That was a very good depiction of righteous moral indignation, BTW. I think you deserve an Oscar.

No, I must admit I hadn’t given much thought to the consequences of the economy failing.

I guess that means we have no choice but to go on digging up all our minerals as fast as we possibly can, and if we don’t have enough workers to allow us to meet the current demand, and build the North South Bypass Tunnel and the Hale Street Bridge and cover South East Queensland with concrete, asphalt and roof tiles, and pick all of our fruit, etc, etc, then our economy will falter, won’t it? This will, of course, mean that we won’t have jobs, we won’t get to eat - “y'know that sort of stuff.”

Stupid of me not to realise that. Of course, as any economist knows, we don’t need an environment in order to keep our economy running, so if we do all this, then we and all of our descendents can be assured of forerever more having jobs, being able to eat - “y'know that sort of stuff.”

Links which may be of interest

Anyhow, some links which may be of interest include: a review of Mark O’Connor’s Overloaded Australia, In The Beginning a poem by Mark O’Connor, Campaign Says U.S. Population Growth Devours Open Space, Destroys Wildlife Habitat, Paul Watson puts case against high immigration.

Paul Watson, as some may realise, is the leading inspiration of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The Steve Irwin of which he was Captain recently prevetn Japanes whalers from achieving half their planned quota of endangered Minke whales.

I wonder how many people in government are just like you.

I wasn’t aware that there were any beatnik dropkicks in government at all. .

Still believing there is a conflict between the environment and economic growth, ..still thinking that GDP is the ultimate measure of success.

Is there something in the water where you and Dagget live Baron? There is a conflict between sustainability and economic growth at least as we know it presently. However I’ve never said that there is an inherent conflict. And I wouldn’t because there isn’t (I hope).
.
I’ve also never said that GDP is the ultimate measure of success merely pointed out that there are reasons for linking the growth of population to that of economy and that putting inverted commas on the word is not an adequate retort.

This is yet another example of the time-wasting use of ’straw man’ arguments.

A very honest and perceptive description of your whole comment Dagget.
.
I know you “never wrote that we should stop all exports immediately or completely”. And I never said you did. Nor did I raise GDP as a justification for anything. I simply said that trying to relegate arguments about economic prosperity in the context of sustainability debate to the irrelevancy box is nether a good idea nor effective. I wasn’t trying to reveal anything astonishing merely pointing out a significant fact.
.
I also did not say that “nothing can or will be done to stop India from unsustainably growing and utterly trashing its own environment”. That is a fabrication. Do have the courtesy to substantiate these assertions or withdraw such remarks.
.
This over-simplistic and careless resignation that “clearly a substantial economic price has to be paid if we we are to turn our society back from the brink of disaster and save this planet for future generations” is exactly the sort of simpleton nonsense that mars the Greens party and associated movement. Yes I believe that is probably true. The strategy is not to demonize the economy as if it’s some dastardly carbunkle on the human face of civilization. It is to think economically about sustainability. All else is swill.
.
It’s very easy to talk about economic penalties in the abstract as if they are of little consequence. But down here on Earth a faltering economy means you don’t have a job, you don’t get to eat - y’know that sort of stuff. Whenever I hear some life-pampered nitwit from the leafy ghetto extolling the evils of Capitalism and romanticizing about life in an agrarian economy I’m not sure whether to buy the little shit a one way ticket to Karachi or buy a gun.
.
It’s a dumbarse routine. At the very least may I please suggest that you actually read what people say and refrain from verballing them. I have not used GDP to justify untrammeled growth, I have not said that it’s impossible for India to develop sustainably and I am not building straw-men. Questions of ecologically sustainable development and growth are complex. You contribute nothing but some platitude viz Globalization is a Neocon Conspiracy or some such. And then you wonder why your rhetoric is ignored in hard policy circles.
.
It’s ’cause they dannae take ye seriously. Why should they?

GDP per Capita should be our measure of economic success.

Do you see that, proudly announcing that BHP has ‘grown by 10%”, means nothing when the number of share holders has grown by 30% ?.. this means that all the share holders are now poorer.
I wonder how many people in government are just like you.

Still believing there is a conflict between the environment and economic growth, ..still thinking that GDP is the ultimate measure of success.

GDP-per-capita growth is driven by innovation, and the creation of new markets.
GDP however, can easily be obtained, simply by pumping people into a country.
Lets say, every 10 people, adds half a person worth of GDP increase.

Isn’t that great, wow isn’t the ‘economy’ growing splendidly,..
fool.

Had anyone here listened to Maude Barlow author of Blue Covenant interviewed on Monday on Radio National’s Breakfast Show on Monday (audio file available here for another weeks from Monday)?

Apparently in Southern India bore water pumps are operating 24×7 draining the water tables beneath the soil to sustain the water needs of the population above. Presumably it’s fine by Adrien that India continue to grow its population and per capita consumption of natural resources in these circumstances.

I have written about in Canadian author warns of looming global water supply catastrophe if anyone is interested.

Putting the word economy in quotation marks is not an effective technique against the fairly plain fact that GDP will grow with population.

So what?

What does this astonishing revelation that gross GDP grows with population growth add to the discussion?

If fact, it is a well understood flaw of the GDP measure that disasters caused by human and natural disasters add to GDP.

The GDP (both gross and per-capita) has been discussed earlier by myself (@ 165) and others and I have argued earlier that the GDP (indeed even per capita GDP let alone gross GDP) should not be used as a basis upon which to decide whether or not certain policies, such as increasing immigration (or privatising electricity), should be adopted. No-one has attempted to dispute my argument about the GDP measure.

To simply raise the GDP as a justifiction for immigration without reference to what had been written earlier will only serve to turn what should be a progressive linear discussion into a circular discussion in which no progress is possible.

The second part of Adrien’s argument essentially asserts that nothing can or will be done to stop India from unsustainably growing and utterly trashing its own environment, so it logically follows that we should do the same here. (As Andrew Bartlett gave Adrien a blank cheque (@ 173) to speak on his behalf, presumably he agrees with this)

In regard to the third part of Adrien’s argument, clearly a substantial economic price has to be paid if we we are to turn our society back from the brink of disaster and save this planet for future generations.

However I never wrote that we should stop all exports immediately or completely. This is yet another example of the time-wasting use of ’straw man’ arguments.

I think that a lot of the lamentation that the standards of English are declining is much like the lamentations that the moral standards of society are declining - they are both the results of basis error.

How is the argument that moral standards are falling covered by that line of reasoning Andrew? You’d rather have a lower standard of morality because more generally spread around? Don’t the decline of moral standards mean they are receding not spreading?

I am sorely disappointed with Labours push for population increase, they are either insane , or harbour a deep hatred for this country, and its’ future.

I never said that anyone was under any obligation to properly explain themselves.

I made my comment in response to what appeared to be the unfair implication that could be drawn from the posts of another contributor that the cause of the seemingly overly long length of this thread was contributors other than himself:

aargh - a thread that won’t die! One more time…..

FFS! …

I think if you had read the thread more completely you would appreciate why I consider these sorts comments unfair, inappropriate, and possibly intimidating to other contributors.

No-one is under any obligation to even read this thread, let alone to post to it, but if they choose to, perhaps they should appreciate that others may also feel exasperated at the length of this thread and the time they feel obliged to spend in order to deal with what they might see as unfair debating tactics of others.

The best way to bring discussions such as this to a more timely end is to properly address the arguments of your detractors and to make clear exactly what your own position is.

I haven’t been reading this thread for a very long time, but let me just point out that no one is under any obligation to further state or explain a position unless they choose to do so.

Of course cell walls are permeable. If you had carefully read my post, you would already know that I understood that.

Have I ever said that we should not have any immigration? Or for that matter where have I ever said we should simply ‘ban coal’.

Just because Australia’s political leadership has not yet embraced Legrain’s utterly idiotic proposal of completely removing restrictions on immigration everywhere (i.e. the complete removal of cell walls) does not mean that we should not view current immigration levels as excessive. No healthy cell membrane would allow the entry of substances anywhere near to the extent that that is analogous to the numbers that this government is now encouraging to enter this country.

What you seem to be doing is attributing to me, without any basis, less sophisticated views than those which I actually hold.

What I have demonstrated is that it highly likely that the population of Australia has already exceeded its natural carrying capacity. If you agree with me, then you will accept the that we need a population policy which at the very least, seeks to stabilise it at the current 21 million and not seek to raise it to 40 million as Andrew Bartlett wants, or 50 million as former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, and presumably, also, Anna Bligh, wants. If it is not possible, at least that should be the goal.

Can you please make it clear whether or not we agree on that issue?

Ending population growth does not mean that it is not possible to allow both immigration into this country as long as it does not exceed population decline due to other factors. If you can’t see that then I think it is fair to say that it is you, rather than myself who has a simplistic understanding of these questions.

Andrew Bartlett @ 173,

The best way to bring discussions such as this to a more timely end is to properly address the arguments of your detractors and to make clear exactly what your own position is.

As one example you have not explicitly stated whether you support or oppose the increase in Australia’s coal exports, in spite of several attempts on my part to find this out. I have been left to deduce that you, in fact, support the increase in the rate of coal exports in spite of the fact that it is likely to make global warming worse and, consequently, increase the area of land likely to be inundated with rising sea levels.

I think in the circumstances it is just as reasonable for me to have drawn the other implication that I have from your assertion that immigration has no net ecological cost. If my deduction about your views are wrong, then I think you owe it to us to explain how, given the clear environmental costs entailed in immigration that I have given, why you still believe that the overall costs can still be negligible, if not zero.

Daggett wrote:

I would be interested to know whether you accept with the economic case for immigration or if you agree with me that it is garbage. I want to know whether you maintain, as economists would have us believe, that the current residents of this country will be better off if our populaiton increases to 40 million or worse off as I maintain.

I don’t agree with you at all. I don’t think there’s much doubt that Australia’s economy is in a better state as a result of the current migrant intake, compared to what it would be if your views (and the official former policies of One Nation and the Democrats) had been followed for the last ten years. The same applies in most western countries at present.

However, migrants are people, as are people born here. The long-term benefit they bring to an economy depends on a wide range of things. Saying more people will always benefit an economy, regardless of all other factors, would be a silly argument - as would saying they will always harm an economy. If you genuinely believe this, you should be arguing for controls on the number of children people can have (along the lines of China) before you try to stop migration. Migrants are already alive, so they don’t add to global population numbers, where as newborn children do.

Daggett said

The only possible plausible ‘global’ benefit from immigration is the hope that Andrew Bartlett (@ 53) implied that he has. That hope seems to be that the grave destruction to our environment caused by our increasing population is, somehow, going to be offset back in the countries from which the immigrants have originated due to population numbers being at least correspondingly less than they would otherwise have been if they had not come here….. This argument simply doesn’t appear to even stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny.

Just as well, seeing I didn’t actually make that argument. Suggesting I “implied” something, isn’t really a good enough excuse to then totally misrepresent me (again).

Nuance and complexity doesn’t seem to be something that you are capable of comprehending, at least in regard to this issue. so I’ll just say that there doesn’t seem to be much I disagree with amongst the balanced approach that Adrien is putting forward. Just assume I agree with him, unless I say otherwise.

Those who are arguing here against any effective control of immigration into this country seemingly think that the human body, or, indeed, any organism, could function without cell walls.

Except for Jacques Chester citing the LDP’s policies I don’t think anyone has argued for an open door policy on immigration. The cell wall argument is not an apt analogy or, if we indulge it, is easily countered by pointing out that altho’ organisms have cell walls these same walls are permeable by osmosis and that if they were not they would die. How else would they receive oxygen?
.
Similarly it’s simply a pipe dream to think that every place in the world can become self-sufficient in food or anything else. Nations rely on trade, ours as much as anybody’s. Our self-sufficiency food-wise might also not be long for the chop.
.
All that said I’m not entirely in disagreement with you viz the ecological impacts of immigration. There are finite resources on this planet - every part of it. Water scarcity and the resultant unsustainable use of underground reserves is most definitely an argument for keeping numbers down. However to keep numbers down in one place is not enough. For the world population to achieve zero growth it appears that development is a necessity. Agrarian economies foster social arrangments whereby it is standard to attempt to produce bigger and bigger subsequent generations. It is only in economies post-industrialization where this trend is reversed.
.
There are two reasons for this. First, economically speaking, children are an asset in agrarian economies, the more kids, the more hands on the farm so to speak. In industrial economies they are a liability. (I apologize for the chilly economic rationalism but economics is necessarilly chilly.) The second reason is that one clear transcultural result of development is the emancipation of women. It is for this reason I’d argue that we bear witness to the rise of anti-modernity political movements throughout the world. In a modern economy women have access to education, contraception and economic independence. Given the option to pursue a life which does not consist solely of popping sprogs they tend to take it.
.
I’m not saying you’re totally wrong. I’m simply asking you to dig a little deeper into these issues. Sustainability, many say, requires the eradication of globalization and industrialization. Many see this as obvious but it’s wrong. Whilst it’s true that unfettered and irresonsible exploitation of resources without regard for long-term consequences is ecologically destructive on an unprecendeted scale it is likewise true that the vicissitudes of modernity: science, planning, leisure, education and choice carry the potential to accomplish unprecendeted sustainability.
.
This is my point viz globalization. Globalization is a collective noun demarking a bundle of phenomena. The ‘anti-globalization’ stance refuses to acknowledge that these are good, bad and indifferent. So instead of participating in the globalization process they stand on the sidelines with unsophisticated, blanket opposition to it. Such postures are easily vanquished by opposition. They are also pointless. I’m reminded of my first anti-nuclear protest which consisted of a quasi-tribal (literal) beating of drums at the arrival of an American warship. There were arrests, there was chanting, there was a feeling of collective solidarity. And there was a total absence of any change either to US policy viz the use of nuclear power/weaponry or Australia’s posture re same. What’s the point?
.
If I were you I’d dig deeper. Act locally surely. But ask yourself what is the level of immigration that is sustainable. Also what changes do we need to make to ensure sustainability. It’s just not as simple as ‘ban coal’ and ’stop immigration’. Doing these things will sabotage the economy and people, newly impoverished will be placing sustainability very low on the list of priorities. Likewise the techniques available to accomplish this will be greatly reduced because the resources that support them will also diminish.

The last sentence in the fourth last paragraph @ 170 should have read:

It seems intuitively likely that that alone would wipe out any possible gain from the implied likely decrease in the consumption of natural resources back in the country of origin.

My apologies

Thanks for expressing your agreement with me on the question of limits of the Australian continent.

In regard to the Ancient Sumerians and other ancient civilisations, I admit I was hard on them. It seems hard to see how they could have understood the ecological harm that their farming practices, including irrigation, were causing, that is, until after the damage had been done.

However, today we have no such excuse. If we don’t change our agricultural practices now, the damage already done will be further compounded and the future carrying capacity will be even less than it is now. That necessarily requires a reduction, as soon as possible, in our agricultural output and a corresponding stabilisation and eventual reduction of our population so that it (and some people overseas who, at the moment, seem to have no other food sources) can be sustainably fed.

Global solutions cannot replace local controls over population numbers

Adrien @ 169 wrote:

But the problem is global. Locking our borders isn’t going to be much of a solution.

The human body could not function if cells did not have walls to control the movement of substances into and out of them. Those who are arguing here against any effective control of immigration into this country seemingly think that the human body, or, indeed, any organism, could function without cell walls.

We can’t hope to solve problems globally unless people first act locally to control population numbers and to preserve their own environments. If Australians in places like the Sunshine Coast, Redland City, Brisbane and the Goulburn Valley have no control over the numbers who move into their localities and/or their own natural resources, they cannot possibly hope to solve the problem locally. If no-one can solve their problems locally what chance have we of solving them globally?

The only possible plausible ‘global’ benefit from immigration is the hope that Andrew Bartlett (@ 53) implied that he has. That hope seems to be that the grave destruction to our environment caused by our increasing population is, somehow, going to be offset back in the countries from which the immigrants have originated due to population numbers being at least correspondingly less than they would otherwise have been if they had not come here. That is drawing a very long bow, and it doesn’t seem to me that Andrew Bartlett has thought about this very deeply at all. For example, what of the ecological footprint of those people simply moving here? It seems intuitively unlikely that alone would wipe out any possible gain from the implied likely decrease in the consumption of natural resources back in the country of origin.

This argument simply doesn’t appear to even stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny. I would certainly be interested to know what the hard evidence is that Andrew Bartlett bases his argument on.

I believe that I have demonstrated above and elsewhere that I am not indifferent to the plight of people in other countries. That is why I have advocated that we reduce our exports of coal, and that we should, if at all possible, continue to export food to other countries until such time as they have attained food self-sufficiency.

It would be gratifying to me if others were to also adopt these stances.

The ancient Sumerian civilisation allowed its population to expand based on the assumption that the increased agricultural productivity made possible by irrigation came at no cost to the environment, when clearly it did.

Ancient Sumerian civilization is the oldest complex of urbanity known to us. We may assume safely they hadn’t much of a precedent to go on. It’s also worth noting that this civilization was invaded and taken over many times.
>
The points you make viz the need to take into account ecological impacts of immigration as well as the unsustainable nature of current water use on the world’s driest continent are apt. But the problem is global. Locking our borders isn’t going to be much of a solution. In fact if it gets to that stage then I’d wager we’ve entered the phase of resource war soon to be accompanied by other three fearsome riders.
>
In that event we’ll have failed. (Again).