Who benefits from larger pop Big business definitely not average australians

@Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 June 2014 12:44:45 AM, "Yet all these years the Australian government keeps paying people for having babies"

The thread is about 'population intake'. Rightly so after so many complained about Kevin Rudd's personal goal of a 'Big Australia'.

Australians achieved zero population growth many decades ago. The over-enthusiastic population growth that some here are complaining about is due to new immigration records being set year after year. Not something that governments have ever asked Australians about of course.

In fact government reports say that young Aussie couples are not having the children they want and that is likely because they are so burdened by the taxation to pay for welfare and infrastructure for those thousands of migrants who arrive each year. That is why Aussie women must defer children whether they want to or not, and may later require IVF and other expensive medical interventions.

As reports by a committee of the UK House of Lords and other reports since have found, migration benefits migrants but not the host country - unless of course one is referring to the CEOs of big business who depend on population growth to boost their own pay bonuses.

This "ecological footprint" tool is not an empirical, mathematical ecological tool, it's a *POLITICAL* tool. Two types of politics use this tool for their *POLITICAL/CULTURAL/IDEOLOGICAL* purposes.

One group, traditional "old time" greenies (who reject technology wherever possible) use it as a warning that population growth in Australia is bad and unsustainable ( based on "current" land practices). The more advanced, intelligent, informed greenies are not of this "old time" ilk.

The other group is the racists/culturalists in our society who use these types of "ecological footprints" as a tool to campaign to stop migration. They don't want black people here(or those of Asian/middle eastern appearance) based on racial/cultural grounds.

The *FACT* is that land use has, for 200 years to this present day, has been incredibly inefficient and badly planned. It's not the lack of land, lack of arable land, lack of water, lack of resources that's the problem ... the problem is the shockingly bad way these resources are managed. Fix up this problem, and Australia can prosper magnificently with 10 times the current population (done gradually over 100 years or more). That's actually what WILL happen over the next 100 years or more, and it will be VERY successful indeed.

*THAT'S* the real solution in the "real" world.

Banning migrants just panders to the racists/culturalists/xenophobics amongst us with their *POLITICAL/IDEOLOGICAL* dogma of Fortress Australia.

Dear OnTheBeach,

I understand Nathan's initial post, but I agree only partially.

Given that population is too high, we should want to reduce all new arrivals, whether by boat, by plane or by womb. Not only should population-levels stop increasing - they should come down.

However, you may well be aware of my repeated position, that while we want things in life, possibly many things, we have no right to forcibly impose our desires on others.

So while we should not outlaw new arrivals of any kind, all we can and should do is to avoid encouraging it, especially by not providing any economic incentives at the tax-payer's expense.

<<young Aussie couples are not having the children they want>>

So what? I also don't get all I want, that's life!

<<and that is likely because they are so burdened by the taxation to pay for welfare and infrastructure for those thousands of migrants who arrive each year.>>

And am I not burdened by that same taxation? 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 (as opposed to admitting them as equal members into Australian society, which you have every right to deny).

<<That is why Aussie women must defer children whether they want to or not, and may later require IVF and other expensive medical interventions.>>

Women should receive medals for doing the responsible thing and deferring having children. I would inscribe there in gold "V/I" - "Victory over Instincts". While it would not be proper to deny/criminalise IVF services, they should not be subsidised by the tax-payer either.

Nhoj,

It's not about people "who reject technology wherever possible" - I'm using a computer right now - I'm asking directly about where these technological solutions are now - and how these "resources", that do exist - will be managed in the future.

Then of course there are the flow on effects that come from from no solutions and the impacts of increased population. From the ABS website: "Taking too much water out of Australia’s river and groundwater systems can have detrimental economic and environmental consequences. There is added pressure on the system due to climatic conditions, which affect native animal and plant populations, agricultural production and water availability for human consumption."

At the present moment there isn't any real technology or solutions that addresses the serious impacts of human overpopulation worldwide - so I don't see how Australia is suddenly going to come up with something - but I'll change my mind if people can provide me with any real, scientific, facts based evidence.

Western world countries in terms of a throw away society are the worst - and you obviously seemed to ignore my figures on the average waste per person in Australia. This is easy for people who are not part of this policy, as you have stated previously, and that is why many like you do not face up to the realities of other people. Their literally "junkifying" our planet! You are not thankfully.

Visit a webpage like: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-23/close-up-of-rubbish-in-a-canberra-landfill-generic/4028576 to see what is happening junk wise. We don't want Australia filled with it.

The world is quite concerned as they should be.

The equation is quite simple.

The words…..”Smaller and smarter”….means to concentrate the wealth.

Kat