My overriding concern is the insanity of continuous growth, as I have expressed several hundred times on this forum over the last 3 years.

Our ‘growth fetish’, as Clive Hamilton puts it, sits so fundamentally at the core of our psyche that it is virtually taboo to question it. And yet this continuous expansionism so blatantly flies in the face of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce consumption of all sorts of resources and to develop a sustainable society.

Gravely, the Rudd Government, and the 2020 Summit, continue to take us totally in the wrong direction by expressing desires not only to continue with never-ending expansionism, but to boost its rate.

http://business.smh.com.au/when-growth-turns-into-a-monster/20080506-2bky.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Many people on OLO share my concerns.

So what I want to know is whether there are actually any OLO respondents out there who support the notion of never-ending economic and population expansion in Australia and who truly think that this is what we need to achieve a better society.

Who supports a boost in immigration above the record high levels of the Howard government? Who supports the baby bonus and the increase in the birthrate that it has brought us?

Dear Ludwig....the people you most need to ask 'why growth' are.. SHAREHOLDERS..

i.e.. average people who want a return on their share investment.

Our current system demands growth, because people demand a return.

Only when people put bigger issues before a better return on their shares will things change.

Fortunately, there is a community which cherishes a value system which is quite different from this 'growth and profit at all costs'.. and it finds it's inspiration in little stories like this one:

"The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'

"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." '

PROBLEM... yes, such a shallow attitude has a 'reward'..and here it is:

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

That community is "The Biblical Church."

Ludwig, unless there is a world-wide effort to do the same thing, it is not feasible for Australia to try and slow down growth in population etc. because to remain internationally competitive you need to keep up. Our small population now compared to many other developed countries limits our producing power, sure you can get technology to make production more effecient per capita of population but manpower is still a vital component of a strong powerful economy. I have had this debate several times before, the first countries that need to seriously reconsider their present growth are third-world nations who have redecliously high and out-of-control population growth rates. I am not loyal to the power of Britain or America (like how people are loyal to the British monarch in Australia, or to the US alliance in Australia), I am loyal to a strong independant Australian nation that has the power to project itself globally as much as possible. We can spend billions if necessary on using energy that is clean for the environment, but we must not show a complete lack of consideration for the greatness of the nation of Australia by trying to restrain her ability to grow as a world player.

Dear Ludwig,

The following website may be of interest:

www.treasurer.gov.au/.../2008/017.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=DocType=-23k-

"Our small population now compared to many other developed countries limits our producing power, sure you can get technology to make production more effecient per capita of population but manpower is still a vital component of a strong powerful economy."

Don't you find it a little bit odd that although the size of Australia's population has dramatically outstripped those of successful manufacturing countries such as Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Israel, we are still supposedly not large enough to reap economies of scale?

Gee, could it be that innovation and productivity, not population growth, are the keys to long-term economic prosperity?

In truth, a larger population is of no economic benefit whatsoever and will only add to Australia's already chronic current account deficit.

aussie_eagle2512
Your comment
"because to remain internationally competitive"
is simply nonsense because we are not internationally competitive at all and have not been competitive for 30 odd years.
Our current prosperity is being borrowed and by increasing our population and the size of our so called
"economy" we simply have growth in our ability to share the interest burden. But our debt growth is exceeding the growth in our ability to pay and this must lead to collapse. This collapse appears to be very close as the global system reaches these limits.

But, I hear you say that only applies to other countries such as the US and their "sub prime" problems.
Two problems;

1. We have high risk lending too but we call it "no doc";
2. If this "globalisation" is true and it spreads prosperity surely it will also spread failure as "globalsation" spread collapse
in the 1890's and 1930's. Yes globalisation in spite of claims made by current "experts" is over 100 years old.

One thing that has been "growing" is this debt and it is easy to see that this is not good, but all growth is not sustainable.

Continual growth in any system natural or man made is simply not sustainable and must end in a catastrophic collapse. An example
of a natural systems is cancer in mammals which leads to death of the host. The only desirable growth is one that takes place between limits.

dresdener

Good point about those small successful countries.

In the past thirty odd years that we have been bludging on the rest of the world we have also had growth in the speed at which we have been dumbing down. In the 1950's we had an electronics and communication industry which was world competitive now we have no significant electronics industry and only token technological capability.

Yes we have a "minerals boom", but we also have a "debt boom" which is fast becoming a global bad debt induced collapse.

This notion that we succeed by growing will soon be seen for what it is hubris.

Good Luck.

Ludwig: << Many people on OLO share my concerns >>

Certainly no argument from me on this one, but I suspect we're in the minority, even here at OLO. Most people are terminally addicted to consumerism - indeed, the whole system depends on it.

CJ Morgan wrote:

"Certainly no argument from me on this one, but I suspect we're in the minority, even here at OLO. Most people are terminally addicted to consumerism - indeed, the whole system depends on it."

I don't know that most people are terminally addicted to consumerism. I think we are trapped by it.

We try to make a small imprint. We use appliances, but they are built with planned obsolescence. That is not our choice. We would rather not buy new ones, but they have a limited life. We have a car. I would rather do without one, but there is no mass transit facilities where we live. We try to limit our trips so each trip takes care of several purposes. We have a solar heater for hot water. We throw out no garbage scraps but use it for compost. We have no air conditioning or central heating. If it gets cold we rug up. If it gets hot we use a fan. Our solar drier is a clothesline. We cook from scratch rather than buy precooked items. Our amusements are primarily books, writing and handicrafts. We do not smoke and drink sparingly. We do not gamble. We take an interest in nature. It is a pleasant lifestyle which I imagine many people share.

The ultimate consumerism is that spent for weapons systems which takes a large amount of funds but produces very little that is of use. There are few attempts to curb this. There will not be as our economy depends on it to an extent. That consumerism is rarely questioned. Another part of our economy is the financial sector which transfers funds, employs brokers, lawyers, accountants etc. and produces nothing tangible at all. Socialism with top down control is no solution since the tremendous bureaucracy required in a planned economy is also non-productive of goods and services.

Is there a solution? It certainly does not seems to me to be dependent on the addiction of individuals. We are not free to opt out of the wasteful system in which we live.

“Growth” in economic terms, is a measurement “device” used by economists to determine a few things which they think are important to their understanding of the model of humanity which they cleave to.

They say accountants do a similar thing, so too actuaries and many other numbers based sciences and arts.

So what is ‘growth’, in economic terms as it applies to peoples lives?

Well I think it is an approximation of the aggregate price of individual transactions which occur in a particular time period, relative to the price of transactions in a comparative time period.

I used the word “price” deliberately, to distinguish from “value”.

The aggregate “value” of individual transactions which occur in a particular time period might not vary however, “inflationary influences” alter the price.

Ludwig I think alot of the so called “Growth” which concerns you, is really “informal inflation”, which exists beyond the far from perfect ‘cost basket’ measure of official inflation.

The next point is, we are talking economics, which is often too far removed from real life that we lock economist in rooms with other economists and let them argue various theories whilst real folk get on with what really matters in their lives.

So I guess if you cannot see it, eat it, sit on it or benefit from it, in any way, growth ain’t going to matter much to you. Personally, I focus on doing things in my life from which I can directly measure the benefit (or otherwise) to me and let the economists play with their "nationwide" numbers, like the fairies at the end of the garden.

There are those who want single people and same sex couples to be given the benefits of in vitro fertilisation. With the spectre of overpopulation it would be better not to have it available for anyone. Population growth is one great source of the problems of growth. The chief obstacle to its curbing is the irrationality of biblical religion which advises one 'to be fruitful and multiply'. Like much other advice in the Bible it is no longer applicable. Rational consideration of the problems of unrestrained growth requires an examination of the influence of religion on public policy.

Dresdener: Our lack of manufacturing is a real worry, and that word innovation is very important. I obviously did not explain myself properly, I am not for out-of-control-hope-for-the-best population growth. I am for Australia going for expansionism on the world stage just like companies wish to expand themselves in their industry. I to be quite honest very rarely disagree with environmentalists statements, however it should not always mean a sacrifice in Australia being able to grow and prosper as a nation. Both innovation and productivity should be treated as key-word priorities. I would like to see much more of the population growth in the regional areas, and a even greater expansion and improvement of their infrastructure both to cope with such growth and to help them prosper and sustain such growth. I am no expert on the matter hence my vague words but I am sick of hearing about how small my country is and how little people we have for our size, and how this affects our ability to be a global influence in world events. We need to march forward against the odds (a very Australian thing or at least its suppose to be, maybe that just applies to people going for greatness for themselves) and strive for greatness, bit by bit.

Dear Ludwig,

Of course we should all be concerned. As I wrote in another post, studies done in the 1950s and 1960s concluded that with the then agricultural production and water storage of our arid continent Australia's population should not exceed 20 million.

Now, we have experts who claim that with our water shortages, reduced agricultural and industrial productivity this drying continent can support a population of 50 million by mid 21st century. A realistic assessment of our future is desperately needed before commitments are made on immigration and imports of skilled labour.

It is time to regenerate the land with native growth it once had, to retain the moisture and soil. Time to learn about native food sources. Time to reverse the population drift into the big cities.

Analyse agricultural practices and eliminate production using excessive irrigation. We import what we need, why waste water to grow it.

Move agriculture and population centres to the Northers regions where water is available. Relocate government departments to create work.
Build hotels to attract people for the tourist market. Everything is achievable. And it is increasingly clear that we are heading towards collapse if we don't change direction.

The following website may be of interest:

www.redreaming.info.DisplayStory.asp?id=24 - 21k -

It's about, "Creating a sustainable Society."

We need a population policy

http://candobetter.org/node/474

"To a large extent business, together with the general community, is driving political change on climate. Can business now put short-term interest aside and help build a sustainable economy based on an ecologically sustainable population?

Our birth rate more or less balances our death rate.

But under the Howard government Australia experienced a massive increase in the number of immigrants, culminating in about 150,000 in 2007-08.

This is a clumsy and naive way to give the semblance of a healthy economy, with continued growth in GDP based on an ever-increasing population.

Yet the whole edifice is a house of cards, just waiting to come crashing down."

Thanks to all respondents.

Some people have offered reasonable explanations as to why we have never-ending expansionism, but there is no one out there who supports it or who thinks that we have to have it or that it will increase our collective quality of life.

There are quite few small countries with a similar standard of living and economic systems to us, but with essentially no gross expansionism in their populations or economies, and no real problems with international competition, trade or their positions on the world stage.

We can still have a dynamic economy, with profitable businesses and returns to shareholders with a net zero immigration rate and a pre baby-bonus fertility rate.

The fact is; we don’t need continuous expansionism….. and arguments in support of it are either entirely spurious or insignificant compared to the negative effects of maintaining high growth.

We rather desperately need to end continuous expansionism. I think we all agree.

So then, how on earth do we get Rudd to listen to the likes of Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, Tim Flannery, David Suzuki, Ian Lowe and others?

Or to the mayors of the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast and others who are pushing for population caps and reduced growth rates? Or to former NSW premier Bob Carr?

He’s listened to Al Gore (who is unfortunately not too crash hot with his expression on population and growth issues, although certainly onside) about climate change and fossil fuel consumption. The business community doesn’t like Rudd’s rather strong rhetoric on climate change, but he’s gone ahead with it anyway. So why is the situation so different with growth, especially given that continuous population growth is strongly connected to greenhouse gas emission rates?? It doesn’t make sense. In fact, it is Ruddiculous!

How do we get the general populace in SEQ, Perth, Sydney, etc, to express outrage at having to suffer ongoing tight water restrictions while their illustrious leaders continue to allow the number of water-consumers to rapidly increase??

WHY ISN’T THEIR A MASSIVE OUTCRY about this business? What am I missing here?

Dear Ludwig,

Because Australia is at least 30 years behind the developed world, and it will take the people of this country that long to react. It must first be proven elsewhere, before we will even consider it.

Is it the water or is it the sun? But there is definitely something wrong with our thinking. The attitude in this country seems to be,
"We've always done it this way, why change it?"
And with that attitude - progress is very slow.

There are many people with brilliant ideas - but after years of frustration they leave this country and take those ideas where they are apprerciated and implemented. Then years later we buy them back, at great expense.

My husband has been saying this for decades, and now he just doesn't care anymore. And that's what happens to a lot of people, they either leave or simply give up.

Ludwig you asked "WHY ISN’T THEIR A MASSIVE OUTCRY about this business? What am I missing here?"

Because too many people still buy into the growth at all costs mentality and like Sleeping Beauty have not yet been awoken from their slumber.

I'm with you Ludwig and the many OLO respondents above but until there is a major mindshift on this (including at the global level) we are destined to continue to make the same mistakes. I am also a great fan of Clive Hamilton and books like "Growth Fetish" and "Affluenza" should be included in any teaching of economics.

On the postive side there are small groundswell movements at local levels and history shows that this is how great movements start. I hope that we are wise enough question our ingrained mindsets and change our behaviours before an environmental catastrophe makes it necessary to do so.

Individually we might make a difference if enough of us show restraint by not giving in to consumerism and greed.

Aw piffle! That should have read; ‘Why isn’t THERE a massive outcry’. Rrrgh!

Yes Foxy, these things can take an awful long time to gain momentum. However, they can also come about very quickly.

I’d like to think that real progress on addressing continuous growth is just around the corner. I hope to goodness that our concerns about climate change and our resource crunch issues of water and oil will morph into a total sustainability perspective, which of course has to include and end to expansionism.

Surely it has to…..soon!

Pelican, I think that people still buy into the growth at all costs mentality largely because they haven’t heard anything bad about it. Indeed, they haven’t been awoken from their slumber. Let’s face it, our message, as presented by Clive Hamilton and a small band of others, doesn’t reach or penetrate the masses.

If the message was out their to anything like the same extent that the ‘growth is good’ message is, ordinary people would be quickly realising that continuous growth is increasing the threat to their future or their childrens’ future, and they’d start demanding that their government do something about it.

I think that it is quite feasible and reasonable for people to chase personal growth, in their businesses or incomes, while at the same time realising that their local, state and national governments seriously need to address growth in the bigger picture.

Foxy has once again knocked it right on the head. It seems that most Australians like to see Australia as merely a new europe wherebys we can use European practises and technologies here as though they are our own, this is not true. Australia shouldn't just WANT to do more research and innovation on its own, it NEEDS to. To try and prevent growth is simply a easy (which is hardly easy at all anyways) way to fix the problem, just because of bloody expense, cant be bothered spending on things that matter, cant be bothered doing anything. You anti-growthists have no sense of patriotism or pride in national greatness, which is your luxury but it should not be imposed on everyone. With my ideas, everyone can go on and live their own lives making their own choices, the changes will largely happen behind the scenes. The simple fact of the matter, to survive as a nation we must go forward.

Aussie eagle,

“To try and prevent growth is simply a easy (which is hardly easy at all anyways) way to fix the problem, just because of bloody expense, cant be bothered spending on things that matter, cant be bothered doing anything”

What gives you the impression that any of us think that curtailing growth would simply be the answer to all our woes? Of course we still need to address a host of other things.

“You anti-growthists have no sense of patriotism or pride in national greatness…”

Now why would you make such a statement? The maintenance of a decent quality of life, reasonable environmental integrity and a resource base that can provide all of our needs both directly and through trade in an ongoing manner are all aspects that are under threat due to constant population growth and the perceived need to have ever-bigger economic turnover. They are essential components of true national pride, are they not?

I’m not sure just why you place such importance in Australia growing as a world player, especially if you perceive that we need to be much bigger in terms of population and economic clout in order to do that.

Firstly, thanks for being so patient with my style. Some would be quite irritated by now I imagine :P I am not saying that these things you mention shouldn't be priorities, but I am just saying that naturally those nations that are developed or developing at a big rate (eg. China) will achieve their world influence partially through their sheer size, in China's case both population and economy. Before you say, so you want Australia to have 1 billion people, absolutely not. China itself is struggling it seems with this sheer population, and thats while a few hundred million are still in poverty therefore not actually using much of the resources, or not as much as you'd expect for that number. Rather than implementing some great national ideal of growth which is doomed to fail as it wouldn't be controlled enough, I am suggesting that regional centres strive and are provided support (capital cities need no such assistance) to grow to become cities that cen contribute more evenly to their respective state's economy. I would in the long-run like Australia to achieve the big 3-figured-million population milestone but only through very rational and regulated and environmentally friendly infrastructure improvements (at or probably beyond european standards of effeciency). This at the very most would just put us into the top 10 most populous nations. This growth is ambitious and seems impossible without totally destroying our land, but things once thought impossible have been achieved on several occasions, and many of those occasions involve innovation and technology which has greatly improved effeciency in various areas. I am not influential at this point therefore I do not need to be sure these things can work, but it is one of my big life dreams for Australia to be a nation of the great powers not for the great powers. The only other alternative would be for us to be a nutural nation, this however cannot be because of our position as a strategic goal for any future imperial or expanionist power.

aussie_eagle, do you really wish to see Australia become a veritable Brazil of the South Pacific? Because that's precisely the direction in which this country is presently heading.

Leaving aside the compelling environmental argument against a larger population, do you understand that Australia would need to import tens of millions of people in order to reach a "big 3-figured-million population"? I ask because you claim to be a 'patriot'. Yet, what you're proposing would not only result in a staggering increase in the size of our population, but also a radical revolution in Australia's national identity and culture and the gradual submergence of our current population by foreign peoples and cultures. Simply put, the Australian nation as we currently know it would be rendered unrecognizable.

I'm not entirely sure how extinguishing the existing culture and identity of a nation through massive immigration can be considered patriotic. If current trends continue, Australia will resemble a new China or India rather than the 'new Europe' imagined by previous generations.

1) A recent article in the SMH Re Burma wailed "Borders must be opened to save lives" – it is a sentiment we are going to hear a lot more of .

Highly moral people often see solutions in terms of everyone reducing their quality of life , rather than reducing the numbers of everyone

It would be a sad joke if we establish an environmentally sustainable oasis in Aust ,only to have it swamped by the hungry & homeless of other countries – at the behest of opinion leaders crying "Borders must be opened to save lives".

A recent story on Deutsche vella radio examined the case of Morocco .About 10% of Moroccans live overseas, principally in Europe. Each year, many returned home with stories of opportunity & gifts which entice yet others to follow –usually the young & most enterprising. The loss of such people helps to defuse pressures within Morocco , which would otherwise lead to political
& economic change (such countries become, effectively, baby factories – they export their excess each generation –but the home numbers are replaced by natural increase )

2) While agreeing with the gist of Ludwig's post I feel we need to be caeful of what we mean by "growth".

The type of growth that always seeks to produce a new model just to be different to last months , or built in obsolescence is wasteful.

But growth in terms of finding new things, doing things more efficiently is necessary.

Sustainable must not mean marching on the spot

“…we need to be careful of what we mean by ‘growth’ “.

Yes indeed Horus. We want to encourage good development. That is; technological advances, value-adding, alternative energy sources and a bunch of other things, that would add to economic growth. The sort of stuff that we don’t want to add to economic growth are; a greater rate of exploitation of our non-renewable resources, a greater extent of agriculture at the expense of the natural environment or a greater rate of economic turnover that results simply from a greater number of people contributing to it.

Economic growth IS somewhat complex.

A steady-state economy can still be highly dynamic, because all the ‘good growth’ factors would still be there, and indeed would be focussed on more effectively once the ‘bad growth’ factors are eliminated. In fact, we could still have a considerable rate of economic growth without the bad growth factors, if we really put our minds to it, which would be fine by me.

Population growth is much more straightforward. I want to see an end to the increase in our population.
Well….I’d be happy if we had net zero immigration and a pre baby-bonus birthrate, which would mean that our population would still be growing slowly for about another 30 years before it evened off of its own accord, given the birthrate remaining about the same (~1.76). But I’d prefer to see a below-net-zero immigration rate and perhaps incentives to lower the birthrate further in order to take us quickly to a stable population.

If we got ourselves onto the right track of population stabilisation, I’d be happy to let ‘bad-growth-factor’ economic growth continue for a while, to be curtailed some time later (or slowed right down with the removal of the bad growth factors), if it led directly to a real increase in quality of life and a more equitable distribution of wealth for the ordinary people of this country, and was used to develop sustainability-oriented alternative energy sources and industries, and to repair some of the chronic environmental damage we have wrought on this continent.

I would much rather stop the influence of immigration and instead promote a consistent and steady birth rate to keep the growth rate at about 1.5%. You are right, constant influx of foreigners will only see what we value and how we have built this nation largely reversed and broken apart to dust in the wind, we would likely become a satellite state of China or India, or a Islamic Republic. To hold our position and maintain our nation as a unique identity in the South Pacific, we must understand the importance of holding large reserves of manpower both for defence and economic reasons, and constantly upgrading infrastructure to handle this growth and insure the extra population do not become social outcasts.

Adding to my last post….

...and to a decent level of input into international aid / refugee / sustainability / quality of life issues, by way of contributing at least the UN recommended level of 0.7% of our GDP.

Aussie eagle

I guess there are two overridingly important factors here;

1. to be able to achieve a sustainable society that is small enough and smart enough to be able to maintain a high quality of life based on what the resource base of this continent can provide and

2. be able to defend it, or to not live in fear of invasion or surreptitious infiltration, in the decades ahead as China grows in strength, the US declines, and turmoil increases in Indonesia.

Sustainability and the maintenance of a high quality of life have got to come first. If we can’t uphold these values, society will basically fall apart, the rule of law will break down and money will be poured into reactive issues rather than longer term goals including defence. Indeed, the defence budget would very likely be skittled.

I can appreciate the desire to build a much stronger defence capability as soon as we can, and that boosting our population seems like a sensible part of it. But if rapid population growth is going to prejudice our ability to ride through the energy crunch, and increase the chances of our society fracturing, then we just can’t have it (or at least, any half-sensible federal government wouldn’t have it).

We simply have to think about our defence capability and our influence on the world stage with a population that is only slightly larger than at present…. at least until we are confident of riding through the very ominous looming resource crunches of oil and water.

Well, I can certainly see that we are getting closer to reaching some common ground. I can also admit that developed countries with large populations (eg. Japan, France, Germany, UK, US) all face challenges partially as a result of their huge populations. Sure the European Union is a very integrated unit as of late, and they got a lot more rainfall than we do. However, they are also only human and we are in many cases almost as sophisticated as they are. As I said previously, a whole-hearted national approach to development is probably not the best course of action, rather one based on individual regions based on their specific challenges and desires. Regions that need less assistance in infrastructure need not be funded for growth as much as those that are more burdened by continuous growth, and therefore need more assistance. "The effect of growth" needs to be considered as a matter of environmental concern, however the costs of either halting (which in turn will result in either slow continuous growth or decline anyways) or slowing growth also needs to be considered in such strategies. However, I stick by my personal population targets and truly believe that with enough research and strategy it can be achieved without causing any serious damage and perhaps even reverse some damage as a result in change of how we use energy etc., and Australia will stand unchallenged in its economic and political sovereignty and natural role as one of the main players of the Asia-Pacific region, and in the future possibly on the world stage. We have a great oppourtunity to lead the world in better ways of using water and natural resources through our devotion to sustainable development.

One problem is that of national sovereignty and the strain on resources of having independent military capabilities and the perceived need for greater population which national sovereignty entails. We need a weaker national identity and a greater identity with the rest of humanity.

There is also an insane competition. There has recently been a call for increased funding to make Australia more competitive in the olympics. In my opinion Australia is over-competitive in that area now. It would be a more reasonable goal if we still stayed in the olympics to have Australia's olympic medals in proportion to Australia's population and use the funds now devoted to elite athletes in the Institute of Sport to general fitness and the transformation of obese couch potatoes into active human beings.

David f “We need a weaker national identity and a greater identity with the rest of humanity.”

That sounds like “internationalism”, a type of “Trotsky rubbish think”.

Rather than worrying about the rest of humanity, look after your own first and with what time is left over (assuming you have any if you are doing the job properly), ponder what a mess other folk get into and if they really want you pretending you “identify” with them.

For me “identifying” with other nations is pure “sentimentality” and is as self-indulgent as masturbation, it makes the practitioner feel good for the moment but does nothing for anyone else.

Better to be proud of who you are and the nation you are part of and lead by example of how things can be when people are free to choose for themselves.

Oh and to an earlier post on this thread from Aussie Eagle “You anti-growthists have no sense of patriotism or pride in national greatness,”

I am not an anti-growthist, like my previous post said, “growth” is merely an economists measurement tool for something economists think they understand. Personally I am more into “quality of life”, happiness and other things which actually matter but I digress, your comment regarding patriotism reminds me the definition of patriotism reminds me of Samuel Johnsons observation, it being the last refuge of the scoundrel.

I chose to become Australian, l am proud to be Australian, that does not means I work toward national greatness. Such “national greatness” is merely an illusion, created from the reflection of the individuals who comprise the nation.

What makes a nation great is not the government not its institutions. It is the individuals going about their daily lives with accountability for their actions, a strong sense of work ethic, respect and compassion for others.

“Patriotism” is just the sort of drivel which saw millions led to their deaths in WWI.

With all these great intentions, do you know what man will do about NOTHING. This is why the phrase that has echoed thought the sands of time and will never change. "It all goes in the too hard basket".
or, "she'll be right mate". I just love that one.

When Hitler killed the people of WW2, I can see a pattern appearing. In the same way, when we look at a plage of rabbits lets say, and no-one minds if man takes it upon him self and culls them, except the rabbits of course.
Man used to wage war to cull ourselves, amongst other reasons, basically man becomes frighten when the other sides grew to big. So man will try a new weapon of the microscopic kind( they say aids is doing well) cause any other method, the strain will be just to much to bear( planetary wise ). Yes I study conspiracy theories, and for every mountain of bullsh-t, there's always a nugget of truth.

Man cant stop his greed, so they will stop us to save ourselves.
Live well little rabbits.lol

Just a thought. Not fact.

EVO

I wrote “We need a weaker national identity and a greater identity with the rest of humanity.”

Col Rouge wrote: "That sounds like “internationalism”, a type of “Trotsky rubbish think”."

I regard Trotzky as a demonic figure. He was a brilliant man who might have done something worth while with his life. Instead he helped put and keep the bloody Lenin in power. Trotzky extolled violence and advocated permanent revolution until the Marxist ideology was established all over.

My inspiration is from two sources. One is Thomas Jefferson. Although I am not religious the other is the Bible.

In the Declaration of Independence for the United States TJ wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since we manifestly are not equal differing in intelligence, strength, sex and other attributes I believe he meant all humans should have equal rights. I am for equal rights regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality and other human attributes.

In the Bible I am inspired by the vision of Isaiah. Isaiah 2:4 ...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

A strong national identity can and often does encourage us to war against those of a different national identity. A strong national identity is an enemy to peace.

Trotsky was in favour of class warfare. I favour identification with the rest of humanity regardless of class or nationality.

I am a citizen of two countries: Australia and the United States. One of my granddaughters is a citizen of the United States, France and Brazil.

I wish I could be a citizen of all nations, and that all citizens of all nations could have equal rights.

“However, I stick by my personal population targets and truly believe that with enough research and strategy it can be achieved without causing any serious damage…”

Aussie eagle, I wouldn’t have a problem with a 100+ million Australian population, if it was sustainable and did not lead to further environmental degradation or loss of ecological values.

Sure, if enough research can be done, so that we can be confident that a much larger population can be sustained, then fine. But of course, we would need to be absolutely confident of our strategy first.

At the moment we don’t have any such strategy. So population growth should be stopped in its tracks, or at least, greatly reduced…. which could be done very easily if Rudd would just see the light and pull the immigration rate right back.

“We have a great opportunity to lead the world in better ways of using water and natural resources through our devotion to sustainable development.”

Absolutely we do. This is the stuff we should be concentrating on for the sake of our own wellbeing and for the sake of all of humanity. It is vastly more important that we do this if we want to assert ourselves in a dominant position on the world stage than it is to grow much bigger and exert more economic muscle.

I think our positions are not too far apart. I thank you for this amicable discussion.

Col Rouge: I do associate with the idea of quality of life as much as I do with concern about Australia's role on the world stage. I would imagine that when you think of National Greatness, you think with at least a little bit of a internationalist view whereby National Greatness can be associated with conflicts and oppressive government regimes of past and present world-over. The sort of national greatness that resulted in deaths and oppression was that that saw too few people with too few people problems ruleing over too many. They were arrogant and driven by a excessive belief of conviction without consideration for the consequences of their actions, though the more smarter ones would of knew the consequences all too well, more than we realise, but quality of life and loss of life was not considered a priority. For starters, my personal view of what I wish to achieve does not involve instigating conflicts or massacres of any kind. The other end of the scale it involves a good balance with perhaps a slight bias towards improving our already relatively good quality of life whilst improving our National integrity and muscle in foreign affairs. For too long, Australia has been a active and as of the last 15 years or so a "significant" player but nonetheless sidelined politically when compared to our contributions which far outbalance the returns. We for the last 100 years have been trying to work out what we are, and what our place is with the nations of the world and thus far it has been one of caution with very little assertiveness regardless of the countless human sacrifices we have made for our allies and for what we call freedom of the world. We need to develop a positive vision for growth whilst alongisde improving the quality of life of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and taking the lead not following the lead in innovative solutions to our water shortage and rural food shortage crisis.

aussie_eagle2512 wrote;

'We need to develop a positive vision for growth whilst alongisde improving the quality of life of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and taking the lead not following the lead in innovative solutions to our water shortage and rural food shortage crisis."

Why must we develop a positive vision for growth? It seems to me easier to develop a positive vision for balance of our population with the rest of nature including our natural resources. I feel we would have a better quality of life if we did not set growth as an objective,

What does growth mean to you - more people, increased productivity, more books, more fighter planes, more doctors, more marinas? What kind of growth are you referring to?

How much is enough?

Economic growth can be a hindrance to well-being and economic cutbacks can lead to a better quality of life.

Zoning changes could be introduced which would place people farther from their place of employment. This would increase economic growth greatly. Expansion of highways, more cars, increase in sales of petrol, automotive repairs, more pollution and more accidents, increasing medical expenses etc. GDP is the total product of goods and services and such zoning changes would definitely increase the GDP.

Zoning changes could also be introduced which would place people nearer to their place of employment. This would decrease GDP but might increase quality of life greatly.

When population grows, so does everything from A to Z.eg.- Bad drivers are being blamed for the increase in car accidents! What a crock of crap.

EVO

Aussieeagle you use the "collective" pronouns consistently in your post.

As in “ WE for the last 100 years have been trying to work out what WE are, and what OUR place is with the nations of the world and thus far it has been one of caution with very little assertiveness regardless of the countless human sacrifices WE have made for our allies and for what WE call freedom of the world. WE need to develop a positive vision for growth whilst alongisde improving the quality of life of OUR fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and taking the lead not following the lead in innovative solutions to OUR water shortage and rural food shortage crisis.”

“WE” and “OUR” are like the “common good” and other myths which separate individuals from personal responsibility, accountability, personal performance and right to individual reward.

(As for “What we are”, I am more interested in who (not what) I am )

Like I said in my previous post:

“What makes a nation great is not the government, not its institutions. It is the individuals going about their daily lives with accountability for their actions, a strong sense of work ethic, respect and compassion for others.”

I will try to do my bit and I suggest you do your best to do likewise. However, for any meaningful outcome expect only of your self because, “WE” and “OUR” do not exist in a form which is executory to anything.

Any growth or contraction is not a matter of what “WE” did but the sum of what individuals decided to do in respect to what suited their personal motives.

I know who I am and am happy with who that person is. I do not know you, so cannot comment on "WE" in any meaningful sense.

Evo “When population grows, so does everything from A to Z.eg.- Bad drivers are being blamed for the increase in car accidents! What a crock of crap.”

I do agree EVO.

The Federal budget hooks us in to rapid growth. Or I should say; there is absolutely no indication in the budget that the Rudd government is going to move away from the continuous-expansion-with-no-end-in-sight paradigm.

And of course, the mob on the other side of the political fence don’t in any way criticise them for it.

It is now crystal clear that no meaningful moves will be made towards sustainability in this country until at least the end of the Ruddiculous era…….unless perhaps we have some almighty crash event which stuns these blockheads into the stark realisation that we HAVE TO balance our life-support systems with the demand placed upon them.

Hwaaaaw! (;>(

Cancer is the medical term for continual, non-ending growth. It is an appropriate term for the economic policies of the Rudd and Howard governments.

One could learn from Tolstoy's story, "How Much Land Does a Man Need?"

A peasant named Pahom can be heard complaining that he does not own enough land to satisfy him. A landlady in the village decides to sell her estate, and the peasants of the village buy as much of that land as they can. Pahom himself purchases some land, and by working off the extra land is able to repay his debts and live a more comfortable life.

Pahom becomes very possessive of his land, and this gets him into discord with his neighbours. Greed is disrupting his moral values. He moves to a larger area of land at another Commune. He can grow even more crops and amass a small fortune, but he has to grow the crops on rented land, which irritates him.

Finally, he is introduced to the Bashkirs and is told they are simple-minded people who own a huge amount of land. He wants to take as much of their land for as low a price as he can negotiate. Their offer: for a sum of one thousand rubles, Pahom can walk around as large an area as he wants, starting at daybreak, marking his route with a spade along the way. If he reaches his starting point by sunset that day, the entire area of land his route encloses will be his. He is delighted.

His journey across the land illustrates his greediness. He tries to cover as much land as possible, not content with what he already has. As the sun nearly sets, he realizes his error and runs back as fast as he can to the waiting Bashkirs. He finally arrives at the starting point just as the sun sets. The Bashkirs cheer his good fortune, but exhausted from the run, he drops dead. They bury him in an ordinary grave only six feet long, thus ironically answering the question posed in the title of the story.

Ludwig: << It is now crystal clear that no meaningful moves will be made towards sustainability in this country until at least the end of the Ruddiculous era >>

Come on, Ludwig. I'm no great fan of Rudd or the ALP, but do you seriously think that the Coalition is more likely (or ever likely) to deliver ecologically sustainable policy?

“…do you seriously think that the Coalition is more likely (or ever likely) to deliver ecologically sustainable policy?”

Yes CJ. I do indeed think that they can deliver it. Whether they are more likely than Labor, the Greens or new political party I don't know.

But there is no doubt that sooner or later our politics WILL change to embrace sustainability. It can't possibly not do this! Can it?

Ludwig "But there is no doubt that sooner or later our politics WILL change to embrace sustainability. It can't possibly not do this! Can it?"

Agree and further agree, the ones to do it are the conservatives because

the conservatives will let the market prevail. That market will use price to regulate between un-sustainable demand and constrained supply to the point the unsustainable and subeconomic demand will get priced out of the market.

Alternatively, the socialists and all the others who think they can organise individuals better than the chaos we collectively represent will, like Lenin and Stalin, regulate supply and inevitably get swept up in the tax opportunity, which means "regulate" is used to "maximise" and fund all those other niceties like pensions for banged up single mothers and other safety nets which substitute for self accountability, responsibility and control.

I’m of a more socialistic orientation than you Col. I believe that we need strong governance to mitigate the bad aspects of market forces, and that if we just leave it up to the market, we will get….well…what we are getting now: continuous expansionism in the face of bleedingly obvious and absolutely critical resource-stress issues.

As stresses build, we will need a strong rule of law with an effective regulatory regime. Without it, the powerful, aggressive and desperate will embark on their own lawless path, to the great detriment of the ordinary person.

Upon reflection, I think that the conservatives are the ones most likely to embrace sustainability and an end to expansionism, primarily because they are in opposition and desperately need to develop policies significantly different to the incumbents that will win them power. And win them power because they appeal to the constituency, rather than by default.

Surely they can sense the need for the development of a sustainability-oriented political regime and they can sense the increasing support for it in the community. So, if they could just find it within themselves to start promoting this stuff, I reckon they would soon attract massive support.

They could do it without infringing any of their principles or aims or objectives. It would sit well within their charter http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ourbeliefs.php. Indeed, it would better fit with their principles than their current direction!

Col Rouge: << the conservatives will let the market prevail. That market will use price to regulate between un-sustainable demand and constrained supply to the point the unsustainable and subeconomic demand will get priced out of the market. >>

Er Col, "letting the market prevail" is exactly what has created much of the ecological disaster with which we are now faced.

Ludwig: << Upon reflection, I think that the conservatives are the ones most likely to embrace sustainability and an end to expansionism, primarily because they are in opposition and desperately need to develop policies significantly different to the incumbents that will win them power. And win them power because they appeal to the constituency, rather than by default. >>

You're dreaming, mate. The conservative response will always be more business-as-usual, head-in-the-sand, denialism until it's too late. Only then will they come around. Like for example Brendan Nelson's call to reduce petrol taxes by 5c a litre. While in Opposition in our stupid political system, they will do everything they can to make it electorally costly for any government that has the balls to act strongly in ecological terms.

Yes, Labor isn't much better and the Greens have a long way to go before their ecologically sustainable policies are supported by more than a minority of the electorate, but hell will freeze over before our current Opposition wakes up over issues like climate change and ecological sustainability.

Aww CJ, please…let me dream!

You are more than likely right. But hey, I’m gonna have a bloody good shot at appealing to the Libs to see the light… and change their evils ways!

Besides, its a lot nicer here in loopy la la dreamland, with eyes closed tight to shut out the big ugly real world {l>)

Ludwig

Then perhaps I shouldn't wake you from your slumber with the reminder that Peter Costello admonished Australians to "have one for the husband, one for the wife and one for Australia".

The Libs will require a road to Damascus change before they realise that unlimited growth and consumerism is the cause not the cure for our current world situation.

Will Labor realise in time to move towards sustainability? Dunno.

At least it won't be boring.

;-)

CJM “Er Col, "letting the market prevail" is exactly what has created much of the ecological disaster with which we are now faced.”

When I consider the market influences, compared to say government regulated influences, all I have to do is compare Australia to say the Aral Sea and you will see how comparatively restrained the market is, compared to a system in which the government has the authority to override the market and run unchecked and unquestioned.

Alternatively, you could also compare the market influenced Three Mile Island failure, the product of a market system, to Chernobyl, the product of government self regulation.

Whilst your criticism of the market might seem obvious, the market, like democracy, with all its faults and shortcomings, remains a superior system to all other systems, especially authoritarian government, which not only goes unchecked but can have the authority to write its own audits and that authoritarian government is the goal of socialism, according to some who were in the know.

“Will Labor realise in time to move towards sustainability? Dunno.”

Labour do not understand then question, let alone are able to formulate a lucid response. Labor know only populism, envy, sentimentality and how to tax people into poverty.

“The Libs will require a road to Damascus change…”

You bet they will Fractelle. But then, whichever party embraces it will have to undergo a monumental ‘adjustment’ to their current putridity, including the silly Greens.

I’m optimistic that significant moves in the right direction will happen very soon. I think that it will probably start with opposition parties, or as it is at the moment, the one opposition force in every state and nationally; the Libs, with their buddies the Nats.

As I said in a previous post, the reason I think this is that they are ravenous for power, and WILL detect the changing mood of the electorate, in line with the message presented by the Australia Institute, former Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery and several other key scientists/institutions.

However, it may develop from within the incumbents. A very good sign of this possibility is coming from Queensland’s Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, Andrew McNamara. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23710412-952,00.html

“Will Labor realise in time to move towards sustainability?”

Well, it is looking particularly grim at the federal level. But I would like to think that there is some hope at the state level, in Queensland at least.

In reply to Paul L from http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7377#114171

Paul, I don’t understand why you have written this post. All I said in the post that you are responding to is that we should stabilise our population. You haven’t even addressed this point. Rather, you have talked a lot about population decline, which is certainly something that we don’t need to worry about in the slightest in Australia.

You seem to think that we need immigration to make up a shortfall that is due to a below-replacement birthrate. Firstly, this is not true and secondly, our immigration rate is far and away beyond the level needed to maintain a stable population if we had absolutely no births!

I’ve had to explain the following quite a few times on this forum; even though we have had a personal fertility rate that is quite a bit below replacement level for a long time, the national birthrate has always been above replacement level.

So, with a birthrate of about 1.76 children per woman, as it was before the terrible baby bonus caused it to rise somewhat, there was still a large excess of births over deaths nationally. This was and still is due to a considerable skew in the age structure of the population towards younger breeding people, compared to the age structure of a stable population, in which the personal fertility rate would be the same as that of the whole population. So the effective national fertility rate is something well over 2. Indeed, about half of our population growth was made of up births and half from immigration, back in the mid 90s. Since then, immigration has moved ahead.

Can I ask; what do you want to happen with Australia’s population? Do you want it to keep growing rapidly? Do you want to slow the growth in the face of the obvious resource stresses of oil, water and lots of others? Do you want us to reach a limit? Do you want the population to increase specifically because of the aging issue? If so, to what extent?