Migrants coming to Australia have driven up Australia's population to 24 million, with a future population of potentially 40 million people.

I feel people (are aiming to live in Australia), due to in their minds what is a "worldwide crisis" in terms of human rights and safe day to day living.

Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr, however is concerned Australia's population is expanding too quickly and says there's a case for cutting back immigration by 50 per cent - raising concerns about young people not being able to get housing for example.

Chris Richardson from Deloitte Access Economics says migration addresses the skills shortage.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/02/15/australias-population-hits-24-million

Is that it? What about the shortage of water provision, local food production (with urban sprawl), land degradation and environmental damage?

Then when you take into consideration a shortage of infrastructure and services (to cater for an eventual 40 million population increase), the situation is very serious.

Anyone who thinks that population increase is an unmitigated good thing
should have a look at Egypt.
There are, UN studies I think, that calculated that the Nile can
support 40 million people. This before upriver development in Sudan.
Due to food and fuel subsidies using money from oil & gas exports their
population has risen to 85 million.
Since their oil production peaked in 1998 they have been cutting back
the subsidies and this caused demonstrations about food prices which
led to the deposing of Mubarak.
At present Egypt is living on charity from the Gulf States.
What happens when that runs out.
Egypt has to get rid of some 40 million people to be self supporting.
Where will they go ?

That is an example of what happens if you just let population
increase without taking any care of resources.

The population is now almost double the optimal figure of 13 million. There are not enough jobs for people already here (although much of the increase comes from 'refugees' who are provided with the dole and housing by an ever-decreasing number of Australian workers). These 'refugees' will never bother about working. The Turnbull government has added an extra 19.6 billion to lavish spending (mainly for non-producers); we are barely covering costs with mineral exports to the Chinese, who are dumping inferior steel on us, while it was reported last night that the Whyalla steel works will probably be closed soon.

Australia has become the Stupid Country, run by a new, elite upper class, using the country and us as their playtthings.

ttbn, why do you think a population of 13 million is optimal? Surely the optimal population depends on the technology? I see Australia as underpopulated, particularly Northern Australia.

The shortage of jobs is due to one government policy in particular: trying to balance the budget when there's a cyclical deficit. What they should be doing instead is nation building: constructing the infrastructure for Australia's present and future needs. And if there's a problem with refugees not getting jobs, we should solve it, not write then off as you appear to have done.

We should be investing billions of dollars in molten oxide electrolysis R&D to enable us to produce steel more cheaply than the Chinese. Instead we're cutting the CSIRO budget, so you could well be right in calling us the Stupid Country.

At some point in the future the government will have to do as Mubarak
did in Egypt and start cutting the subsidies(welfare etc) and will
our government suffer the same fate ?

The main problem is no one seems to have done a study on Australia's
carrying capacity. We know how many sheep we can run and how many
cattle we can breed up but do we have a clue as to how many humans we can run ?
The related question not answered, how many humans at what standard of living ?

When we know the answers to those questions a further question is how
do we make the choice of population vs standard of living ?

Those are the questions for the "Business as Usual" crowd.

As a member of the "we'll all be rooned" crowd I do not believe that
we are being given the choice.
Our declining energy production and its increasing cost will impose
answers to those questions.
All economic eras come to a sticky end one way or another, generally
by means of the law of diminishing returns.

Illegal immigration world wide will decrease because nations/regions
will become vigilant in protecting their current status and will
physically reject immigration flows. Additionally travel, formally
and informally, will become very difficult.

It really will be a case of "No room at the Inn" !

Dear Nathan,

I agree that having more people makes life more difficult, that we could have lived better if they didn't come, but unless migrants pose a criminal/terrorist/health risk, we have no moral right to lock them out. Nevertheless we should still frown at them and as much as we can avoid encouraging them with all sorts of benefits.

Regarding the standard of living, I agree with Aidan, rather than with Bazz, that with sufficient technology much bigger numbers can be sustained, including plenty of food and water. However, as I look at the quality of life rather than the standard of living, that's the very problem that I'm trying to avoid: more people would require more technology to be forced on us, not to mention the threat of nation-building which Aidan already articulated.

Australia's population is now equal to that of the Indian city of Delhi, the where I shall be next month, however we have some 13 million to go to catch up to Tokyo; if that's any consolation.

And very shortly the demographic of Australia will be primarily Chinese. Look at the link below showing a map of Chinese in Sydney in 2011. And I reckon those figures have increased by about 25% since 2011.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hurstville-sydneys-real-chinatown-20150218-13ia0l.html

Australia now is nothing more than a part of a Chinese mercantile system with China feeling free to dump its excess population and trade its crappy goods for land and resources.

Mr Opinion, are you related to Donald Trump? Nearly everyone else understands that migrants come here of their own accord rather than being sent by their government.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu, why do you consider nation building a threat? And what is it you think quality of live depends on other than standard of living?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, with solar panels ever cheaper, why do you think our energy production will decline?

When most Australians prefer to live in big cities, why do you equate increasing population with declining standard of living?

Why, when we have elections every 3 years, do you imagine there'd be a disorderly overthrow?

And have you failed to notice Australia's a rich country? Why do you think we won't be able to afford the basics?

Dear Aidan,

Time will tell. But I bet I am correct.

Every new person, whether they are born here or they immigrate here has an environmental impact. This is very serious, in terms of the Australian environment.

The link I have below, relates to Lord Howe Island - and is called "Plastic oceans".

I don't understand what people are going through (who move out of their home country due to "humans rights" issues), as I have never been through their day to day lifestyle, but standards of living (and limiting movement) are not helped by cutting foreign aid budgets for example.

The link is: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3583576.htm and I have seen it on television and is shocking to watch.

Aidan,

It's not what I think. It's what experts who know much more than I do have written. Given Australia's geography, and the fact that most people are crowded into the one third of the continent that is habitable, I am inclined to believe them. There are small countries with much smaller populations than ours doing much better than we are. Technology is fine; we just don't do it very well, and it will never overcome our inhospitible interior. We must face the fact that Australia is in serious decline, and more people is the last thing we need.

Well Natham here is a subject we agree on. We need to reduce the intake of people drastically, and I suggest that the reduction of immigration should be back to net zero. In other words, if x number leave our shores in one year this should be the figure allowed in.

I would base the reduction to those groups that have shown us that they do not integrate and have scant regard for our laws and social standards. For example those groups that continue to practice FGM, polygamy and forced underage marriage.

If industry claims to need more skilled workers then we need to train our own workers in the skills required. The only reason we do not now is because it is cheaper to import them. Then why should we poach skilled workers from other countries who most likely need them far more than we do.

Which ever way you look at it, more people means more damage to our environment and more potential for social problems and lowering of our living standards.

"I would base the reduction to those groups that have shown us that they do not integrate and have scant regard for our laws and social standards. For example those groups that continue to practice FGM, polygamy and forced underage marriage"

It beggars belief that the 'diversity' tail is allowed to swing the immigration policy dog and the feds give preference to less suitable applicants, just because.

In the UK but also in Australia,
http://tinyurl.com/the-diversity-we-have-to-have

Apart from that, just how many information technology and business graduates does Australia need? Why import more?

Meanwhile, there is a constant short supply of properly trained and experienced trades, in construction for instance.

Developers and home builders would dearly love to get hold of some of the skilled trades from Northern Europe, where there are thousands of willing migrants and temporary workers who somehow miss out on the nod for Oz. They find it easy to build sub-floor areas that don't leak and cause mould, a problem that thousands of Australian homes suffer from. Likewise they build shower and wet areas that don't result in immediate rot to sub-floors and foundations.

Australia is forever playing catch-up where expensive public infrastructure and housing are concerned.

That is solely because the feds have been running an overenthusiastic immigration program for years, needing housing and infrastructure for an additional large coastal city every year. All due to additional migrant population.

Ease off immigration for just one year and solve that housing shortage claimed by Shorten as a justification for his assault on aspirational Mums&Dads investors in rental housing.

On the Beach, it recently came to light that the UK Labour Party had
a deliberate policy to bring in migrants from non British countries
to dilute the "white anglo" majority and increase diversity.
It was an unannounced policy as they did not want to make it generally
known as they thought the majority of their members would reject it.

I sometimes wonder if the Australian Labour Party has adopted the same
policy. Perhaps we will soon be calling it the Allah Labour Party.
In Birmingham the Labour Party banned women from being candidates.
Why cannot I hear the screams of the sisters from here ?
Perhaps they are drowned out by the screams of those being killed and raped in Syria.

Bazz,

Australia has always had its culturally cringing leftists. The taxpayer-funded ABC has always made a virtue out of playing favourites where the whining leftists are concerned, giving them a podium and pay (in some cases for decades!) for their free hits on Australia and on Australians too.

Where immigration is concerned, both major parties are like a hamster on a wheel. They know they should get off and do differently, but cannot.

Anyhow, they are being blackmailed by ethnic lobbyists in marginal seats. Ethnic lobbyists promoting their own interests and paid out of the bucket of taxpayers dollars. Whitlam got that going.

The general population is becoming even more exaserated at being treated as mushrooms, patronised and fed endless spin.

Joe Public, at election time: "None of the bastards ever listen or even ask, so just keep tipping them out".

Sorry, make that 'exasperated'.

Dear Aidan,

<<Yuyutsu, why do you consider nation building a threat?>>

I don't want to be part of a nation.

I came to Australia in order to escape and be free from the oppression of my nation of birth - not in order to fall into the clutches of another one.

Before choosing Australia, I was impressed by the fact that it was "behind" other countries, living closer to nature and not too encumbered by technology as others. When I arrived here, population was sparser, local communities more autonomous and all over it was more peaceful. The last thing I need is more interference, technology and regimentation directed from Canberra.

<<And what is it you think quality of live depends on other than standard of living?>>

The standard of living only includes the amounts of presumed-positive things that you have, whereas the quality of life also includes the absence of negative things, or obstacles that you do not want to have.

(note that products which are presumed-positive are not necessarily positive indeed)

It is currently believed that science and technology can provide effective solutions to most, if not all, environmental problems facing western industrial societies – including Australia. This is a very optimistic assumption and is highly questionable. Why? Here are at least three reasons:

1. An automatic and impersonal approach can be taken, (like say a factory or classroom for example), with science as a picture. This is incapable of providing complete and accurate information which is required to successfully address environmental problems.

2. Areas that relate (to science) and a move to use (these areas) to deal with various elements of science and link (these) to potential environmental improvement is also questionable. This movement can solve some environmental matters, but can and will cause permanent environmental damage in other areas. Some who advocate going down this pathway, are not thinking about the after effects or consequences environmentally. They can often be thinking about themselves, such as people involved in large scale irrigation for example.

3. So far it has been intrinsically, or nearly impossible to design any industrial processes that have had no negative environmental impacts. You could put solar electricity into a separate basket from the (previous principle of point three), but such technology (as solar), also has side effects – being involved in the manufacturing sector, which has side effects which impacts on the environment.

Science and technology only have a very limited potential in solving current and future environmental problems. It will be vital to address the root causes of environmental deterioration, namely, the prevailing materialistic values that are a main driving force, overpopulation and overconsumption

Of course Australia's economy will “fall to bits” with less overconsumption, overpopulation and environmental degradation, but I believe it something all Australians and government need to be responsible for.

The natural environment of this wonderful country, we call Australia, did not create this human dominated mess.

Yuyutsu
We simply do not have the physical, social, political or economic infrastructure to grow our population with dependent variables in the equation.\I read somewhere that only 10% of the migrant intake over the past 20 years have a job. The rest live off the taxpayer.
Let me decide about my country (which I fought three wars for)

Dear Chris,

But there is no need to provide those who come with any physical, social, political or economic infrastructure. There is absolutely no need to equate not being physically blocked with the gift of privileges and benefits. If they cannot support themselves and nobody else (e.g. individuals and voluntary groups such as churches, not the taxpayer) supports them, then let them starve.

I trust that you are a good man and the reason you fought three wars was that you have done your duty, rather than in order to achieve something. How could the fact that you fought wars possibly alter what is right and what is wrong?

Those reading this thread will probably find this article that I read
this morning to be interesting.
It shows that if you want to live in a town or city in the future find
one that was there in the 19th century.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-02-08/does-your-city-have-a-future

In terms of large not for profit groups providing services and support to the public (of any nature), in 2016, this needs to be questioned. Many of these charitable groups rely on government funding. Taxpayers pay for that.

Many of these groups and charities have gone into a more "silent" mode to not lose government funds, (to not upset a government).

So whilst a group may provide some assistance in some areas, they are not assisting in others, as these may be too controversial for example and decide to "sell out" on original core values as a result. Many charitable groups are being left without funds and having to close also.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/charities-face-closure-after-losing-federal-funding/6029464

As a result, I believe people need to live more independently with a "back to basics" lifestyle, with a strong case provided to use government services. More people (living in Australia) has wide ranging impacts (across the board) and this is something we all need to reflect upon.