NathanJ, the "technology" is already there. It's been there for the past 100 years. Solar power, dams, electric power, wind power, tidal power, battery power, ships, cars, trucks, trains, steam power, machines of all sorts etc etc etc... the list is virtually endless.

The problem is NOT lack of technology.

*THE* problem is mankind itself, shown by it's utter inability (to date) to correctly manage (1) itself (2) the planet's finite resources.

(1)"Itself" ... mankind CONTINUALLY fights, murders, tortures, invades, expels, hates, imposes, dictates, harms etc etc. This happens REGARDLESS of population numbers and is *THE* major cause by FAR, of famines, starvation, distress etc etc.

(2)"The planet's finite resources" ... mankind continually mismanages the planet's resources. It ONLY makes major changes when directly THREATENED by lack of change. For example, certain cities in China are now blighted by horrid air pollution, and China is now *FORCED* by necessity to plan changes. The same applies to every single form of resource management. Mankind exploits, makes it's profit and moves on ...... Why? Simply because it can. Over the next 500 years or so, mankind will more fully realise it can't do that and have a sustainable Earth at the same time. Mankind will slowly *CHANGE* itself, because it has no choice. Change will be forced, because survival will depend on change ....that's mother nature doing her job.

So, *THE* problem is absolutely *NOT* migration as you claim in the first post.

Conclusion: *THE* problem is the "current" intellectual biology of mankind, that dictates that mankind will not act until it feels threatened. Population number, in and of itself, is not the actual "problem".

OK Pericles, I must say: you seem to be really squirming and struggling to explain that what you said is not what you meant, replete with a lot of put-downs of me for assuming that it was!!

Alright, I’ll assume then that the way I interpreted what you wrote, on at least a couple of occasions in your recent posts, is not what you intended and indeed was close to the opposite of what you intended.

I do find that very strange, as I am intimately familiar with your writing style. But so be it.

So then, I take it that you DON’T believe that it is all about the per-capita footprint and that the number of ‘capitas’ is indeed a major factor in determining the overall footprint of Australians or those of any other nation or of all humans on the planet.

And indeed that a reduction in our average per-capita footprint if accompanied by continued high population growth is not going to get us very far at all.

And that any realistic attempt to address our per-capita footprint MUST be accompanied by an attempt to reduce the rate of increase in the number of resource-consumers and environmental-impacters and to bring the total number to a stable level at some point not too far into the future.

So, if you really do think that we are on the same side of the argument here, regarding the need to reduce our average per-capita footprint, then you should also be on the same side as me regarding the slashing of immigration in Australia and the stabilisation of our population.

However, our past discussions have shown that you are certainly not of this view.

So could you please clarify your stance. Thankyou.

Ludwig wrote, "you seem to be really squirming and struggling".

Yet again, Ludwig starts with personal abuse (as usual).

Pericles, you asked:

<< are you in favour of a larger, or smaller, per capita ecological footprint? >>

That’s actually a very interesting question. Lots of things come into consideration…

When considering all global citizens: for all those who are really struggling to get by, I would wish them a higher standard of living, which would necessitate having a larger average per-capita footprint. While all those with a very high level of affluence should pull it back quite considerably.

However, it depends a great deal on the size of the population, the rate of population growth and the ability for the environment, resource base and technological regime to supply all the necessities of life as to whether people could have a higher standard-of-living / footprint or should reduce it. It depends on these things at the global level and at national and local levels as well.

These variables are quite different in different countries or regions of the world, and even within countries. So it all becomes a little bit complex.

Suffice to say: we should be working towards a paradigm of sustainability, where the resource base and manufacturing/technological/value-adding systems are capable of supporting the population, in an ongoing manner, with a big safety margin. And the per-capita ecological footprint, along with the number of ‘capitas’ needs to be determined within that framework.

We should be planning for per-capita consumption and waste-production rates, and population levels, to be well within our best estimates of the ability of the resource base to support it and for the environmental to absorb the waste products. In other words, we should be well and truly erring on the side of caution.

Pericles, I presume the WWF "hectares" are useful land, not desert, which is what most of our continent is.

Nhoj, you already did your unholy alliance shtick.

I have no need to use this "tool" to argue against mass pancultural immigration.
All I need is common sense.

Millions of extra people from 6000 ethnicities does not a happy future make.
It makes a mess.
An unlivable, unworkable mess.

"for 200 years to this present day, has been incredibly inefficient and badly planned."

Right, so future eggheads will solve everything we couldn't?

"*THE* problem is mankind itself"

And immigrants are what species?

If mankind is the problem, adding more humans (often from less technologically/educationally advanced countries) isn't going to help.

Mankind's fundamental character is not going to change, so we need to deal with what's real, not hope some ideal "better" humans come along someday with their perfect "plans".

"Over the next 500 years or so, mankind will more fully realise it can't do that and have a sustainable Earth at the same time."

So how can we implement our magical solutions while not restricting mass movements of people?

Wouldn't uncontrolled movement/increase flush our brilliant "plans" down the toilet?

Yuyutsu, population increase "by womb" has been declining in Australia and all Western countries for decades, so that's not really the issue, is it?

"we have no right to forcibly impose our desires on others."

Are not immigrants forcibly imposing their primarily materialist desires on us?

If they desire our living standards, it's *their* responsibility to create that in their own homelands, not parasitically leech of our success.

"not providing any economic incentives at the tax-payer's expense."

And how much are we spending on immigration bureaucracy (and I don't just mean detention centres)?

"I also don't get all I want, that's life!"

And neither should potential immigrants expect to get what they want: permanent settlement, no resistance/exclusion by locals, government funding of minority community activities.
Gimme, gimme, gimme!

"You don't need to offer migrants welfare and you don't need to allow them into cities either, where infrastructure is a problem. You have no moral right however, to deny them entry into the whole of one of earth's blessed continents"

So how can we permit entry (to potentially billions), but make sure they don't live in cities?
Unworkable fairytale nonsense.

To all, it really doesn't matter what the WWF, ABS or anyone else says.
What matters is what *we*, the current population, want.

If we want less/no immigration, no water restrictions, big backyards, meat every day, gadgets galore, then to hell with other people's opinions or desires, or what is potentially "feasible".

This is *our* society, our air, our water, our space, our streets.