<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.