Does the end of growth mean, inventions have come to an end.
Are underdeveloped countries going to stay that way.
Chinese are becoming consumers. Indonesia is set for massive growth.
I would like to see more on the subject before i come to a conclusion that growth can end.
European countries are further depressing their country, it's debatable if that is the right way to go.
The more out of work, the less tax revenue. So how does that pay debt.
We can do that here because, one state is not Australia. The size of qld could house 3 European countries.
If you force people back to the stone age, that is where you will stay.

Dear Ludwig,

<<So you are saying that we should have completely open borders and that anyone who wants to move here should be able to do so, uninhibited?>>

I was simply answering your question: "What's unfair about it".

You can choose to be fair or otherwise, that's a different matter altogether. You can choose to put practical economic considerations ahead of morality - and let us not kid ourselves, most people do so!

Just please, don't excuse yourself saying it is your fundamental duty (or the government's duty, in your name) to do so, please do not roll your eyes to heaven with excuses, but look straight into the eyes of those who want to come to this continent and tell them "piss off, I rather retain my economic standard of living than allow you into MY continent".

You do what you want - in the end you will do so anyway, I simply bring forth the moral argument:

1) You are under absolutely no obligation to allow new people into the society you created and the economic benefits it offers.

2) You have no divine prerogative to deny entry of others into a whole continent.

How to reconcile between the two? Well, you need to distinguish between those who want to come because they want your society and those who want to come to one of God's continents. On a practical level, one way is to deny citizenship and any benefits from newcomers (unless of course you choose to welcome them, it's your right), allowing them to starve if need be; another is to make them pay the above fee in advance, thus ensuring they did not come for economic reasons.

Yuyutsu, you are completely missing the imperative of sustainability, and what it means to not be sustainable.

How immoral is it for our government to keep on driving our whole society towards some sort of enormous crash event or at least a very significant and unevenly distributed decline in quality of life?

We need to make sure that our society doesn’t reach a point of high stress, collapse of the rule of law, civil strife, critical resource-supply issues and a scenario in which the powerful, aggressive and ruthless come to dominate completely.

It is not a matter of denying people from overseas the same lifestyle as we have in this country; it is a matter of sensibly managing that sort of morality with the sustainability morality.

The latter MUST take priority.

By the way, net zero immigration would still be a fairly substantial level of immigration, in which we would have the capacity to double our refugee intake and still have an essential skills category and the family reunion that goes with it.

Dear Ludwig,

<<How immoral is it for our government to keep on driving our whole society towards some sort of enormous crash event>>

Certainly immoral!

I hold that for government to drive society ANYWHERE is immoral, but in this case it is not only immoral, but also stupid.

<<We need to make sure that our society doesn’t reach a point of high stress...>>

We may wish that goal, but in an absolute sense we can't make sure anything, because nature's forces can be stronger and abrupt. Also, though desirable, we shouldn't attempt to achieve even the noblest of goals using immoral means.

Nevertheless, I agree that actively supporting immigration at this time, as opposed to merely and passively allowing it on moral grounds, is totally stupid.

Let me reiterate: allowing individuals to immigrate into the continent of Australia does not mean that we have to grant them citizenship or a visa, it does not imply that we must pick them up from their sinking boats, it does not mean that we must give them welfare or medical treatment, or food, or shelter, or education, or anything else. It does not even mean that we don't drive them away from places where they create trouble. All it means is that we respect their freedom to roam the earth in their capacity of living-beings (or animals if you rather see it this way).

A negative net immigration would be nice to have. I agree that we should aim for population reduction rather than increase (however, I do not consider standing everyone in a row and shooting every 3rd person as a valid approach to achieve that).

579, the basic principle is that growth is energy.
Most financial people think that growth is money.
That is why we are seeing various governments issuing pixel money like
there is no tomorrow.

>Does the end of growth mean, inventions have come to an end.
No, but inventions will be much more towards doing more with less
energy and doing things with personal energy.

>Are underdeveloped countries going to stay that way.
In a word yes, but if they reduce their population they will get more
per person out of the energy that they do have.

>Chinese are becoming consumers.
They are already energy limited, which is why their growth is falling.
So far they have had some growth because the "west" has reduced its
energy demand.
They will never be consumers like the west because the resources are not there.

> Indonesia is set for massive growth.
It will not happen, their oil production is in fairly steep decline
about 4% I believe, and they are now an oil importer.
Likewise their coal production is declining, although they still export.
Their physical area cannot support about 200 million people.
One report was that they cannot support 200 million if they have to
use animal power for farming.

Continued

There is another problem, the financial system cannot finance interest
and debt capital repayment out of the low current growth and peak
credit has appeared.
This is not something I had thought of previously but Richard
Heinberg spoke of it at a talk I attended last week.
No one is prepared to issue credit as there is too much outstanding
debt in the world that will be defaulted upon.

Watch how bankers and government treasurers etc complain that they
have not been able to get growth despite their "Quantitative Easing".
Why don't they just call it as it is, money printing or pixel money ?
It is because many in the US & Europe are afraid of it.

There are a number of books on End of Growth, one by that name by
Richard Heinberg and Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller
by Jeff Rubin.

Google them, plenty of Utubes talks and web info.