Dresdener - I'll say again, I'm aware of Australia's low carrying capacity and I've not said it's some empty land waiting to be filled up.

I think six per cent is a little on the low side, but I'd agree overall it is very low. Even if the arable percentage is just six per cent, that still is a very large amount of land compared to what's available in Japan. I just don't think it's a fair comparison, especially when you factor in the notion that our agricultural exports are far higher than either of those countries.
Besides - Japan has hundreds of millions of people.

I'm not arguing in favour of increased immigration - but I think that comparison distorts the picture.

The funny thing is that the technological change required to counter climate change will also allow Australia to support a larger population sustainably. Funny because all the major seem to want mass immigration (against the democratic wish of Australians), yet none of them want to do a thing about global warming, other than to generously fund the crazy plans of their buddies.

TurnRightTurnLeft, we still seem to be on different pages. Let's forget the issue of environmental carrying capacity for a moment and look at this in purely economic terms. The comparison between high-population growth Australia and low-population growth Finland and Japan was meant to highlight differing economic models.

We are told in Australia that population growth is essential for the economy. My response is that other economies have performed far better than Australia without high population growth. Finland and Japan are examples of nations which have embarked down the export-orientated, knowledge-based path to economic prosperity. In Australia, by comparison, the big business elite and their Lib/Lab sycophants have determined that population growth has to be turbo-charged for easy economic growth. After all, fecklessly binging on foreign credit and developing properties is so much easier than becoming more internationally competitive and developing new export products, like Finland and its Nokia phones.

If there is a better economic model, then why are we taking such serious environmental, social and economic risks by importing millions of people en masse?

You seem to think Australia can take more people. I disagree, but not only because of our limited carrying capacity.

Oh, by the way, I am somewhat flummoxed by your repeated references to Australia's agricultural output. Are you suggesting we should import more people simply because we have the ability to feed them? If we continue consuming more and more of our domestic agricultural output, how will Australia be able to earn an export income? After all, we haven't got much else to export these days now that manufacturing is on its death bed. Have you seen Australia's trade balance recently?

Dresdener

"In Australia, by comparison, the big business elite and their Lib/Lab sycophants have determined that population growth has to be turbo-charged for easy economic growth."

Surely you aren't sucked in by this nonsense? Yes, some profit greatly, but if the per capita benefit remains the same or is negative, then the economic model is parasitism, not capitalism. It is this obscene implication which leaves me with total contempt for the major parties. I believe that Australia can support a larger population, but only after substantial technical advance. The actions of the major parties in increasing Australia's population before solving the technical challenges, coupled with a scientific Philistinism, only intensifies my contempt.

"Surely you aren't sucked in by this nonsense? Yes, some profit greatly, but if the per capita benefit remains the same or is negative, then the economic model is parasitism, not capitalism."

I concur. My point was that it's an easy way for the parasitic big end of town to make money. Never said it was a sustainable or equitable model for the rest of Australia. In fact, most Australians are worse off as a result of immigration-driven population growth.

It is also electoral suicide for the idiotic Liberals:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=913

Thanks for reminding me Dresdner. I've been waiting a while for all the pro-immigrationists to come up with evidence for their position. As yet I am unsatisfied, but I have salvaged a bit of fun contrasting governments treatment of climate change ("We need more evidence.") with immigration (no evidence needed.). Sadly both Labor and Liberal are the same re immigration, so the degradation is likely to continue regardless of who is in power.