(This has been adapted from an article posted to my web site by Tim Murray at http://candobetter.org/node/391 in anticipation of the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the great human rights leader on 4 April 2008.)

Much is known and celebrated about his civil rights campaigning. What does not seem to be known however is that this foremost champion of human rights was also one who spoke of the importance of setting limits to our population both domestically and globally as a necessary precondition for those rights. Human rights in a nation whose water supply, housing, infrastructure or farmland is exhausted by overpopulation was to Dr. King largely meaningless And civil rights for a black family overburdened with more children than it could support was less advantageous as well.

In some respects, the career of Dr. Martin Luther King can be compared to that of Cesar Chavez. In death their legacy has been claimed by those who have not entirely been aware of their holistic approach. Chavez for example has been invoked by Hispanic leaders opposed to tighter border controls and immigration restrictions. In fact, Cesar Chavez stood at the border several times on patrol in an attempt to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States from Mexico. He realized that illegal immigration undercut the wages, working conditions and job security of established Mexican-Americans.

The following quote by Dr. King two years before his death should unequivocally place him alongside neo-Malthusians. To be a progressive, a leftist, a trade union leader or an environmentalist before the mid 1970s was to be someone who intuitively acknowledged limits. Since then, the zeitgeist changed. Why?

Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers.
While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to
speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would
be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend
billions to create engines and strategies for war. (tobecontinued)

Dear Dagett,

I read with interest your quote taken from the speech of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on 'Overpopulation, given on 5th May 1966.
I won't comment too much, because I trust that you'll give the rest of the speech especially the part about,

"Finally, they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet."

Dr King had good reasons for advocating population control (shades of Al gore?).

As for C. Chavez - I trust that you will also explain why - Chavez was against - illegal immigration from Mexico. (strikebreakers -lowering the wages of farm workers et cetera).

I'll be waiting for your continuation of this thread.

Cheers.

Interesting topic as sadly issues of population are largely ignored in the environmental debate.

Do you remember those years we spent at school in the 70s (those who are old enough :)) learning about overpopulation and issues like decentralisation (or satellite cities). They don't get a mention now yet should be an important part of the overall debate about how we can best plan our cities and infrastructure to cope with our burgeoning populations.

(continuedfromabove) They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent
death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend
paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an
urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be
forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane
men whose future is bleak and uncertain. There is no human circumstance
more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a
remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world
resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages
or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of
overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources
we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but
universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the
billions who are its victims(1).

- Rev. Martin Luther King, May 5, 1966

FOOTNOTES

1. From http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm, http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Martin_Luther_King_Jr_-_Overpopulation/id/5279280

---

Thanks Foxy and Pelican for you interest. Of course the main credit goes to Tim Murray from Canada. Tim's blog sites are: http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com and http://candobetter.org/tim

Regarding César Chávez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Chavez), I only learnt of his stance against illegal immigration recently, through Tim.

It is easier and in some ways more emotionally satisfiying to extend welcoming arms to anyone who wants to come to countries such as the US, Canada or Australia and, unfortunately, this is the stance adopted by most liberal/left types with whom I would have a lot else in common.

However, this stance harms most of our community and most of all the poorest in our community as César Chávez recognised (and, I suspect. Martin Luther King, although I have to find evidence of this).

Some articles which may be of interest include:

"How illegal immigration into the US harms poor US Hispanic citizens" at http://candobetter.org/node/216

"Is it reactionary to oppose Immigration?" at http://candobetter.org/node/284 http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240

Pelican wrote: "Interesting topic as sadly issues of population are largely ignored in the environmental debate."

And I think this is no accident.

Pelican continued: "Do you remember those years we spent at school in the 70s (those who are old enough :)) learning about overpopulation and issues like decentralisation (or satellite cities)?"

Unfortunately, my high school years were disrupted. However, I still recall population control seemed to be an issue of which many were aware. This would be consistent with chapter 8 of Sheila Newman's excellent 2002 Master's thesis:

"The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship
between the Property Development and Housing Industries
and Immigration Policy in Australia and France

... which is downloadable from http://candobetter.org/sheila

This deals with the years of the Whitlam Government. As a result of the oil shock of 1973, it adopted Malthusian policies similar to those adopted in Europe. They included low immigration and energy self-sufficiency. However this never got off the ground as a result of the Whitlam Government's downfall. The growth lobby seized the national agenda from the Fraser years onwards, and we are now paying the price.

There are population researchers who have analysed the costs and benefits of our migration programss over the years.

In the 1950s the migrants worked for the car industry, snowy mountains scheme. The average Australians standard of living went up because the migrants took the lowest paid jobs and Australia was literally riding on the sheeps back with the high demand for wool caused by the Korean War. Because the society was upwardly mobile we didn't mind paying to build extra housing and more school to house these migrants and educate their children. Check out the Ministry of Housing stock built in the 1950s in Bellpost Hill, Norlane, Carlton and Dandenong. Traditionally Victoria tries not to build government housing.

Since the 1990s the migrants have been skilled migrants and they add to the effect of making Australian society downwardly mobile. The Australian IT workers have been largely displaced by migrant workers on 457 visas and most university IT departments are free from australian born students and staff.

Studies have been completed showing that with current levels of growth Sydneysiders take and extra 21 minutes to get to work and must work another 45 minutes a week to retain their position.

Tim Flannery is amongst the scientists who say that Australia's environmentally sustainable population is about 13 million people.

Yes the housing industry and large retailers like Harvey Norman are responsible for promoting population growth to ensure a steady demand for their product.

People visiting Bolivia have noted that skin implant contraception is distributed by the government, so it looks like Latin America is ignoring the Pope.

I agree daggett and billie. It is no accident.

Human beings must be the only animal species to actively take part (unwittingly or otherwise) in their own demise through 'growth at all costs' economic thinking and the religious sector's vested interest in growing their market base.

Except perhaps for whales who appear to beach themselves for no (as yet) apparent reason.

Well, population planning mightn't be a necessary step - first world nations often have naturally declining populations.

In fact, the biggest problems Australia faces, is the fact that there are a lot fewer middle aged people than baby boomers. When it comes to people under 20, there are fewer still.
This causes enormous problems for the economy to which immigration is an answer, but anti-immigration advocates have put forward no alternative solutions.

Population growth comes from the third world - if we can lift standards somewhat, we may be onto something.

The size of any population must be kept within the limits of its natural resource base. Australia's capacity to sustain a large population is limited because the continent is largely arid, with old, nutrient-poor soils and a variable climate.

Global climate change will lead to a deterioration of natural ecosystems through increased temperatures, extreme weather events and less rainfall in the southern part of the continent, thus reducing its capacity to sustain a large population even further.

We need to detrmine what is an ecologically sustainable population at an acceptable level of material consumption, both nationally and internationally and to seek to achieve that in a humane, non-coercive manner as soon as possible.

We also need to reduce our consumption rates and improve energy efficiency dramatically.

Billie wrote: "Yes the housing industry ... are responsible for promoting population growth to ensure a steady demand for their product."

Check out this advertisement which appeared in yesterday's Courier Mail newspaper on page 7 and also on the web at http://www.firststaterealty.com.au

Everyone knows south-east Queensland property is
booming. While prices have risen, the potential
for capital gains for those now entering the
market is marginal in many traditional areas.

The great news for astute investors is that there
is a hotspot where property values have not peaked.

Not yet anyway!

QUEENSLAND'S EMERGING HOTSPOT

This is a hotspot where the government is pouring
$500 million into infrastructure.

A hotspot where education facilities are expanding
rapidly and major developers are already snapping
up large parcels of land.

And a hotspot where the population is predicted
to double by 2016 and then keep growing strongly.

Yet, in this emerging hotspot, property is still
significantly under valued!
(endofquote)

Not sure where in South East Queensland this hotspot is, but it demonstrates that land speculators seek to both profit at our expense from population growth and by taxpayers' spending on infrastructure (slightly off topic - my apologies). The latter is the opposite of what the Property Council of Australia would have us believe is the current situation.

TurnLeftThenRight,

The obvious flaws in the "aging baby boomer" argument has been pointed out so many times that I should be astonished that it is repeated by such an otherwise clearheaded person as yourself.

What happens when these supposedly essential young immigrants retire? Do we then increase our population further through more immigration to cater for them in their old age? At what point do you suppose this process should stop? When Australia's population reached 50 million or 100 million?

Why not now?

Whatever problems were meant to have been solved past population growth have clearly been dwarfed by other problems they have created. These include:

* horrific traffic congestion See Courier Mail's editorial "Transport fix long overdue" at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23470686-13360,00.html);
* the claimed necessity of damming the Mary River(http://www.savethemaryriver.com) together with rich agricultural land and the the habitats of the endangered lungfish, the Mary River Cod and Mary River Turtle in order to meet the water requirements of large urban areas to the south;
* extreme housing unaffordability and the rental accommodation crisis;
* the inability of our hospitals and schools to attend to the needs of our current population;
* etc, etc?

It seems to me that you are afflicted with the cornucopianism that has plagued the socialist tradition for most of the twentieth century and helped in the 21st century to consign it to irrelevancy at least in the First World.

A good antidote would be Sandy Ivine's (http://www.sandyirvine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk) 20 page pdf document "Trotsky's Biggest Blindspot" which can be downloaded from http://www.sandyirvine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PDFs/Trotsky%27s%20Biggest%20Blindspot.pdf

In spite of a few typographical errors it is hard to commend Irvine's article too highly.

A html version can be found at http://candobetter.org/node/392

I also highly recommend Tim Murrays' "Is it reactionary to oppose Immigration?" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240 http://candobetter.org/node/284

Daggett, I wasn't implying that immigration was anything more than a stopgap solution.

I was saying, that until we have a clear way to resolve these desperate skills issues, a stopgap solution is all we have.

I was also making the point in a roundabout fashion, that we don't need population control programmes in most first world nations - this problem we have, with declining numbers in younger populations, is evidence of the difficulties we face.

Though those difficulties aren't due to us having too many children - it's quite the opposite. So when I hear people simplistically saying we need some kind of population control method I can't help but feel they're neglecting the fact that first world populations are naturally declining.

Put simply - if it's the big picture we're looking at, then we need to be considering how to address these problems and seriously assist the third world with birth control measures, and alternative methods for their elderly to be looked after, rather than having children.

If we're not looking at the big picture, then heck, the problems we face in cutting migration are just as big as the problems we face if we don't.

TurnRightTurnLeft, I don't believe we have a desperate skills shortage if the IT industry experience is anything to go by. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7120#108473 for details as to how IT skilled shortages are manufactured. My lawn mower man used to be a bank manager, other ex-bank managers drive buses.

According to ABS about
- 5% of the workforce is unemployed http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/mf/6202.0
10% of the workforce is underemployed, casualised workers http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6105.0Main%20Features3Apr%202008?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6105.0&issue=Apr%202008&num=&view=
- as well as a very low workforce participation rate of 65% http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/mf/6202.0.

So in the future we will probably have enough people to look after our frail elderly if we work smarter and lose some of those low paid service or unproductive middle management jobs. Statistically most Australians enjoy good health until the last 7 years of life and spend half the money spent on health care in the last 2 years of their life. Life expectancy for men is 81 and women is 84.

TRTL,

Only 13 countries actually have declining populations. Apart from Germany, all of them are in Eastern Europe. Birth rates in most of these countries are going up again, although are still below replacement level. It can take up to 70 years for below replacement rate fertility to translate into a declining population, because of momentum from past high fertility, even if there is no net immigration, and some Western European countries have a lot of it. Here in Australia, from ABS figures, approximately 2 babies are born and more than one net migrant arrives for every death. We are hardly running out of people.

The skill shortages are largely the fault of business and government. Back in the late 1990s it was reported that there were no more apprenticeships on offer than in 1979, despite population growth. Why put up with an apprentice, when you can get a prime age migrant who has already been trained at someone else's expense? Like Billie, I am dubious about the extent of the problem. When something is in short supply, normally the price goes up, just as bananas went to $12/kg after Cyclone Larry. Why have wages been so stagnant in comparison to profits? Instead of more immigration, I would like to see more streamlined training offered to some of our own people who have been excluded. And yes, some businesses might have to live with their decision not to train.

Older people could also do a lot more work, if necessary. Before Britain introduced compulsory retirement at 65 in the 1920s (as a reponse to unemployment), three quarters of the men between 65 and 70 were still working and nearly half the men between 70 and 75. The baby boomers have had better diet, smaller families, and better health care, living conditions, and working conditions than their 19th century ancestors. Of the top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index (which don't include Australia), 8 of them either have no population growth or growth rates than are less than half of ours.

The IT so-called 'skills shortage' issue is very close to home for me.

Most employers and employment agencies are too bone lazy to make the effort to find a role for IT workers who don't fit their usual formula which usually comprises at least two years' professional experience in whatever the nominated 'in technology' is and a tertiary qualification.

They would rather import people who formally meet these requirements whilst leaving many others with often having vastly broader experience, credentials and skills languishing in low-paid semi-skilled or unskilled occupations as billie has shown.

It is bewildering that so may, who should know better, choose to parrot this nonsense about the 'skills shortages', oblivious to the harm that they are helping to cause to their fellow native-born Australians.

The idea of immigration solving the grey catastrophe has problems other than the exponential growth monster. For starters, you must take it on faith that there will be a catastrophe, and that no technical progress will alleviate it. You must also convince yourself that despite the fact that there are countries with an age profile decades in advance of Australia's, the problem is so dire that it must be acted on immediately. The idea that there is ample time to develop a better understanding of the problem by observing these countries must be dispelled.

The other problem is the consideration of the harm inflicted on the countries left. It might be argued that the countries benefit from the money sent back home by the migrants. But would anyone argue that to send all skilled workers here overseas would be beneficial because of the money they might send back?

The best means of alleviating population pressures is to assist development via technical progress and assistance. Poaching skilled workers from developing countries, cutting back on education, and stifling research incentives would not seem to support this end.

By 2025 nearly one-third of the European population will be collecting pensions.Europe's population is expected to decrease from 728 million now to 658 million by 2050,
Due to its one-child policy, China's number of elderly people may triple from 130 million to 400 million over the next five years.
Joseph Chamie, director of the UN Population Division, reported estimates that already 10% of global population is aged 60 or more and that this share will mount to 22%, or about 2 billion people, by 2050.
The total fertility rate - number of children per woman) in India would is expected to come down to 2.52 between 2011 and 2016, and is expected to reach 2.1 in 2026. global fertility rates have declined more rapidly than expected. In 1960, 70 per cent of the global population lived in less-developed regions. By late 1999, the less-developed regions had grown to comprise 80 per cent. Of the projected growth of the world population by 2025, 98 per cent will occur in these regions. The world’s urban population is growing by 60 million a year, about three times the increase in the rural population.
"The scarcity of exhaustible resources is at most a minor constraint on economic growth...the
concern about the impact of rapid population growth on resource exhaustion has often been exaggerated."People create more resources of all kinds. Ten thousand years ago, only 4 million could keep themselves alive. Now, 6 billion people are living longer and more healthily than ever before.

ASymeonakis wrote: "the concern about the impact of rapid population growth on resource exhaustion has often been exaggerated"

Roughly half of the world's supply of petroleum has already been consumed in roughly 150 years. The remainder is expected to be exhausted completely in 30 years. Long before it is exhausted the actual rate of extraction of petroleum is expected to decline sharply causing world wide scarcity, which apart from limiting our ability to travel and manufacture all sorts of products upon which we have come to depend upon, will also cause food production to decline. What, if not the explosive growth in population since 1850 do you believe has been the principle cause of the exhaustion of this non-renewable resource which took biological and geological process many tens of millions of years to accumulate, if not the explosive growth in population?

Perhaps you should ponder the graph of human population growth at http://www.elephantcare.org/IMAGES/CONSERVE/popchart.jpg linked to from http://www.elephantcare.org/conserve.htm On the graph it states:

"Since 1950, we have consumed more resources than in all of previous history combined."

Once we have exhausted all of our natural capital, I think we will learn that it will be a lot harder than you imagine to go on 'creating' resources anywhere near the same rate that we have in recent years.

Hey! population is not a problem! What was I thinking. Lets grow some more humans, and lets make the world a happier place too be in.

Old martin was a black supporter of the black population and in his mind, it was the lack of the obvious, in his sight of veiw.

Back to the point! Sorry! What was the point?