Efranke

"Bronwyn, Australia's permanent immigration intake is closer to 200,000 p.a. - the highest per capita immigration rate in the world."

I know that. I clearly stated 'skilled migration'. I wasn't including family migration or our humanitarian intake.

Another problem with our high skilled migration intake is that we are poaching trained and qualified people from countries who can ill afford to lose them.

Fester “What makes a great and prosperous country is an educated population more so than a large population.”

I would suggest the educated makes a better population however, what makes the great and prosperous country is “attitude”.

When an elector looks to everyone else to share the burden of his or her life it can be assumed the attitude is to drag all down to the lowest common level, socialism.

When electors look to self sufficiency for themselves and to support others with the surplus of their effort (philanthropy) we all benefit, libertarianism.

Now the greens, though their demand for central control and draconian regulation are the extreme socialists and thus will limit libertarian opportunity. This is the real agenda, the extreme left manifesto (call it by whatever name you like).

I prefer the libertarian attitude which benefits all by endowing the individual with the opportunity to philanthropy, rather than taxing the philanthropic values out through regressive taxation and regulation.

Someone wrote it very well a long time ago

We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.

Margaret Thatcher

So fester to your closing sentence

Yes - “It is technology and education that brings prosperity, not numbers.”

But it is individual innovation and invention which creates the technology and deploys the education in creation of prosperity.

All the “numbers” do is create consumers.

“Bronwyn “Another problem with our high skilled migration intake is that we are poaching trained and qualified people from countries who can ill afford to lose them.”

So we should deny people the improve their individual circumstances and sovereign right to migrate here ?

People are not property of countries, regardless of how those countries can “ill afford” to lose them

Dear AndrewBartlett,

I don't agree with your perception that we don't
need population control. We have to balance the
productivity of the continent against the population
growth.

Because if the population keeps increasing at its
current rate Australia won't be able to sustain it.
We currently have water supply shortages - affecting
population centres and agriculture,
power shortages, rising fuel costs, and imminent cost of
living increases resulting from alternative energy and
water production. That alone will not make Australia
an economically attractive place to settle.

We need to find long-term solutions (100 years), to guarantee
the survival of this continent. Otherwise, Australia may
follow the path of Central Africa, Western China, parts
of South America, the "dust-bowl" of the U.S., which have
been turned into desert areas.

We only have to read the news about the ever increasing
forest fires of California indicating that part of the
country is drier today, than it used to be in the past.
As the Governor of California said, "We used to have
a fire season every year, we now have fires every week."

It is a recorded fact, that of all the continents on earth,
Australia is the driest. This problem can no longer be
ignored, population control has to be part of the solution
for a sustainable future.

But Foxy, if we don't have continuous population growth, our financial base will stagnate. We have to increase the population in order to create demand. We live in a capitalistic society where growth produces power and wealth, well, at least for the ones who have a finger in the pie.
If we don't increase the population and hence, demand, how will people be able to afford that new, smaller, petrol sipping car they need in order to beat the ever rising cost of fuel? We cannot have a country whereby the financial base stalls and people have to live within their means! Fancy not being able to afford the plasma TV or a trail bike for the spoilt little brats?

The resource base isn't growing as fast as the population. In fact it's declining rapidly. We're very close to peak oil, if we've not indeed reached it already and people will be forced to live within their means and ability. Peak phosphorous is another issue which is helping to push the price of fertiliser past the farmers ability to pay for the stuff. Past and continuing practices have depleted Australia's fragile top soils to the point whereby the easiest option is to continue with more of the same, yet those farmers are struggling to do just that.

But times are changing. Old mother nature is fighting back and won't put up for much longer with an ever growing population problem. I'm hopeful that once the capitalistic system is finally dead and buried, we can engage in population debate that produces a meaningful outcome.

Col

Private, public and judicial are all limbs of the same beast. For me it is more a case of a balanced physique than amputation.

AndrewBartlett, I’m not going to take you up on this topic. You and I have been over all of this exhaustively on this forum. All that I am going to say here is that I think you gravely wrong.