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.