Foxy posted this article on another thread. I think the subject is worthy of a deal of discussion and reading this article is a good place to start. Don't expect the pollys to discuss population. Both major parties have a mutual agreement not to debate population or immigration, but leave it up to the party in power.

Why do we need a high immigration rate?

Why don't we educate our own skilled workers?

Why do we import many that obviously have alien cultural practices?

These questions need asking.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Here's the link cited earlier - which although
is a few years old, it's even more relevant
today as our population is increasing past
the levels we were told could be sustainable:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/how-many-is-too-many-australias-people-problem-20100218-Ogfp.html

We do need to have this discussion if we want a
sustainable Australia. We can not continue to ignore the
results that high population growth has on this country -
things like water shortages, increasing polution, expensive
re-building of our cities and infrastructure, to name just
a few. Population growth causes many of our major
economic, environmental and social problems - yet successive
governments continue to push it higher.

The link is worth a read.

To me productive immigrants (ones who want to work) are a useful addition to a country like Australia, because of the aging population..

But welfare for lifers,and people who do not want to assimilate with our culture and are opposed to it are definitely a burden and a danger.

Category 1 accept lots.
Category 2 accept none and get rid of the ones we have here.

Foxy wants an honest discussion about immigration? ROFL!

The article makes many valid points, but any attempt to discuss even the *quantity* of immigrants is always met with the Pavlovian screams of "Racist! Fascist! Nazi!", whether you discuss water, jobs or anything else.

It isn't even the quantity that matters most.
It's the quality.

We could have free movement (like with New Zealand) if it was restricted to advanced countries *only*.

There will always be a billion Third Worlders who want to migrate to richer countries.
There would be much less movement *between* the advanced countries, even if it was unregulated.

But, the "problem" is most of those advanced countries are filled with White people, so no, such a policy will immediately be labelled "racist" and dismissed without any consideration.

No change is going to happen with immigration policy until it's too late.
Only when our society is disintegrating in front of our eyes will most people "wake up".

Too late then.
Prosperity, peace and pleasantries will have already vanished from our land and may never return, no matter what policy we introduce at the 11th hour.

Interesting distinction, Philip S.

>>But welfare for lifers,and people who do not want to assimilate with our culture and are opposed to it are definitely a burden and a danger.<<

Can we at the same time get rid of the welfare for lifers that already live here? That would make room for a heck of a lot more people who are willing to work, and who would then be able to drive the Australian economy to dizzying heights.

Mind you, Canberra would quickly become a deserted wasteland of ugly buildings and empty, windy streets.

Oh, wait.

Philip S, "To me productive immigrants (ones who want to work) are a useful addition to a country like Australia, because of the aging population"

Does it really help, or does it add for example through family reunion, to the aging population though (and also increasing the load on health services as well)?

The report of that special committee of the House of Lords UK arrived at the conclusion that migration only benefits migrants, for example. The report has been linked to before on similar threads.

How to measure the ongoing burden and loss of quality of life where things go wrong through inappropriate, in fact reckless, risk taking in immigration? The example of Rotherham for instance, where a political system with values, traditions and culture toxic to the UK's was imported with unexpected long lasting negative consequences.

I clicked on this discussion because the topic sounded interesting, but then I was disappointed to find yet another cultural-protectionist drivel.

Lowering population levels is indeed important because the more people live on the land - the more regulations are required to keep them from stepping on each other's toes, thus our individual freedoms are compromised. However, the majority of people here have arrived through their mother's womb rather than by planes and boats.

Before, as an individual, you can make such a decision you have to consider what
resources are available, are those resources renewable and if not or they are slow to
renew, can we import more people without causing shortages in vital products.
Of course these products are in my order of priority, water, food, energy, shelter.
The more people the smaller the share, so it becomes a matter of what is the quantity
available ?
You just cannot divide the resources by the amount needed per person and come up with
the number of people possible because for water you have to allow for a 10 year drought.

Now all that would be loverly if you were starting from scratch, but we are not.
So, we have to step back and examine our resources and see which is the most critical.
Well, surprise surprise, it is liquid energy. we have none, zilch, zero, nowt !
Alright, alright Rhosty, I know but we don't know if it is affordable.
We have a lot of coal and quite a bit of gas.
We have enough food and enough water, if the AGWs are wrong.

So if you want to live in a gunnyah and tend your gardens by hand then bring in as
many as you like.

So we are over the limit with energy to a large extent as we rely on others for supply.
This may mean we will have to rely on steam engines if liquid fuel becomes unreliable.
The ERoEI of Solar and Wind is too low to bootstrap an economy and there is doubt
that solar and wind can maintain a non fossil fuel economy once you build it with fossil fuels.

What all this means that we do not have the economic space for a larger population
and indeed there is a real risk that we have already overshot.

Some really good comments here. The Australian Academy of Science looked at this issue from the environment and resources point of view back in 1994 and came to the conclusion that 23 million was a safe upper limit.

http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section8.pdf
http://www.science.org.au/australian-academy-science%E2%80%99s-role-sustainable-population-debate

Here is a link to the 2008 UK House of Lords report on immigration referred to by OTB, and it is just as skeptical about economic benefits as he says.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeconaf/179/179.pdf

Our own Productivity Commission modeled doubling skilled immigration in their 2006 report on immigration. They found a per capita economic benefit of less than $400, almost entirely going to the migrants themselves and the owners of capital. They found that the wage depression effects meant that for the bulk of the population, income would be increasing more slowly than would otherwise be the case. They didn't even consider the environmental and resource issues brought up by Bazz and others, or urban amenity, infrastructure costs, house prices, etc.

So why are our elite pushing these very high numbers, when they are making us very little better off on average and are causing a whole lot of other problems? We could have the real cultural and educational benefits from immigration with much lower numbers that wouldn't blow out the population. I believe that this is because the distributional effects are so good for the grasping sociopaths at the top of our society. More people mean bigger markets, easy profits from real estate speculation (and from lending the money to buy the houses and collecting the stamp duty), and a cheap, compliant work force, with people desperately afraid of losing their jobs in an oversupplied labour market. The Australia Institute has estimated the value of unpaid overtime at $119 billion. Furthermore, the people at the top are insulated by their wealth from a lot of the downside, and can fob a lot of the costs off onto the community as a whole, as you might have noted from looking at your utility bills.

Big business and their puppet governments are simply focusing on "Growth", to the exclusion of any other considerations.
It works for them, and be damned to the rest of us!
The fact that a vast majority in this alleged "democracy" are opposed to further immigration, let alone the refugee intake, is totally irrelevant, "THEY" know what's good for us and they are the rulers so shut up and move over Pleb, do as you're told!
They can dress it up any way they like but that's the situation in essence.
Until the Aussie voters start thinking and acting in their own interests by kicking out the Party Duopoly and breaking with the Multinationals who control them we are doomed to be the victims of their obsessive greed.

"Until the Aussie voters start thinking and acting in their own interests by kicking out the Party Duopoly and breaking with the Multinationals who control them we are doomed to be the victims of their obsessive greed."

Therein lays the crutch of the problem the populations of almost every democratic country world face. People power has been swallowed by self serving control system for the rich. Where are we going to find a realistic, common sense, pragmatic alternative with a leader who possesses the charisma to gather a big enough following?

Not only is the old guard fully entrenched in the political system disguised as one of two parties, generally speaking the fringe parties attract just enough loonies to make it impossible to take them seriously. The dynamic and/or charismatic leaders with vision that we all long to see either get disgraced by some minor incident in their past, fall victim to the power and corruption, or in a worse case scenario get assassinated.

I left the USA in 1985 because I hated Reagan. NZ seemed to be the only sensible country in the world at the time, but then it too stopped listening to the will of the people. By 2000 I was convinced democracy in NZ was nothing more than lip service. Coming to Australia I've found where I want to live out my days but the politics in this country are every bit as screwed up as the places I left. Clive Palmer is a shining example of just how bad its become.

The frustrating reality is that only the politicians can legislate the changes and drive the improvements in government. But in doing so many would become redundant and therefore have no incentive. 'Serving the People' sounds great, but its a pipe dream.

Well said CH.
The correct phrase is "the crux of the problem", but in this case I reckon your's is far more accurate!
As I've said before, the great social movements of the recent past, the anti-vietnam war movement, feminism etc, scared the power elites and as a direct result we got multiculturalism and PC etc foisted on us, anything to divide us and create dissension and social tension.
"Divide and Rule".
Combine that with a compliant Media and the dumbing-down of Education and it works only too well, sadly.

All this is rather naïve.

Yes to me Sydney, so the rest of the country, was overpopulated when I could no longer drive it to the city, park in Pit or Castlereagh St. & take my girl to the pictures.

However to believe we would not descend into chaos if we caused a major slowdown in the building & building materials industries is kidding ourselves.

Much as I hate it, I don't think governments of either persuasion have any other way of maintaining an ordered society, than to maintain a requirement for new housing, & the other activity this brings in train. We climbed on the growth band wagon, & I'm not sure we can get off without a crash.

I moved out here to get as far as possible away from a city, & still commute. When I was the first rural watch coordinator for our dead end road, we had eleven houses on our 2 & 1/2 mile road. Now there are 56, & more on new side streets. Just 8 kilometres away is a 50,000 satellite city growing rapidly in what was a pine forest.

A really huge workforce is dependent on this growth. If anyone has a realistic answer on how to replace those jobs I'd love to hear it, as I am sure our politicians would too.

Well Hasbeen, thats the rub.
We are going into a slowdown, low growth, call it what you will.
Europe is there already, Germany is in recession, Greece, Italy & Spain are moribund
the US is losing its grip on the boost it got from tight oil & gas.
Japan has been pretending all is well as it faces the cost of 10 oil tankers arriving every
day from the Middle East, hence the restarting of nuclear power.
China facing local government bankruptcy and slowing growth.

In Aussie, thousands demonstrate in the street because of belt tightening on their pet
TV station. How out of touch with reality can you get ?
Really really one day the ground will open up and swallow them !

Hazzer, I think you may possibly be being naive yourself in sticking to the worn-out fallacy that we need eternal growth to maintain our nation.
There's a finite limit to everything, and a slow down in building won't be as much of a disaster as all the other job losses we've suffered with the demented and almost treasonous destruction of our manufacturing sector that successive governments have caused.
Build a defence industry, embrace the green change that's sweeping the rest of the world, begin some major infrastructure projects, recreate our automotive sector, the spin-offs in employment and wealth creation would quickly absorb any losses in the building industry, if there were any, all of those industries would create a massive need for buildings and builders.
The problems we now face, and will face, are the result of our politicians total lack of real vision and their determination to feather their own nests rather than work for the betterment of our nation and citizens.
Without that vision and drive we face a bleak future, and without an income who's going to be able to buy all those new houses you want built?
As the FTA's our governments are so fond of kick us in the face our unemployment will soar and the building industry will implode and die anyway.
Importing endless numbers of migrants and refugees will only exacerbate the situation rather than solve it, more costs, less access to the necessities of life, less taxpayers, more social disorder, what sort of Australia would YOU like to see? One with drive and wealth, employment and a future, or a miserable decaying society swamped with strife and poverty?
It's a stark choice we face, and building endless rows of unaffordable houses will not solve or prevent that collapse.

Hasbeen wrote, "... However to believe we would NOT descend into chaos if we caused a major slowdown in the building & building materials industries is kidding ourselves."

"... We climbed on the growth band wagon, & I'm not sure we can get off without a crash."

The sooner we 'crash' the less catastrophic the crash will be.

In previous times, Australia was able to confront:

1. the threats posed to us by Nazi Germany, imperial Japan during the Second World War;
2. the Great Depression; and
3. the First World War.[1]

The challenge of building industries not dependent upon the perpetual importation of new home occupants would surely be easy in comparison.

But our governments won't make the effort to create ways for us to earn our livelihoods that do not depend on high immigration.

They won't because they represent a small minority of vested interests who perversely gain from the degradation of our natural environment and the impoverishment of our society as a whole. They gain by, amongst other effects:

1. the driving up the cost of housing because more people need a roof over their head; and

2. lower wages as a result of a larger pool of unemployed people.

FOOTNOTE[S]

[1] Douglas the author of "Hell-Bent - Australia's leap into the Great War" (2014) might not agree.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears Malthusista suggests in the previous post that Australia needs an economic crash; one reason being to bring about an increase in the low wages suffered by our impoverished society.

The so called low wages are a mirage created by the Labor Party and Unions. The 'low wages' in Australia have destroyed productivity and manufacturing competitiveness as well as taking a toll on small business. Get real - Australia has some of the highest wage rates in the world and unfortunately a working culture of laziness that expects perks and penalty rates just for showing up. Add on the super contributions and loading for casual workers and you get people like Malthusita still complaining. When a housekeeper, waiter or dish washer's base rate is over $20/hour, the wages are not low.

Reality Check (from 2012, it's worse now):

“Out of the 20 or so countries listed on The Economist’s Big Mac Index (countries that also have minimum wages — Italy and Germany do not, for example) from 2012, the U.S. has the 7th highest minimum wage on an absolute basis, about the median number,” say the strategists. “The absolute lowest federal minimum wage is in Sierra Leone, where workers can expect just $US0.03/hour. India is the lowest among larger economies with a $US0.28/hour rate. Australia is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with a whopping $US16.88 hourly mandated wage.”

ConHip, do minimum wages really matter ?
Everything will become local anyway. Globalisation is ending, which shows how out
of touch the FTA seeking politicians have become.
The cost of container shipping will rise further because expensive 25knot ships are
running at 15knots to save fuel, and it goes on and on.
China is stockpiling copper instead of gold.
All these little signals and no one to put them all together to ring a loud bell.

I think I will go back to bed.

Pericles "get rid of the welfare for lifers that already live here? That would make room for a heck of a lot more people who are willing to work"

So those dole bludgers will just vanish into thin air, will they?
No, they'll be sleeping on your doorstep and stealing your new large screen TV.
Cut welfare and you increase crime. Smart move.

Yuyutsu "cultural-protectionist drivel"

I bet you wouldn't say that to Tibetans, Chechens, Basque or any of the hundreds of other "peoples" fighting (sometimes literally) for their survival.

The displacement of White/Western peoples by massive pancultural immigration will one day be seen as one of the most EVIL crimes in history.

The Nazis killed millions. YOU are destroying *dozens* of entire peoples/cultures and their civilisation!
The fact that this evil is presented as virtuous and beneficial just makes it all the more evil.

There is a difference between pancultural immigration (now) and multicultural immigration (what we always had).
Europe has dozens of cultures and migrants came from all of them during the White Australia era.
They were similar/related people, causing little disruption/destabilisation of the existing demographics/culture.

Panculturalism is insanity, pure insanity.
There are over 6000 peoples/cultures in the world and *all* these peoples now have to live harmoniously with *all* the others.
If not, our society disintegrates.

At present, there's stability only because the change is relatively recent (two generations?).
No, we are not on the "brink" of White genocide, but it is inevitable with 80% non-European immigration.

We have a right to exist as a distinct people, as do the Dutch, Irish, Swedes and all the other European peoples being subjected to this evil-with-smiley-face recklessness.

I recently found a website called "Exit White Power" which attempts to "debunk" white nationalism.

Their argument seems to consists of 3 main points:
1. If your don't conform to peer pressure, you are ostracised/punished.
2. Most are Australians are still White, so no meed to panic.
3. Cultural diversity enhances "cognitive flexibility".

Point 1 applies to virtually any social group from Muslims to feminists to anti-racists. Redundant. There are virtually no true "individuals" who make their own decisions/choices. Most people are part of some "gang" or another.

Point 2. No, we are not going to see White people vanish next week, but it will happen given current immigration trends.
The fact the this genocide will unfold very, very slowly doesn't make it any less evil.

Point 3. There are a million ways to boost your "cognitive flexibility" that don't involve an irreversible, unprecedented, radical demographic transformation.
The Western world alone in the past century has produced a myriad of cultural forms.

If you must seek out the exotic for stimulation, you can do this without moving millions of people across borders.

This is the Information Age, the Digital Age, the Internet Age.
Any cultural element you desire is a keyboard click away.
Music, films, books, fabric/clothing, decorations/furnishings, recipes, anything at all.
All available online, and posted to your mailbox.

Having neighbours from 6000 cultures doesn't necessarily enhance anyone's "cognitive flexibility" since most people in cities don't even know who their neighbours ARE!

And diversity at work means little, since everyone is doing the same work anyway.
The Chinese clerk is not processing forms or packing parcels any differently from the Turk or Zulu in the next cubicle.

Current policy is actually creating a more racist society than we had before, with White people at the top and Coloured people at the bottom.

On the weekends the Coloured folk can entertain the White executives with their pretty dresses and passionate dancing, as long as they go back to scrubbing the toilets and emptying the bins on Monday (for $3 an hour).

CH: It's all in how you look at it. Conservatives like you see lower wages and conditions elsewhere and drool over them, and want to bring us DOWN to that level so they can increase their profits and personal wealth.
The rest of us see lower wages and conditions elsewhere and HOPE that they can be brought UP to our levels, thus eliminating the disastrous effects of the FTA's and such that have been wrecking the society we live in for decades, not to mention reducing inequality and bettering the lives of ALL rather than just a few elites.

One is a self-centred elitist attitude that corrupts democracy, the other is the very heart of what has driven the great progressive social changes of the last two or three centuries and helped build the free world as we have known it.
Millions of people gave their blood and lives to give us what we have had, and conservatives are now doing their level best to throw that heritage away.
Freedom or Feudalism?
Guess which side I support?

Sorry boys it's not government's job to provide jobs, that is communism, & a command economy, & we know that fails. Hell even China had to move to a capitalist economy to start their economic climb.

No fellers, it is unions that have destroyed our manufacturing industries.

When you pay some clown $100,000 a year to screw a subassembly onto a car body, you can not stay in production long, without huge taxpayer subsidies.

Our whole pay rate thing is totally wrong, with too many low skill jobs in unionised workplaces being way over paid. No chance of manufacturing making a comeback, while we pay the unskilled 3 times what they can earn the employer.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<We have a right to exist as a distinct people>>

It is not a matter of rights because nobody is stopping you - but you need to prove yourself, you need to demonstrate that your culture is vibrant and worthwhile, you need to compete in the open with other cultures.

If you culture is good, then others will flock to it and eagerly wish to assimilate, for example:

{
Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
}
[Isaiah 2:3]

- But what do you do if your culture is unattractive, if it is vacuous? It is then that you can only resort to violence to try and preserve it, grabbing a land by force and forcing others out unless their culture doesn't threaten yours.

This is what cultural-protectionism is about. Were your culture worthwhile, you wouldn't be worrying!

Hasbeen,

It is true that our economy is now heavily dependent on population growth, and there could be serious problems if the politicians slammed on the brakes without giving the economy time to adjust and encouraging such adjustment. Nevertheless, there are quite a number of countries that are performing well economically and giving their citizens good lives despite having miniscule or even negative population growth. Countries such as Denmark (population growth rate 0.4%, from World Bank figures), Finland (0.5%), Japan (-0.2%), and Germany (0.2%) all rank near the top of the UN's very high human development list and also rank very high on the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index. Have you considered that the high growth countries, such as Australia (1.8%), that also rank high might be doing it despite their population growth, not because of it? Or that good economic performance might be attracting people, not the other way around? Exactly why can't we copy the low growth or no growth countries that are performing well?

In any case, it is mathematically certain that our population growth is going to stop. The only question is whether we stop it by cutting excessive immigration (since our fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976) and leave something of the environment and some quality of life for our grandchildren, or whether we stop it after turning Australia into a Third World hellhole, or lose population due to a collapse. What can't go on, won't go on.

Yuyutsu,

I recall reading that at first contact, the Aboriginal people ate better, had more leisure time, were healthier, and lived longer than the English settlers who were replacing them. Good living conditions for ordinary people are of little use against guns and superior numbers.

Wrong Hasbeen, that's just conservative propaganda.
It's not unions that move companies offshore, is it? It's not unions that pay executives multi-million dollar packages, plus bonuses.
It may not be the governments place to supply jobs but neither is it their place to sell out the economy to multinationals, to sell off public utilities for short term fiscal games and gains, and for comfy lucrative board-memberships and directorships after they retire.
Governments place endless hurdles in the way of small business people and companies, yet roll out the red carpet for the big end of town.They ignore outright criminality by the big banks and tax dodging by anyone with the money to play those games. They provide "welfare' subsidies and tax-breaks for industries that don't need it, oil, mining etc, but turn their backs on the small-business sector, the largest employers of all.
Blaming unions is akin to blaming victims of crime in my book, they may not be all that great these days, semi-corrupt and inefficient as they are, but they aren't the problem, greed at the top is, that and political corruption.

Yuyutsu,

<- But what do you do if your culture is unattractive, if it is vacuous? It is then that you can only resort to violence to try and preserve it, grabbing a land by force and forcing others out unless their culture doesn't threaten yours.

This is what cultural-protectionism is about. Were your culture worthwhile, you wouldn't be worrying!>

Grabbing land by force and keeping other people out is the norm for human societies. Apart from Antarctica and a few very remote islands, there isn't a patch of land on Earth that isn't soaked in blood. Read some of the archaeologists who have first hand knowledge of what went on, for example, "Constant Battles" by Prof. Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard) and "War Before Civilization" by Prof. Lawrence Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago). There are other good books on the same topic and on Malthusian trap societies in general (everyone before the 20th century), mostly by economic historians. See for example, Peter Turchin's "War and Peace and War", Azar Gat's "War in Human Civilization", and Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms". Prof. Steven Pinker has a lot more such references in his "Better Angels of Our Nature."

Prof. Gat has some very nice early photographs of a group of Aboriginal men coming back from a raid on their neighbours, over the ownership of some wells (I think), carrying shields (a technology that is of no use except in warfare). Prof. LeBlanc give us a map of California Indian languages and shows the evidence for at least four waves of invasion, long before the evil Spaniards or the evil Anglos ever arrived. There is no reason to believe that the oldest group really was the first in California.

The only cure is to make everyone everywhere on Earth rich enough that they care about the future and their environment, and have something to lose from violent conflict, and few enough that their neighbours are worth more to them alive than dead. This is, of course, impossible with unending population growth. In the meantime, we need to stick to keeping people out.

Agreed Divergence, we only need growth because we have become locked it to it.

I hate the fact, & would like a no growth strategy if we can ever get there. The only problem is getting there. The budget asked people to wear just a little pain to get our deficit in order, & the voters won't wear it. It would take a hell of a lot more pain to get to a no growth economic model, & no government who tried to get there would survive.

Come off it G'dayBruce, you are sounding like a union troll.

If you think a $100,000 PA pay packet for a process worker is reasonable, you are one of the reasons we are in trouble.

Your ideology is about 50 years out of date, & in fact totally at variance to the practices of Labor governments. They have been the ones subsidising those ridiculous wages for low skilled factory workers with huge hand outs to the car industry & similar hopeless cases. It is the Libs who have stopped it, if you didn't notice.

The class warfare you preach is so long dead, it doesn't even smell any more. Get over it & try something useful.

Huge wage increases have just about closed down mining development, as we have become too high cost even there. That might be a good thing by accident, as we don't need new mines at the moment, with the whole world heading for recession. Might as well keep the stuff, until we can get good prices for it.

Now we have to shut down the BLF, & the ACTU before they destroy the building industry, & have only Centrelink people employed.

Sorry Bruce but I don't agree. Thinking conservatively does not automatically equate to self interest and greed. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Many small business owners, including some franchisees face either not opening on weekends or doing the hours themselves, rather than employing staff on ridiculous penalty rates. The profit margins aren't there for café owners (for example) to pay waiters and dishwashers $30+ per on Saturday and $45+ on Sundays and public holidays. Electricity, rent, wages and other operating costs go up every year but consumers demand lower prices. Small business is getting squeezed from both ends so they close the doors, no one works, and no one profits.

I feel you, the unions and wages rates are completely out of whack with the modern seven day opening hour society that has evolved. The cost of a new TV and almost everything else is much lower than 15 years ago; the cost is the same on Monday as it is on Sunday yet the wages of the floor staff are not equal.

Wages, casual loading, penalty rates and increased super are causing some small business owners to seriously reconsider their business models. When those employers decide to close the doors, reduce staff numbers, or not bring in staff on the weekends, its the workers who lose and they can thank the unions and/or government set pay rates.

This 'conservative' thinking is not rooted in greed; its survival.

Divergence, Hasbeen, Bruce;
You will get your zero growth economy, but not at your timing.
We will have to adapt to it, not the other way around.
We do not have the time to play at it. By the end of this decade it will be everywhere,
not just in Europe and here and Nth America.

It will not be Doom & Gloom time either as countries that can adapt over say a decade
will live happy fulfilling lives, at a less frenetic pace and industry will gradually change
to virtually all local production. There maybe some step changes.

In such a zero growth economy the financial system will be restructured. I do not
know how but there are people already trying to work it out.
It will not be possible to adapt financial models of the 18th & 19th century because
they were growth economies. It will have to be very different as it has never happened before.
Debt as we know it will probably end.

I know that is not a popular scenario but unless some miracle magic pudding is found
it is the way we will go. China is the big question mark in all this, they will have an
enormous food problem and may declare that as the Chinese government owns such
a lot of Queensland they might as well take it all over. Shades of Putin.

There's a huge amount of rubbish in this thread. 'Tis not our population that's unsustainable, it's the decisions we make!

Although it's easier to sustain a lower population, having a lower population is no guarantee of sustainability, and sustainably supporting a higher population really isn't that difficult. If we value the environment highly, we will protect it.

But right now the politicians think fiscal surpluses are more important than the environment, and it seems as if a lot of the public agree.

The prioritization of dubious short term economic targets goes a long way to explaining our failures in vocational eduction too.

Now there is one of the main problems. People who think we are here to serve the environment, when it is up to us to make the environment serve us.

Hasbeen, whatever we do we're going to make the environment serve us. But it can serve us in a sustainable way or an unsustainable way. The latter makes future generations worse off.

And regarding your earlier post, the BLF is long gone and there haven't been any wages blowouts recently. The high dollar is the main cause of the decline in manufacturing (though in the case of the car industry it's more that they're no longer the high value items they once were).
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

If the economy's not growing then it's likely to mean nobody's getting richer except if someone else is getting poorer. Is that really what you want?
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Shockadelic, if I had kids with a black woman, would you regard me as destroying our civilisation? What about if she was Chinese?

Yuyutsu's right to refer to "cultural-protectionist drivel". And I'd certainly say that to Tibetans and Basques. Although the former have been culturally suppressed to a significant degree, there is nothing to be gained by keeping immigrants out. As for Chechens, their culture was so strong that it withstood decades of Russian control and communism.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Divergence, immigrants have never threatened Australia's borders. Unless of course if you count the British colonists!

Aiden, it is not a question of what I want, or what you want or what anyone wants.
I would love for business as usual to be an option; thats my druthers !
I am not going to get what I want.
To grow an economy you need additional energy each year.
As oil production declines transport will be reorganised onto rail and shipping.
The change to electrical transport systems puts pressure on the coal industry exports.
Nuclear will not be politically possible until the price and availability of coal makes electricity unaffordable.
World coal will peak in 2025->2035.
That early decline period, 2017->2025 will be a rather trying time of high unemployment
until in desperation the public will realise that nuclear is the only way out.

Our real problem will be to manage the decline and change to nuclear in such a way
that our economy adapts in a way that avoids contraction.
The adaption will require an expansion of local manufacturing as international
shipping declines.
No longer will you buy imported flat pack furniture but you will visit your local furniture maker.

Our political/financial structures do not give me confidence that they can understand
let alone administer such a difficult transition to the new energy regime.

Yuyutsu "but you need to prove yourself, you need to demonstrate that your culture is vibrant and worthwhile, you need to compete in the open with other cultures."

No need to prove anything.
Our culture could be the worst in world history and we'd still have the right to perpetuate it.

So, the Tibetans can just be shoved aside because the Chinese obviously have a superior society?

How many great empires/societies have vanished, not because they were worthless, but due to the invasion/infiltration of alien peoples?

If Third World cultures were so wonderful, why are they flocking to the West?
Why are their own homelands so damn pathetic?

Culture/ethnicity is not a marketplace commodity.
It is people's memories, identities, soul.

A society/people with no memory, no history, would be highly dysfunctional.
It could not maintain itself for long.

Migrants are coming here for purely economic reasons.
It has nothing to do with culture, but will have every effect on it.

Aidan, the choices of any one individual are not the issue.

It is the total *aggregate* effect of millions of people from thousands of ancestries/cultures.

"there is nothing to be gained by keeping immigrants out"

There is nothing to be gained by letting them in.

I'm not concerned about "immigrants", I'm concerned about this ludicrous, reckless, utopian fantasy parading as sensible policy, with all doubt and dissent mocked or censored.

20,000 immigrants per year from related people? Not much concern.
500 immigrants from unrelated people? Not much concern.
80,000 unrelated/dissimilar EVERY YEAR? PROBLEM!

The only realistic policies would be:
1. No immigration
2. White immigration
3. Advanced country/Very High development only

None of these are going to happen while the "lollipops and fluffy kittens for all" fairytale dominates ideological thinking in the West.

Goodbye Australia. Hello Hellhole.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Our culture could be the worst in world history and we'd still have the right to perpetuate it.>>

Rights are always given by someone/something else: then who is it that gives you such a right to perpetuate a bad culture? God perhaps?

<<So, the Tibetans can just be shoved aside because the Chinese obviously have a superior society?>>

How can you possibly compare murder and robbery with peaceful immigration? No White-Australian has ever been killed by immigrants as they robbed away their farm or home.

<<How many great empires/societies have vanished, not because they were worthless, but due to the invasion/infiltration of alien peoples?>>

I look with pride at the brave defenders of Kobani: These Kurds have a great culture, so they are willing to fight for it, unlike the Iraqi army which fled at the first shot. When cultures wither, such as the Roman, the motivation to defend them dissipates and even minor enemies can take over. Tibet fell because of the traitor, Ngapoi Ngawang Jigme: his ability to climb the political ladder indicates corruptibility, which is a cultural weakness.

<<If Third World cultures were so wonderful, why are they flocking to the West?>>

It's not the culture, it's the people and so many of them adopt a Western lifestyle because their original cultures are even worse than the Western/Australian.

<<Culture/ethnicity is not a marketplace commodity. It is people's memories, identities, soul.>>

The subject is culture, not ethnicity: I've changed mine and so can anyone who finds a better culture.

<<A society/people with no memory, no history, would be highly dysfunctional.>>

Any proof?

In any case, that's not what I was suggesting: I suggested that better cultures shall win.

<<Migrants are coming here for purely economic reasons.>>

Then it's your own fault for giving them economic advantages (as opposed to simply allowing them to enter).

<<It has nothing to do with culture, but will have every effect on it.>>

And you are afraid of fair competition...

<<There is nothing to be gained by letting them in.>>

But lots to be lost by blocking them out by force.

Aidan,

You and Yuyutsu are assuming that there is no problem if there is no armed invasion.

This argument is about population, not about the character of the migrants or whether they are armed. There is no way to reduce population growth without reducing immigration. From ABS figures, it provides 60% of our population growth. About a third of the natural increase is also due to births to migrant mothers. With zero net immigration population growth would be about a quarter of what it is now and getting smaller every year, since the fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976.

Why should we care?

There are many scientists who have studied the environmental issues and believe that excessive population growth is causing serious damage. If you don't want to believe the Australian Academy of Science, perhaps you should take a look at the Australian Conservation Foundation's 2010 nomination of human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

There are also the resource issues that Bazz has raised, with absolutely vital resources that have to be imported getting scarcer and more expensive.

Here are the price trends for crude oil

http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

and phosphate rock, vital for our agriculture

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/phosphate-rock/all/

There is an enormous infrastructure backlog, because the extra people need the full panoply of infrastructure immediately, but will need perhaps a generation before they will have contributed enough to pay for their share. Meanwhile, the people who are here already suffer from massive congestion on the roads and public transport, waiting for hours in hospital emergency rooms, overcrowded schools with demountable classrooms filling up the playground, etc., etc.

As the labour market is oversupplied, wages are depressed, and more and more wealth is syphoned up to the top, where it become a threat to our democracy, because the people who have the wealth can use it to buy our government.

You have to decide if the joys of diversity are worth it.

Dear Divergence,

<<You and Yuyutsu are assuming that there is no problem if there is no armed invasion.>>

Why, the problem obviously exists - I just don't agree that using force to prevent people from coming is a legitimate solution.

It is quite acceptable to not accept unwanted immigrants into Australian society and not to grant them any social or economic incentives, but if they nevertheless wish to settle on the Australian continent, then we have no right to block them.

<<There is no way to reduce population growth without reducing immigration.>>

Why? Just drop all incentives to make babies. Phase out the family-benefits, then the free schooling, child-care and health-benefits: make it clear that having children is a luxury which Australia does not encourage.

<<You have to decide if the joys of diversity are worth it.>>

Probably not, but it's not about joys: it is perfectly OK to have a personal preference that those immigrants would never come, but it is not OK to act on that preference by denying them entry.

Yuyutsu “who is it that gives you such a right to perpetuate a bad culture? God perhaps?”

No, Man.
It is a commonly accepted principle in international law/ethics.

But that's “drivel”, right?
You only believe in Nietzschean/Darwinian individuals free-floating in a social vacuum.

“How can you possibly compare murder and robbery with peaceful immigration?”

The end result is the same.
We vanish, they take over.
That our leaders are *traitors* only makes it more evil.

“It's not the culture, it's the people”

They bring their culture with them, in their mindset/identity/memory, and are encouraged by the government to hold onto it like cement.

They could adopt a “Western” lifestyle where they already are if they wanted.
Japan has become a virtual “Western” nation in the last century, with almost no migration in or out of the country.

“The subject is culture, not ethnicity”

The two are intrinsically connected, or are you a complete moron?
There is no Turkish culture without Turks (the people) and vice versa.
Culture is what a mass of people share in common and identify with.

“And you are afraid of fair competition”

What is fair about one-way immigration?
They kicked Europeans out of their homelands, yet still want to leech of our success.

They wanted independence and got it. They rejected being part of the European world.
They can't have it both ways.

Your Nietzschean/Darwinian perspective should say “Survive or Fail on your own, losers!”

“blocking them out by force”

There is no “violence” or “force” in simply leaving things the way they are.

We didn't plant those people in the Third World.
They were born there.
If they want to blame anyone for their plight, they should blame their parents.

If we can legitimately deny immigrants “any social or economic incentives”, why not “block” them in the first place?
That would be more ethical than letting them in, then refusing them accommodation, work, food, etc.

“make it clear that having children is a luxury which Australia does not encourage “

But the Third World can breed like crazy, and we'll just let them all in!

Yuyutsu,

You have a curious view of human rights. All the land in Australia belongs to private individuals, corporations, or other non-government organisations, to various Aboriginal groups, or to the government, i.e., all of us. You (let alone some random foreigner) don't have the right to camp out on someone's private property or on public property without permission.

The large tracts of uninhabited land in Australia are uninhabited for excellent reasons. Most of Australia is desert, with very poor soil quality as well as a profound lack of water. Most of what isn't desert is semiarid rangeland, requiring perhaps 50 times as much land to raise a cow as a well watered coastal area. See these maps by Dr Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

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

Migrants mostly want to move to a developed country with a ready-made high standard of living. None would want to homestead in the Nullarbor. There is no more frontier. If people are poor, they will simply have to fix the aspects of their culture that are keeping them that way.

Foxy,
Thanks for adding the link, I meant to but missed it and the PC has been down since and am just catching up on discussion. It appears most points have been made and I notice each time this subject is raised there are less pro high immigration posts. Need for polys to get the message.

I worry about high house prices, especially for young people, congestion and long queues, loss of good agricultural land. But do not think changes will come soon as major parties are in the pockets of big business.

I've always imagined there must be billboard posters around Afghanistan, advertisements by people traffickers, picturing the deserted Australian outback and herds of 'free' camels that reads: Paradise, We Get You There Safely.

Yuyutsu, you are obviously not one of us.

You have been allowed to come here, & now want to give away our country.

Well mind your own business. I'm not about to let you, or anyone else, local or foreign, giveaway my or my kids heritage to anyone.

My father & 2 grand fathers, have fought for this country, & I, my son, & a son in law have all served ready to defend it if necessary.

It does pain me that in doing so we are also defending the likes of you, who would give it to anyone, despite them having done nothing for it.

If others want a society like ours, or as it was a couple of decades back, let them build their own. If they won't build their own, they definitely don't deserve to share one that others have built, often at great cost.

I will fight you & them to keep them out.

Dear Banjo,

Welcome back.

You've always managed to raise interesting discussions
on this forum and given us much food for thought.
I for one appreciate that greatly. We don't always
agree - but that doesn't mean that I don't take on
board the valid points that you make.

It's all a complete mess. While I see us being able to populate a lot more than we are, such increases must be productive increases, not passengers as has been the case for many years.

Of cause the trouble is, we can no longer afford to make anything, because our life styles have evolved as a result of our wages, or visa versatile, so if we were to start making things again, which is the only way we can increase population, sustainably, then wages would need to take a huge dive, and that's simply not going to happen.

So no, we can't continue to increase our population.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<It is a commonly accepted principle in international law/ethics.>>

Common, yet wrong.

<<You only believe in Nietzschean/Darwinian individuals free-floating in a social vacuum.>>

I believe that people should be related by choice, not by coercion. Having societies is great, but one should be able to choose which society(s) they want to belong to.

<<We vanish, they take over.>>

If your culture was bad or unfulfilling, then this is a good thing.

<<There is no Turkish culture without Turks>>

A Turk cannot cease to be ethnically Turk, but s/he can convert to another culture if they find it better.

<<Culture is what a mass of people share in common and identify with.>>

But one can always de-identify with their original culture: I did so myself.

<<What is fair about one-way immigration?>>

It's not immigration, but what happens following the immigration: you have two or more cultures living side-by-side, so if one is convinced that another culture is better, then they swap, thus the better culture shall win.

<<There is no “violence” or “force” in simply leaving things the way they are.>>

Indeed, so when people arrive at Australian shores, you should leave them as they are - neither help them nor obstruct them.

<<If they want to blame anyone for their plight, they should blame their parents.>>

Nobody blames anyone: born where they were, they now want to move here.

<<If we can legitimately deny immigrants “any social or economic incentives”, why not “block” them in the first place?>>

Because the latter is immoral.

<<That would be more ethical than letting them in, then refusing them accommodation, work, food, etc.>>

They would be well-informed that they will receive nothing here from Australian society. If they still choose to come, then it's their own choice and you've done nothing unethical.

<<But the Third World can breed like crazy, and we'll just let them all in!>>

Far from it: you can select those you want and accept them into Australian society - the others COULD come, but knowing that they will not enjoy any benefits, very few would.

Dear Divergence,

<<All the land in Australia belongs to private individuals... You (let alone some random foreigner) don't have the right to camp out on someone's private property or on public property without permission.>>

But why without permission? Anyone should be able to invite whoever they want to reside on their own land.

Also, as you mentioned government-lands, nothing gives any state the right to hog a whole continent. They do it, I know, using military might, but it's wrong.

<<Migrants mostly want to move to a developed country with a ready-made high standard of living.>>

Too bad for them: if we don't want them, then they won't get it.

<<None would want to homestead in the Nullarbor.>>

Then let them decide: if they are not happy with a homestead in the Nullarbor, then they don't need to arrive.

Divergence,
"You and Yuyutsu are assuming that there is no problem if there is no armed invasion."
No, I'm assuming that any problem that arises can be fixed. The evidence overwhelmingly points to that conclusion.

"This argument is about population, not about the character of the migrants or whether they are armed."
This thread was about population, and you'll see my initial post on it claimed the problem was not the number of people but the failure to value the environment when making decisions.

However, this thread had drifted onto anti immigration arguments that had nothing to do with population, and I subsequently addressed some of those too.

Oil is getting scarcer, so regardless of how many people live here we should be working to become less dependent on it. Though it really should be environmental effects that motivate us to reduce fossil fuel use, not mere scarcity.

As for phosphate rock, there's plenty of it around and phosphates are recyclable.

I agree there's an enormous infrastructure backlog, but we should solve it in a way that benefits us all rather than reducing immigration to constrain demand and, if successful, using lack of demand growth as an excuse to leave major problems unfixed.

Aidan wrote: at 3:10:12 PM "The evidence overwhelmingly points to [the] conclusion [that any problem that arises can be fixed.]

So, what is your 'evidence', Aidan?

The evidence that I see is that high immigration is destroying our social fabric: Unemployment and under-employment is rising. For those who have jobs, there is no security and no career progression. Native Australians are discriminated against in favour of imported workers, young Australians are denied the job security, training opportunities and career progression that were available to their parents and grandparents.

Our roads are gridlocked and public transported is packed in peak hours.

Our natural life support system, including an ever increasing number of native animals - kangaroos, koalas, sugar gliders, bandicoots, possums - is being destroyed by urban sprawl and tollways. And if so may Victorians were not living in in cramped high-rises high above trees, bushes dirt and wildlife, the sprawl would be even worse.

Aidan continued: "this thread had drifted onto anti immigration arguments that had nothing to do with population,..."

How can you have high immigration and NOT increase Victoria's population?

Aidan continued: "I agree there's an enormous infrastructure backlog, ..."

It costs native Victorians $200,000 to build the additional infrastructure necessary for each new arrival. Our economy is going into a huge deficit because of high immigration.

Flawed logic Yuyutsu - "They would be well-informed that they will receive nothing here from Australian society. If they still choose to come, then it's their own choice and you've done nothing unethical."

If we follow your advice then all comers to our shores are granted access, yet they arrive with nothing and have no support network. They realise they won't have any help but still chose to enter. With no place to live and no money they walk toward the city and as night falls find a bridge to sleep under; perhaps they have few dollars to buy some food. Then what? More and more in the same 'boat' arrive and our cities eventually have a class of foreign street people living amongst us.

Yuyutsu, you haven't thought this through properly. Your option will either lead to these people being exploited or a percentage of them committing crimes just to survive. And as they are not entitled to any help, the problem just continues to grow; our society suffers as do the individuals.

Your solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border and every bit as unethical.

Con Hip said;
and our cities eventually have a class of foreign street people living amongst us.

This is exactly what has happened in Athens.

The situation will get worse than Malthusista & Con Hip said as the Australian
government will have less revenue as time goes on. Treasurers of both parties are
completely unaware of what is happening to the very foundations of our economy.
We were spending the cost of the NBN every year on fuel imports.
Now that we are importing 95% approx as our refineries have closed I have not seen any
figures for the latest costs.
There is a small offset as we do export the oil we do produce, but that is declining at
around 4% a year.

We have become hostage to the rest of the world and risk becoming a beggar in the oil market.

Yuyutsu "I believe that people should be related by choice, not by coercion."

Where is *my* choice in having my neighbourhood/workplace/country radically transformed into something unrecognisable?
This is being IMPOSED on me.

I can choose to move to an "White" social space only while they still EXIST.
And they will become scarcer and scarcer as this displacement progresses.
I can't even escape back to my ancestral European homeland, because the SAME THING is happening there!

"A Turk cannot cease to be ethnically Turk, but s/he can convert to another culture if they find it better."

They can adopt/mimic the superficial elements of others, but someone born and bred a Turk CANNOT genuinely become a Mexican, Swede or Zulu.
And those peoples would probably not accept the Turk as one of them either.
He would be considered a tourist/guest at best.

"But one can always de-identify with their original culture: I did so myself."

That explains a lot.
You have no identity, no connection to a genuine history.

"the better culture shall win."

Rubbish.
The most aggressive and brutal usually wins such competitions.

"so when people arrive at Australian shores, you should leave them as they are - neither help them nor obstruct them."

But if they're arriving on our shores, they are *not* "leaving things as they are". They are changing our society.

"born where they were, they now want to move here."

And I want to live here, in a place recognisable as the country I was born in.
What about what *we* want, the people already living here?

ConservativeHippie "Your [Yuyutsu's] solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border"

But Yuyutsu doesn't care about the real-world consequences.
It's all just head-in-the-clouds idealist theory to Yuyutsu.

Correction - I said to Yuyutsu "Your solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border and every bit as unethical."

I do not believe turning potential undesirable immigrants at the border is unethical. It's our border, our country and our right to make decisions about who we accept.

I used the term 'unethical' in the context of Yuyutsu's original statement but in retrospect I see it appears I agreed with him that turning people away is unethical, which I don't.

Talking of Turks, I see the Turkish prime minister is quoted as saying that women are inferior to men.

Hmm.

Aidan,

I too would like to see your evidence that any problem can be solved. It is true that we got lucky with the Green Revolution, but even the man most responsible for it said that he was only buying some time to get population growth under control (see Norman Borlaug's Nobel Prize acceptance speech). On the other had, there are plenty of societies that have collapsed because they degraded their environment or let their safety margins get too thin. See, for example, "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" by Prof. David Montgomery (Soil Science, University of Washington). Furthermore, a lot of technological advances were predicted in the 1950s that haven't eventuated. Electrical power too cheap to meter, anyone?

So far as Australia is concerned, immigration has everything to do with population. It is directly responsible for 60% of our population growth and for ~75% if you include births to migrant mothers. We would still have rapid population growth even if the existing population stopped having babies altogether. I prefer to speak the truth, even if you consider it "anti-immigrant".

There are a few environmental problems that have nothing to do with population - it only took one fool to introduce the rabbit to Australia, but for most of them, it is I = PAT (environmental impact is a product of the population, the average affluence of that population, and a factor representing the "dirtiness" of the technology used to achieve that level of affluence). Just ask yourself if a problem would be as serious if a lot fewer people were contributing to it. Furthermore, people have to consume in order to survive, and if there are enough of them, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low. China is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and it is still the biggest even if you exclude production for export. If you look at the tables in the last Global Footprint Network atlas, you will see that the top billion people in the richest countries are responsible for only about 38% of consumption.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf

Earlier this year I read John Tainter's book "The Collapse of Complex Societies".
He believes that most societies collapse because of declining net product.
I am trying to remember his exact phrase, but it was in fact the same as what we know
as ERoEI or Energy Return on Energy Invested, except he applied it to the whole
economy and energy was not considered separately.
Basically their overheads became too great and sapped their strength.

The book is in some libraries in Sydney & my local library obtained it from Waverly
council library. Anyone who really wants to understand what is going on should read
this book. He covers many civilisations. Some collapsed for different reasons but he
states that longer lasting societies collapse for the reasons they just could not continue
as previously and decline slowly.
Rome took more than two hundred years to shut up shop.
It was an interesting book although it was not a book to read before bed.

I found the phrasing Tainter used in his book.
>
and that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their
"energy subsidies" reach a point of diminishing marginal returns.
<
From memory I don't think "energy subsidies" referred specifically to energy but to the
effort in keeping the society going.

Yes Bazz, Rome degenerated to a complete welfare society, with most of the citizens being fed & entertained by the state.

We are definitely on our way, like most western societies.

Once the smarties discover they can vote, rather than work for a living, the end is coming. It is not a matter of if but when the final collapse will be.

Dear Hippie,

<<yet they arrive with nothing and have no support network.>>

Not necessarily, they could possibly have support from individuals, NGO's or churches, just not from the state.

<<they walk toward the city and as night falls find a bridge to sleep under>>

They would not be allowed into cities unless invited, in which case they would have the status of pets, so those inviting them are responsible that they don't disturb the peace.

<<Your option will either lead to these people being exploited or a percentage of them committing crimes just to survive.>>

What's wrong with being exploited? they knew they would yet they came anyway. As for crime, following the principle that humans should not be treated worse than animals, If a dingo or crocodile enters a city endangering lives, then they are euthanased, in accordance with the best practices of the RSPCA.

<<Your solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border and every bit as unethical.>>

If you built a city and invested in the land to improve it, then it's not unethical to protect your investment. That is different regarding a whole continent, largely undeveloped.

<<I do not believe turning potential undesirable immigrants at the border is unethical. It's our border, our country and our right to make decisions about who we accept.>>

So you believe that you own the border and this whole continent: why? because 250 years ago England had better ships and better arms so it could drive off all others? No, humans do not own God's land, yet you do own your improvements and may defend them, even by denying others access to their location if that's what it takes.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Where is *my* choice in having my neighbourhood/workplace/country radically transformed into something unrecognisable?>>

You (and your neighbours) own your neighbourhood and your workplace because you've poured all your sweat into it, but you cannot say the same about a whole country, how less so a whole continent such as Australia.

This is not even about immigrants: it may well occur that groups of people who lived in your country for generations now want to change. What right have you to stop them?

<<I can choose to move to an "White" social space only while they still EXIST.>>

You wouldn't need to because nobody is allowed to change your reasonable space to non-white without your consent.

<<but someone born and bred a Turk CANNOT genuinely become a Mexican, Swede or Zulu.>>

If they genuinely change their identity, then they are usually accepted with open arms. This is my experience. Sure, they may not know as much so it may take decades to learn, starting like children, but see for example Sheikh Nur Keller, born Catholic American, but accepted as a Muslim religious leader: http://untotheone.com/articles/bio/sheikh-nuh-keller-brief-biography/

<<The most aggressive and brutal usually wins such competitions.>>

Really? Would you ever agree to become a Muslim because it's aggressive?
Also, who is to say that in Australia the Western culture is not aggressive? I find it such, yet I'm not interested.

<<They are changing our society.>>

Only if you allow them. Entering the continent should not be a ticket into Australian society.

<<What about what *we* want, the people already living here?>>

Certain wishes are legitimate, others not.

I'm sorry Yuyutsu, please excuse my bluntness but it has to be said.

Your replies use the same flawed logic; you haven't got a valid or even sensible argument; in fact your whole argument is simply pie-in-sky.

You advocate letting anyone who wants to come across our border in, yet in the same breath say if the cities don't invite them they will not be allowed to enter. Somewhat contradictory isn't it?

And of course there may be the occasional person or family that gain financial assistance from an Australian resident or welfare group, but if the word is out the borders are open to all arrivals you'll have exactly the same situation Italy faces everyday from African's crossing the Mediterranean.

You can say no one has the right to own land, it all belongs to God but that doesn't mean anything in the context of the world we live in and you cannot change it by wishing it away. Deferring the land ownership to a Higher Source is a cop out that only the looney swallow. By the way - do you now or have you ever owned property?

As a participating member of Australian society which I'll qualify as (including but not limited to) the land we live on, the people within that space, and the culture of those people, I have every right to use the term 'our border', as do you and everyone else who is Australian.

Simply put Yuyutsu - Get Real!

Yuyutsu "They would not be allowed into cities unless invited"

I thought we couldn't "block" people's free movement?
How exactly do you stop someone entering a city?
With a perimeter wall?

"If a dingo or crocodile enters a city endangering lives, then they are euthanased"

So we can't "block" them, but we can KILL them!
Your "ethics" just get more ridiculous the more you speak.

"No, humans do not own God's land"

'Fraid so.
Many of us doubt or disbelieve in "God", so why should such ideology apply to us?
If God exists, he allowed their souls to be born in the Third World.
They are defying God's will by demanding more than what he gave them.

"You (and your neighbours) own your neighbourhood and your workplace because you've poured all your sweat into it, but you cannot say the same about a whole country"

But this neighbourhood/workplace is connected to that neighbourhood/workplace, in an extensive web of relationships commonly called a "society" or "nation".

And that society/nation MUST exist in a *physical* space, a "territory".
That is why these conventions you dismiss so readily were invented thousands of years ago.

"nobody is allowed to change your reasonable space to non-white without your consent."

They are doing so every day.
When did I give my consent to this social transformation?

"Would you ever agree to become a Muslim because it's aggressive?"

No, but then they'd hang me.

"Entering the continent should not be a ticket into Australian society."

Well, it is.
Because the "ticket" is "access all areas".
Once here, there are no limits on the movements or actions of any person (within the law).

"Certain wishes are legitimate, others not."

Yes, the one-sided wishes of immigrants are "legitimate" to you.
The wishes of native-born Whites? GO TO HELL!

Dear Shockadelic,

<<I thought we couldn't "block" people's free movement?
How exactly do you stop someone entering a city?
With a perimeter wall?>>

There are numerous ways, although probably none are politically-correct. As checking the traffic coming into a city would be too disruptive and as the danger is usually in the long term rather than immediate, I would concentrate mostly on what to do with them once caught... and it wouldn't be pleasant...

<<So we can't "block" them, but we can KILL them!>>

It's OK to kill in self-defence, but not OK to block others out of greed for what isn't yours. The difference between us is probably that you believe that this whole continent belongs to your people, because if it were, then indeed it would be OK to block others at the border.

<<so why should such ideology apply to us?>>

The reasons may vary, but the relevant part is that the land isn't yours. If you don't believe in God, then it's even better because then you can't believe that He gave you the land.

<<an extensive web of relationships commonly called a "society" or "nation".>>

Society is usually a good thing and is voluntary, but a "nation" is too big to be voluntary (unless you were able to first ask each and every of over a million farmers, and others who don't live in cities, and they all unanimously answered "yes, we want to be part of it", which is extremely unlikely).

<<And that society/nation MUST exist in a *physical* space, a "territory".>>

Not necessarily: if one is a member of 5 different societies, then on which territory is their house built? one society has the kitchen and the other has the bathroom?

As for nations, yes they mostly exist in a territory (with few exceptions, such as the Jews pre-Israel), but this kind of society is way too big, immoral and should not exist.

<<They are doing so every day.>>

Then stop them. That's a matter for the police.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<No, but then they'd hang me.>>

Dangerous beasts that are inclined to kill people should not be allowed into the country, that's simple self-defence, so same for people who're inclined to hang others who do not agree with them. I thought this was so obvious that it needn't be mentioned.

<<Well, it is.
Because the "ticket" is "access all areas".
Once here, there are no limits on the movements or actions of any person (within the law).>>

But there are restrictions on the movements and actions of animals and these immigrants who are not accepted into Australian society would be coming in their capacity as animals, not in the capacity of persons.

Actually even with persons, today there are already cases where people under court-orders are prevented from entering certain areas where they can do harm.

<<Yes, the one-sided wishes of immigrants are "legitimate" to you.
The wishes of native-born Whites?>>

But I haven't said that: What I meant was that certain wishes OF NATIVE-BORN WHITES are legitimate, other wishes not.

Dear Hippie,

Your questions and those of Shockadelic largely overlap, so I believe that you will find many questions answered above. I did find this following question unique though:

<<but if the word is out the borders are open to all arrivals you'll have exactly the same situation Italy faces everyday from African's crossing the Mediterranean.>>

Italy, being part of the European Union, plays it politically-correct: it would never be ready to treat people like animals, so the two options left are to either treat them better than animals or to treat them worse than animals: Italy chose the former, Australia chose the latter and I promote the middle-way.

Yuyutsu, your replies are so crazy they are no longer worth commenting on. I learned long ago that you can't have a rational discussion with the insane.

Dear Conservative,

Whatever your reason for not wishing to continue this discussion, I thank you for it. At the moment I am sick with fever and not having to use my meagre strength to reply to your questions would give me more time to rest, drink lots of water and get well sooner.

Yuyutsu "the danger is usually in the long term rather than immediate"

Tell that to Lee Rigby.

"It's OK to kill in self-defence, but not OK to block others out of greed for what isn't yours"

The greed is on their side of the fence, darling.

Most Australians just manage to survive financially from one week to the next.
Why shouldn't any opportunities go to the existing population first?

"you believe that this whole continent belongs to your people"

Yes, the present generation are just the latest of many whose "sweat" built up this web of connections we call a "nation/society".

That web extends across the whole continent, just as Japan's does across an archipelago.
That a large landmass constitutes a nation's territory is just the result of historical circumstances.
It is no different to the Maltese "owning" a tiny island.

"you can't believe that He gave you the land."

No, we took it. It's ours now.

We can possess anything, natural or manmade (all manmade items are derived somehow from nature).
We own pets, livestock, rain in our watertanks, flowerbeds, crops and land.
Humans invent their perceptions of reality and people have always believed they can "own" aspects of nature like land.
So we do, because we say so.

It's not unique to Man either.
Most animals have "territories" too and are equally reluctant to share them with outsiders.

"yes [nations] mostly exist in a territory (with few exceptions, such as the Jews pre-Israel)"

Ah, but they *did* have a territory once and now have one again.
Checkmate!

"Dangerous beasts that are inclined to kill people should not be allowed into the country."

But you'd be "blocking" them! Omigod!
How do you know someone's dangerous beforehand.
You just said a minute ago, you had to wait until trouble surfaced and then act (unpleasantly).

"certain wishes OF NATIVE-BORN WHITES are legitimate, other wishes not."

Which ones?
Who made you Judge Judy?
Surely adults can decide for themselves what they desire and don't need the approval of you or others to express that desire.

The topic begins: "How many is too many? Australia's population problem". Why is it? It's a worldwide problem. That being there are too many humans living and having impacts worldwide, a place that all animal species live in.

"Human wanted" and "needed" items are derived somehow and somewhere from nature. Other animal species take from the environment also, but their needs are very sustainable in the long term - but need a home to live in. That is why I've said "that being all animal species are dependent on the natural world" and should not be destroyed by human activity.

Most humans don't realise this. Every time, when a person gets out of bed in the morning (like Australia), they are very unlikely to be thinking their home is built on something. It's in fact, built over (soil) that is part of the natural world - but humans don't directly see that, so it's not in their mindset. Humans, particularly in well off countries (over time) have also developed a "fear factor" and believe they must have certain materialistic items to survive. We believe we are more dominant to environmental and living elements and believe we can do what we want to the planet.

Humans worldwide have to change how we are living. I have myself. One good way to assess this is to take an ecological footprint quiz. http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/human_footprint/footprint_calculator/

An excellent interview on population is also at: http://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/government-population-policy-interview-with-sandra-kanck/

All countries have an obligation to ensure they have a sustainable population and good environmental and economic policies for the benefit of future generations.

Dear Shockadelic,

Nathan is right - we have been hijacking the original discussion for quite a while now and today he re-introduced the correct topic.

If you agree, then let us stop here. Otherwise we can continue our talk later once I feel better, but probably not on this particular thread where we disrupt the others.

I know you'll hate me for it NathanJ, but I've been killing the ants that are invading my home, in these dry conditions we've been having.

I regularly kill cockroaches & mice, when they do the same. Let them go build their own home.

And Yuyutsu, I'll happily do the same to anyone or anything that invades my country. The ants don't carry weapons, but they despoil my food & my property. They are invading my space.

Any gate crashers, who push their way into my country despoil it in a similar way. Whether they carry weapons or not, they are invaders, & should be repelled with all force available to us.

malthusista and Divergence, the unemployment and underemployment problem is down to economic policy not immigration.

Yes there is a peak capacity problem on our roads and public transport... but even if no such problem existed, the network is far from perfect. Improvements are needed, and the increasing population strengthens the incentive to fix things and provides the opportunity to fund them. Though I'm a bit puzzled as to how you arrived at that $200 000 figure?

More national parks are needed to protect the animals. I expect most of the animals will eventually adapt to the sprawl, though the presence of cats and dogs makes that more difficult.

"How can you have high immigration and NOT increase Victoria's population?"
If the economic decline continues, you may soon find out!

But I never said that immigration had nothing to do with population. It was just some of the arguments against it on this thread that had nothing to do with population.

I am familiar with I=PAT. But T could be greatly improved just by hastening the uptake of existing technology. When scientific advances are also factored in, T's contribution becomes multiple orders of magnitude.

The nice thing about soil is it's a renewable resource, and the next green revolution is likely to be based on soil microbiology. Furthermore, while electricity will never be too cheap to meter, that doesn't mean there will never be times when it's free. Indeed if you look at wholesale prices, you'll see that it sometimes happens already!

The following link raises some very relevant questions
that are worth discussing:

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/limits/studies/articles/popclip2.html

How many Australians is enough?

Dear Hassie,

Is that what can be called -
"an insect mentality?"

No Foxy, it is the defence against insects, 2, 4 & 8 legged, where ever they try to infiltrate.

You've got to be kidding Aidan, time to come out of that ivory tower you must live in, & have a look at national parks.

That fool Goss gazetted hundreds of national parks, as a pay back to the greenies for their vote. Just like his school teacher pay raises, this increase was totally unfunded. They did not have the money or manpower to service the parks they had. All we got was an increasing feral catastrophe.

They closed off park access in much of my area, claimed to stop poachers getting native birds, but actually to hide the fact that the things were going to rack & ruin.

I watched one war with amusement. They dragged a log across the access to the Burrum River national park. It was popular with families, as it had a picnic area no the river, with a huge sandbank, very safe for kids to splash around, out of the strong tidal currents down at the heads.

When 4X4 owners dragged it out of the way, the rangers dragged a bigger one. When that went, they hired a back hoe to dig a ditch across the track. That was filled in with in days, so the rangers dug a bigger one.

That's when the locals got serious. They cleared 6 new access points into the park, linking up with the river track.

After a few more futile attempts to deny us access to OUR park, they gave up. It was much cheaper to service the picnic area, than to try to deny us it's use.

As a boatie, I accessed the thing from the river, as did many others, but it was heart warming to see the locals beat that fool Goss.

Continued.

Continued

Come out here some time, & I'll show you the negative effect most parks have on wild life. I'll show you greater infestations of feral weeds, trees & animals in parks, than you will be able to find on private property.

It would be a real plus for the country & it's wild life, if we could replace some of the ideology of our greenies with a few hard facts.

Good link, Foxy

It very clearly summarises a lot of the environmental issues.

Aidan,

<the unemployment and underemployment problem is down to economic policy not immigration.>

Sure, if we had a command economy like the old Soviet Union, we could find a way to put everyone to work, but you probably wouldn't like the results very much. The fact is that we are taking in people faster than our economy can accommodate them. The House of Lords report I linked to earlier also talks about wage depression and denial of apprenticeships and other training opportunities.

<Improvements are needed, and the increasing population strengthens the incentive to fix things and provides the opportunity to fund them. Though I'm a bit puzzled as to how you arrived at that $200 000 figure?>

If population growth spurs on improvements, why isn't everything absolutely rosy in India and Nigeria? With rapid growth, money has to go into providing the same things for more people, more houses, roads, schools, etc. to the same or a lesser standard. Not much left over for improvements. Compare infrastructure and public services in European countries that aren't growing much. The $200,000 is from this paper by Jane O'Sullivan, unfortunately, now behind a paywall.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:283037

She includes housing in this, though, and has estimated government infrastructure costs per person, excluding housing, at $100,000 to $120,000. See also this paper from the UK, which estimates 30,000 pounds per person for non-housing costs (in 2008)

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/6869.html

<More national parks are needed to protect the animals>

See Hasbeen's post on this. These problems are well known and go far beyond his local park. That is why I donate to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. And what will you do about the problem that ideal koala habitat is ideal developer habitat? Declaring more of Australia's deserts national parks won't help.

cont'd

cont'd

<I am familiar with I=PAT. But T could be greatly improved just by hastening the uptake of existing technology. When scientific advances are also factored in, T's contribution becomes multiple orders of magnitude.>

Science is not the same thing as magic. A lot of the people on our side are scientists. See my previous links. Why not wait until those marvelous new technologies are proven and then increase the population if it still seems a good idea after we have made the Sahara bloom or whatever? Otherwise, it is just like diving into a pool without checking how deep it is.

<The nice thing about soil is it's a renewable resource, and the next green revolution is likely to be based on soil microbiology.>

Our soil is being rapidly degraded (see Foxy's link). Growth in grain yields has stalled in developed countries

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131217/ncomms3918/full/ncomms3918.html

The average electricity bill has approximately doubled since 2007, even though we are using less. This is mostly due to "poles and wires".

Dear Hasbeen,

Ants will remain on this earth long after the human race is gone. The earth does not belong to humans and this continent does not belong to you and your culture.

You may now regret allowing me into "your" country, but at the time your leaders welcomed me in because they were too greedy to gain economically from my presence, which they did and still do. Now wouldn't you consider this greed a cultural weakness? Every species has weaknesses, thus sooner or later every species falls.

Last but not least, I hope that Graham removes your post for irrelevance (forget about the death-threat) along with this my reply, as well as my previous conversations with ConservativeHippie and Shockadelic: we are simply disrupting the good people here who started this thread in order to have a decent ecological and economic discussion.

Hasbeen, regardless of the immigration rate there's absolutely no reason why full employment would require a command economy. All it requires is a government willing to prioritise the economy's real needs over the imaginary need to run a surplus!

"If population growth spurs on improvements, why isn't everything absolutely rosy in India and Nigeria?"
Because they had a lower starting point, corruption is rife, the crime rate is high in Nigeria, and the Indian government is incompetent and India's economy is overregulated, among other things. And most importantly, spurring on isn't the same as success.

Population growth by immigration doesn't require as much investment in schools etc as population growth by natural increase.

"Science is not the same thing as magic."
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff300/fv00255.htm

"See my previous links. Why not wait until those marvelous new technologies are proven and then increase the population if it still seems a good idea after we have made the Sahara bloom or whatever? "
Because the barriers are as much economic as they are technical. And "making the Sahara bloom or whatever" before demand increases would depress crop prices everywhere, harming the interests of farmers. And most importantly of all, global population is not easily controlled, despite the lack of immigration on a planetary scale.

"Our soil is being rapidly degraded (see Foxy's link). "
And we are only just starting to turn this around, so I stand by my claim.
"The average electricity bill has approximately doubled since 2007, even though we are using less. This is mostly due to 'poles and wires'."
And the inefficient way they're funded. Another example of barriers being economic not technical.

I've just read the very interesting article via the link posted by Foxy. Whilst reading it I thought it seemed a bit dated given the politicians it was quoting and no mention of immigration what-so-ever. As it turns out the article is from the Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday,10 September 1994 which shows the current discussion is not new.

One point in the article I found particularly interesting is that back then, when the population was 17.6 million, Tim Flannery was suggesting a more reasonable population would be between 6 - 12 million. It's also interesting that there doesn't seem to have been a serious discussion at the political level ever since.

ConservativeHippie,

There have been reports then and since, but they have been ignored or suppressed. In researching his book "Population Crisis", Dick Smith talked to the people responsible for some of them. Barry Jones, the Labor Minister for Science, was responsible for an inquiry into Australia's carrying capacity in 1994. (p. 39)

It "made the seemingly obvious and uncontroversial point that we should see our geography in terms of a thin coastal strip that requires careful management and planning, bordering a vast arid interior." Its recommendations were ignored. When Barry Jones was asked why, he said, "'Australia has long been in the thrall of property and other businesses that do very well out of rapidly growing population, and they in turn have a lot of influence on politics.'"

In 2002, two CSIRO scientists, Barney Foran and Franzi Poldy, issued the Future Dilemmas report, commissioned by the Immigration Dept. It considered several population growth scenarios, including a high population growth one, although not as high as our politicians are setting us up for now. (p. 40)

"At the extreme [high growth] end, Australia would be facing serious environmental and infrastructure challenges. Our major cities would extend into the hinterland, water shortages would be common, energy prices would be extreme, and the ecology would be devastated."

The report was heavily censored, with an entire chapter cut from the conclusions, and then buried.

Similar hanky-panky went on with the 2010 report on the Long Term Physical Implications of Net Overseas Migration. See

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-10/multiculturalismoconnor/44896

Aidan,

See this report from Nature (probably our most respected peer-reviewed science journal) on the damage we are doing to our global life support systems

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

open version

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

See also this paper on the negative correlation between population growth and GDP per capita

http://www.hrmars.com/admin/pics/433.pdf

I am more inclined to believe the scientists than the cornucopian optimists, who are essentially pursuing a faith position - something is bound to turn up.

Divergence,
I agree we are damaging our global life support system, and agree with many of those planetary boundaries, though I think the land use change one is rather silly (there's no harm in exceeding an arbitrary 15% cropland; the major problems of land use change are local not global).

We can remedy the damage by technology change and/or behaviour change, but the population is far too high for a change in that to solve the problem.

I'm not advocating waiting for something to turn up, I'm advocating working to make more things turn up while taking advantage of what's already turned up.

NathanJ "It's a worldwide problem"

But we only have control over what *we* do, here in Australia.
But our traitorous leaders can't even do that right.

Animals build homes on land too, or in trees.
The only things stopping animals being just as ravenously exploitative as humans are (a) their limited intelligence and (b) the rivalrous competition of other animals/Man.

If they could, ants (or penguins) would take over the world, eating everything in their path!

Yuyutsu, ethnicity/culture is part of the debate, not a "hijack", whether you like it or not.

"we are simply disrupting the good people here who started this thread in order to have a decent ecological and economic discussion"

Nobody forced you to say a word.

Ethnic composition = Indecent.
Let's all put on our sociopolitical chastity belts.

Aidan "the unemployment and underemployment problem is down to economic policy not immigration"

And immigration has no effect on the economy, eh?

As if we can ever catch up with unemployment when you keep *artificially* adding 100,000+ people every year.

Ever heard of the Red Queen? Running faster and faster to stay in the same place.

"the economy's real needs over the imaginary need to run a surplus"

Is "diversity" one of those *real* needs?
Or is it imaginary too?

"why isn't everything absolutely rosy in India and Nigeria?"
Because they had a lower starting point"

Did they?
I thought we all had a common ancestor.

They've had just as much time as the Vikings, Celts, Gauls, Romans, Athenians and their contemporary descendants to build a better society.
If they haven't, perhaps it's because they don't have the capacity.

"Population growth by immigration doesn't require as much investment in schools etc as population growth by natural increase."

Que?
Another student is another student (or another 14,000).
Does not understanding what the teacher says (in English) lower costs?

Shockadelic,

Population doesn't stop at a countries border - but saying *we* only have control over what *we* do, here in Australia doesn't address the issue, when the number of people living worldwide, is a worldwide matter.

Blaming traitorous leaders - day in, day out. So what do we, the population do - Nothing?

I'm not happy with our so called "elected leaders" either on a range of matters, but I would argue, it's time that *we* as humans can't keep blaming elected representatives forever - and not take action ourselves in our own lives, like I have.

I agree we should "advocate" for policy change - a reduction in business immigration, policies in terms of economic development and environmental impacts and restrictions in accepting people (by business sectors for their own benefit) - particularly from poorer countries (like South Africa) when doctors had been taken from a hospital (and are now living in Australia) and not cut our foreign aid budget leaving other countries in appalling conditions.

http://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/government-population-policy-interview-with-sandra-kanck/

Humans as an animal species have to send a message to all, that *we* cannot keep living in an unsustainable way - and send a "shock" through the system.

Do *we* simply sit back and "hope" for our elected members, with a very fixed mindset to suddenly change - or do *we*, the public start moving and make a difference? Yes this is difficult - but be inspired by the following: http://www.rubbishfree.co.nz/

Any link to the ethnic element is irrelevant. It is a very clever debating technique, to "deny" the real issues at hand. For example - one person can throw out a whole bin of rubbish each week - but their next door neighbor, who lives an environmentally friendly lifestyle and throws out less. Where's the relevance?

"The only things stopping *animals* being just as ravenously exploitative as humans is their limited intelligence? I'd in fact argue they are in many ways, compared to many humans and our "traitorous leaders", are more intelligent!

Hasbeen, a higher population would make it easier to properly service national parks.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Shockadelic, everything affects the economy, but economic policy can solve the problem regardless of how large or how small the immigration rate is.

"As if we can ever catch up with unemployment when you keep *artificially* adding 100,000+ people every year."

As if we can't!

Immigration inevitably increases the demand for goods and services and hence the supply of jobs available. How the increase in supply compares with the increase in demand depends on economic policy, by which I mean fiscal policy and monetary policy, but we can ALWAYS create the conditions where sufficient jobs are available if we want to.

Diversity isn't imaginary, but nor is it one of the real needs of the economy (though it is likely to be economically advantageous as it assists the spread of ideas).

My comment about starting points was nothing to do with ancestry; rather it was about history. India was subjected to centuries of mogul misrule followed by British misrule, followed by a backlash against the British way of doing things that threw the baby out with the bathwater. So India will take a long time to catch up, particularly as they're also culturally disadvantaged (nobody can do anything about the cows that get in the way of traffic).

"Que?
Another student is another student (or another 14,000)."
But most immigrants have already completed school.

"Does not understanding what the teacher says (in English) lower costs?"
No, but assuming immigrants don't understand english lowers the standard of debate.

(Briefly for now:)

There was a debate between Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson and Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle which covers much of the same ground being covered here.

Articles about the debate include: "Update 14-10-2014: Doyle vs Thomson: Big debate on Victoria's population increase - 13 Oct 2014" at http://candobetter.net/node/4066 and "Video: Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle supports Referendum on Population Growth" at http://candobetter.net/node/4115

The videos of this debate include: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5k8lTD1_x4 (33min)

In my view, and in the view of most of the audience, Kelvin Thomson won the debate emphatically. Kelvin Thomson, together, with most of his own electorate, who are largely of Middle Eastern and Southern European descent, is opposed to the current high immigration scam.

Aidan,

A higher population will increase pressure to divert parkland to human use, just as Harry Triguboff has been advocating.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/triguboff-lets-trade-trees-for-homes/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/highrise-harry-wants-more-people/

15% of the Earth's land area for agriculture is not so arbitrary when you consider all the land area that is occupied by deserts, ice caps, tundra, boreal forest, etc. When reserves are too small, animals and plants go extinct. Are you really rooting for the 6th mass extinction?

The big studies on immigration, such as the 1997 US Academy of Sciences report, the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK, and the 2006 Productivity Commission in Australia agree on the main economic conclusions. There is a per capita benefit from immigration, but it is very small. The Productivity Commission modeled doubling skilled migration and found a per capita benefit of less than $400. This benefit is overwhelming distributed to the migrants themselves and the owners of capitals. There are wage depression effects for the rest of the population, varying on how vulnerable the job is to migrant competition. The black community in the US has been particularly hard hit.

This link is to an article by George Borjas, a Harvard economist who was one of the authors of the Academy of Sciences report

http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

Most studies that show a real economic benefit from immigration assume full employment, but the work force is already hard hit by automation and offshoring.

How is it racist to mention that a recently arrived migrant child who doesn't speak English will create extra problems for the teacher?

By the way, I agree with Shockadelic about our elected leaders. Our main problem isn't that Australians are having too many babies. They aren't. Nor is it that migrants are bad people. They aren't, on average. Our real problem is that most of our elite are traitors. They are running a gigantic Ponzi scheme instead of moving us towards a steady state economy. They are trashing our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life. The more that people see the mainstream politicians for what they are, the better.

Divergence,

Though a higher population will increase pressure to divert parkland to human use, it's likely to result in a much bigger increase in pressure to NOT divert parkland to human use.

"15% of the Earth's land area for agriculture is not so arbitrary when you consider all the land area that is occupied by deserts, ice caps, tundra, boreal forest, etc. When reserves are too small, animals and plants go extinct. Are you really rooting for the 6th mass extinction?"
Of course not. But the argument was not about protecting reserves, it was about imposing a TOTALLY ARBITRARY 15% limit that completely failed to take into account how much of everything else was left.

We should be aiming for full employment, but that's a matter for fiscal and monetary policy, and is just as achievable no matter how high or low immigration is. And Australia's regulated wages mean we can avoid a repeat of the USA's problems.

"How is it racist to mention that a recently arrived migrant child who doesn't speak English will create extra problems for the teacher?"
It isn't. But why do you assume the newly arrived migrant child doesn't speak English? Speaking English is one of the main reasons why Australia's such an attractive destination for migrants.

"Our real problem is that most of our elite are traitors. They are running a gigantic Ponzi scheme instead of moving us towards a steady state economy. "
Those who think our economy is a Ponzi scheme invariably don't understand it. Continuous improvement is much better than a steady state.

"They are trashing our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life."
Politicians are doing all those things, but not with immigration.

And is it really such a bad thing that our inner suburbs no longer look and feel like country towns? There's plenty of real country towns available for those who prefer them.

I note that, unlike Divergence, Aidan has yet to supply even ONE SOURCE for his assertions that I requested on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 11:25:16 PM, let alone for the additional assertions he has made made since.

Aidan wrote: "Continuous improvement is much better than a steady state."

Does Aidan claim that circumstances will continue to 'improve' indefinitely into the future and that a steady state will never be reached?

In any case, how is peak hour gridlock, higher parking charges, increasingly unaffordable housing, cramped high-rise living conditions for a larger proportion of people and an ever growing list of endangered and extinct native flora and fauna 'improvement'?

I note that whilst claiming that we need not concern ourselves about Australia's current record high immigration rate, Aidan professes to be an environmentalist.

Environmentalists who have spoken against population growth in Australia include David Attenborough, Hans Brunner and the late Judith Wright (1915-2000).

I would be interested to know if Aidan can name one environmentalist who shares his bizarre views about population.

Aidan,

There are a number of economists who don't agree with you. See Leith van Onselen (the "Unconventional Economist") on Macrobusiness for one. Actually, a good explanation came from a comment on one of his posts by Stephen Morris:

"One of the unintended consequences of income inequality has been the difficulty of growing aggregate demand, and therefore growing profits in developed countries. If the incomes of most of the population have stagnated (because the returns from economic growth are going almost entirely to the rich) then it is almost impossible to increase demand.

"Rich country elites have managed to generate some extra demand through loose monetary policy: encouraging people to become indebted in order to maintain their spending. But the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath showed that there is a limit to this tactic.

"Some extra demand may be accessed by firms selling into export markets. But for many developed country businesses this also is limited. Many are uncompetitive, relying for their domestic 'success' on favours from political Mates, a competitive advantage which cannot be readily translated to export markets. Others are simply in non-tradable sectors tied to the domestic market.

"If domestic per capita incomes have stagnated, and if the borrowing binge is exhausted, and if export markets are not accessible, there is only one variable left to play with, the number of “capitas”.

"If demand and profits are to grow, then the population must be increased.

"This is a problem which affects elite interests in all countries. Hence the campaign to allow uncontrolled population growth through immigration. It is the only way in which the profits of the wealthy can be made to grow further."

Reply to this comment:
"This does seem to be the card the Victorian government has been playing for the past 15 or so years…

"Pump up the population to boost construction and consumption."

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/09/will-a-falling-aud-curb-the-population-ponzi/

malthusista, I make no apologies for not treating a discussion website like a report or university assignment. And I don't regard posting links to show others are of the same opinion as very useful. The absence of insurmountable problems is unfortunately very difficult to prove, but for any problem you care to mention I can explain why it can be overcome.

"Does Aidan claim that circumstances will continue to 'improve' indefinitely into the future and that a steady state will never be reached?"
Though I'm better at predicting the future than most people are, I'm reluctant to rule anything out for all time. But I seriously doubt we will ever either reach perfection or decide the status quo is good enough.

"In any case, how is peak hour gridlock, higher parking charges, increasingly unaffordable housing, cramped high-rise living conditions for a larger proportion of people and an ever growing list of endangered and extinct native flora and fauna 'improvement'?"
Peak hour gridlock and higher parking charges give us a reason to build more railways, saving people time and money while ultimately reducing the traffic congestion.

Increasingly unaffordable housing can be a problem, but it's best addressed with taxation changes. High rise living doesn't have to be cramped, and it's a matter of personal preference - some people like it and some don't.

And an ever growing list of endangered and extinct native flora and fauna is mainly the result of our failing to value what we have.

And no, I don't keep track of which environmentalists think what about population. Environmentalism does require caution, so it's unsurprising that many are conservative on this issue.

Divergence, for ANY view you will always find a number of economists disagreeing. But on closer inspection you'll find most of their arguments are complete rubbish based on false assumptions.

""If domestic per capita incomes have stagnated, and if the borrowing binge is exhausted, and if export markets are not accessible, there is only one variable left to play with, the number of 'capitas'."

No, there is a second variable left: the amount of government deficit spending. Governments like Australia's federal government are financially sovereign (they create their own money and let the market set its value) so have unlimited credit in their own currency. Therefore the government can always afford to spend more.

Aidan,

Of course governments can print as much money as they like - just like Germany after World War I (search "hyperinflation").

Note that the ultimate limit to growth is set by the laws of thermodynamics, even assuming that we have a perfectly clean, free, unlimited source of energy, because if our energy consumption keeps growing at current rates, the waste heat that we must unavoidably emit will end up cooking us in a matter of a few centuries.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

A lot of this growth in energy consumption is related to population growth, but even if that stops, our mining will require a lot more energy, essentially because the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

Ultimately, you are arguing with the laws of nature.

Divergence, I'm well aware of what hyperinflation is, but I'm not still so ignorant that I think printing money is sufficient to cause it. As for Germany after WW1, the problem was the lack of an effective tax system. As soon as they implemented one, the hyperinflation completely stopped.

I'm not advocating a rise in government spending to cause an inflation problem (let alone hyperinflation, though that would be almost impossible for Australia to reach anyway). I'm only saying the government can and should spend enough to overcome the stagnation.

"Note that the ultimate limit to growth is set by the laws of thermodynamics, even assuming that we have a perfectly clean, free, unlimited source of energy, because if our energy consumption keeps growing at current rates, the waste heat that we must unavoidably emit will end up cooking us in a matter of a few centuries."
Except that economic value is not proportional to energy use. Efficiency increases are just as valuable as production increases. The real game changer is going to come in a decade or two when molten oxide electrolysis revolutionises steelmaking.

Aidan wrote on Thursday, 4 December 2014 3:42:17 PM, "I don't regard posting links to show others are of the same opinion as very useful."

Links are only the on-line way to cite the sources which verify the claims being made.

In every serious debate in which I have participated, both on-line and off-line, those making controversial claims are expected to cite the evidence which support those claims.

Aidan wrote, "I seriously doubt we will ever either reach perfection or decide the status quo is good enough."

In fact, through most of human history there has been a stable "steady state" and the vast majority of humanity have been quite happy with that. This includes the periods of the non-hierarchical New Guinean, Melanesian and South Pacific civilisations which lasted for between 60,000 and 30,000 years until the Pacific was 'discovered' and settled by Western colonialists.

Whether or not the people of the Pacific considered their societies perfect, they sure considered them good enough.

Similar non-hierarchical societies existed all over the globe once, including in Britain. Except for a brief interlude when Britain was occupied by Romans, stable non-hierachical societies existed in Britain until the centuries following the Norman invasion of 1066. In the period following the Norman invasion, common land was privatised and landless peasants had no choice but to live in slums and to work in the hellish factories and live in slums.

Assuming humanity doesn't first destroy itself with overpopulation, overconsumption or war, there is every reason to hope that we will return to the sort of society that predated the industrial revolution and colonialism.

malthusista, links to facts are useful, but links to other opinions concurring with your own don't really prove anything.

Proving the absence of something is much harder than proving its presence. I could list claims to the contrary and tell you why they're wrong, but that would be very tedious and I doubt it would really advance the debate. So instead I've invited you, and anyone else of your opinion, to supply the claims, and I will identify the flaws that invalidate them.

I notice your claims of a steady state relate to times when information about them is scarce. If more information were available, I think you'd find they were much less steady than you assumed.

Aidan,

Whilst you might think it is acceptable for populations to be housed in high-rise like battery hens, I don't think so.

My reference for small stable populations as a norm in the past is "Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of animal and human population", Countershock Press 2013 http://www.lulu.com/shop/sheila-newman/demography-territory-law-rules-of-animal-human-populations/paperback/product-21735874.html and "Demography, Territory, Law 2: Land-tenure and the origins of capitalism in Britain", Countershock Press 2014, http://www.lulu.com/shop/sm-newman/demography-territory-law-2-land-tenure-the-origins-of-capitalism-in-britain/paperback/product-21735834.html . The first and second books give references for steady state populations and evolutionary arguments. The first has a comprehensive literature review of population theories (far more than you would usually hear of) and then formulates its own. The second book examines history in the light of this theory, which has been scientifically peer reviewed in reviews you can read here: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257536904_JosephSmith__Pirie%27s_reviews_of_Demography_Territory_Law_Vol1 The author has also recently written two short articles, which explore the fallacy of inevitable population growth in the light of Ethiopia http://candobetter.net/node/4147 and Congo http://candobetter.net/node/4216. As the author remarks in those articles, it should not hard to work out for yourself that there is something wrong with the assumption that Africa, India, China and overpopulated islands in the Pacific, were always have been like that. The usual ideology is that they always had high birth rates and high death rates which modern medicine improved, however it is unlikely that birth rates were really that high and I don't think you can point to good access to medicine in the classically overpopulated countries.

In the short term you might refer to the abovementioned article called, "Development caused overpopulation in Ethiopia", where the author posts footnotes instancing her arguments, including one that counters inclusive fitness theory's assumption of no natural barriers to a genetic drive to maximise numbers (apart from violence and disease) with cooperative breeding models and natural contraception in the environment and through genetically programmed incest avoidance that responds to environmental cues.

malthusista, I think we've been arguing at cross purposes. I was referring to a steady economic and technological state, not a steady population. I do not dispute the latter was the case in many parts of the world for centuries, though not always by design.

And your "like battery hens" rhetoric doesn't improve your argument. If people to choose to live in high rises, what's wrong with that?

I love this forum, entertains me for hours :). What sense does it make to bring in immigrants who are uneducated or unskilled or possibly cannot speak English not to mention many unwilling to integrate? Surely a burden on tax payers.
Someone mentioned getting rid of the baby bonus (does it still exist?). If it does yes get rid of it, I imagined, when it was introduced, lower income couples/singles, teens becoming pregnant because of the almighty dollar, lots of, being dangled in front of them.
The ludicrous paid parental leave. Who pays for this? If its the tax payer, get rid of it or reduce it to the amount of a dole payment. It is ridiculously over the top. If the employer is going to be made responsible for them as well as pay their replacement, I know I would certainly frown upon employing any female of child bearing age.
Besides the fact it should not even be necessary, its kind of incentive to stay pregnant dont you think?
One more thing. The first home buyers payment, I think around $10,000 at the moment. Is that tax payers money? If it is its wrong on two levels. Stop it. And I wonder how many young couples were tempted by the carrot dangling in front of them, putting themselves into a world of debt -$400,000 or so thinking $10,000 will make a difference. These bonuses in many instances have probably been more detrimental in the long run. Onya chief controllers!

I know this is a touchy subject but here goes. There is a large number of unemployed youths and young adults living in towns throughout WA in particular, who could help greatly reduce tax payer funded benefits. Recently in a Pilbara town, companies were invited to a get together with the local unemployed, presenting them the offer of a life time. BBq was arranged for the 220 attending. These companies were to receive Govt subsiby packages to offer employment, training and apprenticeships opportunities. Truck driving and other skills that do not usually fall into your lap. I didnt actually hear if there were any expressions of interest shown but once the food was gone, the large group of guests promptly departed. Not one company was able to secure a single trainee ship. I wonder why anyone would turn down that opportunity to remain on the dole, for which they will soon be working.

Aidan wrote: "I think we've been arguing at cross purposes."

Then we're agreed it's Australia's current record rate of population "that's unsustainable"?

As for my '"like battery hens" rhetoric':

Obviously, those living in cramped high rise apartments are not living literally like battery hens. Nevertheless, to have, as living space, perhaps five or six small rooms and maybe a balcony high above the dirt and bushes is hardly what I would have thought that previous generations of Australians, who mostly lived in freestanding homes, would have considered 'progress'.

Unless each person added to the population through birth or immigration is able to export more than what he/she needs to import to be able to sustain himself/herself, adding more to Australia's population can only reduce the wealth of the average Australian already living here.

With the destruction of Australia's manufacturing sector and the current reduction in demand for Australia's mineral exports (not to mention its unsustainability in the long term), a large number of new arrivals can only reduce our standard of living.

So, as Australia as a whole is becoming ever more impoverished and environmentally degraded as a result of high immigration, a small minority is perversely gaining. That minority includes land speculators and property developers.

In at least one previous era (as well as now) another minority was also able to grotesquely gain from war as millions died and had their homes and property destroyed. That war was the almost entirely avoidable Second World against Nazi Germany. It should have ended shortly after Italy switched sides in July 1943, if not before.

Instead, the war dragged on in Europe until May 1945 causing hundreds of thousands more to die in the West and an even more terrible death toll in Eastern Europe.

The first sentence in my previous post should have read:

'Then we're agreed it's Australia's current record rate of population [growth] "that's unsustainable"?'

- my apologies

jodelie,

There was a time in my life, when a job in the Pilbara, with the reputedly good pay and working conditions, would have been attractive to me.

Nonetheless, we should not rush to judge those who are unwilling to work, even in the Pilbara.

Whilst there may be worse ways to earn a living than working in those mines, I can think of far better and more creative ways to spend my time.

Whilst most would be unaware or have forgotten by now, in the late 1970's the Australian Trade Union movement started to fight for a 35 hour working week.

The achievement of the 35 hour week was supposed to be the first step towards a further reduction in working hours so that we could all have more time to do the things we enjoy rather than spend our time performing menial, boring and/or stressful tasks.

Instead, after decades of supposed supposed efficiency gains brought about by 'reforms' from the likes of Hawke, Keating, Kennett and Howard, most of us, who have work, are working longer hours at nights or on weekends. In addition, creeping credentialism is forcing many to spend more of their evenings and weekends studying to gain further qualifications.

Where workers are not compelled to work longer hours, many see no other choice because of much higher living expenses, including for rent, mortgage repayments, education, etc.

malthusista,
'Then we're agreed it's Australia's current record rate of population [growth] "that's unsustainable"?'
Not exactly. If we continue to undervalue the environment then we will fail to achieve sustainability even with no population growth. But if we take the problems seriously, Australia can achieve sustainability even with a much higher rate of population growth.

"Obviously, those living in cramped high rise apartments are not living literally like battery hens. Nevertheless, to have, as living space, perhaps five or six small rooms and maybe a balcony high above the dirt and bushes is hardly what I would have thought that previous generations of Australians, who mostly lived in freestanding homes, would have considered 'progress'."
That's not where I want to live either, but that's largely because I've got quite a lot of stuff. But most of that stuff is books, papers, magazines, CDs, tapes, DVDs etc. Stuff that's increasingly available as digital downloads, so it would be idiotic to assume the next generation has the same space requirements as I do.

Remember, nobody's forcing people to live in those flats; there are plenty of freestanding homes available further out.

"Unless each person added to the population through birth or immigration is able to export more than what he/she needs to import to be able to sustain himself/herself, adding more to Australia's population can only reduce the wealth of the average Australian already living here"
That's not actually true, as there's a lot more to wealth than foreign currency value. In fact your statement is an example of the kind of mentality that's still wrecking the Great Barrier Reef!

"With the destruction of Australia's manufacturing sector and the current reduction in demand for Australia's mineral exports (not to mention its unsustainability in the long term), a large number of new arrivals can only reduce our standard of living."
A dubious claim. For instance another possibility is they could revitalise our manufacturing sector.

malthusista (continued)
"So, as Australia as a whole is becoming ever more impoverished and environmentally degraded as a result of high immigration, a small minority is perversely gaining. That minority includes land speculators and property developers."
The high immigration's a scapegoat for inaction. As for property speculation, I think the best way to solve that is to replace the GST with a broad based land tax.

"In at least one previous era (as well as now) another minority was also able to grotesquely gain from war as millions died and had their homes and property destroyed. That war was the almost entirely avoidable Second World against Nazi Germany. It should have ended shortly after Italy switched sides in July 1943, if not before."
Almost entirely avoidable?!?!?! How?

I really don't know why you dragged the war into it anyway. Small rich minorities profiting at the expense of others is hardly unusual, but it happened far less in WW2 as government control was much stronger.

In the last paragraph of my last post, I should have posted:

"That war was the almost entirely avoidable Second World [War] against Nazi Germany."

- my apologies

Aidan wrote: "if we take the problems seriously, Australia can achieve sustainability even with a much higher rate of population growth"

This is yet another unfounded assertion.

Clearly our political leaders and planners have not "take[n] the problems seriously" so far now and we are living with the consequences.

Whether they can be made to "take the problems seriously" is yet to be seen and whether continued massive population growth can occur without further destruction of our quality of life even if our political leaders and planners were to "take the problems seriously" is also yet to be seen.

Aidan wrote: "Remember, nobody's forcing people to live in those flats; there are plenty of freestanding homes available further out."

A few weeks ago on the ABC Friday 7.30 Victoria Report it was revealed that the residents of one of the recent additions to Melbourne's urban sprawl had a poor quality of life. There was no public transport and few local services. The only way to travel to work was in a long return journey by car.

The 'choice' that Victorians face is between high-rise cramped accommodation or urban sprawl with its long commute times, lack of services and destruction of native vegetation. In both cases the cost of shelter has been hyper-inflated as a result of population growth.

Quite possibly advances in digital technology may one day reduce our need for space. That has yet to happen, but that will, at best, only make a marginal difference to the quality of life of those living in small high-rise flats.

Aidan wrote: "As for property speculation, I think the best way to solve that is to replace the GST with a broad based land tax."

Any 'solution' which fails to make the demand equal to the supply is no solution.

malthusista,
Apology rejected, as you seem to be using it to avoid answering the question: How was WW2 avoidable? And how is it relevant here anyway?

As for my assertion that "if we take the problems seriously, Australia can achieve sustainability even with a much higher rate of population growth" it is my honest opinion. Remember this is an opinion website! If you have facts that seem to contradict it, I'm prepared to either revise my opinion or explain why they don't.

"A few weeks ago on the ABC Friday 7.30 Victoria Report it was revealed that the residents of one of the recent additions to Melbourne's urban sprawl had a poor quality of life. There was no public transport and few local services. The only way to travel to work was in a long return journey by car."
I had no idea the planners had been so negligent. Which recent addition is it? And do you have the URL or the date of the report?

"The 'choice' that Victorians face is between high-rise cramped accommodation or urban sprawl with its long commute times, lack of services and destruction of native vegetation. In both cases the cost of shelter has been hyper-inflated as a result of population growth."
Suburban development often leads to an increase in native vegetation as the areas expanded into tend to be grassland, and many people plant native vegetation in their gardens.

"Quite possibly advances in digital technology may one day reduce our need for space. That has yet to happen,"
For some people it's ALREADY HAPPENED.

"but that will, at best, only make a marginal difference to the quality of life of those living in small high-rise flats."
On the contrary, it will make a huge difference. But we are still likely to see a trend towards bigger flats in future. And of course space isn't everything and acoustic factors also have to be considered, but we do have the technology to address those as well.

malthusista (continued)

"Any 'solution' which fails to make the demand equal to the supply is no solution."
I'm not suggesting it be a substitute for provision of alternatives. However house prices are being pushed up by the investment value that properties have. By taxing land value, housing will become more affordable for new buyers. But it would have to be phased in gradually to avoid disadvantaging those who've already bought houses.

Aidan,

You keep making unfounded assertions about how we could solve our problems and make life better for everyone while rapidly increasing the population, although presumably not up to the point where most of the mass of the solar system is converted to a ball of Australians expanding at the speed of light. You assert that this is an opinion site, but opinions that aren't based on facts are rightfully considered worthless.

I have several natural science degrees and find the idea that some magical technologies will solve all of our problems (in a timely manner) frankly ridiculous. You need to look at what was being confidently predicted from the 1950s. Where's my flying car? Why can't we regenerate amputated limbs? Why have improvements in cancer survival been so modest, despite all the resources in President Nixon's War on Cancer? Why have the hours of full-time work stayed so high?

You might take a look at the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which attempts to be a measure of changes in human well-being that is better than GDP or even GDP per capita (itself largely stagnant since 2007, despite massive population growth).

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP35.pdf

The GPI includes such things as environmental deterioration and excludes defensive spending. Graphs for most countries, including Australia, (and the world as a whole) show the GPI rising with GDP up to the late 1970s and then largely stagnating or even declining. One exception is Japan, where the population has been slowly declining. There have been a number of articles on this in journals such as Ecological Economics.

Your growth isn't making us better off on average, even if it is making our elite better off (which is why we have it).

Divergence, my opinion's based on the fact that every alleged limiting factor for Australian population is a problem that can be overcome.

"I have several natural science degrees and find the idea that some magical technologies will solve all of our problems (in a timely manner) frankly ridiculous."
I didn't say they would. The problems will be solved when we put our efforts into solving them instead of chasing tax cuts and budget surpluses! Technological improvement will make it a lot easier, but rarely the deciding factor. I am not assuming there will be any new products that revolutionize our lives, even though I expect many. However I think it reasonable to assume that processes that currently exist in the lab and offer great advantages will become commercialised over the next few decades.

Safety concerns mean that flying cars will never reach a mass market, hence they'd have to be priced very high to recoup the cost of developing them. And the need for both flying and road components adds extra weight, which is somewhat disadvantageous on the road and a huge disadvantage in the air. So it's far cheaper to take a taxi to and from the airport.

"Why can't we regenerate amputated limbs?"
I hadn't realised they were confidently predicting that in the 1950s. I expect it will be possible eventually, but the science is still a long way off.

"Why have improvements in cancer survival been so modest?"
Because you're comparing them with what they're likely to be in the future. If you compared them to cancer survival rates from the 1950s, or even Nixon's time, you'd discover the improvements are ENORMOUS.

"Why have the hours of full-time work stayed so high?"
Because our economic system is structured so that many people need the money, and most of those who don't need it still want it.

"You might take a look at the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)"
I suggest YOU take a look at it: it highlights many of the problems that I think we should be addressing rather than obsessing over population (which it scarcely mentions).

Aidan,

It is a very long way from the lab to practical applications. A lot of ideas that look promising end up not being useful in practice or take a very long time to become useful. 'Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be.' You can't just read the hype and assume that it is all going to work somehow. The fact remains that a lot of problems are just plain hard. Just think of all the money that has been pouring into Alzheimers research. There still isn't a cure or a completely reliable method to prevent it. Cancer survival rates have improved a lot for some types, but very little for others. President Nixon's idea was that we would do some research and wipe out cancer.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/common-cancers/#Trends

The point about the GPI is that most of us are not much better off in real terms. This wouldn't be the case if population growth were as wonderful as you think it is. Most American men have wages that have stagnated or declined in real terms since 1973. How has population growth helped them?

The problems with congestion, overstretched infrastructure and public services, urban amenity, etc. are obvious. If it were just poor planning, and not an inability to keep up with very rapid population growth, then such problems would not exist in all our major cities.

More people put obvious pressure on the environment. The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

It is interesting that our politicians have been unable to come up with tame scientists who will tell them what they want to hear, as they have with demographers and economists. That is why they have to keep ignoring or censoring reports they have commissioned. With all due respect, why do you think people should believe you and not the folks at the CSIRO or Australian Academy of Science who have looked at this issue?

We aren't obsessing about population; you have your head in the sand.

Divergence, it's not a very long way from the lab to getting practical applications commercialised when their advantages are obvious. Fusion is somewhat of an exception because of the extreme difficulty doing it in a lab (as well as the very high setup costs that any practical application would have). I'm not just reading hype and expecting it to work somehow; I'm reading the facts, considering the enormous advantages over the way things are currently done, and expecting engineers to exploit those advantages in a decade or (conservatively) two. Why do you expect them not to?

"The fact remains that a lot of problems are just plain hard. Just think of all the money that has been pouring into Alzheimers research. There still isn't a cure or a completely reliable method to prevent it. "
There's a VERY big difference between commercialising something that's ALREADY been done in the lab and STARTING research on something with the hope of eventually commercialising a product. But the main problem with Alzheimers research was the unchallenged experimental error that led researchers to the false conclusion that it was caused by too much aluminium in the brain, resulting in a huge amount of wasted effort. Now the likeliest cause is thought to be too much copper in the brain, though many researchers dispute this and base their work on alternative hypotheses.

"Cancer survival rates have improved a lot for some types, but very little for others. President Nixon's idea was that we would do some research and wipe out cancer."
Survival rates are improving all the time, and I'd expect to see significant differences between the current rate and what your link reported. Nixon was apparently under the false impression that cancer was one disease with a single cure. We know much better now.

"The point about the GPI is that most of us are not much better off in real terms. This wouldn't be the case if population growth were as wonderful as you think it is."
No, it wouldn't be the case if population growth were as wonderful as you assume I think it is. I think it has advantages and disadvantages, and the advantages (in Australia's case at least) outweigh the disadvantages.

"The problems with congestion, overstretched infrastructure and public services, urban amenity, etc. are obvious. If it were just poor planning, and not an inability to keep up with very rapid population growth, then such problems would not exist in all our major cities"
It's not just poor planning; it's a failure to follow through on the planning that's done. The problem isn't inability; it's unwillingness to commit resources.

"More people put obvious pressure on the environment. The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act."
While we're living unsustainably, more people is always going to put more pressure on the environment. But stopping population growth won't solve the problem; incorporating sustainability into everything will.

Aidan claims that had our politicians "followe[d] through on planning" and had been willing to "commit resources" that the traffic congestion, overcrowding and other problems now being faced by Melburnians could have been prevented.

Would Aidan concede that until our politicians lift their game that further population growth should cease?

Back in August, Denis Napthine, who is thankfully no longer Premier of Victoria, announced plans to increase Melbourne's population from 4.4 million to 7.7 million by 2051! This is discussed on 7.30 Victoria at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-23/can-melbourne-cope-with-7-million-and-more-/5475094

An article which comprehensively demolishes the case for population growth is: "Is Population Growth a Ponzi Scheme?" (4/3/2010) by Joseph Chamie at http://www.theglobalist.com/is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme/.

"Would Aidan concede that until our politicians lift their game that further population growth should cease?"
No. Ceasing population growth would create its own problems, and would probably deter the politicians from lifting their game.

"Back in August, Denis Napthine, who is thankfully no longer Premier of Victoria, announced plans to increase Melbourne's population from 4.4 million to 7.7 million by 2051! This is discussed on 7.30 Victoria at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-23/can-melbourne-cope-with-7-million-and-more-/5475094 "
Probably just the result of rivalry with Sydney, and it won't make much difference whether the plans are there or not. What are needed are plans for more railways so Melbourne can more easily cope with a bigger population.

As for the article you linked to, it doesn't really demolish anything much, and it assumes the government will mismanage any economic downturn.

Note yet more self-contradiction in Aidan's latest 'contribution' to the debate.

On the one hand Aidan insists that population growth is beneficial for Australia. On the other he proposes measures such as "more railways" and more capable politicians than we now have to "COPE with population growth."

Aidan wrote: "As for the article you linked to, it doesn't really demolish anything much, ..."

Feel welcome to quote from http://www.theglobalist.com/is-population-growth-a-ponzi-scheme/ to illustrate what you mean. I urge others to also read the article for themselves and form their own judgements.

malthusista, I never denied that population growth has costs. But new railways benefit the existing population as well, and it would be difficult to fund them without population growth.

From the article:
"When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families"
The Australian government would not let it get to the stage of homeless families, and our laws would limit how much wages can be depressed. And if the government responds in a sensible way like the Rudd government did, the other negative effects can be avoided too.

And significantly, none of those things depend on increasing population anyway.

Aidan,

Your faith in the ability of our politicians to solve problems while boosting population is touching. In fact, according to the latest figures from Roy Morgan Research, 10% of the working age population is unemployed and another 9.7% is underemployed. People in such a market have very little bargaining power.

Unpaid overtime:

http://www.afr.com/p/national/fewer_staff_more_unpaid_overtime_UsirEtFQf5AZWAObFDtVhP

Homeless families:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/a-new-face-of-homelessness-20130504-2izot.html

Tony Recsei is far from unbiased, but this article has links to serious studies showing negative effects of high density on human welfare.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/003945-health-happiness-and-density

This paper from Nature discusses the mental health aspects:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/nature10190.html

You have been given evidence that the politicians are ignoring, and in some cases censoring, the advice of their own scientists against boosting the population, and that population growth is an important factor in the deterioration of our environment and quality of life. I can only assume that you are still pushing population growth for one of two reasons. One possibility is that you have a religious or quasi-religious faith in it, much like Runner on creationism, Jardine on Austrian economics, or Arjay on 9/11 Truthism. The other is that you or people close to you are personally making money from it.

Aidan wrote "... new railways benefit the existing population as well, and it would be difficult to fund them without population growth."

As shown by Divergence above citing Jane O'Sullivan, and affirmed by Kelvin Thomson, the Federal Labor member for Wills, each new immigrant costs Australian taxpayers $200,000, so adding more can only make it a lot more difficult to raise the necessary funds to build new railways.

Aidan wrote, "The Australian government would not let it get to the stage of homeless families, ...".

Yet another unfounded assertion by Aidan not backed by any sources.

There has already been an alarming increase in homelessness. This is hardly surprising given that housing has become so much less affordable that it was in a previous generation. Whether or not the homeless include substantial numbers of families, I cannot say, but if housing costs continue to be driven higher by immigration, I don't see how family homelessness can be prevented.