After four years of political persecution at the hands of the Morrison government the Tamil refugee family, father Nades and mother Priya Nadesalingam, with their two daughters, Kopika and Tharnicaa will finally be returning to their home in the small Queensland town of Biloela. The refugee family were kept in detention for four years at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars. The family was held prisoner on Christmas Island for two years, until the youngest daughter Tharnicaa developed a serious blood infection caused by untreated pneumonia on the Island. Tharnicaa was evacuated to Perth with her family. Tharnicaa recovered, but the Morrison government in an act of bastardtry, lacking any humanity or compassion refused the family permission to leave Perth and return to Biloela.

The new Labor government has moved quickly in granting the family permission to return to Biloela, where they will be welcomed by a grateful community. Jim Charmers in making the decision said;

"This decision will allow them to get 'home to Bilo', a big-hearted and welcoming Queensland town that has embraced this beautiful family."

I can only describe this as a win for decency, and a defeat for Morrison and his spiteful, out of touch X-government.

Hi Paul,

The couple came here separately and met in Australia.

They were both told they were not refugees and would be
returned to their country of origin. They were also
warned if they had children in Australia it would not
help them or their cause.

So, against all odds and advice they had 2 children while
in detention. They were given every chance for all legal
due diligence. They failed them all.

The family is in the wrong.

They are not refugees. The father and mother have visited family
in Sri Lanka during the time they have lived in Australia
with no risk to their lives in doing this. They should have
come over via the right legal system.

Anyway, it is very generous of the current government to allow
them to stay. But what is the government going to do with the
thousands of other asylum seekers in limbo in Australia?

Hi Paul,

I should add that I'm not saying the previous government
handled this situation well. It didn't. It should not have
dragged it out for as long as it did. They should have
been made to apply through the legal system like everyone
else who migrated to this country.

Only an extreme border/country wrecker would applaud this stupid move, which is an Open Sesame for people smugglers. Come on down! People arriving here, illegally, on a boat, might be able to stay in Australia! It's worth a try!

Foolishly, I actually believed the Labor spiel on illegal entrants. These people were told that they did not qualify as refugees. Having children here would not alter that ruling. But they did it anyway, and here they are, staying in Australia after coming by boat.

Hi Foxy,

I say yes to all you say. But love is blind, people make mistakes, the vast majority of Australians are prepared to forgive and show compassion to this family, in Biloela its over 90%. What about the children? BTW they are not in the clear yet, there is still a court process in place.

Buddha said; Next to enlightenment, the hardest thing in life is forgiveness, and that is true. When you meet refugees, and I have met some, they are ordinary people, who want no more than a good life for their family and themselves. They don't understand laws and such, but understand love and the desire to live in peace and security, away from violence and depression. Can't be critical of that.

Hi Paul,

I empathize with everything you're saying. However
what about all the thousands of asylum seekers who
are stuck in limbo in Australia? Where do you draw
the line?

Frankly I wish them the very best, they were in the wrong, but their treatment was hardly a fair go.
Criminals are often treated better.

Border security should have put them on a plane
immediately and sent them home - like they do at
the air-ports. Instead these people were given
every legal opportunity to have their case heard.
And they were maintained by Aussie taxpayers.

Thanks be to God and thank you Paul for bringing us this good news!

Pauliar,

These people are illegal immigrants, i.e. they are not refugees and had no legal right to immigrate to Australia. It shows that if you enter Australia illegally under Labor with a good PR campaign Labor will waive the rules.

It is this emotive knee jerk exceptionalism that led to 1200 illegals being drowned and 50 000 illegal immigrants and Juliar getting thrashed in 2013.

In 2007 Krudd promised to be fiscally responsible and to maintain the Pacific solution. In 2008 he abandoned both. Let's see how long Albozo lasts with the greens holding the balance in the senate.

Its easy to be cynical, heartless and bitter towards these people. The government could easily throw them on a plane and back to where they came from, once the fuss died down we would never have to hear from them again, problem solved. After all they are only two parents with two little children who DID US WRONG! That would be the easy solution, and in an uncaring society that is what should be done, but I believe Australians are not that uncaring, and public opinion says overwhelmingly, "let them stay", by being forgiving and compassionate in this circumstance it makes us a better people, it sets us apart from others. Sure, there may be unpleasant consequences flowing from this decision of ours, and it is a collective decision of the Australian people and not the government acting alone, that the Nadesalingam family stay.

For the religious it relates to the 'Parable of the Good Samaritan'.

Send them home.

CM,
They are now home.

Paul,
Onya!

The people of Biloela wanted to live with their friends and the cruel Canberra regime, 1400 kilometers away, sought to frustrate their wishes.

I am glad for this little victory and hope the Canberra regime will eventually be dismantled altogether.

Pauliar,

There is emotion and then there is reason. The bleeding heart approach of labor and greens led to 50000 people on dangerous boats and 1200 people drowning. If two people are effectively given a free pass, why won't the other millions think that they are entitled to the same?

The Good Samaritan didn't lose his house.

Pauliar,

So you say that refugees are idiots that don't understand laws? I also think the 90% that support their staying is a bogus poll.

The problem with bleeding heart left whingers is that they are too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions. The responsibility for 1200 drowned illegals lies directly at their feet.

shonky,

You don't understand the law, but I don't think you are a complete idiot. Your misunderstanding and false claims in the 'Cry Baby' Porter case, showed how much you know about the legal matters. "$10 million plus compensation for 'Cry Baby', a grovelling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC staff sacked to pay for it all." The worse legal opinion since Satan told Adam and Eve they had nothing to worry about eating God's apples".

Dear Paul,

«since Satan told Adam and Eve they had nothing to worry about eating God's apples»

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it was Satan that told Eve (not Adam) to eat the fruit of that tree (nor even, if you read carefully, that a being named 'Satan' exists) - it was the serpent, nor does the Bible say anywhere that the fruit was an apple.

As for "the responsibility for 1200 drowned", it is their own responsibility alone: if someone goes sailing the high oceans in unseaworthy boats and subsequently drowns, that is the consequence of their own actions.

Pauliar,

I do believe that you are a complete idiot, a liar and a fraud.

You are the idiot that suggested that the illegal immigrants were ignorant of the law.

I never claimed that Porter would get $10m in compensation and the last time you looked it up you proved that you were wrong.

You are just deliberately lying through your teeth. You are typical of the pedogreen wastes of time.

The chap from Amnesty International said on the radio that there are 4000 more waiting for the same deal as the Bilo family.
Albo will be facing some serious questions down the track.
There needs to be an international outfit that separates real refugees from those who merely claim refugee status.

They should have claimed to be au-pairs and all would have been well.

It was a hallmark of the Morrison government in particular to target minorities, whether they were refugees, LGBTQ people, black African "gangs" or any other small identifiable group and to stoke fear and hatred.

At one time the Wik decision meant there would inevitably be land rights claims over our back yards and the apology over the stolen generation would lead to massive law suits so that's where they got their inspiration - from their kids overboard hero and more recently some claimed that same sex marriage would result in people marrying animals.
Nothing yet.

There have also been reported deaths of people in turned-back boats (which continued to happen) and the SIEV-X matter was quietly put aside with no internal investigation as well as deaths of refugees in custody so the Liberal government's hands are also not so clean.

They should have claimed to be au-pairs and all would have been well.
rache,
More indoctrination bureaucratic nonsense ?
As I said earlier, let's just wait & see if this Govt deals with asylum seekers better than the previous Coalition Govt.
By better I mean of course better for Australia which desperately needs new intelligent blood & not more of the present unsustainable levels !

Good News!

The Nadesalingam family, Priya and Nades, and their daughters Kopika and Tharnicaa.have returned to where they belong...BILOELA.

Years of an uncaring bigoted government couldn't achieve that. It took a caring government less than two weeks.

The town will celebrate its 'Flourish Festival' tomorrow, and it will double as a welcome home party for the refugee family, most of the town plus hundreds of other well wishers are expected to attend the celebrations.

Yes, we are all happy today.

«It took a caring government less than two weeks.»

Yet we must not forget that it was by God's grace that this family returned home, even as the new government was used as His instrument for that purpose by somewhat softening their hearts.

Blessed be God today and always and may He also free all others around the world who are still oppressed or displaced.

Including the thousands still in detention in this country.

Dear Foxy,

«Including the thousands still in detention in this country.»

Amen!

It is the uncaring and bigoted pedogreens and Labor left whingers that led to 1200 people drowning while trying illegally to enter Australia. Bilo is not their home and they have no legitimate claim for asylum.

It is also the bigots in Labor the pedogreens that are quite happy to deport families that have been working and paying taxes in Aus simply because they are white.

Dear ShadowMinister,

«It is the uncaring and bigoted pedogreens and Labor left whingers that led to 1200 people drowning»

But isn't it obvious that what led to their drowning was their own decision to go sailing the mighty ocean in unseaworthy boats?

«Bilo is not their home»

It is their home because the generous people of Biloela invited them in!

«they have no legitimate claim for asylum.»

True - and neither do you and I, yet the Canberra regime does not come at night to lock us up or kick us out!

SM, just as Howard lied about children overboard, the Coalition lied about refugee deaths at sea. No bodies were ever sent to Australia or returned to their place of origin. The Coalition simply hid refugees in their gulags on Manus Island and Nauru, until they could be disposed of properly.

We voted out the most incompetent government ever, one that has left us with a trillion dollar debt, high inflation and higher interest rates, and opposed a $1 hour pay rise. Ain't we glad to see the back of ScumO', oh no, in comes Constable Clod, fortunately he's only opposition leader.

Great to see the Nadesalingam family back in their hometown of Bilo Queensland.

Albozo has his work cut out for him.

First, he has to sort out Labor's trillion $ debt while spending like a drunken sailor, then keep his promises to lower electricity prices while installing expensive and unreliable renewables etc.

What this Fwit has done instead is to virtue signal by letting illegal immigrants settle in Australia clearly forgetting the 1200 people Labor and the Greens killed because of their stupid policies.

Pauliar,
The number of people killed was not generated by the coalition and was never refuted by labor or the pedogreens.

Y,

If you encourage children to play in traffic, is it their responsibility that they got killed. Note that no one died after the coalition stopped labor's human trafficking.

Dear ShadowMinister,

Death is not a problem but a most common and natural occurrence - people died before and after, everywhere, and so long as there are people around, they will continue to do so.

What did happen following the stopping of the boats, is that overall suffering increased. Those who would previously suffer only for a few minutes, while drowning, are now suffering for years on end.

Those who in theory are supposed to be "my representatives" acted as the last pirate, attacking innocent people at sea, including even children, boarding their vessels by force, kidnapping them and throwing them behind bars indefinitely on some forlorn island with no hope in sight. Yet you dare to compare these victims of the Canberra pirates with children who need to be kept away from traffic, as if you ever cared for them - is this how you treat your own children?

Kudos shadowminister!

In response to Yuyutsu- this sounds like the religion of "Kali" or "Shiva" to me- not that I understand much about Indian religion - life is suffering and people are happier when they're dead. Buddhism also says that life is suffering. I don't think that many people believe this in the British tradition. Maybe they do in your culture. In my culture I think that we are more likely to say "where there's life there's hope". But yet there are too many people in the world.

I think both the boat people and Australian's both suffer from boat people- and there are a three billion more refugee's to come.

India is a "great" country soon to have the biggest population in the world- more refugees.

Supply and Demand applies even to refugees it seems.

Produce less people and reduce the number of refugees.

"Turn off the tap and take out the bath plug" or "bail the water"? Those are the choices.

CM,

"yet there are too many people in the world"

Are you volunteering to leave this world early? Reducing the number by one, me thinks not. In your world how should the overpopulation problem be dealt with?

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy and about 30% of total resources. The developed nations with 16% of the Worlds population consume 80% of total resources. Any suggestion to get rid of the black fellas of Africa to save resources would achieve little, don't you agree. Then where do you suggest we start?

Dear Canem Malum,

Having a living, breathing, human body is important, but is only a means, not an end in itself. I did however find that the British culture exaggerates the value of human biological life: that attitude is not even Christian or Biblical, though some like to interpret the Bible that way.

There definitely are far too many humans on this planet: a healthy and sustainable number that would not require us to compromise our freedom and ethics, would be between 100-200 million people. Had this been the case, the concept of "refugees" would not even exist, nor the moral dilemmas around it.

The essential problem is that people are either unable or unwilling to control their genitals, procreating like there is no tomorrow, then they become greedy and claim vast areas of land, including a whole continent in the case of Australia, as the exclusive property of their progeny. That is an unworthy selfish attitude.

As for "hope", I know that it appears a lot in Christian hymns and sermons, and that we all (unless we are saints) indulge in it to some degree or another, yet Hinduism considers it an irrational weakness.

This is because hoping assumes a chaotic world, where luck, good or bad, can randomly strike at any time. Hinduism on the other hand, believes that we live in an orderly cosmos, with unbreakable laws of nature, according to which we reap what we sowed, nothing more, nothing less. Luck has no place in my worldview.

Paul said-

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy and about 30% of total resources. The developed nations with 16% of the Worlds population consume 80% of total resources.

Answer-

I think that Paul1405 needs to check his statistics- as in one fowl swoop he has apparently "magic-ed" 10% more resources into existence.

If Americans consume 30% of total resources + if developed nations consume 80% of total resources = 110% of total resources.

Doesn't total resources = 100%

Foxy said-

"Genocide according to definitions found on the web -
is an internationally recognized crime where acts are
committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

Answer- Yes that sounds like the definition of genocide I'm aware of. I believe that forcing SSM and gay politics on Christian Churches is a form of genocide

Thank you for your feedback Yuyutsu. I may revisit your comments at a later time.

CM,

Obviously maths and understanding is not a strong point with you CM. Lets explain, Americans 5% of the population eat 30% of the cake, but overall the developed people which are 16% of the population eat 80% of the cake. The total amount of cake eaten by all developed people is 80%, poor chap you don't know Americans are also part of the developed people, such a silly sausage.

BTW, that leaves 84% of others the non developed people, eating 20% of the cake. How about an answer to your claimed over population of the world problem, and how you think it should be dealt with.

Me thinks you know we the developed people are part of the problem, but you only want to target the "black people" who are not eating much of the cake at all. Why is that?

CM,

Pauliar is a greenie for whom maths, science and reality are inconvenient.

Shonky,

Have you worked out that 77 is more than half of 151 yet, simply arithmetic, but impossible for you. This is the guy who said; "Labor can't form a majority government", 24 hours later Labor formed a majority government. He also claimed "Cry Baby" Porter was in for $10 million+ in compensation from the ABC, a groveling apology, and 100 ABC staff sacked to pay for it all, HOW WRONG CAN YOU GET!

p/s; Half of 151 is 75.5 just to help you out, Labor has 77 seats. When it comes to politics this guy known less than nothing.

In the case of India the water/ population is not only spilling over the bath but is slowly climbing the walls of the bathroom- and still the Indian governments steadfastly refuse to turn off the tap/ birth rate- probably partly because of competition between the various stratified and columnated ethnic groups.

At least Yuyutsu acknowledges the idea of reducing and keeping world population at "100-200 million people".

It seems obvious to most- even Green Paul1405 seems to agree that population is a problem- he just doesn't know what to do about it- and suggests that I should kill myself first- I guess he can grow a whole new crop of Greenies from the worm feed.

And that's the rub- the arms race- for resources and power.

Turn off the tap- at least aim for zero population increase in all nations- bring nations back to nineteen eighties levels is a start

"Turn off the tap- at least aim for zero population increase in all nations- bring nations back to nineteen eighties levels is a start"

CM, the world population in 1987 was 5 billion, today its 7.8 billion. Pray tell how and where do you propose we meet your objective of reducing the worlds population by 2.8 billion for a "start". Australia will need to reduce its population by 10 million for a "start". Seems India is in your sights for population control. How cooperative would people be in reducing their numbers? If its just birth control at one end, and death at the other, then the population would decline over time, but it would also age significantly. In 20 years time the vast majority of the population would be aged between 20 and 80, no need for schools or kindy's. If the worlds population was reduced to 200 million as suggested then Australia's population would be reduced to 667 people, I kid ye not. There would be no breeding population, and the human race would shortly after go extinct. AND don't think with a population of 667 people we are all going to have 6 supermarkets and 500 cars each to shop in and drive around in, there will be no one of working age to produce anything, let alone to bury the dead. AND this guy would call the GREENS dreamers.

We don't only have an over population problem, we have a much greater resource consumption problem, too many getting too little. If you wanted to even out consumption, then Australia should increase its population to 100 million, and quickly. The vast majority, that's about 75 million new arrivals from that poor 84%, would be initially no worse off than before they arrived, regarding housing, health, education etc. Over time the living standard for the 75m will rise, and drop for the other 25m, eventually it would all even itself out. Isn't that what you want CM?

This is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

In 1997, the Italian economist Giorgio Nebbia observed that the negative reaction to the LTG study came from at least four sources: those who saw the book as a threat to their business or industry; professional economists, who saw LTG as an uncredentialed encroachment on their professional perquisites; the Catholic church, which bridled at the suggestion that overpopulation was one of mankind's major problems; finally, the political left, which saw the LTG study as a scam by the elites designed to trick workers into believing that a proletarian paradise was a pipe dream.

In 2008 Graham Turner of CSIRO found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time." Turner also examined a number of reports, particularly by economists, which over the years have purported to discredit the limits-to-growth model. Turner says these reports are flawed, and reflect misunderstandings about the model.

Yale economist Henry C. Wallich agreed that growth could not continue indefinitely, but that a natural end to growth was preferable to intervention. Wallich stated that technology could solve all the problems the report was concerned about, but only if growth continued apace. By stopping growth too soon, Wallich warned, the world would be "consigning billions to permanent poverty".

I'm glad that Paul1405 brought up the point about certain nations and individuals consuming at a greater per capita rate- and he thinks that is unfair presumably- Communism talks about equality a lot- but even in Communist countries things aren't equal- in fact they are more unequal than other societies.

Orwellian- talking equality while building massive inequality. Talk and action- what do you believe.

The top dog always eats first. There is always a top dog. But a smaller pack will eat less.

The wise top dog will have greater self discipline to avoid recrimination- will form allegiances- but he still needs to prove he is the top dog- one of the way that he does that is by consumption patterns.

I want more food- he's got more food- I'll do what he wants to get more food. But the human brain has many layers.

Dear Paul,

If the world population decreases evenly from 8 billion to 200 million people, then Australia's population will be closer to 625,000 people, not just 667.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Sorry I read it as 200k not 200m even at that number a huge reduction would be required, how would it be achieved. A zero birth rate would cause massive problems with a rapidly ageing population, leading to human extinction. Prejudice makes a white supremacist say "INDIA", yes lots of hungry people in the world, but there's also lots of obese people as well.

CM, as far as I am aware communism espouses distribution according to need no equality of distribution.

YOU fail to say how YOU believe a massive reduction in World population can be achieved. Nothing more than a rave about communists, Orwellian stuff, I know you have read 'Animal Farm' we all have, and top dogs, but please explain how YOU would achiever massive population reduction the where's, the when's and the how's. Please don't resort to quoting Arsethrottle and Confusion as a deflection.

What really is behind the thinking of these extremists of the right, they will not disclose, its to fringing to contemplate.

Dear Paul,

«even at that number a huge reduction would be required, how would it be achieved. A zero birth rate would cause massive problems with a rapidly ageing population, leading to human extinction.»

We have multiple choices over the speed we get there.
As per any addiction, withdrawal of the addiction to high population numbers is bound to initially be painful.
An ideal cold-turkey approach would maximise long-term happiness, but would also bring much suffering and deaths in the short term, so I don't realistically see it happening, not voluntarily anyway, though war, epidemics and natural disasters might bring us there anyway.

Even if we aim at zero birth, this will never be achieved as there will always be a certain proportion of "accidents" and disobedience.

You are probably aware that I oppose the existence of states and governments, but so long as they do exist, the minimal and most reasonable step is for states to disincentivise procreation financially. This means stopping free/subsidised education, childcare, healthcare, paid parental leave, etc. for everyone born past a given date at 9 months notice. Also providing and encouraging sterilisation, including a preference for sterilised migrants and workers and early release for non-violent prisoners who get sterilised - the clear message should be that procreation is presently an anti-social behaviour!

«Prejudice makes a white supremacist say "INDIA"»

I did not make any such distinctions. We all need to share that task.

«yes lots of hungry people in the world»

With less people so less mouths to feed, non-voluntary hunger will eventually cease as well.

«but there's also lots of obese people as well.»

In the past, eunuchs tended to become fat, but there are modern methods of sterilisation which do not affect our hormonal balance, thus I only suggested the curbing of procreation, not of sex.

Hi Yuyutsu,

No, you didn't say INDIA, that was CM, nor do I consider you a white supremacist, CM on the other hand is in my view that kind. Always careful to mask his political affiliations, but he does let things slip from time to time.

Migration, without controlled migration it would be unworkable. To reduce the worlds population to 200 million, would see the extinction of mankind. About 150,000 people die per day that's 0.7% per year. You want to reduce the world's population by 97%. If every female of reproductive ability and younger was sterilised instantly, the worlds population would start to decline, slowly at first, but accelerating over time. Eventually the population would reduce to 200 million, but it would continue to recede, and shorty after humans would become extinct. 200 million is now well below the critical level for human survival. This has been demonstrated in the animal world, when an endangered species reaches a certain number, even with remaining breeding pairs, the species will go extinct. Nothing can be done to stop it, that is what most likely happened to Neanderthal Man.

BTW that's why there could never have been a Noah's Ark. For example if Noah was to save elephants, no good taking just one breeding pair. To ensure the survival of elephants into the future, Noah would have needed to take 5,000 breeding pairs, not one.

If Paul1405 knows so much about population modelling perhaps he can prove his assertions- the first step that many researchers seem to use is the following...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete-time_Markov_chain

GO->

Dear Paul,

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
world human population 12,000 years ago was 2-4 millions, 10 millions at the most, then 3000-1800 years ago numbers were quite stable in this range of 100-200 millions. Why then should mankind be extinct this time around?

Even if we aim at zero birth-rate (which is not the only option), a few million babies would still escape that net, and then be enough to sustain the human race on this planet.

The Neanderthals are believed to become extinct due to competition with the more intelligent and versatile homo-sapiens.

Regarding migration, you are still thinking in industrial and information-age 21st-century terms, but once population starts to decline, many other things will change as well. You mentioned supermarkets for example, but I don't think any will remain: as a child when I grew up there were no supermarkets yet either, only smaller local stores, probably because there were not as many different products on the market to shop for.

Similarly, until 100-200 years ago, people could freely migrate anywhere. They had of course to find some means of transportation, which was not as easy as today, but once they arrived no questions were asked.
So much is now said for example about housing shortage as a barrier for migration, but once population declines, empty houses will remain in abundance - they might need some repair, but it wouldn't be as difficult as building new houses from scratch, and will likely be carried out by the immigrants themselves, nor will there be anyone to enforce strict and costly building standards.

Regarding Noah, here again your thinking is locked in modern scientific terms:
should there be miracles, then what stops one pair of animals from re-breeding their species - and should there be not, then how could such a flood occur, how was Noah informed about it, how did he manage to gather all animals in the first place and how could his arc survive such a mighty storm?

Yuyutsu said- The Neanderthals are believed to become extinct due to competition with the more intelligent and versatile homo-sapiens.

Answer- With respect to Yuyutsu. Apparently Neanderthal DNA is embedded in European as well as other branches of the Multi-Regional model- so in a sense Neanderthal's are not extinct. The UK has both the Smallcombe Man 400K years old and one that is 500K years old- both considered Neanderthal's. Also see articles below...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-ancient-neanderthal-dna-still-influences-our-genes-today-180962285/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools

Hi Yuyutsu,

There is science which says its a popular myth that Neanderthals were the dumb oafs of history. They may well have been as intelligent as homo sapiens, but were less adaptable. Climate change which seen forests give way to grasslands, and a changing animal population could have been the downfall of Neanderthals. We'll never know, as the few who are still around ain't telling.

Probably for thousands of years as few as 100,000 homo sapiens, and our other early ancestors lived a perilous existence in Africa, all but homo sapiens went extinct.

The American bison, although still in existence cannot be saved from ecologically extinction in the wild. It has passed its tipping point number as far as natural survival is concerned.

To be totally brutal the only way to reduce the human population to say 200 million and keep it sustainable, would be to artificially cull the population starting with the non-productive and those of no economic value, and of no possible future economic value, we know who they are, wink, wink. Always to be careful to maintain a healthy breeding stock for future viability. In this "brave new world" there would be few aged over 40, only an elite with skills still useful to society, and children would be tested for intelligence to determine future economic worth, it would give a whole new meaning to 'Naplan'. There would be a grading system for children based on these intelligent tests, 40, 30, 20 and "goodbye now".

This policy is unlikely to be popular with those nearing 40, and very unpopular with the over 40's. AND, decidedly repugnant to the over 80's. There will be a small number of septuagenarians, octogenarians, nonagenarian and centenarians kept in human laboratories for study and research by those scientists under 40.

Mum; "Little Johnny didn't come home from school today dear".

Dad; "Oh well, must have failed the intelligence test. Not a problem I've ordered the Little Tommy model, I paid extra for one with the Einstein inclusions".

Mum; "Very good dear".... "I hope you did ordered a white one?".

Paul405 seems to be engaging in self gratifying- reductio ad absurdum- it's somewhat appalling to have Paul1405 self gratifying himself in a public forum- most people have different standards.

His views appear to be bigoted anti-family/ anti-anglo rhetoric- straight from the annuls of Communism.

Why shouldn't white parents have white children just as black parents have black children.

CM,

In my little playlet I didn't say if Mum and Dad were black or white or any colour in between. You assume I'm saying only white people will be around in this brave new world.

Being in favour of a mass population decrease, as you indicated, supportive of a world figure of 200 million, I did ask you; In your (CM) world how should the overpopulation problem be dealt with? Surely you have a few ideas as how best that, that low figure can be reached. Hummmm.

Dear Paul,

Well obviously, if you want to ensure seeing results immediately, in our own lifetime, then you need to resort to extremist measures. I do not believe that "ends justify the means" - rather that the means are at least as important as the ends, hence I will not support murder. I still support more moderate measures where the results might take a few generations, although Nature (including "human nature") might not be as generous as myself and come up with earlier and more painful scenarios.

Sure, every species will eventually become extinct and homo-sapiens are no exception, but humans are not bisons and survived even at the level of a few millions for thousands of years. Though all is possible, I see no particular reason why the human race may not survive for thousands more years, if not millions (but not at anywhere close to current population levels).

Yuyutsu said "Well obviously, if you want to ensure seeing results immediately, in our own lifetime, then you need to resort to extremist measures... moderate measures where the results might take a few generations, although Nature (including "human nature") might not be as generous as myself and come up with earlier and more painful scenarios."

Answer- Effects to do with the birth rate occur over generations (20-30 years) rather than lifetimes (60-90 years)- so if the appropriate actions are taken a lot can be done over a lifetime due to the effects of compounding. In 50 years India went from 900 Million people (1950's) to 1.4 Billion people (2000,s)- this is well under two generations for a fifty percent increase in population. In 2003 fifty percentage of the population was under the age of 15 years old.

I suspect that Yuyutsu's comment was more due to mental shorthand.

You can in theory- stop a population growing ie zero growth by just stopping reproduction- you don't actually need to kill anyone (as Paul1405 provocatively appears to use to discredit population control measures- straw man tactic)- yes with increased health effectiveness aging will increase but it won't actually produce more people- it may mean that people can work longer- health systems will only be able to support the health systems that their tax base allows. If the governing structures key birth rates to death rates then the zero population growth can be achieved- there are well recognized policies that are implemented in various areas of governing that are able to be used to achieve this- through financial means- tax benefits- etc.

Therefore I believe that Paul1405's objections are based more on his ideology. Strange that Green's support extremely high human populations if their key focus is the environment- therefore it's not.

There are a few movies and books that discuss the issue of uncontrolled population growth- for example "Logan's Run".

Paul1405 seems to use an intentionally naive approach to population modelling to discredit population control measures. One way population models can be misinterpreted is by assuming that the population growth rate doesn't change- but that is mostly able to be controlled by incentives by policy makers- and can be changed at any time.

Obviously a relatively small core group of women (and men) of breeding age from each culture would need to be maintained in order to prevent genocide of families and cultures. This sort of practical thinking about population is uncomfortable for many of us- but this problem is unprecedented.

What ever we do we will need to reimagine our societies at least for a while- some more than others based on past decisions and policies- but if we have to experience pain- let it be so we can remove pain- not just kick the can down the road- but we should keep our traditions and protect our ethnicities and cultures and family lines.

This leads me to a point- at times of emergency relative totalitarianism tends to reign- as in wartime- but communism wants a permanent worldwide totalitarianism (Trotsky's worldwide permanent revolution). Communists seem the ultimate "ambulance chasers". In a sense the best leaders would have less emergencies and their societies should be free-er

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(film)

The City and the Stars- Arthur C Clarke also has implied elements of population management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_and_the_Stars

http://sciencefictionruminations.com/sci-fi-article-index/sci-fi-novels-about-overpopulation/

Even Plato's Republic discussed overpopulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

There's good reason why this book is considered number one on many book lists.

Given that the lifespan is increasing by less than 10% per generation it appears to be a factor that can be managed by a 10% birth rate reduction per generation. Very achieveable- but only a start- I'd aim for perhaps double this rate- and correct as required.

Dear Canem Malum,

«I suspect that Yuyutsu's comment was more due to mental shorthand.»

Or perhaps, patience?

So long as we start in the right direction as early as we can and as long as Nature does not overtake us, we can achieve the necessary correction without too much pain.

If you want to minimise the pain, you need to think out of the box.
You cannot for example assume and rely on the continued existence of today's power/control structures, those same structures which we aim to no longer require once we achieve the reduction in population.

We also have no need to increase lifespan: rather try to have it not decrease by too much while increasing the happiness and fulfillment so we die contentedly once the years of life we do still have are over.

Come, come CM, no need to be coy. You accuse me often enough on this forum of being a Communist, I consider you an extremist as well, but in the other direction. I imagine you to be a disciple of 'Eugenics', loaded with all sorts of racial purity theories and beliefs.

You said; "Obviously a relatively small core group of women (and men) of breeding age from each culture would need to be maintained in order to prevent genocide of families and cultures"

As I've never heard you espouse any culture as being worthwhile, other than the white Anglo Saxon culture I assume you would preserve that culture at the expense of all other. Your mention of INDIA springs to mind.

You go on to say; "This sort of practical thinking about population is uncomfortable for many of us- but this problem is unprecedented."

No, not for a person of your persuasion, its not uncomfortable at all. It was a popular notion from the late nineteenth, to almost the middle of the twentieth century, in fact some thought of it as absolutely necessary. One such person you would be familiar with is Heinrich Himmler, believing in a sort of NAZI world wide revelation, creating an elite super race of human beings.

Your idea of reducing the birth rate through intervention by 10% or 20% is laughable. To maintain the population at its present level, with no increase would require a minimum of a 60% reduction in births world wide. Of course for you the Anglosphere would be exempt, to maintain worthwhile culture, and those superior movers and shakers. No doubt the burden of population control would fall on the hapless blacks and coloured's of this world.

I think that sums you up on this population control. As I said you are free to put up your method to achieve the stated target of 200 million or about 3% of the existing population, as yet you have declined to do so. Why is that?

Paul1405 said- "Your idea of reducing the birth rate through intervention by 10% or 20% is laughable."

Answer-

Speaking of laughable.

If "Births match Deaths" and "people start living 10% longer" per generation then if you "reduce the birth rate by >10-20%" per generation then the population reduces. Quick back of the envelope approximation.

In some nations "births don't match deaths"- they would need to reduce their birth rate more. India is tracking to become the most populous nation on the planet within a few years. From memory India has 2.4 births per woman (50% population) so everything else being equal presumably would require 10.2% birth rate reduction maintaining current levels- 20.2% might be appropriate given the massive increase from 50's to 00's. Reducing India's population at 10% per generation- much slower than the rate of growth (about 35% per generation). I believe this is what is known as a soft landing.

It's a start- see how the population adapts to the new legislative regime- the main thing is that things move in a more sustainable direction.

As for the 200 Million world population- it was Yuyutsu that mentioned that figure most recently- though I did mention his figure- the Georgia Stones figure is 500 Million- similar orders of magnitude. Anecdotally is closer to long term stability figures according to a number of sources- I think some have quoted figures as low as 30 Million.

I haven't "accused" Paul1405 of being a Communist from memory- I think I've said that "I suspect Paul1405 of being a Communist"- usually I give reasons for my suspicions- if I have accused Paul1405 of being a Communist I withdraw the accusation as I only have corroboratory suspicion not hard evidence- I leave it to others to judge for themselves what they believe Paul1405's sympathies are.

As for Paul1405's accusations and statements I'd have to look into them.

Is Paul1405 trying to distract from the point of the discussion "how to deal with overpopulation". At this point Paul1405 seems to be a sort of population-denialist/ Trotsky Permanent Revolter- or someone who can't make a decision.

Canem Mallum said- "If "Births match Deaths" and "people start living 10% longer" per generation then if you "reduce the birth rate by >10-20%" per generation then the population reduces. Quick back of the envelope approximation. "

Answer/ Correction- There appears to be a subtle logic error here.

In order to match births to deaths- accounting for the case of people living 10% longer (lets say 7 years)- would need to stop the births for 7 years (or similarly equivalent policy)- or reduce births to below replacement rate for a factor of 7 years. Again quick back of the envelope calculation.

Admittedly population modelling can be resistant to back of the envelope calculations and can produce surprisingly complex problems.

The reason I've brought up the case of humans living longer is because I remember that Paul1405 previously mentioned this as the driving factor of population increase due to medical technology- and denied that birthrate was a factor.

Population control (and national responsibility) seems to be simply a matter of "matching number of births to deaths" and taking action when it doesn't. Seemingly a matter of decisiveness.

____________

Paul1405 said "Of course for you the Anglosphere would be exempt, to maintain worthwhile culture, and those superior movers and shakers. No doubt the burden of population control would fall on the hapless blacks and coloured's of this world."

Answer- I think that in the Anglosphere at least the US has a lower population density than countries such as India, China, Africa, and Mexico. Many nations in Europe appear to have been affected by mass immigration so this may be a factor. It seems that extreme population densities may be a factor in world immigration pressures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density#Most_populous_countries_by_density

On this point I wonder if Paul1405 equates nations massive population growth to their poverty due to scarce per capita resources and why or why not- and why he doesn't lobby these nations for population control in the name of global equality.

Paul1405 said- "I imagine you to be a disciple of 'Eugenics', loaded with all sorts of racial purity theories and beliefs."

Answer- I suppose Paul1405 has his own views on genetic manipulation and enforced impurity.

According to Dostoevski Proto-Communists were Tabula Rasa/ Blank Slaters they seemingly extended John Locke's idea of the global liberal order to see like Marx that culture was some sort of elitist class warfare against the workers and farmers- he called it "False Consciousness". The communist ideological academics claimed that they were the saviors of the workers and farmers and promised equality. It seems that in the contemporary era that the very colour of the skin, sexuality, and sex is seen as a part of class warfare and it therefore is the responsibility of the ideology to remove it from the earth.

This Tabula Rasa logic has issues on a number of levels- and it's own eugenics policies.

In China my suspicion is that Mao believed that if the genetics of certain people contained the seeds of counter revolution and these people could be killed- then counter revolution could never occur- many town square struggle sessions killed tens of millions of people.

I suspect that Paul1405 doesn't see the full picture or origins of the ideology that he presents- I'm sure we all don't- Traditionalist ideologies seem safer than others given their history.

Eugenics perhaps happens all the time in society- relatively humanely- dogs breed for character/physicality- hiring and firing based on character is a form of genetic manipulation- increases survivability of offspring- character partly genetic. When Dawkin's talked about The Selfish Gene he talked about eugenics occurring across society.

All societies create some balanced social competitive pressure to prosper but there also needs to be cooperation and teamwork. Ethnic cultures have different systems- that's their right- but they may not be able to work effectively in a team without harming those rights- something breaks- I believe we should keep the cultures- others believe the cultures should be destroyed in favour of the "nihilist-cultural" teams- but will life have meaning.

When Paul1405 says that he suspects that I have eugenic beliefs does that mean that he doesn't? Or is he saying that I may have murderous or genocidal beliefs? How does he define these? If a community sets themselves up as a black community- is this genocidal? What about a white community? Isn't enforced mixing also a form of genocide?

The literal meaning of the word genocide seems to be the killing of genes- if no genes are killed does that mean that genocide doesn't occur?

What's the literal meaning of the word eugenic?

Apparently Paul1405 doesn't have any further comment on this issue. That's ok.

Thanks to the fwit Albozo's virtue signalling, there is a surge in boats from Sri Lanka trying to get to Aus.

Who would think giving a family of illegal immigrants a free pass would lead to this? Anyone with a brain.

Dear ShadowMinister,

«Who would think giving a family of illegal immigrants a free pass»

"A free pass" is the natural state of life.
Some evil gang from Canberra was denying it from others, now their cruelty became slightly less, it is still not gone, not only their cruelty towards this particular family, as if they have not suffered enough, but also cruelty towards the people of Biloela, denying them the freedom to live with the friends of their choice.

If they still want to block this family from visiting them, then the Canberra gang only needed to deny them the "pass" to visit Canberra, rather than blocking them from entering this whole beautiful continent and associating with its beautiful and welcoming people.

CM , thanks so much for giving me the OK, Krumpet for you.

I thought once I mentioned Heinrich Himmler, it was done and dusted, clear where you stand on "population control". You never did give a direct brief as to the how, when, where and why the worlds population should, and could, be reduced by 97% to 200 million. I don't think the honour or voluntary system would work, or some material incentives, like free condoms and chocolates, just not enough. I believe to reach your target, direct state intervention in the form of mass serialisation, and dare I say euthanasia, would be a must do.

If it was going to be on a world scale, and not just the "Indian Solution" all governments would have to set up departments of Citizen Reproduction and Purity, CRAP for short, to get the job done.

BTW; To make this more palatable, for you know who, it would be wise not to refer to human beings in the usual fashion, people, men, women, kids, loved ones, baby, honey, old folks, granny, dear old par etc etc a list of at least 100 maybe 1,000, in fact the use of such words should be outlawed completely and their utterance would get one the pain of execution, one less to control, but in a more generic term like "Material Unit" sounds less confronting and threatening. What do you think?

BBTW; I didn't read your 4 post comment, too long and life's too short, anyway they tend to be rather nauseating at the best of times. Got anything else?

shonky,

"Thanks to the fwit Albozo's virtue signalling, there is a surge in boats from Sri Lanka trying to get to Aus."

"Who would think giving a family of illegal immigrants a free pass would lead to this?"

Nah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the total collapse of the Sri Lankan economy, virtual anarchy, extreme poverty and starvation. Nah its all down to Albo and his virtue signalling.

shonky, what rock have you been hiding under?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-22/sri-lanka-economy-collapses/101175560

Pauliar,

Sri Lanka's economy has been in the crapper for the last couple of years. It's not a coincidence that the surge in boats trying to get to Aus since Labor came to power because they let in 50 000 illegals the last time they cocked up government.

Having our incompetent PM give a free pass and flowers to two liars that were confirmed to have no legal basis for refugee status by the high court is a major own goal.
Albozo has just signalled to the world that Labor's focus on border security is a joke.

Paul1405 said

"CM , thanks so much for giving me the OK, Krumpet for you.

I thought once I mentioned Heinrich Himmler, it was done and dusted, clear where you stand on "population control". You never did give a direct brief as to the how, when, where and why the worlds population should, and could, be reduced by 97% to 200 million. I don't think the honour or voluntary system would work, or some material incentives, like free condoms and chocolates, just not enough. I believe to reach your target, direct state intervention in the form of mass serialisation, and dare I say euthanasia, would be a must do.

If it was going to be on a world scale, and not just the "Indian Solution" all governments would have to set up departments of Citizen Reproduction and Purity, CRAP for short, to get the job done.

BTW; To make this more palatable, for you know who, it would be wise not to refer to human beings in the usual fashion, people, men, women, kids, loved ones, baby, honey, old folks, granny, dear old par etc etc a list of at least 100 maybe 1,000, in fact the use of such words should be outlawed completely and their utterance would get one the pain of execution, one less to control, but in a more generic term like "Material Unit" sounds less confronting and threatening. What do you think?

BBTW; I didn't read your 4 post comment, too long and life's too short, anyway they tend to be rather nauseating at the best of times. Got anything else?"

Answer-

I'm not sure how you're going to get a "direct brief as to the how, when, where and why the worlds population should, and could, be reduced" if "I didn't read your 4 post comment".

So Paul1405's position seems to be he don't understand and he refuses to listen to the answer.

I guess that's Paul1405's attitude- nothing I can do about that.

This is a negotiating impasse- it seems to be consistent with my experience with Communists

Perhaps Paul1405 is suffering a slow decline into sightlessness and struggles to read text. If this is the case I expect his bitterness will be projected onto OLO in coincidence with his sight. As they say "grow old disgracefully".

Perhaps he needs to learn how to enact the browser zoom function.

Paul1405 often talks about those bitter hateful people sitting in god's waiting room. Fascinating.

Joseph waited 13 years
Abraham waited 25 years
Moses waited 40 years
Jesus waited 30 years.

If God is making you wait you're in
good company. However, it's important
to realize that how you behave while
waiting also matters.