Here's a little clarification for you, Ludwig.

>>So then, let me see if I’ve got this right – you have no problem with rapid population growth in Sydney, with no end in sight.<<

I don't see a problem that Sydney is growing. I don't see it as "rapid", it seems eminently sustainable to me. The problem with infrastructure is not that it is expensive, but that it lacks political will - discussions on a second airport, new railway lines, water supply etc. have been going on for decades, passed from one government to the next without a resolution. And because they can't make big decisions, they spend their time making small ones, those that limit the rights of the citizenry. Those are easy. Receptus ignavorum.

Compared to other major population centres, our government is lazy, inefficient, incompetent and quite often corrupt.

>>You have no problem with the obvious road congestion that it is causing or the stressing of all manner of infrastructure and services. <<

London. Rome. Berlin. New York. Los Angeles. Bangkok. Seoul. Jakarta.

I have to tell you that we stack up quite well in comparison.

>>You have no problem with the enormous expense needed to struggle to keep this I&S from completely going asunder, let alone actually improving it at all...etc<<

If I felt that my taxes were actually being spent on infrastructure, I'd be a lot happier. Sadly, there is so much waste on non-essential departments, salaries-and-perks and the endless non-decision-making processes. Do you know how much we have spent so far on failing to implement a unified ticketing system for public transport? Pathetic, institutionalized incompetence.

>>You don’t have an issue with the now quite large enclaves of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions in Sydney and the disharmony that has been demonstrated here and there (the Cronulla riots come to mind).<<

Ooops, you are beginning to show the real reason for your fears, Ludwig. You don't like immigrants.

I have no problem with immigration at all. Most immigrants are hard-working self-starters, who tend to show up the locals as laid-back loafers.

And Cronulla was... when, exactly?

And guess who else is showing the real reason for their stance. Real reasons apart from ego gratification that is.

(gosh Ludwig you must have stomped on his ego something bad to have him follow you around as he does from thread to thread)

"Most immigrants are hard-working self-starters, who tend to show up the locals as laid-back loafers"

You don't like the "locals" do you, Pericles?

But then again it's hardly surprising since many failed poms carry a chip on their shoulder about the "locals"

<< I suspect that you only read the intro, and chose not to read the rest >>

Pericles, yes I only read the intro. It was not at all clear that it was just the start of a much longer article. So I purchased the whole article and have now read it.

And lo and behold, the intro, as you would expect, pretty clearly outlines the main points and conclusion in the article, and yes my conclusions are just the same; Lomborg is off the rails with this one!

He writes: < Their [The Club of Rome’s] devastating collapse was predicted to occur just after 2010, so it may be too soon for that to be definitively falsified. But the trends to date offer little support for the gloom-and-doom thesis. >

It is indeed far too early to say that they were wrong. And by crikey, I see just a few [actually many very serious] indications that major upheaval is not far away.

< The basic point of The Limits to Growth seemed intuitive, even obvious: if ever-more people use ever-more stuff, eventually they will bump into the planet’s physical limits.

Yes, obvious indeed!


< So why did the authors get it wrong? Because they overlooked human ingenuity. >

We can’t say that they got it wrong just because it hasn’t happened yet!

Human ingenuity is extremely selective! Yes we can be good at technology, but we often use technology to drive us deeper into the global demand-and-supply crisis. And we are terribly dumb when it comes to controlling our expansionism or enormous impact on the environment and other species and on our own life-support systems. What about seriously depleted fisheries all around the world? We’ve used technology to improve our fishing capability, which in combination of ever-larger populations has greatly exacerbated the depletion of fish stocks. Brilliant!

continued

Pericles, you write:

<< We all know from the experience of the past few decades that economic growth has done far more to alleviate the misery of poverty around the world than any adherence to the strictures of "The Limits to Growth”… >>

Now hold on, if we’d had a considerably lower rate of population growth over that time, we’d no doubt have had a considerably better alleviation of poverty and increase in quality of life around the world. Population growth works against economic growth, or at least, against per-capita economic growth!

You say that Lomborg is only criticising alarmism and not the actual limits to growth philosophy. Well, that is not entirely clear from the article. And at any rate, it is just wrong!

What he calls alarmism was in fact totally fair and reasonable awareness and expression of a very real concern, which was appreciated by lots of people, if not by many governments. The timelines for predictions are not highly accurate, but what would you expect?

Thanks for the clarification Pericles.

<< …it seems eminently sustainable to me. >>

Wow!

<< The problem with infrastructure is not that it is expensive, but that it lacks political will - discussions on a second airport, new railway lines, water supply etc. have been going on for decades >>

Maybe that’s got more to do with these things being inherently very difficult to deal with than it does with government incompetence. No matter what the government does, it will result in considerable disapproval from one quarter or another.

Yes discussions on these things have been going on for decades. So um, why didn’t our government see the main causal factor and strive to stop population growth decades ago??

This is the biggest flaw in our governmental system – that both Lib and Lab just can’t help themselves but to continue stressing environments, services and infrastructure, and thus peoples’ quality of life, and making it very difficult indeed to implement solutions.

So actually, your great criticism of government being unable to make big decisions and do things efficiently is probably very closely connected to the most stupid thing that they do – facilitate rapid unending population growth! You criticise government for all sorts of stuff, but not for this! Doesn’t add up to me!

<< Compared to other major population centres, our government is lazy, inefficient, incompetent and quite often corrupt. >>

Is it?? Do you really think it is significantly worse than in London, Rome, Berlin, New York, Los Angeles, Bangkok, Seoul or Jakarta?

<< Ooops, you are beginning to show the real reason for your fears, Ludwig. You don't like immigrants. >>

You dearly wish this was true. But after our discussions over the last several years, you well and truly know that it ain’t so. And um, you haven’t confirmed or denied that you are concerned about enclaves and simmering racial/ethnic/religious tensions.

<< And Cronulla was... when, exactly? >>

2005 I believe. What’s the point of the question?

.

Thanks for your input, KarlX.

A simple point, Ludwig.

>>2005 I believe. What’s the point of the question?<<

One isolated incident of rowdiness, seven years ago, in which there were no casualties, is evidence of nothing except hooliganism. Which you brought up in the context of...

>>...now quite large enclaves of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions in Sydney and the disharmony that has been demonstrated here and there (the Cronulla riots come to mind)<<

Which causes one to ask, why did you bring it up in the first place, if not to highlight your anti-immigration posturing?

And I notice you only read the parts of his article that you agreed with:

>>Lomborg is off the rails with this one!<<

Did you perhaps glance at the graph that showed the difference between the Limits to Growth scenario and reality? Did you read the litany of examples where their "forecasts" were spectacularly wrong?

>>And by crikey, I see just a few [actually many very serious] indications that major upheaval is not far away.<<

Did you notice that even the IPCC is continuing to forecast global economic growth through the entire 21st century?

Did you read the reality behind our puny eforts at "recycling", which is a completely wasteful activity, a net consumption of money and manpower?

>>We can’t say that they got it wrong just because it hasn’t happened yet!<<

Do you know how silly that sounds? They all "forecast" disaster, which not only hasn't occurred, but is further away than when they made their predictions.

So, exactly what convinces you that Lomborg is "off the rails"?

Incidentally, KarlX

>>You don't like the "locals" do you, Pericles?<<

Yep. Love 'em. Especially the bludgers.