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.