haven't, and I have certainly never argued that consumption levels of Australia are not a serious problem.

It's hard to accept that you were unaware of this, so I can only conclude that your 'reminding' us of this fact is only to help throw up a smokescreen to conceal the intellectual and moral of the bankruptcy of the case you are arguing.

---

Ludwig, in answer to your question, Andrew Bartlett has "said a number of times before (he) think(s) a target for Australia of a stabilised population of around 40 million is reasonable." (http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/21/will-the-great-immigration-debate-take-place/)

How this can be accomplished without further compounding the horrific environmental destruction already inflicted upon this continent so far by 'only' 21 million people has not been explained, nor has it been explained how it could possibly be of benefit to the many hundreds of millions left behind who would have no possible chance of reaching here.

---

Paradoxically, those professing compassion for poor people in the Third World in order to justify high immigration and population growth are, whether they realise it or not, the tools of that selfish sectional minority in Australia who seek to exploit population growth to increase their own ecological footprint at the expense of the rest of us in this country, and certainly most, if not all, of those now living the Third World.

As mentioned above, I have written of this in my article "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0 (See also Sheila Newman's excellent Masters Thesis on the Growth Lobby at http://candobetter.org/sheila)

I think it's instructive that most of the usual defenders of high immigration and population growth went AWOL during that discussion.

---

James Sinnamon

Independent anti-population growth
candidate for Mount Coot-tha
ttp://candobetter.org/QldElections
http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

LOL Ludwig.

First you say you've asked me before "what sort of numbers do you envisage and how are we going to achieve it", but "you don’t recall seeing an answer".

Then in a later comment you link to a past statement of mine which specifically answers the question you allege I've never responded to!

"If we put a concerted effort into addressing our population-growth and sustainability issues and show the world that a country with a great deal of growth pressure can achieve a sensible balance between its resource base and environment, and its population and affluence, then we would be going a very long way towards being a good global citizen and encouraging other countries to do likewise."

Sounds good to me - I'm all in favour of a sensible balance. I only wish you were. I doubt other countries would believe we were being a 'good global citizen' by adopting a Fortress Australia policy which kept almost everyone else out so we could 'balance' things by being able to keep consuming more.

Frankly, I'm amazed at those who keep claiming that debate on population issues is allegedly stifled. I've lost track of the number of journal articles, web posts and books written by those who seek to stop migration as a supposed answer to global population problems. The debate isn't stifled at all, it's just that few people agree with this position.

I only wish there was more exposure given to the arguments you try to make, so that those who are inclined to support them can see just how illogical and unfeasible your 'solutions' are.

I'm probably also one of those you suggest "went AWOL" in discussing some other article on this topic, even though you elsewhere state that we've had exchanges on this topic repeatedly.

Having briefly read through the link you provided to one such extended exchange reminded me how you repeatedly misrepresent other people's views, and then demand they answer or respond to your false representation of their comments. A very tiresome and utterly fruitless way to spend one's time, I must say.

Andrew Bartlett,

I think you need to look more carefully at the most recent post. It did not include Ludwig answering his own question, rather it included myself answering a question that should have been easy for you to answer before now.

---

I think there is a significant difference between people debating population on media that only reached by a small proportion of the Australian population, such as on some Internet forums and on some occasional talkback shows, and it being discussed openly every day on the major newsmedia, where it should be discussed.

The fact that all opinion polls show that they overwhelming majority now opposes the Government's continued high immigration program would surely warrant the issue being debated in the mainstream media, even if only to demonstrate to the majority that their views are wrong, as you insist they are.

If debate of population growth is not stifled, then why is it not an issue in the current Queensland elections, when it is obviously the principle driver of nearly all the problems at stake in the current elections - traffic congestion, the water crisis and the need to impose unjust solutions such as the Traveston and Wyaralong Dams?

Why do all the newsmedia persistently talk of population growth as if it were inevitable, rather than being a conscious choice of both the Queensland and Federal Governments? Why do they presume that a current or potential future Government could decide to prevent further population growth? Why do they implicitly deny that the people would not choose to elect such a Government?

Why do you think that editorial after editorial in Brisbane's Murdoch-owned Courier Mail newspaper includes statements of how Queensland Government should better manage population growth, rather than questioning whether population should continue to grow at all?

---

Andrew Bartlett wrote, "Having briefly read through the link you provided to one such extended exchange reminded me how you repeatedly misrepresent other people's views, ..."

<snip/>

Where I have ever once misrepresented your views?

" think you need to look more carefully at the most recent post. It did not include Ludwig answering his own question, rather it included myself answering a question that should have been easy for you to answer before now."

whoops - right you are daggett. Got you and Ludwig confused - you sound so much alike. As your own comment showed, I have answered it before, repeatedly

"Where I have ever once misrepresented your views?"

As I said, the thread in LP is a very good example.

"The fact that all opinion polls show that they overwhelming majority now opposes the Government's continued high immigration program would surely warrant the issue being debated in the mainstream media, even if only to demonstrate to the majority that their views are wrong, as you insist they are."

No, I said your views are wrong, not 'the majority'. I've never seen a poll which supports zero-net migration. I'd appreciate it if you can point it out to me.

The Australian Election Study survey has shown that the majority of people surveyed at the last few elections have either said they support Australia's migration intake level or would like it higher. Only a minority have said they would prefer lower migration, and presumably an even smaller number would support zero-net migration into Australia.

Global population growth is inevitable at the moment, but it doesn't have to be to that way into the future. That is where we should be focusing our efforts.

The world as a whole always has zero-net migration. Reducing the growth in the total number is the challenge. We will never achieve that by pretending we can lock ourselves away from the rest of the world.

Andrew Bartlett,
The debate on population has been stifled ever since the main political parties agreed not to debate immigration and associated issues.

I am not sure of the year, but I understand that Bob Hawke brokered the deal during his term as PM. The popular press has not been very active in raising the issue either, knowing that their best advertising customers (government and the major political parties) do not wish the issue debated.

Last time I looked the Greens had a low immigration policy but do not raise the matter because they rely on Labor preferences to get their Senate seats.

Because debate on the matter is stifled the political parties have been able to avoid putting out a population policy. Such population policies are sorely needed so that electors can evaluate where each particular party stands on what they see as our ultimate population and how they intend to acheive that.

"She pilfers them from such parts of the world. So through immigration, Australia may in fact be decreasing the chance of these countries improving the lot of their citizens."

Fester,

That's true if we are permanently nicking the cream of their professionals just before their own countries are about to boom.

Think about what else might be happening though. What about the situation where we take their best people (and others) when their countries do NOT have the capacity or opportunity to fully use their abilities. And in a lot of SE Asian countries that is the case. To some degree we are doing them a favour as we are keeping their abilities and resumes current. After all, it's not like they would come here unless it was somehow in their interest.

After a certain time, I imagine there will be an inevitable drift of these migrants back to their home countries when there's an event or series of them (greater opportunities back home than before, missing the culture, homesickness, a future Australian Government reaction against excessive immigration, etc) that make it attractive to go back. At that point, not only has Australia kept these people employed and skilled during their time here, but their home countries will then import the benefit when presumably they're more ready to use the newfound skills.

On balance, I'd say they are better off being here than not. The fact that they come here in numbers is testament to that. If they return home after a period of time, I'd call that a win-win situation.

Rob

The point of my "pilfering" comment was not to suggest that Australia not take skilled people from developing countries. I think that a cultral exchange is essential for a developing civilisation. But as a wealthy nation, Australia should be a net exporter of skilled people and so contribute to the advancement of developing countries. Taking skilled people and giving nothing in return is parasitic.

<we take their best people (and others) when their countries do NOT have the capacity or opportunity to fully use their abilities>

So are you claiming that pilfering skilled people from developing countries is really an act of altruism? Are you being serious? So a hospital gets bombed in Ethiopia, and your altruistic response would be "Well, they have no hospital to work in now, so lets bring them to Australia."?

AndrewBartlett,

You say, "The Australian Election Study survey has shown that the majority of people surveyed at the last few elections have either said they support Australia's migration intake level or would like it higher. Only a minority have said they would prefer lower migration, and presumably an even smaller number would support zero-net migration into Australia."

I would like to get a hold of the above-mentioned study? Who exactly conducted the survey, what questions were asked and of whom? Are the results a statistically reliable indicator of the wider population's views on immigration and or population growth? Please provide details?

I find it hard to believe that the majority of people who actual know the immigration and net births minus deaths figures for Australia would be supporting the high levels we have. Certainly from my own inquiries, admittedly mostly of older people (who have been around long enough to experience the increased congestion, the constant loss of native bushland, water shortages etc etc) I find there is a pretty big majority who are decidedly against the levels of immigration we have in Australia.

Now here is an interesting poll result from ABC Unleashed...

An academic has suggested a carbon tax on babies as a measure against population growth. What do you think?

I agree. The idea recognizes that human population growth threatens the health of the planet. 49%
I disagree. The idea is punitive and reflects green extremism. 51%

990 votes counted

Judge for yourselves the mood of the people on the issue!

Andrew,
Talking of zero-growth, it was heartening to see the Aust electorate impose zero-growth on the Democrats. How does that old chestnut go ‘You can fool some of the people …’ It certainly restores ones faith in democracy.

Still, it’s good to see that while you might have lost your seat, you haven’t lost your sense of humor.
You can still tell whoppers – like this: “ I doubt other countries would believe we were being a 'good global citizen' by adopting a Fortress Australia policy which kept almost everyone else out …”
(that one had me ROFL)

Andrew, you’d have to go far a field to find those ‘other countries’ of yours. You’d do well to read the response of the Malaysia Prime Minister to the recent Burmese ‘refugees’.It seems that neither Burma, Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia are very enthused about immigration.And I'd wager that Singapore, Vietnam or The Philippines are NOT big advertisers for immigrants, either.

But then, you’ll no doubt point to some fairy tale kingdom in old Europe whose immigration stance some NGO or UNO report lauds as caring ,responsible, and New-Age-Halal , and, the example we ABSOLUTELY MUST ape . I’ve always found it incongruous how your side of politics tell us we must look to Asia; see ourselves as one with our near neighbors in Asia, but, set our selves apart from mainstream Asian thinking on such issues as immigration.

The second funny you told was your talk of debates: “I only wish there was more exposure given to the arguments you try to make, so that those who are inclined to support them can see just how illogical and unfeasible your 'solutions' are”
(that one had me ROFLMAO)

Lets face it Andrew, the ‘debates’ you favor are staged events where a pompous few tell the many what they should be thinking on an issue and, try to silence opposition argument by labeling it racist or insensitive.

Yes, Andrew, I’d certainly want to see a recount on any poll you endorsed.

"So are you claiming that pilfering skilled people from developing countries is really an act of altruism? Are you being serious? So a hospital gets bombed in Ethiopia, and your altruistic response would be "Well, they have no hospital to work in now, so lets bring them to Australia."?"

Nope, I know it doesn't normally work like that. But that wasn't what my comment was saying. It wasn't about being altruistic per se, it was about absorbing other countries' excess human capacity when it wasn't in a position to use it itself. You know, a bit like acting like an overflow container on a car radiator. At least in Australia these people are getting the opportunity to use their abilities whereas they might not at home.

A carbon tax on babies? Up there for thinking. We're in the domain of the whacko here. Stop immigration? Surely, if you believe in a closed system (which the whole anti-pop argument is based on), then aren't we simply shuffling 'the problem' from country to another - no matter what skills they have?

That's what the anti-pop advocates call people - 'the problem'. Turn clocks back 60 years. Didn't Oliver Reed star in the movie ZPG? A testament to IQ all around.

Good on Bartlett for bringing reason to one of the more hysterical outbreaks of the loony green left.

Daggett,
That point was in support for the larger issue 'how do we reign in on the world's population'. You should read my posts in general Sara Murdoch, and the argument I put in 'Chocky bars' topic. I address these issues in some detail.
Browsing my odd comment is pointless you miss the context and come across as reactionary which I know your not but to be fair to the subject be aware of previous postings.
Thanks for reading anyway.

Andrew Bartlett: "The Australian Election Study survey has shown that the majority of people surveyed at the last few elections have either said they support Australia's migration intake level or would like it higher. Only a minority have said they would prefer lower migration, and presumably an even smaller number would support zero-net migration into Australia."

Funny, every poll I've seen over the last few decades has pointed to the majority of Australians favouring a reduction in immigration levels. In all of these polls, it's only ever been a small minority who wanted an increase in immigration levels.

I find it hard to believe that any survey would find majority support for our present high immigration levels.

Kulu:

You go right on promoting that proposal that women should be taxed, or in effect fined, every time they have a baby and I'm sure the huge support you believe you already have for your cause will grow even more.

You can find out more about the Australian Election Study at this link - http://aes.anu.edu.au/ It is described as "the most sophisticated and exhaustive set of data ever collected in Australia on the dynamics of political behaviour," but I guess that's no match for an internet poll.

Horus, I am not "endorsing" a poll, I am simply reporting it. You might not like the ideas of facts disturbing your version of reality, but that doesn't stop them being facts.

I don't understand what you are getting when you mention "other countries". I was responding to Ludwig's quaint notion that 'other countries' might adopt population control just because Australia - the country with one of the lowest population densities on earth - stopped people from entering to live here.

I assure you the debates I favour are as open and accessible as possible. That's why I comment and respond regularly on topics like this, because I think it useful for people to have access to information rather than rhetoric.

I don't mind you or others continuing to espouse your views as much you like. You can ROFL all you like along the way, but the more you say, the clearer it is how intellectually bankrupt your argument is.

And if your use of scare quotes to describe the refugees from Burma is intended to suggest that they are not genuine refugees, your argument is morally bankrupt as well. Some of them are coming to live in Australia now, so hopefully you'll get a chance to meet some and find out what they've endured.

Countries like Thailand and Malaysia have far more refugees living there than Australia. They also take in plenty of migrants - although they do tend to exploit and mistreat them far more than Australia does. I presume you don't advocate we join them in that regard.

Andrew Bartlett wrote:

Australia - the country with one of the lowest population densities on earth

Dear Andrew,

It is true that Australia has one of the lowest population densities on earth. However, Australia has only 3% the resource of fresh water that the US has. Water is a key resource. The US has approximately 300,000,000 people. With a similar area and 3% of the water the population of Australia should be about 9,000,000 people. If the US has an appropriate population for its available water Australia is overpopulated.

Here's a bit more about those scare quotes Andrew Bartlett mentioned, in case anyone's wondering.

www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=3e721912-21ef-40ff-90b2-f70236b4f81e

Thank you Sancho - a very thorough outline

Thanks david f

There are many different statistics one can use, and it's true that pointing solely to population density doesn't tell the whole story - (although if you are talking about the perceptions of people in other countries, that tends to be one that has some weight).

Some try to use assessments of population density per area of arable land or renewable water resources per person per year. On most of these measures (that I'm aware of anyway), Australia still comes up better per person than the majority of other countries. That's not an excuse for profligacy of course (we do pretty well at that already), but it doesn't suggest we've got less to go around than most other places.

I'd be interested to see the source of your data that Australia has 3% of the water resources of the USA.

The least favourable data I've seen suggests Australia has around 13% of the renewable water resources that the USA has, with about 7% of the population. If you just count the 48 coterminous states of the USA the per capita contrast is even more favourable. These stats are from the CIA Yearbook (3069 cu km to 398 cu km). There are other stats from FAO's AQUASTAT of total renewable water resources which give an even more favourable per capita contrast.

However, there may be other stats, which I'd be interested to see.

We can also be much more efficient in using (and reusing) the water we have. Of course, the growing prospect of major climate change means none of us can be certain about what future water resources will be, which is even more reason to be far more efficient in our water use. However, uncertainty about future renewable water resources applies across the globe.

Fester: "That is unfair, Reyes."

In the case of Bangladesh, yes, many of that particular country's problems can be attributed to overpopulation.

Is it unfair to say that the people and government of Bangladesh should curb their population growth rather than expect other country's to accept their surplus people? I don't think so. If each country acted in a reponsible manner, we wouldn't be facing the problem of global overpopulation.

Andrew Bartlett: " ...the clearer it is how intellectually bankrupt your argument is."

And I see you are truly a master of self-deception and delusion.

You claim that Australia can and should grow its population through immigration without bothering to explain how such immigration-driven population growth would benefit, rather than harm, Australia's environment and quality of life. Please tell us, Andrew, why exactly does Australia need the biggest per capita immigration intake in the world?

I notice that didn't bother to answer my earlier question: If Australia's per capita consumption rates are the problem, wouldn't it be wise and logical to place a moratorium on further immigration until Australia's growing per capita consumption rates have been reversed?

Enquiring minds would like to know.

There is a recent Pew Global Attitudes Survey on globalisation and immigration. Scroll down to the bar graph in the middle and you will find that the overwhelming majority of people in the countries surveyed believe that immigration to their countries should be further controlled and restricted. The only exceptions were South Korea, the Palestinian Territories, and Japan, which has almost no immigration anyway. Unfortunately, Australia was not included, but a great many other countries were.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258

The following link is to a People and Place article by Murray Goot summarising the results of previous opinion polls in Australia

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv8n3/v8n3_6Goot.pdf

As the article points out, how the questions in a poll are worded makes a big difference. It also matters whether people knew or were told the actual size of the net intake, including New Zealanders, etc. Although results vary from year to year, it is clear that the people who wanted less immigration always far outnumbered those who wanted more (a response that was often measured in single digits). Attitudes can also vary depending on the particular type of immigration (humanitarian, family reunion, etc.).

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1996-97/97cib16.htm

Senator Bartlett cannot assume that the people who said they were satisfied with existing levels of immigration in the past would still be satisfied with today's higher intakes. If so, why didn't Kevin Rudd tell people that he intended to increase immigration before the election?

MAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER!

"We can also be much more efficient in using (and reusing) the water we have" .. and the living space, the public transport, violence free streets where you can die in a hail of bullets while your kids munch Mackers etc ..the list grows with each new Julia Shillard skilled (NoDoubt Laborvoting & taxability skills) immigrant intake.

If you just count the 5 true coterminous ambitions blaring out from Andrew's posts:

*Immigrate Presidential size populations who won't rebel or thieve or want to occupy large tracts of prime real estate like junk-yard-dogs ..like REAL human beings do.

*Squeeze & recycle the resource allocations of existing citizens to make room for the new mythically endowed gerrymanderist controllable-immigrants

*There's no excuse for profligacy but Australia is big enough for all the profligacy I can handle.

*Perceptions of people in other countries carry more weight than perceptions of Australians who have failed us politicians under the weight of the GFC.

*Never mind the TRUTH we want to see the STATS

you would see he is just another politician who believes he has a big future in another corrupt Reesesque government system which has allowed itself to become a very precarious pawn in US(UnServiceable?) global corporate politics.

The TRUTH?
1.Humans like all life thrive on (Thermodynamics 101) Entropy gradients that geographically coincide with tall Sierras like the Himalayas, Rockies Appalachias and the Euro-Alps.

2.If Australia had such Sierras, Tamil-Indians would have been in their hundreds of millions before Cook arrived. These Sierras control the hydrology of arable land by gravity .. distributing water&fertile soil equably to large populations while the Murray-Darling dies, not from global warming but from GREED..

3.On this fact alone, neglecting an imminent PEAKOIL, we KNOW Australia can only handle about 20million people, NZ 60million & Tasmania 15million. It won't happen overnight but it will.

What will happen to fat-headed politicians who haven't done their Physics&Geography 101s?

Karma's a bitch!

Thanks to Andrew Bartlett for providing a link. It provides the questions and responses. Here is the link again,

http://assda-nesstar.anu.edu.au/webview/index.jsp

and for those wanting a bit more direction, click on these search headings:

ASSDA-ANU
Australian Studies
Politics
Election and Campaign Studies
Australian Election Study, 2007
Variable Description
Section F: Global Politics

Questions and results for immigration are from f12 to f14. I found it interesting that people believing that immigration was economically advantageous outnumbered those who considered it not so 59% to 11%, or nearly 6 to 1. Those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%, or 3 to 1.

But is the belief that immigration brings economic benefits supported by recent events? Since the Coalition Government began increasing immigration since 1996, the state governments have racked up huge levels of debt to pay for the infrastructure needed to cope with a growing population. And it happened at a time when revenues were high.

Dear Andrew,

I could not find the source for my statement that Australia has 3% of the freshwater resources of the US. I found "The World's Water" which has a smaller disparity. It listed 3069 cubic km/yr for the US as against 398 for Australia.

davidf

You might scout around Land and Water Australia:

http://lwa.gov.au/

I'd like to see water availability represented by a graph of the quantity of water available vs the percentage of time it is available. There are huge quantities of water available for short periods of time, which might be great if you want to grow a crop lettuce, but is useless for supporting a large population. It would also be good to look at the intrinsic storage capacity in different parts of the country. We are often shown deluges in parts of the Australia, but how much of this rain could be stored economically? And how close to capacity are the storages of Australia's capitals?

Andrew,
Re Immigration:

You say: “I don't understand what you are getting (at) when you mention ‘other countries’. I was responding to Ludwig's quaint notion that 'other countries' might adopt population control just because Australia - the country with one of the lowest population densities on earth - stopped people from entering to live here.”
No, you were doing more than that, you were spruiking the L-I-E that the rest of the world subscribes to the Andrew Bartlett immigration agenda . And that, any tightening of Aust’s immigration stance would put it offside with the standards & practises of the everyone else . The reality is all our near neighbours have very tight immigration controls–and, are determined to maintain them.Note Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s comment to the Bangkok Post: “if we cannot be firm we cannot deal with this problem. We have to be firm at all borders. We have to turn them back,".

You say: (my) “scare quotes to describe the “refugees” from Burma is intended to suggest they’re not genuine.
Your argument seems to be that because they’ve “endured’ hardship that makes them genuine – (LOL) by that measure 99% of the worlds population would qualify as “refugees”.

You say: countries like Thailand and Malaysia have far more refugees that Aust.
What you conveniently neglected to mention was that – rather than being guests or prospective citizens– any “refugees’’ in either Malaysia or Thailand are likely to be there by default: illegally &, in transit to somewhere else . And if past practices are anything to go by, such “refugees” will be sent packing at the first opportunity.
(PS: By the way, Malaysia under Mahatiar long pushed the goal of greater population – more population – as long as it is not refugees!)

And as for : “morally bankrupt”.
When did “We’ll keep the bastards honest” morph into,
“Honest! we’ll do whatever you bastards want” ?
( with the you bastards = various UN committees & covenant

David f,

The CIA factbook includes economically irrecoverable and undivertable Monsoonal fresh water loadings for Australia from Nth NSW all the way to Broome in WA. This can't be realistically included. Especially with new global oil finds diminishing rapidly and Australia set for a nuclear free future, there won't be the grunt available to achieve such titanic projects.

The actual USEABLE water load for areas capable of or desirable for carrying meaningful populations is in fact around 3% of US equivalent figures. The dire condition of the Murray Darling basin and the need for a Desal plant in Sydney to attract favoured political immigrants is testament to this. In fact if Nathan Rees doesn't lose his job over the increase in water and electricity costs essentially making NSW citizens pay for the desal plant to attract migrants and increase HIS political power, I will be quite surprised.

The total immigration package of effects MUST be discussed. The tired old Shillard cliche that migrants increase spending and thus jobs is about to be proved a lie as unemployment projections are set for 10% by year end. One sided arguments and even direct propaganda in Australian media & in parliament only include the flakiest of advantages of immigration and exclude the dangers. This is directly a function of how much money corporations spend on media and political donations.

I'm not surprised AB is being coy about this point. Polititians and corporate-paid media have vested interests in profits from large populations and they don't care about future Bass Hill or other catastrophes this will cause. They know (or believe)these catastrophes can and will be externalised to Australian citizens and never appear on their bottom line or as a debit to their immigrated political power.

Its TIME that all changed and this is a good place to start.

Australian politicians need to be told and told often ... Australia 20 million, NZ 60 million .... STOP F'ing us over.

Divergence,

Your post provided some useful commentary and links on polls that relate to population growth.

Here is another one:-

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4337/

It is interesting to note that the above survey questionnaire included the population issue as an economic issue and not as an environmental one. Even so over-population was seen as a problem by some even in this context.

On the other hand insufficient population growth/aging population did not garner enough votes to register as a problem at all. One has to wonder whether over-population would have registered as a problem by a significantly greater proportion of the people sampled had it been included as an environmental issue.

One also has to also wonder how the developers, retailers and other "growth at all costs" lobbyists were not sufficient in numbers to influence the polls. They certainly do have a profound influence in the making of government policy on the issue.

Andrew B,

I can't find any easy way to find any survays on the population issue on The Australian Election Study site. To find a relevant poll would require trawling through numerous questionnaires
conducted for the study over a number of years and I cannot be bothered at this point.

Thanks Fester. I hadn't read your post re the link to the Australian Election Study before my last post.

I agree that the perception that population growth leads to economic growth is probably erroneous. David Coulter of Sustainable Population Australia studied the statistics and found that for the richer countries there is no statistical correlation between population growth and per capita GDP growth.

I would venture to suggest that during this current recession per capita GDP will be lower than it would otherwise have been had our governments not embarked on there programs of mass immigration and encouragement of increased fertility rates in Australia.

Andrew
Re The environment:

While many the best brains admit uncertainty re climate outcomes, you , confidently draft back-of-the-envelope encyclicals about how many people Aust can sustain.You clutch at straws like “Aust (has) one of the lowest pop densities…” & our renewable water to pop ration is better than the US and conclude –yes we can!
“Pack em in ,move down the aisle please and allow more passengers to squeeze onto the bus , and oh, there’s still plenty of room on the roof !’

You’ve got real spunk – with that sought of risk tolerance you’d have made a killing in the US derivatives market…leastways prior to mid 2008! And if your policies ever get adopted in Aust, I dare say we’ll be killing ourselves here too.
.
A nations carrying capacity is the number it can sustain in the worst of times – not what we can get by with, if we all tighten our belts, in the best of times. If you pack the continent based on today’s conditions you may well have a disaster zone tomorrow

Andrew Bartlett wrote:

“The least favourable data I've seen suggests Australia has around 13% of the renewable water resources that the USA has, with about 7% of the population. If you just count the 48 coterminous states of the USA the per capita contrast is even more favourable. These stats are from the CIA Yearbook (3069 cu km to 398 cu km). There are other stats from FAO's AQUASTAT of total renewable water resources which give an even more favourable per capita contrast.

However, there may be other stats, which I'd be interested to see.”

Well, Andrew, consider this: With just a minimum of effort, confirmation could be had, on a whole of landscape basis, on behalf of the really dense population:

Annual average rainfall, (roughly to this order) Europe/Australia 0.600/0.500 metres
Annual average evaporation Europe/Australia 0.350/2.050 metres

Comparing Australia, the US and European rainfall is silly.
It all depends of where you live in Australia.
For example I live in Cairns we have over 2m of rainfall and forecast to increase with Global Warming.

The top half of Australia has lots more rain we have most of our population in the wrong half.

The people living in the desert below the tropics should move north.

“The top half of Australia has lots more rain. We have most of our population in the wrong half ----The people living in the desert below the tropics should move north.” John Pratt says.

John, you have exalted company: Paul Davies, Professor of Natural Philosophy at Adelaide in 1996 wrote - under the title Megacity Madness in the Education section of The Australian – that cities the size of Adelaide scattered across the “well watered north” of Australia were the answer to Australia’s burgeoning population problem.

Oh, to be so erudite! Even at the Rudd Government’s (now diminished??) immigration intake - vastly elevated even over Howard’s massive intake - plus natural increase, we would be busy doing nothing more than keeping pace with our expansion.

To do just that, one city the size of Adelaide, every three years, would need to be sprinkled across the countryside from the “wet desert” (as Geologist Fred Whitehouse called it) of western Cape York, through the gulf country where cattle drown in the occasional good wet season if their legs are less than 5 metres long, to the crusty landscape of the Kimberlies.
No worries, problem solved – move north?

Thank for your replies

Given many authorities use a measure of renewable water resources as a comparative measure, I am not sure why such figures should just be dismissed. Even with different figures like those colinsett uses for Europe vs Australia, there is the issue of the very different numbers of people on those two continents.

Divergence says I "cannot assume that the people who said they were satisfied with existing levels of immigration in the past would still be satisfied with today's higher intakes."

Actually I can assume that, based on the same surveys - the AES Trends in Political Opinion survey continues up to the 2007 election. The percentage of people who say "the number of migrants allowed into Australia at the present time" is either "about right" or "not far enough" goes from over 56% in 1998 to 65% in 2001 69% in 2004 to 60% in 2007. The percentage who say migrations numbers have "much too far" has been below 20% since 2001. This was over a time when Australia's immigration intake was increasing significantly.

Having majority public support for something does automatically mean it is a good policy, but that's no reason to claim there is majority support for something when there isn't.

Horus, I am not using 'back of the envelope' calculations. I am using comparative data from publicly available and credible sources, rather than just making sweeping unverified assertions.

And while it's very kind of you to try to read my mind and expand my words into something that they didn't say, you're guess at my thoughts or intent was wrong. I was not "spruiking the L-I-E that the rest of the world subscribes to the Andrew Bartlett immigration agenda." I was simply pointing out that the rest of the world will not shape their population policies according to Australia's immigration policies - in effect you have confirmed my point, although I wouldn't be so rude as to accuse Ludwig of LYING when he made his comment. He is just incorrect.

Horus also misrepresents my comments on the refugees from Burma by saying my "argument seems to be that because they’ve “endured’ hardship that makes them genuine – (LOL)". Obviously you have absolutely no idea of the enormous suffering these refugees have endured. It might make you LOL, but I'm afraid I can't see the funny side in laughing at others people's torment. Being a refugee involves far more than just enduring hardship - the legal definition of refugee is very clearly defined and I don't think there is any dispute that it applies to these people. That is why Australia is resettling thousands of them here at the moment.

The fact that - as you acknowledge - Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia etc do not provide safe haven for these people is an obvious reason why some of them seek to come to Australia which does provide such safety. I did not "conveniently neglect" to mention this fact - I can't mention everything given the space limitations on comments. But I am pleased that you made this point clear.

Your comments also acknowledge that these countries also take in high number of other migrants, which also reinforces my point that it is not just Australia who accepts sizable numbers of migrants.

As I said, these other countries tend to exploit migrants and refugees far more than Australia does. You didn't agree with me that treating people less humanely is not a policy Australia should follow - I trust you just ran out of space.

Whatever issues Australia has with carrying capacity, they are much greater in most other areas of the planet. The simple point is that population numbers is a global issue and to pretend Australia can exempt itself from it by blocking entry to the country is putting your head in the sand, particularly given we are amongst the most profligate nations on that planet.

Andrew Bartlett wrote: "Having majority public support for something does automatically mean it is a good policy, but that's no reason to claim there is majority support for something when there isn't."

But, as Fester noted, according to the poll results:

"Those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%, or 3 to 1."

And that was in 2007, before the Rudd Government increased the immigration intake by something like 20 percent. Thus, to claim that there is "majority public support" for the Rudd Government's record high immigration intake is simply not true and really quite a mendacious statement on your behalf. As we can see, there were far more Australians in 2007 against higher levels of immigration than in favour of them.

Kulu wrote: "The perception that population growth leads to economic growth is probably erroneous."

Immigration increases GDP (how could it not?) but there is no evidence that it increases GDP per capita. In fact, David Coulter of SPA recently found that despite figures showing economic growth in some states, per capita GDP has fallen in every state in Australia, due to the population growth rate outstripping the GDP growth rate.

Coulter noted:

"They confirm calculations I have made over many years comparing OECD countries. These calculations repeatedly show no statistically significant correlation between population growth and growth of per capita GDP. They parallel the conclusion of the Productivity Commission report which showed that, despite excluding many of the environmental costs of a larger population, there was no demonstrable link between increase in immigration and per capita economic growth."

Read more here:

http://candobetter.org/node/1123

Senator Bartlett, by using phrases such as "intellectually bankrupt", is trying to imply that Michael Lardelli is some sort of second-rate maverick scientist on the fringes. In fact, his opinions are absolutely mainstream among scientists in the relevant fields.

The UN-sponsored Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) including the contributions of 1360 scientists found that: "The bottom line of the MA findings is that human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted."

In a talk yesterday, as reported in the Guardian, John Beddington, the UK Chief Scientist, said: "Our [global] food reserves are at a 50 year low, but by 2030 we will need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy and 30% more fresh water." He clearly flagged population growth as a major cause of the problem.

Here are some eye-opening graphs on food production from the Earth Policy Institute:

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update72_data.htm#table1

Here are the results of a poll of earth scientists from the journal Eos on climate change.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

So far as Australia is concerned, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has found that Australia has the worst record in the world for species extinction. Destruction of habitat for the growth Senator Bartlett wants is a major factor.

Senator Bartlett admits that there are global environmental and overpopulation problems, but acts as if Australia's policies could be divorced from them. In fact, he and other growthist politicians have been contributing to the global problem.

According to the UK Optimum Population Trust, the decision to have an additional baby there is equivalent (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) to a decision to take 650 round trip flights between New York and London. Our equivalent would be 980 such flights. An additional person in a developed country puts far more strain on the environment than an additional person in the Third World. According to the Australia Institute, the average migrant to Australia doubles his greenhouse gas emissions compared to what they would have been at home. In the US, with more immigration of poor people, the average migrant quadruples his emissions. The Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) has found that if the extra greenhouse gas emissions due to to immigration to the US were assigned to a separate country, it would be the 10th biggest emitter in the world.

There are a number of studies showing that people who expect some of their children to emigrate tend to have more of them (see refs. to chapter 3 of Virginia Abernethy's Population Politics"). Migrants from some ethnic groups have much bigger families in developed countries than they would have had at home, because they now believe that they can afford the very large family idealised by their culture. Just compare Mexican fertility rates in Mexico and California.

Money spent on infrastructure for population growth cannot be spent on giving Third World people the same family planning choices we take for granted, providing them with clean water, vaccinations, etc. so there is more child survival and less pressure to have extra children for insurance, giving women education and economic opportunities to increase opportunity costs for childbearing, etc., etc.

Reyes;

I’m not sure why you can’t respond to what I say, rather than inventing things I didn’t say and ‘responding’ to that.

You can call me a liar all you like, but I didn’t even mention Kevin Rudd – you did. The final figure I quoted was public opinion at the time of the 2007 election, before Rudd assumed office.

And the simple fact is – as shown by the numbers I quoted – that the majority of Australians either supported current migration levels at that time, or wanted even more. This was at a time of then-record migration intake.

Selectively quoting figures that "those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%” ignores all of those who supported existing levels – all of whom obviously disagree with those such as yourself who not only argue for lower migration, but dramatically lower migration. Not to mention that fact that the 45% is from 1998, and that dropped to 35% by 2001, despite big increases in migration occurring in that time.

You and your fellow anti-migration advocates are the ones claiming majority support for your position when then is no evidence that it exists.

And please don’t expect me to be swayed by the fact that a person from Sustainable Population Australia, who support cutting net-migration into Australia to zero, has just happened to deduce that there is no economic benefit from migration. If you don’t mind, I’ll take my analysis and data from a slightly more independent source. Although as many SPA people deride the goals of ‘growth economics’, if they applied the economic logic of their alleged findings, they’d be calling for more migration so per capita GDP would shrink even more, thereby sparing us from the economic growth that they believe is so harmful.

In any case, my reading of the relevant Productivity Commission report doesn’t match that assessment. Despite it taking a very narrow and short-term measure of what constitutes economic and social benefits, it still found a small net gain from migration.

Divergence – firstly I am not a Senator anymore (which I’m sure you aren’t too distressed about).

Secondly, Mr Lardelli may well be a highly accomplished in the fields of genetics or peak oil. But your links to the “mainstream opinions among scientists” relate to global population growth. They are views I also agree with, and they have nothing to do with migration.

I totally agree that “human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital” and that global population growth is a major problem. My point is that it is you, not I, who seem to think that “Australia's policies could be divorced from this.”

Dramatically reducing migration into Australia does absolutely nothing about the problem of global population growth. Nor does it do anything about the extremely profligate approach of Australian society and economy – if anything trying to pull up the drawbridge will just encourage those already here to think it leaves more resources for them to consume and they can continue on with business as usual

Regardless of the many economic, social and cultural benefits from migration, I think environmental issues should be given at least as much consideration. Which is why I think it is important for much more attention to be given to the significant environmental impacts of global population growth and to significantly reducing the profligate lifestyles of most people in the wealthiest countries. Migration has no impact on this. Focusing on migration just distracts from the real problem and seeks to shift the blame.

"Dramatically reducing migration into Australia does absolutely nothing about the problem of global population growth. Nor does it do anything about the extremely profligate approach of Australian society and economy"

Perhaps Malthus's hypothesis should be modified to that of human consumption in conjunction with population increasing to the limit of resources? Perhaps Australia's profligacy has more to do with our capacity to consume than our morality? Would Australians be any more moral with a tenfold population and a tenth the per capita consumption? Are Bangladeshis or Indians more moral for their poverty?

Surely the most moral thing that Australians can do is to join with other nations in developing technologies which reduce the impact of our consumption? Surely this is better than than the neoludditism that portrays consumption as the path to oblivion?

<Selectively quoting figures that "those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%” ignores all of those who supported existing levels>

Surely a rudimentary understanding of percentages might have led many to guess that about 40% of respondents thought that migrant numbers were in the Goldilocks zone? I'm sorry if you think that I would selectively quote statistics with the intention of misleading people, but I dont see how this is any less selective than your initial quote on the AES in the thread:

<The Australian Election Study survey has shown that the majority of people surveyed at the last few elections have either said they support Australia's migration intake level or would like it higher. Only a minority have said they would prefer lower migration, and presumably an even smaller number would support zero-net migration into Australia.>

I was prompted to comment by the above: The figures I quoted when combined with your statement give a more complete description. Is that a bad thing? And I am curious why you didn't subject my "59% economically advantageous/11% not economically advantageous" to the same criticism?

<Not to mention that fact that the 45% is from 1998, and that dropped to 35% by 2001, despite big increases in migration occurring in that time.>

No, it's from the 2007 survey. But to avoid further accusation here is the question and result in full:

<Literal Question
F.12. Do you think the number of immigrants allowed into Australia nowadays should be reduced or increased?
Values Categories N
1 Increased a lot 79 4.3%
2 Increased a little 198 10.7%
3 Remain about the same as it is 712 38.6%
4 Reduced a little 463 25.1%
5 Reduced a lot 391 21.2%
-1 Missing 30>

I would prefer a more quantitative question, e.g.:

What is an appropriate range for Australia's annual migrant intake?

1 Less than 50,000
2 Between 50,000 and 150,000
3 Between 150,000 and 250,000
4 Between 250,000 and 500,000
5 Greater than 500,000

Population discussions stir emotions, but it might be agreed that presenting truthful argument is a common ambition.

AndrewBartlett (since you object to the courtesy title),

Around 1970, the US fertility rate dropped slightly below replacement level. This graph shows present population projections and what would exist if the zero net immigration policy prevailing before 1965 were maintained.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/attrition-through-enforcement/legal-immi/question-if-congress-doesnt-change-immig.html

Does having 60 million more big consumers in the US really make no difference to the environment? The Rudd government has admitted that population growth is why the proposed emissions targets are so small. According to the ABS we had 1.8% population growth last year with 61% of it due to immigration.

You have asserted that people will just consume all the resources anyway so the environment will be no better off with no population growth. A good test case for that is Germany, where population growth has been low to nonexistent, but GNP per capita has increased. Energy consumption per capita has actually been going down. See

http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/107.htm

There is, of course, scope for reducing waste, just not as much as you think, at least without making people miserable, like Adelaide residents watching their gardens die. This graph plots environmental footprint (consumption) against rank on the UN Human Development Index (human well-being).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

Please name the country whose standard of living you would like us to adopt and tell us whether you are living the lifestyle that you would like to force on the rest of us. You might also explain why you politicians, with the power to tax, redistribute wealth, allocate money for research, restrain advertising, set minimum efficiency and durability standards, etc., haven't done anything to restrain consumerism.

If some of the more serious global warming projections turn out to be correct and we left with insufficient water, so that living standards plummet, are people likely to hold hands and sing Kumbayah on a hillside, or leap at each others' throats "like junkyard dogs" over the ethnic and religious fault lines you have so thoughtfully provided?

Finally, it is a bit hypocritical to oppose the Traveston Dam and the like when you have cheered on the population growth that made such things attractive options.

Fester

I am not sure how you can accuse me of being "selective" when I provided the full information, rather than just the part that gave an impression which suited my argument. I didn't go into all the other questions in the survey for space reasons, and you'd alreay provided figures for another questions which backed my views about positive public perceptions of immigration.

As for the date of the figures you provide, we must be looking at different surveys, as the copy of the AES I have has 2007 figures which show only 39.9% of people think migration numbers have gone eiuther 'too far' or 'much too far', compared with 60.1% who think it is about right (which is where I'd place myself) or want more.

Divergence - I'm not sure if you enjoy being obtuse, but I didn't object to being called Senator, I just wanted to make clear that I no longer hold that position.

Which also means that you call for me to "explain why you politicians, with the power to tax, redistribute wealth, allocate money for research," etc etc isn't really apt either, seeing I'm not a politician anymore. Of course when I was I usually wasn't in a position to exercise that power anywhere near as often as I would have liked, but the public record shows I did plenty advocating to those ends.

I am not trying to "force a lifestyle" on anyone - it would be futile task anyway. But unless you believe Australians are already living sustainably, then I presume you would agree that Australians should be significantly reducing their individual carbon and ecological footprint.

As for Traveston Dam, there is ample evidence that shows there are many alternatives that are cheaper and have less environmental impact. I presume you aren't suggesting that people elsewhere on the planet don't also need access to fresh water, so the issue is (a) more efficient use of water, and (b) slowing the growth in the number of people on the planet.

Reading through these comments it appears there are some who just do not see any problem with this finite planet carrying an ever-increasing number of people. That would be OK if everyone was living in comfort, but there are 25,000 people a DAY dying of starvation, mostly in countries with high population growth rates.

There are others, notably Andrew B, who will acknowledge that the world has a population problem, but think in terms of an underpopulated Australia in the midst of an overpopulated world. This is a kind of double standard - the rules that apply to the rest of the world don't apply to us.

The truth is that every country is overpopulated, especially looking out 100, 200 years into the future, because resources extinguished now cannot be used later. There could perhaps be some justification for Australia increasing its population if our environmental indicators were showing constant improvement, but they are not - in fact every environmental indicator in the State of the Environment reports has been going constantly backwards, with the exception of air quality.

But even if our environment was improving, why would we want to stop the improvement by bringing in more people?

As well as international equity, there is inter-generational equity. By overloading Australia, we are saying to future generations 'we don't care if we leave you with a degraded environment, that's your problem to figure out'.

It's not surprising if many Australians are confused on the issue. Successive governments have bamboozled the electorate. Most Australians think Howard was anti-immigrant, while the truth is he actually tripled immigration to the great approval of his property development mates. Snuck up to the volume control, turned it up as loud as he could, and boy did they party! Windfall profits undreamed of in previous generations - take four humble house blocks and throw up a high rise with 100 dwellings all selling at more than last year's house price. Bonanza!

EVERY country in the world should be working flat out to stabilise its population. Australia's population growth rate of 1.8% is more than seven times the average for industrialised nations (0.25%). Even Indonesia is only growing at 1.2%. Instead of leading the world in growth, we should be setting an example of how to run a successful society with a stable population. After all even Australia cannot keep on growing forever, can it Andrew?

The global warming scenario is a world about to burst into flames. And yet Andrew and his ilk want to throw on more petrol, to hell with the consequences.

Of course Australia should be doing much more than it is to help meet the unmet need for family planning and contraception around the world. There are families living on $1 a day who desperately don't want to have an 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or 10th child, especially when doing so could well condemn the mother to death.

Australia has the world's 16th-largest economy, but our foreign aid program is pathetic. Admittedly the budget will rise over time from 0.3% of GDP to 0.5% of GDP, but the UN-recommended amount is 0.7%, and sensible countries with small population growth rates like Sweden and Denmark are spending 1% of GDP, with a major emphasis on reproductive health programs.

But hiding your head in the sand and pretending that adding more people to an already-overloaded Australia will not matter is just plain silly. Andrew when are you going to start REALLY caring about the welfare of people in other nations?

Your current stance is racist, because you don't seem to care about the world's number one problem, that is going to affect poor people the most. That's what David Attenborough says, and somehow I think he knows more about the world than you do, for all your experience in driving a once-proud political party into the ground.

Andrew

<I am not sure how you can accuse me of being "selective" when I provided the full information>

I dont think my quote selective, and so I cannot think your quote selective, although my own preference is for percentages over comparative terms.

<As for the date of the figures you provide, we must be looking at different surveys, as the copy of the AES I have has 2007 figures which show only 39.9% of people think migration numbers have gone eiuther 'too far' or 'much too far', compared with 60.1% who think it is about right (which is where I'd place myself) or want more.>

I found this from the link you provided, and again I thank you for providing this information. Here is the link and headings to open to get to the question:

http://assda-nesstar.anu.edu.au/webview/index.jsp

ASSDA-ANU
Australian Studies
Politics
Election and Campaign Studies
Australian Election Study, 2007
Variable Description
Section F: Global Politics
F12. Number of immigrants increased

I agree that the information differs from your own, with 38.6% wanting current levels maintained, 15% wanting levels increased or greatly increased, and 46.3% wanting levels reduced or greatly reduced.

The comments on profligacy I find confusing, as the potential for serious harm resulting from consumption has only become apparent in the last few years. There is now a substantial effort to develop "clean" technologies which may eventually eliminate the CO2/living standard correlation. I have more belief that government will make a difference by involving itself in a technical fix, rather than by attempting to curb peoples consumption. A recent example of this is the Bligh Government's promise to subsidise 200,000 solar hot water systems. Hopefully the call by many scientists for government to actively develop solutions gains momentum.

AB stated: " ...my reading of the relevant Productivity Commission report doesn’t match that assessment. Despite it taking a very narrow and short-term measure of what constitutes economic and social benefits, it still found a small net gain from migration."

Those "benefits" amounted to a 0.06 percent increase in per capita income. In other words, chicken feed. And when balanced against some of the substantial costs of immigration, such as downward pressure on wages, higher housing costs, increased consumption of natural resources, higher water costs, a larger current account deficit, and increasing welfare and tax burdens on state and local governments, those "benefits" disappear completely.

Immigration is simply a way of driving down wages and boosting demand for goods and services. It benefits the big end of town and those ethnocentric minorities seeking the importation of more of their own, but nobody else.