An eminently sensible article Professor Ridd. Not sure about the nuclear power bit, but the rest is spot-on.

It is in indeed very easy to reduce our population growth rate, without doing anything that could be deemed draconian.

The main trouble is that governments, federal and state, are in bed with the real estate industry and other big-business vested interests, which are pushing for the maintenance of high growth rates.

This is a going to be a hell of a hard barrier to overcome….or is it?

I see a window of opportunity. With the federal opposition battling to make any inroads into Rudd’s popularity and with zero chance of winning the next election if they take the same old me-tooist approach just with edge-tinkering policy differences, the thing for them to do is to fully embrace the sustainability paradigm, and thus set themselves up as a very different choice to Rudd.

I reckon that if they did this and sold it well, they’d get overwhelming support from the community, to the extent that it would outweigh the influence of the vested-interest big business sector.

I’ve entertained this line of discussion a lot on OLO recently, eg on this thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2980 and indeed have been since pushing it for three years or more on this forum.

I’d love to know your thoughts on this, or how else we might actually get a major population-growth-reduction steady-state-economy genuine sustainability paradigm up and running in this country.

Well done Peter Ridd and good to see that the issues are not just environmental. The economic aspects are also described, which is uncommon. The Productivity Commission did a study in April 2006, showing the the average workers wages fell slightly with increased immigration, but it was common to hear the same politicians (Peter Costello and John Howard) who initated the study, repeatedly say "High immigration is good for the economy." What they meant was that it was good for their mates in Housing who helped fund their re-election campaigns.

The point about Housing being short term and not providing long term benefits like a factory, a scientific breakthrough in farming, medicine or the environment has been crying to be said. It seems like everytime there is any economic issue of any sort reported on the news, somebody from the Housing industry is right there ready to say "It won't be good for the housing Industry" and we are all supposed to fall on one knee and ask for forgiveness. Contrast that with somebody who wants to build a factory and we are ready to immediately throw them in jail, for even considering such a heinous crime against humanity.

Well done, as well, to the AEF who are often criticised by the "Green" groups because they like nuclear power and question other aspects of green dogma, but don't say the obivious: "Net Zero Immigration" like Peter Ridd does.

The big question, though, is how do we, as a society, start thinking and acting long term. Political terms are short. If you want to get re-elected you need to make voters happy NOW. Kevin Rudd increases the population by 1.9% and the economy increases by 0.2% and he is able to say "I've kept us out of a recession," and we fall for it, even though the jobless rate has gone up from 4% to 6%.

Does Kevin Rudd or any politician care if he's done the right thing for Australia in the long term or does he just care that he gets re-elected?

Population needs to be a major media/political discussion topic and glad to see it raised here.

I have concerns that apparently we are already a net importer 20% of fruit and vegetables and we export only 30% of our grain, these figures do not support any increase in population if we want to become sustainable.
The situation will get much worse when fuel prices rise exponentially as we start to run out.

Scrapping the baby bonus is a start. But this is an attitude that also needs to be exported to the rest of the world. The whole world population must stop increasing some time and now is a very good time to start to promote these ideas

The future is a frightening place - especially if the Anti-pops get their way. So the problem is people? - lets gets rid of them.

We've read this antihumanist pap before. Even had to fight wars against people who proposed these population culling policies.

International students? Housing? Messy thinking.

I want MORE people to come to Australia. I want to open the gates wide. Give us your hungry, tired and homeless. We are humanitarians, we are liberal humanists. We've got more food coming out of our fundamentals. Why? Hard work. Something these whacko eugenists have yet to try.

I've got an idea. If the anti-pops are so keen to keep people out, I suggest we let them man the beaches north of Wyndham and Kunnanara in summer. They will be doing us all a favour.

The importation of highly skilled labour tends to increase productivity, jobs and the general welfare. Bringing in students for needed skills who pay for their education themselves is getting these skills without having to subsidise schooling, health Uni etc. Bogus courses do this a lot of damage.

A serious problem is coming in that there will be a huge portion of the population in retirement, and fewer to pay the taxes to support them. Immigration is a short cut to fixing this.

Population in Aus is not the problem, abuses of the system are.

Peter

Excellent summary ; should be read by every politician ( but doubts on nuclear).

A couple of points:

1. Needs to be emphasised that our high immigration policy does not have popular mandate. It is clearly Gov. policy, but no Party or Gov. dares to seek endorsement for it. Reason is simple, they know they do not have one. So "Policy" is totally undemocratic.

2. Many eminent persons have arrived at cost benefits of immigration; eg Bob Birrol (yesterdays Australian) and Access. But analyses do not take account of infrastructure costs. Every resident, tourist, immigrant, student requires supporting infrastructure in order to function. Never have I seen the cost of this included in any analysis; yet it is almost certainly the highest cost of all to the nation in this context.

Governments are keen to capture the benefits of high population growth for their big Business mates, but not so keen to fund infrastructure to the "non diluting" level required, if existing population is not to be disadvantaged. Overcrowded Public transport and worsening hospital service are examples of this.

I estimate each new resident requires of the order of $300,000 to $500,00 in infrastructure expenditure, if current standards are to be maintained. If I am right then this clearly destroys the positive analyses (these are mostly very marginal anyway).

I cannot prove my numbers beyond doubt, since there are no Government statistics at all on this ( please anyone correct me if I am wrong). However a recent report, commissioned by the state Department of Planning, cites research that found "for every 1000 dwellings, the cost for infill development (in existing suburbs) is $309 million and the cost of fringe developments is $653 million".

Thus a relatively small part of total infrastructure costs $ 653, 000 per household for each new fringe household , or say $170, 000 per new person. This cost mainly falls to State and Federal Governments and is met from taxes and represents lost investements for the benefit of existing populations.

I wish some Academic institution would give more thought to this issue.

Professor Ridd has put his finger on one aspect of our environmental problems. We can limit immigration to Australia, but that merely means that there is a greater increase in population outside of Australia. We must not only limit immigration to Australia, but also must cooperate with and support international population planning efforts outside of Australia.

However, this is not a problem that can be solved just by technology and organization. We have to confront not only the real estate lobby but the Catholic Church and all other institutions who see population growth as an advantage to them or support it on ideological grounds and disregard its consequences

Nothing can keep growing forever, and clearly our population is out of control. Governments and the building industry and land developers have direct favours from and access to our government, not average citizens. Immigration and racism are different things. We are being silenced by political correctness about "racism", when the truth is that it is the public who will have their pockets raided to pay for this unsustainable growth. Governments are sponsored by the growth industry, and they will continue to collect more taxes and charges from land developments, immigration fees and tertiary education for international students. The desalination plant in Victoria is an example. The public will pay for soaring water costs because the Property Council of Australia (the growth lobby) have been allowed to dominate our Federal and State Governments' policies. Our natural resources are finite, but not our pockets!

Why don't you bugger off and leave the people alone , so you don't want to breed thats fine by us ; probably a good idea .

Every thing is becoming askew to "Peopledom" , Government interference in the Building industry for example has made Building a Home nigh on impossible for an individual this has led to a modest home now valuing out to 500.000 this means ordinary people will probably never pay their loan out ; the other issue here is the Bureaucracy , these people have become so ingrained with the Building industry especially the Project Builders that a lot of people prefer to use them to avoid the mind bending frustration dealing with them ; a sort of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" approach , very rewarding for all concerned except the poor ordinary bloke and his family who will probably never get to own it .
If you had your way they wouldn't be here , how does this relate to Laws regarding Homicide , why would it be so bad to just put them down if they can't get to join the BMW Club , what really is the difference since your happy to kill them off in the Dream/Ambition stage of a young Couples life .

Compared to Asian Countries how can you possibly claim Oz is a developed Country , we have massive areas of undeveloped land all it needs is water .
We are Dumb Asses , we apparently don't have any Scientists with enough energy and gumption to think outside the square , what is rain , condensed atmospheric water , so why don't we duplicate what happens naturally in the atmosphere in a contained atmosphere here on Terra Firmer using solar heat to evaporate sea water then Huge Condensers to collect the condensate eg; water .

I'm in agreement with Cheryl. Why, because I am 69 years of age. I have raised 5 children to become productive adults. Each one is providing a necessary product or service to our community. I am also still working and because I have been productive and frugal I will probably never become a burden on the Australian taxpayers. I'm also green, living with a light footstep on the environment.
I approve of our universities educating young people from overseas which allows some of them to leave their crowded countries and become youthful taxpayers within Australia.
I approve of the baby bonus to encourage Australian parents to have Australian born children as another young generation of taxpayers.
There is only a shortage of water in our cities due to the manner in which it is presently wasted. The same with a possible shortage of electricity. There needs to be more attention to 'walking with a light footstep' not wasting these resources.
People do need to be encouraged to live outside the major cities to avoid the cost of infrastructure in such places.
Rural people do need to be paid a reasonable price for the products they produce - not allow cheaper imports into Australia as part of the 'level playing field'.
There is no real shortage of either water or land for food production within Australia if non-productive city residents are able to pay the true value. Our country will be able to feed a population of five times the 20 million we now accommodate.
However, the main reason that I want to see our birth rate continue or young educated foreigners allowed to immigrate to Australia is that it is the young people of the world who are innovators. It will be the countries with a 'young' not an 'aged' population that will lead the way in innovation for the future. They will be the ones who can show the remainder of the world to 'walk with a light footstep'.

An interesting side light to this is the difference between private & public industry.

Private industries all want to grow. The bigger the better, & more proffitable it seems. Economies of scale are one of their main objectives.

So how come our public enterprises can't do the same thing? Even corporatised public industry can't get with it.

Just a couple of days ago our Anna, & her Energex lot were telling us we must pay much more for ouy power, increasingly for 6 or more years.

Well what a surpries, they have been giving consecutive incompetent governments huge dividends for years, but what's the excuse? Population growth is the culprit. Although their take has grown, extensively, more customers require higher prices. No economies of scale for energex. Even if their capacity utilisation has increased by 10%, their profits are down.

I would love a few days, with their books, to see if it's government interference, or management incompetence that can't run a company in a growing market.

I call this trick "lifeboat' Australia.
As you see we are adrift in a cyclone know as AGW and about to be swamped by Tsunami "Limited World Resources".
Now with my magic wand we'll bash anyone trying to climb on board.. oh yes we'll throw a few overboard too.(single mums etc)

Noone in their right mind would disagree that there are too many people in Australia....(and here's the tricky bit) at the current rate of profligate life style. We need a steady state economy but how do we implement it?

Now here's a mind blowing flash we are a minor part in the WORLDWIDE problem.
Let's assume we stop all migration, over stayers and Kiwis. How is that going to save our sorry tails with AGW? er no.

Those pesky foreigner will still be breeding...like...er people with limited options. They'll still be polluting like there's no tomorrow. India China et sec peoples want their share of the pie as in consumerist lifestyle. Let's be clear if they get a full head of smoke/pollution etc they'll make our contribution disappear into the infintesimal.
It seems to me that when resources overseas go and we still have a desirable lifestyle they'll come to partake but won't even say please or thankyou.
Your article promises lots but amounts to moving deck chairs on the
on the Titanic.
Shouldn't we be encouraging the world to rid the Icebergs instead.
Second ....How are we going to implement change?
Doomsaying is one thing but it's time we thought bigger than a few migrants ITS A WORLD PROBLEM Lets think on that scale before it's too late.

Prof Ridd - few points to make. The easiest argument to wave away is the economic one. There is no economic limit to population. You will find that higher population tends to call forth increased exports. Look at Finland. Its got nothing but a bunch of lakes and forests but it has the highest per capita income in europe. Why is this so? Because it reacted to its lack of resources by developing high-tech industries. Australia has substantial resources so there has been no need to develop much manufacturing. Also bear in mind the expamples of Sweden and Switzerland, and the opposite case of Nigeria which has lots of resources and a messed-up economy, as well as lots of people who are creating far more mess in their eco-system per-capita than Australians (leaving aside emissions). This trade off between manufacturing and resources, which is influenced by the social-political system, has only recently been realised by economists.
Now take a look at Australian unemployment rates. Is there any evidence they have been affected by increased immigration? In fact, unemployment rates here have proved remarkably resilient in the financial crisis, partly thanks to employers keeping staff on part time rather than sacking and rehiring them. ther is no indication they have been adversely affected by immigration. There is a lot more to argue with in the rest of the article but for now I would strongly suggest you drop the economic side of it.

Not only is Australia having to build for population growth the size of Canberra we are also building it in only a few places. More than half of Australia's immigrants go to Sydney and Melbourne.
As someone living in Sydney, I can attest to the increasing congestion over the last few years (which was already pretty bad anyway) and more crowded public transport etc.
The price of housing (both to buy and rentals) has become extremely high and Australia now has the world's most unaffordable housing. The effect of high immigration has being a major factor in rising housing unaffordability - both rental and buying.

A very good article, and the economic side of the equation does need to be taken into account. The situation is rather frightening when one considers what is occurring in some other countries. China has raised its minimum school age to grade 9, with some schools now going to 6 days a week. It has also built over 1000 teachers colleges, and the reason for all this, it plans to keep educating its population and then go high tech.

Australian manufacturing cannot compete with countries such as China for producing low tech products such as plastic plates or plastic chairs, and if something major does not occur with our education systems, we will not be able to compete with other countries for high tech markets in the future either.

However, how can a university lecturer be lecturing anyone when so many schools and universities import nearly everything they use.The latest being, some schools in QLD are encouraging their students to use a math’s program, from Mcdonalds.

The education systems itself is producing very little.

Country girl,

It is quite obvious that we have outgrown our water supply except in Tasmania and the tropical North, not the places where most of the population growth is occurring. That is why there are permanent water restrictions in our cities, why the Murray-Darling basin is in trouble, with John Howard prepared to sacrifice Ramsar listed wetlands in 2007, because "people are more important than wildlife", why there is endless conflict over water, and why the politicians are building expensive and energy hungry desalination plants up and down the coasts, something they would never do if the problem were simply due to mismanagement. All this is well documented in Asa Wahlquist's book "Thirsty Country". Then there is the risk from climate change.

To you, "walking lightly" probably means that city people should let their gardens die (if they have any open space at all) and restrict themselves to one shower and change of clothes a week. After all, nothing should stand in the way of turning the whole world into one giant factory farm for people.

examinator,

Our environmental problems and their solutions have both population and consumption aspects. You are basically saying that increased consumption due to immigration and pressure on local environments doesn't matter. The US is the world's second biggest greenhouse gas emitter. This graph shows absolute and per capita changes in emissions since 1990 for the US and Europe

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/20338607/929044366/name/One%20slide%20from%20WRI%20Pop%20and%20GHG%20emissions.ppt

The US population growth has been primarily due to immigration. It should come as no surprise that migrants adopt the consumption patterns of the host society.

Curmudgeon,

I admire Finland too. However, according to the CIA World Factbook, Finland's population growth rate is 0.098%. Ours is 1.9%, according to the ABS, with 62% of it due to immigration. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Finns take 0.68 migrants per 1000 population, while we take 6.23. Congratulations, you have just shown that prosperity is quite possible without population growth.

Having a job is not the be all and end all of prosperity. After all, the old Soviet Union boasted that they had jobs for everyone. Nor do cheap cars and electrical goods begin to make up for the increased cost of housing. The cost of an average house has gone from 3.3 times the median wage in 1973 to 7.4 times the median wage in 1995. This is Australia wide, so it would be more in the capital cities, sometimes a lot more.

http://www.findem.com.au/factsheets/housingfactsheet.pdf

The cost of the land the house sits on has gone from about 30% to 70% of the total, even though urban block sizes are much smaller.

For another measure of well-being, you might consider that the number of public hospital beds has been cut by a third over the past 25 years. Allowing for population growth, this is a 60% cut, even though the population is older. See

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/28/2638325.htm

Deliverance,
Thank you for your observations.
Tragically the alternative to one extreme isn't necessarily the extreme opposite.
In essence I acknowledge there is a a problem but it is very much larger than the prof's article is hairdressing or promised to address.
I dispute that the solutions are easy and are limed to lets find some 'sacrificial lambs' i.e. migrants et al.

In the long haul and that is our (world) problem a few thousand migrants etc. won't save our sorry arses.

Mal and his troglodytes argue that we are a global economy and therefore we must act accordingly.
In Kevin's naive NARROW PERSPECTIVE of Australia anything we do will be 'moving deck chairs' the effect will be swallowed by the teeming masses elsewhere.

Should we do something ? yes change our demands introduce a steady state economy etc but the big question is HOW?
I submit that the introduction of a steady state economy would allow the world time to adjust to the reality that 'magic pudding' economics are terminal...For us all.
The question is then What IS STEADY STATE ECONOMICS and HOW will it work and HOW can it be implemented.
The time for Current navel gazing(lifeboat Australia) and/or theoretical solutions has passed we must face existing power bases/interests for the sake of humanity ....This ultimately isn't hyperbole or rabble rousing but shear logic.

Dear Examinator,

Steady state economics is really a misleading name. In chemistry and physics a steady state is one in which there are no measurable changes. In any real economy there will be changes in demand and supply according to conditions.

Balanced or sustainable would be better descriptors than steady state. http://dieoff.org/page88.htm describes such an economy.

"It really is that easy."

Yes, because of course Asian and African nations are going to sit by quietly and let us drastically reduce our immigration quotas without batting an eyelid. How absurd to think that they might resent the loss of opportunities for their students and professionals to come here, contribute to our society and remit large proportions of their salaries to families back home. Why should we be worried about China, say, objecting to a cut in immigration? it's only our biggest trading partner, after all. And so what if the US -- which has more immigrants in a week than we do in a year -- considers that we're not pulling our weight in taking in the world's upwardly mobile? It's not as if the US has any influence on our government's policy, is it?

This is fairyland stuff. Earth calling Peter Ridd -- come in, your time is up.

Peter Ridd is correct: the Federal Government's push to rapidly expand the size of the population through massive immigration is folly. There is no rational justification, economic or other, for these ridiculously high levels of immigration. Perhaps that is why the Federal Govt. still hasn't satisfactorily explained why it believes Australia needs the biggest per capita immigration intake in the world.

The truth is that we do not need an ever-expanding population in this country, as the growth ideologues believe. Our long-term prospects for environmental sustainability, social cohesion, and a high quality of life for all Australian citizens will be much improved if our population were stabilised at current levels, instead of more than doubling by 2050, which is precisely what will happen if immigration continues at present rates.

Ridd is indeed correct to point out the adverse impact further immigration-driven population growth will inevitably have on Australia's future trade balance. Population growth will not only dilute our per capita export earnings, but also induce more imports, thereby exacerbating Australia's chronic current account deficit.

A growing population will also require greater investment in housing and other social infrastructure. Because of Australia's low levels of domestic savings, the investment capital needed for such infrastructure will have to be imported from overseas, further adding to our current account woes. Moreover, the massive social infrastructure investment required to accommodate a rapidly growing population will result in more precious foreign capital being gobbled up by non-tradable sectors of the economy at the expense of tradable sectors, precisely at a time when increasing pressure will fall upon Australia to invest heavily in the tradable sector in order to export its way out of insolvency.

In short, Australia cannot afford further immigration.

Cheryl wrote: "I want MORE people to come to Australia. I want to open the gates wide. Give us your hungry, tired and homeless. We are humanitarians, we are liberal humanists."

In that case, I can look forward to moving into your house, with a whole host of my relatives, who have always fancied living in your area. And since your such a "liberal humanist", you will have no problem allowing us unfettered access to all your belongings and allowing us full use of all amenities at your expense. It doesn't matter how small your house is, or how limited your budget is, Cheryl, because I know that, as a matter of logical consistency, you could have no possible objection to moving over and making room for all of us.

After all, a person who favours open borders can hardly oppose open houses.

Cheryl, a true humanist -- one who truly cares about ALL people, including the generations to come -- would heed Ridd's warning instead of meeting it with nonsensical vitriol, and work to preserve some sort of semblance of quality of life for our children, and for theirs. The misanthropes are the overpopulation deniers who support the current status quo, promote more destruction of the environment and our current gluttony when it comes to resources, and generally shirk responsibility for the consequences of our actions. They ignore the current Sixth Great Extinction of other species, the collapse of ocean fish stocks, the millions who (according to the U.N.) die of malnutrition and starvation every year, the billions (again according to the U.N.) who live in abject poverty. Those are the true antihumanists and, unfortunately, they have somehow taken over much of this planet. It's time to take it back.

And for those who say "oh, but there's still lots of room," sure there may be space to stuff more people into, but why would we wish to do this if it is only making matters worse? There's lots of room in Antarctica too, but that doesn't mean it will support a population of millions of humans. Will you propose that we start stacking people one upon the other when we are shoulder-to-shoulder on every piece of land? How high would you stack them? To the edge of the breathable atmosphere? Get real, and get a brain sometime.

I have listened to people complaining about population growth for some time now and finally, someone has hit the nail on the head.

QLD is a prime example and should be a lesson for all involved.

Here we had the good ship bounty (QLD) with back flip Beaty and his then deputy Bligh. They encouraged thousands upon thousands of more passengers aboard but failed to provide the basics, water, roads, jobs, schools, the list goes on.

Now this would not have been so bad if they had spent their ‘win fall’ dollars wisely, but they simply pissed it away. But then, corrupt governments do that don’t they. They just feather their own nests.

Now we have all these additional passengers, along with those who are still arriving yet we have failed to provide for them.

Solution.
First, stop immigration. At least until we get our hospitals on track, our roads built, our schools etc.

Then, stop allowing people to have children while relying on someone else to pay for them. They are your children, if you can’t afford them, don’t have them! At least this way, this portion of our taxes could go towards repaying some of the massive debts we have been burdened with.

Remember, for every 100 you allow, 42 of them have their hands in the cookie jar, while the remaining 58 have to provide for them, then pay the bills and somehow, repay the massive debts.

We should be way past discussing the veracity of the population / continuous growth problem and well and truly into the what-we-can-do-about-it mode.

The problem is indeed very easy to solve. Or perhaps I should say that the mechanics or policy directions are very straightforward. But the politics certainly aren’t.

The most obvious stumbling block is the intimate relationship between government and big business. We also have the problem that just about all politicians are from that sector. They basically have to be in order to be endorsed by the libs or labs and to then get elected. They are predisposed to be bed-fellows of big biz.

But as I keep saying; I think that this could all change very quickly. It really just needs a few key people to start speaking out about the absurdity of a system that is based on continued rapid expansionism with no planned end or slow-down.

I was very pleased to hear Sharan Burrow, president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, speak on Q&A on ABC1 last night.

You’d think that the ACTU would be one of the real powerbase organisations behind the constant push for growth and against anything that might threaten jobs. But she is espousing the development of alternative energy sources, which has got to be a large part of a sustainability strategy, as being very good for jobs.

I hope she can develop this line of thought into one that espouses low immigration and a concentration on per-capita growth instead of gross economic growth as being good for jobs, both in the immediate future and the long term.

My point is, that many of the apparent dinosaur aspects of our growthist system can change, and quickly. And it doesn’t have to take an enormous social or economic upheaval to trigger it. In fact once the momentum starts, it will spread like wildfire.

Now, if Malcolm Turnbull could just see fit to start the ball rolling by espousing sustainability and starting to be critical of continuous growth and high immigration, we’d be on our way to a rosy future!

Divergence and others - sorry but you've completely missed the point on the economic arguments. The amount of immigration to Finland compared to us, for example, matters not a single jot. There have been studies on the economic effects of migration - a lot of them - and more people do not mean more economic problems. Depending on the circumstances they can mean the exact opposite, and there is every reason to believe Australia's economy will generally benefit from immigration (I say, generally).. Certainly there is nothing in recent history to suggest that increased immigration will affect, say, the unemployment rate. If anything it seems to have reduced it (present crisis aside). Paradoxical I know, but there it is. One post tried to get around this by pointing to ratio of hospital beds, which is irrelevent.
All the stats are in agreement that the general health of the population has improved - certainly people are living longer - and that's probably the reason for any reduction in the number of hospital beds per capita. Advances in psychiatric care, for example, have cleared out whole wards of people who in the 1950s, say, would have been long time residents of psychiatric hospitals. More people are staying out of hospital (but health costs are still going up!).
As stated before, the economic arguments simply don't wash. If you're agin immigration, try another tack.

I'm not sure about the situation in Oz, but here in Canada immigration is costing us billions of dollars each year. According to James Bissett, the former head of Immigration Canada, "a study published this year by professor Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University revealed that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in 2002 than they paid in taxes."

Has any such study been done for Australia, or are those hyping the economic benefits of immigration doing so with no numbers to justify their arguments, as usual?

Davidf,
Too true, I was using Ludwig's post's terms .
Your site will make interesting reading ta.

Curmudgeon,
Sadly you are simply putting forward of “the defence for status quo” a.k.a. magic pudding scenario version 18.5.6 . A little like Windows, it almost works but does it hide some gremlins and boy does it piss away resources.

Prof Ridd has has been too involved navel gazing in the never world of Aussie politics. Blinded by its intrinsic nature towards myopic tokenism and gross adhocary . When what is needed is a total bottom up rewrite of much of our ideas of society, sustainability and economics.

I'm not preaching 'a new order' revolution here only the ultimate reality Humanity can't continue indefinitely raping the FINITE environment without accumulation adverse consequences.
One doesn't need to have a Barry Jones IQ (164) on steroids to see that current methodologies are failing and have rapidly approaching sunset clauses or self destruction timers are running.

Sustainability need not be a dirty word nor is change after all adaptation is the key to Evolution.
All that is needed is a willingness to see beyond the cash cow mentality (maxim profit for minimum expenditure) of the existing power status quo i.e. The fear that they may lose something by which they mistakenly measure the meaning for their existence. Meanwhile we lose the lot. “there isn't many jobs in a desert" Mrs Burrows Q&A.

Rick S
Cheryl isn't necessarily a humanist...such dismissive labeling may have worked during the stone age as a means to explain and thereby control the unknown. But this is a few millennia later.
'In short one swallow doesn't mean spring.'
This issue is serious.

I'm with Ludwig here: Good points except for the nuclear bit: Way too expensive unless the military (ie. taxpayer) pays!
Fact is, we don't need so many people to generate wealth these days: machines, computers and cheap overseas labour has replaced many, many middle class jobs. Labour is getting increasingly less valuable in the economy. Increasing population aids the property "industry" and makes all labour cheaper, so benefitting all employers.
So plan for a future where your poition is largely determined by your parents wealth because working poor will be synonamous with "working".
I don't want to live in a polluted, crowded, divided nation where human life is worth less and conflict is part of life. Pandering to the oligarchs now, though tempting to some philosophies, is rather silly.

Well I don't wish to turn this into another IR debate, but seriously, if the governments were to make employing easier and the buying/depreciating of modern, automated equipment, harder, then this would have some impact on jobs.

The present systems rewards employers for buying automated plant, which ultimately decreases the workforce yet makes many employers jump through hoops when it comes to employing. (The recent gateway bridge E-toll is a prime example. Hundreds of jobs lost in favour of automated plant)

In any case, as long as we have advancement in technology, along with a growth in population, we are in deed destined to fall in a heap. It's like burning the candle at both ends.

Call for the compulsory sterilization of domestic moggies and you are caring, responsible and civilised: Call for people to have the means to control their own fertility and you are a closet Nazi human hater. Oh yeah, and dont forget the total terror we should feel because the average age of Aussies might increase by a few years; all the more amusing when the warning comes from an AGW denialist. I can only conclude that pro-populationists are resorting to comical arguments. I'm glad to see them lightening up. A bit of laughter will increase your lifespan, so if we all have a bit of a chuckle a few more of us might experience the Agegedden. It'll be a hoot. You'd better believe it.

examinator says

"Cheryl isn't necessarily a humanist..."

Sorry, mate, that my complex sentence structure threw you off. If you read carefully, you will see that Cheryl, in her rant, seem to be implying that she is a humanist. I certainly don't see her that way, as I have already stated very clearly.

"...such dismissive labeling may have worked during the stone age as a means to explain and thereby control the unknown. But this is a few millennia later."

Yes, it certainly is, but you seem to be doing exactly what you criticize me for: dismissive labeling. Are you doing that to try to explain and thereby control the unknown?

"'In short one swallow doesn't mean spring.'"

No, but for me it means the start of a good meal.

"This issue is serious."

Indeed it is, and it is so serious that I hope that you take the time to read and think about it much more carefully. In fact, I see it as the most serious issue facing humankind, and hope that we can use our so-called "intelligence" to actually mitigate the coming disaster. On the other hand, as one of my uncles said frequently, we shouldn't confuse intelligence with wisdom.

Jon J wrote: "Yes, because of course Asian and African nations are going to sit by quietly and let us drastically reduce our immigration quotas without batting an eyelid."

Last time I checked, Australia was a sovereign nation with an inalienable right to determine the size and composition of its own population. Australia's policies on immigration and population are its own affair and should be dictated by the national interest, not the phantom of "international opinion".

I'm not sure where this "all eyes on Australia" notion originates from, but the idea that the whole world is closely scrutinising our immigration policies, just waiting to condemn Australia the moment we reduce immigration to more sensible levels, is very silly.

Japan has a zero immigration policy. As do most Asian countries. As does most of Europe. In fact, aside from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, every country in the world tightly limits immigration. It hasn't hurt their international relations.

In response to Curmudgeon's claims about the economic benefits of immigration, let me say that I've heard all the arguments before and they are not convincing. The reality is that the economic case for immigration is incredibly weak, far weaker than most immigration enthusiasts would care to draw attention to.

The bottom line on the economics of immigration is that while it does increase the overall size of the economy by increasing the size of the population, immigration does not increase the figure that matters - GDP per capita. This point has been belabored over and over again on these forums, but still some people don't seem to get it.

I would also argue that the case of Finland is indeed very germane to this debate. The success of the low-immigration, low-population growth Nordic economies clearly demonstrates that increases in productivity, combined with greater innovation, more efficient use of labour and capital and an emphasis on export-orientated industries are the keys to economic prosperity, not domestic population size or growth.

As for whether immigration increases unemployment, the answer is complex. Unemployment is effected by two factors: increases in the productivity of labour and increases in its supply. As William Mitchell points out in People & Place:

"Simply stated, labour productivity growth reduces the amount of labour required for each unit of output, while labour-force growth [driven by immigration] increases the number of jobs that have to be created if unemployment is to remain unchanged. So both growth rates place upward pressure on the unemployment rate. If GDP growth is strong enough, the economy can absorb the increased labour supply and the growth in labour productivity. For the unemployment rate to be constant, real GDP growth has to equal the sum of labour-force growth and labour productivity growth. We can call this the required rate of GDP growth. Any better rate will lead to a falling unemployment rate, while any deficiencies in the required GDP growth rate will see the unemployment rate rising."

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv4n1/mitchell.htm

Yes the population problem IS easy to solve.

WAR.

And it's coming.

The intellect of the ruling anglo-saxon elite in this country is about as perspicacious as on a Pig Farm.

Women and children are the weakest links and will have their upside down aspirations totally trashed as they will be the first, as in all wars to succumb.

And don't bother shooting the messenger. The laws of physics, in particular the second law of thermodynamics can be felt in growth mode as an EGO rush that seems never ending. But it just SEEMS that way. Take the foot off the immigration pedal and learn to live like the Finns and Norwegians before OVERPOPULATION & Global resource dynamics cause a THERMODYNAMIC Stagflation that will have your children fighting for the right to sweep chimneys.

You've all got till about 2020 to 2030 to make up your minds. Its easy alright..KAEP(reversing PEAK oil) or death. Everyone should know what KAEP is by now.

Oh, and don't bother shooting the messenger. What's about to happen is a very natural biological process. YOU are the NAZIS immigrating new market profitability as the stagnation penny drops upon you. What's different this time is ALL THAT CONSCIOUSNESS .. like the very real smell of fear form abattoired cows ramping it up to the bolt. An easy Death will be .. the new market leader.

Soylent Green anyone? Tastes SO good! If you'd sell this fragile country out to rampant immigrants then I KNOW you'd just LOVE it with a fine Kuh.Kuh.Kuh Chianti.

Great post Efranke!
In fact it’s so good it should be printed again:

“Jon J wrote: ‘Yes, because of course Asian and African nations are going to sit by quietly and let us drastically reduce our immigration quotas without batting an eyelid.’

Last time I checked, Australia was a sovereign nation with an inalienable right to determine the size and composition of its own population. Australia's policies on immigration and population are its own affair and should be dictated by the national interest, not the phantom of "international opinion".

I'm not sure where this ‘all eyes on Australia’ notion originates from, but the idea that the whole world is closely scrutinising our immigration policies, just waiting to condemn Australia the moment we reduce immigration to more sensible levels, is very silly.

Japan has a zero immigration policy. As do most Asian countries. As does most of Europe. In fact, aside from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, every country in the world tightly limits immigration. It hasn't hurt their international relations.
Posted by Efranke, Saturday, 15 August 2009 5:59:38 PM”

When I see people declaring that we can’t have this or that policy because our neighbours or trading partners mightn't like it, I never know whether to laugh or cry.

Laugh because, almost invariably you will find that our neighbours have policies and procedures that are far more self-interest centred . Or cry, because our education and media could have failed so badly to inform.

Australia is the only country in the world where the estate agents united in their Real Estate Institutes, have an iron grip on all land transactions and renting.

Their army is more numerous than the defense army; their power, bloomed in the last twenty five years, has broken all marketing rules and conventions.

It is protected by Federal, States and Territories’ politicians and, like a sacred caw, cannot be touched by the ACCC.

It. with the maligned State stamp duties drains and wastes an amount in excess of 12% of the value of the property at each transaction and anybody who wishes to look can see the disastrous ‘collaterals’ it causes to the economy and the well being of the Nation

"It is not only some dodgy colleges which are involved in this cash-for-visa scam. Our universities take in large numbers of students whose main aim is to gain Australian residency. We are prepared to take money from them to smooth their way through the process. Effectively selling permanent residency visas through the education system is neither ethical nor in the best interests of the country."

This is a very important point that I forgot to comment on earlier.

The entire higher education sector in Australia has essentially become one giant immigration racket, with our universities being shamelessly used as visa factories for foreign students lured here solely by the promise of permanent residency upon graduation.

As Peter Wilkinson wrote in his eye-opening book “The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes” (2007), Australia’s universities “market themselves as providing education but they know, and certainly their prospective applicants know, that they are marketing permanent residency visas.”*

Wilkinson notes how the universities are effectively discriminating against Australian students by lowering the standard for full fee-paying foreign students, who can then apply for a visa on the basis of the conceded pass.

Not only do young Australians miss out on education and career opportunities in their own country, but Australia as a whole also loses out. We hand out permanent residency to sub-standard, unemployable foreigners while also degrading the quality of our domestic degrees. This cash-for-visa scam also provides an almost clear pathway to Australian citizenship, thus diminishing its value and meaning.

And the Federal Government apparently has no problem with any of this. It continues to parrot the claim that Australia's higher education sector is an important "export industry." Seems more like an import industry to me.

* For more on "The Howard Legacy", see here: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/10

Rick S in Canada

Thanks for the Canadian perspective.

Your numbers work out at $7320 per migrant; I do not know of a similar study here, but it is possible, and perhaps someone on this forum can provide further info.

Do you have a link that you can provide for the Canadian study?

As I pointed out earlier, infrastructure costs are in my view the main national expenditure which is never accounted for in cost benefit studies. Our high quality infrstructure is clearly a major inducement for new migrants and should be included in any analysis,(if in doubt consider the hopeless situation of remote Aboriginal communities where infrastruture is very limited). It is also a very significant cost, of at least $300,00 per person

Do you know whether Canada Gov. maintains any information on the value of national infrastructure, or whether any studies have been done on this?

Any references or links that you have would be very welcome.

last word, if you go to Grubel's website at http://www.sfu.ca/~grubel/Part%2010,%20Recent%20Opinion%20Pieces.htm you will find his article "The Fiscal Burden of Recent Canadian Immigrants." (a Microsoft Word document). Let me know if that link doesn't work for you. I believe that this piece should be required reading for everyone, as it demolishes so many of the myths of immigration, including the "aging population" nonsense. The amount of immigration required to keep the population age ratio constant for the next 40 years is absolutely staggering.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I do not necessarily agree with Grubel's proposed solution, but I'll leave it to people in this forum to consider his analysis and react.

As an adjunct to this commentary.

A federal politician, Kelvin Thompson, has just made a speech critical of population growth. ( A very rare event).

The whole speech can be read here:

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/4065847/1616857852/name/Kelvin's%20090817%20Parliamentary%20Population%20Speech%20ac[1].doc

or you can read the ABC summary and viewer's comments here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2658750.htm?section=justin

Lets hope that this encourages other politicians to look at the issues more seriously.

Onya Kelvin Thomson!

Check out the enormous support that he is receiving, as is evident from the comments on the ABC article (see link in last word’s post above).

I think this might just be a watershed moment in Australian politics and in our country’s future.

Obviously there is a great deal of support out there in the general community for the issue of population growth to be tackled. And with all this support, it really does become politically tenable….and then very easy to address.

Wonderful!

One more point:

One poster on the ABC forum commenting on Thompson said this:

"It has been shown that where women are given political, economic and reproductive rights there is an alleviation of population, poverty, ignorance and war."

But all we REALLY know about Women uplifted, that is, Women with POWER, is that they are every bit as ABUSIVE as a Man.

There have already in the media, been groups suggesting In Vitro spermatogenesis so women won't even need Men to overpopulate the planet into OBLIVION. Women have a Carbon footprint 2-3 times that of a man because of their biological NEED. Men only aspire to a bit of lineage and to keep her happy so he can get his his Kinsey quota.

But most of all, the whole notion of maintaining feminine BEAUTY (and women maintain high cost ATTRACTIVENESS with or without men in their lives - global economies and entire media-political systems would fall apart if they didn't) is a THERMODYNAMIC issue where sustained hyper order(Beauty) must be paid for with hyper emissions of climate changing wastes.

So when she says its your turn (again) to put the garbage out, you KNOW why!

And when her overbreeding creates global and civil/internecine wars, it'll be your turn to go out and fight the baddies. "Oh and don't worry if you're killed I can use spermatogenesis or anyone handy to carry on OUR family".

Have you mowed our LAWN today Honey? Translation: Have I moidered you into open wallet paralysis yet Darling?

And don't think I'm Misogynistic. I love and appreciate wild Tigers and Elephants and seek to preserve them forever on this, THEIR pale blue dot planet. I would even go to war for them. But we wouldn't want to see herds of them hyper-crapping all over the Sydney CBD now would we?

last word says

"Rick S in Canada

Thanks for the Canadian perspective.

Your numbers work out at $7320 per migrant; I do not know of a similar study here, but it is possible, and perhaps someone on this forum can provide further info."

It's pretty typical of the growthist cult that they will make all sorts of wild claims with no analysis or real data as support. Yet the average person (if such an entity exists) seems to buy the hype, hook, line, and sinker. You know...the usual...grow or die, aging population, support the housing industry, "smart" growth, and on and on and on...

If Grubel is anywhere near correct, then each Canadian graciously contributes approximately $600.00 or more per year to subsidize immigrants (18.3 billion divided by approximately 30 million Canadians). It warms the cockles of my heart to know that, since 2002, I have personally contributed at least $4200 to support immigration to Canada. The fact that this leads to more loss of arable land and all the other negative effects detailed by Gruber makes this even better, eh? And the fact that immigrants to Canada typically magnify their ecological footprint by a factor of four or more, making it even more difficult to reduce total consumption and meet all the other targets a sane society would set, is the icing on the cake.

Rick S and last word,

In 1992 Professor Russell Matthews, a most respected man in his field, published “Immigration and State Budgets” for the former Australian Bureau of Immigration Research (BIR). His findings were that each immigrant cost the state and federal governments approximately $26,000 dollars during the migrant's first five years in Australia. An unwelcome result, his findings were not publicised by the BIR and were ignored.

As Mark O'Connor noted in his 1998 book "This Tired Brown Land":

"The former BIR conceded that there might be long-term environmental and economic costs (especially with balance of payments) caused by immigration-fed population growth, but it denied that state or federal governments could reap budgetary benefits by cutting immigration. This seems to be completely wrong. Mathews' figures (available to the BIR since 1992, yet oddly neglected by them) leave no doubt that reducing immigration would provide large savings in both the short and medium term to both state and federal budgets. His figures also leave little doubt that to use immigration as, in effect, a form of 'industry subsidy' cannot be defended as being in the public interest."

High immigration obviously incurs huge infrastructure costs, but such costs are almost completely ignored by governments. The reality that immigration imposes a significant burden on the Australian taxpayer is hardly welcomes news for our pro-immigration political elites. Hence the reason why the federal government no longer expends any real effort examining the costs of immigration.

Efranke, is Kelvin Thompson aware of Matthews' conclusions? He may need that to help ward off the typically strident overpopulation deniers who are certain to attack him. As I noted earlier, it's pretty typical that facts and data are ignored by the growthists, until we make it impossible to ignore them, that is.