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.