Yuyutsu,

You and Pericles seem to think that Australia has this enormous carrying capacity and is behaving like a dog in the manger. As I posted in the link above, Australia is what demographers call a "big little country", lots of territory, but most of it uninhabitable. These soil and rainfall maps are from Dr. Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

For comparison see this rainfall map of the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_precipitation_in_the_lower_48_states_of_the_USA.png

World inherent soil quality map from the US Dept. of Agriculture

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/worldsoils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054011

Grain is directly or indirectly the source of most of our calories. Australia has about 47.7 million hectares of arable land (about 6% of our total land area). In 2012, average grain production was 2.2 tonnes per hectare. France has 18.7 million hectares of arable land and produced 7.5 tonnes of grain per hectare in that year. In other words, we could only produce 75% of what was produced in France, even when we were having a good year. France has far more reliable rainfall than we do, consistently producing these sorts of yields, but we only got 1.1 tonnes per hectare in 2006. We produce about 3 times as much as we consume in a good year and 1.6 times as much in a drought year.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-05-06/can-we-feed-“big-australia”

Then there is the question of whether existing yields can be maintained. We have serious problems with land degradation

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/8896/landdegr.pdf

We can also expect problems with scarce and/or expensive agricultural inputs, such as oil and phosphate rock. Climate change is also a big unknown, with possibly very negative effects. Real food prices on the world market have been very high

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/food-prices-and-social-unrest-chart-2012-11

The Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit for our population in 1994. How can you and Nhoj be sure that you know better?

Dear Divergence,

<<You and Pericles seem to think that Australia has this enormous carrying capacity>>

I haven't followed Pericles, but where have I said anything like that, especially that I am among the last to think so?

<< I suspect you are correct about the costs of immigration but gaining access to the figures is another matter. >>

Banjo, figures of that sort are indeed very hard to get hold of. It would certainly be nice to have some numbers, but I don’t think it is essential to my (our) argument.

It is surely blatantly obvious that massive immigration requires massive expenditure on new infrastructure and services as well generating the need for expenditure on improving existing I & S… and that all of this is indeed of massive proportions.

Popnperish mentioned a figure recently – immigration costs 80billion$ per annum just in the duplication of infrastructure. I have been unable to find out where this figure comes from, but I do trust popnperish to put up real and justifiable stats.

Thanks for the reference to Divergence’s post. She puts up some interesting links there.

Yuyutsu,

You said, "...nobody has the right to deny others access to the whole of one of God's blessed continents" and mentioned boundless plains somewhere else. This appears very close to a Cornucopian optimist point of view. Of course, if there isn't enough to go around, what is to prevent these uninvited migrants from fighting for their share of the resources? A wise government will keep population in balance with carrying capacity and maintain good safety margins.

On another point, fertility rates are very responsive to economic conditions. Look at what economic insecurity has done to fertility rates in Eastern and Southern Europe. Also see Joel Kotkin on the strong inverse correlation between high density housing and fertility rates.

Dear Divergence,

<<This appears very close to a Cornucopian optimist point of view.>>

But I never hinted at optimism. I don't know enough about economics and the like to tell whether this will be "good" or "bad" for the economy. All I know is that when something is wrong, morally, you just don't do it, period!

Kicking people out of the continent is morally wrong, even if we would prefer them not to be here.

<< what is to prevent these uninvited migrants from fighting for their share of the resources?>>

It depends what you mean by "fight". If it involves violence, then you have a right to fight back in self-defence.

<<A wise government will keep population in balance with carrying capacity and maintain good safety margins.>>

Yes and as the first step it should stop encouraging procreation. At 9 months notice, there should be no more family-payments for new babies, no more public-funded health, child-care, maternity-leave and schooling, etc. for those born after. At the same stroke, forbidding people to have babies, as in China, is morally repugnant, hence it should not be done - despite the detrimental effects of having more people on the land, which we agree on. If it is wrong, then you should not do it, period.

Yuyutsu,

If something will lead to the collapse of a society, with possibly millions of deaths, then it is wrong, period. Open borders is that sort of thing. You are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the policies that you advocate. If you have no right to camp out in someone's house or garden without their permission, then why should you have a right to camp out in the territory of a nation state unless its people give you permission?