One of the major issues at the moment in British politics concerns immigration. The running is being made by the right-wing as they try to turn this into an issue of race. As a result, the left are unwilling to be critical of the government's policies on immigration. However, the influx of workers from Eastern Europe has nothing to do with race. At the sametime the entry of these workers is depressing the wages of industrial workers, some of them being from ethnic minorities. It is no coincidence that the employers are so much in favour of these workers entering the labour market. Yet still the left keeps quiet about this subject.

Here is an article by George Waldron, the former Conservative Party MP that appeared in yesterday's Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2437789.html

Immigration is fine for the rich
George Walden

We hadn’t got far in a Today programme discussion of my new book Time to Emigrate? on Friday before the anathema fell. It came from my opponent, the modishly left-wing historian Tristram Hunt.
Slurs about racism I expected. Instead I was accused of favouring eugenics, a more original interpretation of my thesis, for which there is no evidence in the book. You do not expect much from a telly don whose written work has drawn strong criticism for its callowness, but hinting that you are a neo-Nazi for raising the issue of excessive immigration is pushing it.

The previous day the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had announced some startling new figures: Britain was taking in 1,500 immigrants a day, while 1,000 Brits left. Which rather confirmed the central premise of my book: that more people were moving out as well as in, and that a growing number of emigrants — by no means necessarily racists — were quitting because of the numbers coming in.

Earlier in the week Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, had complained to a committee of MPs that it was hard to manage the economy when nobody knew how many people were in the country.

Unmoved by any of this, Hunt denied there was a problem, real or potential. In one sense he was right: for the well-born, expensively educated liberal elite he represents, there isn’t. I doubt that the Hunt dynasty (he is the son of Lord Hunt of Chesterton) will be inconvenienced too much by immigration and its social, economic and educational consequences. Less privileged folk of his generation, for whose fears about the future he clearly has a patrician contempt, will pay a heavy price if our unprecedented experiment of mass immigration goes wrong.

Immigration alone, of course, is not the only source of their problems, and there is a danger of immigrants becoming the whipping boys for every grievance. The trouble is that random population growth impacts directly on everything feeding rumbling middle-class discontent: rising taxes, rising mortgages, failing schools, the overstretched National Health Service, crime and insecurity of every kind. I do not anticipate riots or demonstrations, but a mood of semi-suppressed nastiness could gradually develop.

Think of it: 7m more people in 25 years, according to the ONS. This is the equivalent of seven more Birminghams — not a pretty thought — or another London if you prefer. All this in the most crowded country in Europe.

My book takes the form of a letter to a (fictional) 34-year-old son and his wife on average wages who, stressed out by mortgage, school and security problems, are contemplating emigration. It is for their generation, not mine, that the prospects are shaky.

In retrospect it is extraordinary how easy we had it. In 1970 we bought a Victorian house in west London of some 3,500 sq ft for £16,000, with a mortgage based on 2 times our (smallish) income. Last week a building society began offering loans of five times income. Meanwhile, as space per person shrivels, parents helping out with the deposit stare in disbelief at the few square feet that their thousands of pounds will stretch to. For those without big daddies with big money the big squeeze has begun.

Parents can be equally appalled by some of the urban neighbourhoods that their home-seeking offspring move to in order to raise their own families. The percentage of the children of minorities in primary schools has risen from 11% 10 years ago to more than 20% today (more in parts of London). This is natural and inevitable, but those who tell us that it is something to celebrate usually educate their children elsewhere: in London the number of those opting for private education is 13%, twice the national average.

I am not saying such schools are doomed, but many have been given an awesome task. The speed of change in such communities means that parents and teachers no longer know where they stand from one year to the next. Again, the contrast with my generation is stark. My earliest school days were spent on an orderly East End working-class estate, with a good school, no ethnic tensions and no British National party.

At that point the Hunts of the 1950s and 1960s were coming under challenge from the grammar school brigade: 40 years ago only a third of Oxbridge students had been privately educated. Now the figure is 50%; and, if you count the 160 remaining grammars alongside the independents, only some 25% of the Oxbridge intake comes from comprehensives — which comprise 90% of the state education system.

If this is where we start from, how likely is mass immigration, with the overcrowding and linguistic and security problems that it is bringing, to improve the educational chances of the offspring of middle-income natives? They could easily be held back at poorly performing state schools — only to be faced with increased competition from the clever children of ambitious, new-rich immigrants at university entrance level. And how can the newcomers be blamed?

Hunt’s response to problems of social promotion is to wave them aside. Lack of mobility? Such rot. Tell that to the lower and middling classes, or to the authors of a report from the London School of Economics showing that mobility has declined in recent decades, mainly through lack of access to high quality education.

Obviously there must be some immigration and of course it can benefit Britain — especially at higher income levels. But those who claim that it benefits everyone will have to explain how — unlike the governor of the Bank of England — they can do a profit and loss account, extra GNP against extra social costs, if nobody knows who’s here.

More thoughtful members of the liberal intelligentsia have begun adjusting their tune to the figures. Trevor Phillips, of the Commission for Racial Equality, insisted in this newspaper last month that “unless we have an honest debate about the difficulties of immigration and the real anxieties out there, tensions will increase”.

It would be fun to hear Hunt and Phillips head-to-head. Since Phillips and I are often saying similar things, to be ethnically even-handed Hunt would have to call our race relations watchdog a covert eugenicist, too.


Time to Emigrate? is published by Gibson Square Books at £8.99 George Walden

You see a parallel in America. Feelings against illegal immigration go across the political spectrum- liberal to conservative, but somehow politicians themselves seem to be unwilling to tackle what many of us consider a serious issue. INterestingly it seems like radical malcontents and big business are aligned. Big business relies on the cheap labor, while the radicals see any mention of illegal immigration as an attack on immigration in general and inherently racist, which of course it's not.

UK unemployment is continuing to rise - climbing to 1.71 million - the highest level in seven years. However, this failed to become headline news. I suspect this is because they fear that this news will create anger towards recent East European immigrants.

Can anybody explain to me why after 50 years of mostly non white European immigration of dubious quality if not quantity who mostly settle on a permanent basis we suddenly get a stronger than usual surge of anti immigration aimed at Eastern Europeans who carry a much more assimilable culture and who not only work in the economy across the board and demand little,but the bulk will return on a permanent basis to their own nearby countries.Nothng is said about the continuous emigration from all parts of the world.I suspect an anti white anti european bias but for the life of me cannot understand why.I'ts clear that the winners from immigration are the rich who own the country and like cheap labour and high profits.The indigenous poor struggle with ridiculous house prices and food prices stoked by the demands of an ever increasing population mostly of new arrivals who need everything in a short space of time.

Immigration is a subject that the leading political parties are unwilling to discuss. I think this is partly for historical reasons. The right-wing of the Tory party have used the subject of immigration to get votes. Cameron is desperate to portray himself as leading a party in the "centre". The Labour Party is in favour of large scale immigration because it keeps down labour costs and prevents inflation. Immigration plays the same role as unemployment. It encourages workers to be more productive in case they lose their jobs.

It is also popular with the business class for the same reason. The middle-classes who get cheaper services (plumbing, bricklaying, etc.) are also happy about this arrangement.

The labour movement is being undermined by this inflow of workers. Especially skilled blue-collar workers. However, trade union leaders are reluctant to raise it as an issue because they are frightened of being called "racist". It is only the BNP that argues that we have a problem with immigration. As a result, they will get more votes than they deserve.

On what basis are these immigrants coming to the UK? Are they refugees? Are they on business visas? Or work visas? Are they coming to live permanently or temporarily?

Of course the issue is relevant to everyone, but the 'right' uses it to instill fear and to control the non-immigrant masses - scapegoating. There are those petite bourgoise rightwingers who are just rascist and hate those who are different, even if it is language.

The Right US and Global Corporate Elite are totally hypocritical on this. They feel their money, companies and products can and should be 'globalized' and 'outsourced' anywhere that suits them. The money, factories, even corporate headquarters can go where they want (to maximize their profit) - no border controls...but the people must stay and be their cheapest nearly-slave labor where they are, unmovable. I'll agree to no free immigration, when they outlaw these companies moving their manufacture and plants across borders. If the USA can invade non-threatening nations for their assets to maximize the profits of a few [i.e. oil and opium in the latest varients; killing about 1 million, displacing several millions and destroying an entire nation!], then I think others, as individuals are free to invade us (as far as I'm concerned) for work to better their lives and maximize their profit. Is this now a world of might makes right and do as I say, not as I do? These seems to be mottos of the Elite Right. Wrong.

What is fair for one is fair for all. Uno-mundo or no-mundo.

To my fellow 'Americans' - If you're not a Native American, YOU are an ILLEGAL ALIEN! ( or the decendant of one, or one of the invaders who stold the land from the Native Americans, and in the SW the (now) Mexicans...it was THEIR land...their assets.

Whilst what Peter writes is sound reasoning I think it ignores the probability that only states in the so called advanced countries who can retain their national identity and historical roots have any chance of resisting the globilisation to which he refers. The irony of this is that these states are the ones losing these potentially powerful assets from the destabilising rates of immigration they are subject too, which Peter thinks are justified by the globilising activities of western interests. So the mass immigration is furthering the goals of those promoting the globilisation process

Ditto in Australia. Immigration talk is taboo, under threat of being labelled racist.

The global strategy of stacking the cities with millions more people is great for the wealthy elites, as the Waldron articles states, because the social costs of overcrowding don't concern at all. They are shielded by their wealth from the less pleasant consequences of overcrowded cities. They want the convenience and cost savings which accrue from having a large pool of cheap labour on call. The ever rising property values, as more people compete for housing, is another tasty byproduct of this strategy for the elites.

It looks like we'll have to drag the heads of our elected leaders out of the sand (once again) and get them to face the public debate on this issue which is urgently required. Once again, we'll have to show them that their binding contract is with us, not the Rupert Murdochs of the world.

If the politicians continue pretending that there's no problem, a lot of single issue nationalist candidates are going to be elected.

Did none of the politicians deal with this issue during the recent Australian election?

No. Not a word. It's taboo, especially during an election campaign where one can be easily smeared with the racist carnard.

Now the election is over, I hope new PM Rudd has the balls to face the issue. Australia has only 20 million people but because of the lack of water, vast deserts and soil infertility caused by years of land clearing, our carrying capacity is just about at its peak, imo. We can't sustain populations like those of our near neighbours.

Australia is essentially owned by 400 people. Immigration laws favour the rich and the processing of the poor and refugees is atrocious.

All of OZ that is below a certain level of population density, which would encompass almost all of it, should be declared 'frontier country' with minimal building laws, land grabs, land lotteries, a make or break attitude, subsidised alternative energy/desalination/water treatment/waste treatment et.c. of the leading technologies (resulting in OZ becoming a vanguard in developing these technologies, solar, tide, heat movement, green waste conversion etc)), + a huge trench from the ocean to Victoria Lake, the Artesian Basin and an open immigration policy. The potential of 'the greening of OZ', as illustrated by the Ord River Scheme, is enormous.

The industriousness of poor from all over the world in opening up new areas of settlement and industry would make OZ what it is : an incredible potential and not 'our carrying capacity is just about at its peak'.

The immigration issue is certainly on the agenda, and pushed by fringe right wing groupings who certainly have a racist agenda, as well as there being a general 'que jumping' policy of giving a free ticket to those who can buy it and to quality sports and other personalities.

The problem may lie in wresting the land from the few who have it (400 odd, many who probably never set foot in OZ) and the Rent/Property investment/Landlord/Banking clique who would have to accept a lower living standard than they have been used to where tenants pay the mortages, have few enforced rights and leave homes with no return on their contribution to the wealthy.

Various EPA schemes artificially squeeze the market by placing boundaries on development, and the start up capital for say settilng on an isolated beach somewhere to fish and grow food and potentially build new comunitiesis prohibitive, aprt formthe fact that the useful land is uselessly used to support improper to OZ imported or local primary industries. We supply iron ore, fine wool, coal to the world, all primary industries that enrich few here. Why not tool steel to rival british/scandinavian/german/japanese, Italian grade clothing, derived chemicals, IT, etc etc?

_

edit: spelling
_

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus

The potential exists in Australia for opening up new areas of settlement in the north, where rainfall is plentiful but the major cities like Sydney are overpopulated, imo. Anyone who lives in Sydney knows the infrastructure is groaning under the strain. As well as the ageing public transport and health care infrastructure, there other problems like the housing crisis, traffic gridlock and potential water and power shortages. It's nowhere near as bad as cities like Paris or London but it's heading in that direction.

The immigration issue is one easily manipulated by those elites who are determined to stack the cities to overflowing as a means of ensuring a pool of cheap labor. During the election campaign, I learned that the Mining Council of Australia was demanding that the Government increase immigration even more. OK for them--they don't have to live in the overcrowded parts of these cities. Immigration is generally a good thing and Australia has always relied on it, especially when major infrastructure projects like the Ord River and Snowy Mountains schemes were under construction. However, it is quite irresponsible of Governments to allow wholesale immigration in the absence of the necessary infrastructure improvements required to satisfy the increased demand on services.

If Australia was to decentralise--and I think it's a good idea--then Governments must lead the way in establishing the necessary infrastructure to make increased settlement of these areas possible. You can't force immigrants to settle in non-urban areas--they will go where the jobs are.

There's also a limit to Australia's potential population level--despite idealistic notions of greening the outback--and this is dictated by the lack of rainfall and available water in vast areas of Australia's interior.

Australia does indeed have a lower carrying capacity than many of our Asian neighbours. We just don't have the water.

I think you are missing the point here. Bobski the builder may indeed be cheaper than home grown Bob but we still have a great deal more in common within him than we do with our political masters and capitalist elites. The labour movement should be unionising immmigrant workers not seeking to restrict their movements.
The capitalists have globalised and so should we.

An interesting idea. The trouble is the unions might become as addicted to high immigration as the capitalists are.

However, should the will exist, then : then huge numbers of people in the cities would head bush and to the coast all over and the cities would become a renters/buyers market.

A caravan or such like to start with, followed by a dwelling using local materials adapting hightech subsidised green technologies. Those who choose the right spot will soon have others there, developing and boosting technologies in self sufficiency such as the various simple water desalination/porification processes in existence to utilise in various ways the huge water resources available all over and under and around.. Sure, the roads would be dirt tracks to start with. In time services would recognise a market and such things as law enforcement, councils etc develop. The under the tree school would become a building, then in time an airconditioned university.

The artesian basin is fed by this northeastern rain. The huge, and I mean HUGE (the second human built structure visible from the moon) ditch say 1 km wide 300m deep (from around port douglas to it) flooding the below sea level dry Victoria lake permanently would create 1000's of kilometers of shoreline to live by, to develop resorts, towns, fishing etc. The evaporation would, in summer when the highs flow in the right direction, green the western deserts. The rising sea level would drop or stall, benefitting many nations.

The result is an easing of the big city crowding (people ultimately head where they can feed themselves and their family (not 'where they can get a job'). In time a large congregation of such would provide huge pools of 'self sufficient' unemployed who would willingly up their status by working in the new NOKIA, or the future OZ-MOB factories springing up around them.

The big-cities resources would be eased and many other problems. Let's declare frontier status to the outside big city areas with low to no population. Make or break, no liabilities, no guarantees except that the few acres you stake out is yours, and that you will be supported in setting up: services, industry, transport routes etc would follow. Go, grab a few acres, Government, drop building regulations, subsidise green technologies and tell the 400 to take a hike.

If you want to see a large no-water composting toilet head for the natural park up to Blacheath, turn right at the lights and head out to Govetts Leap. For use of human waste in complementing fertilisation, or turning unproductive soil into good food growing soil look at Holland.

Sunxhine - energy and evaporative water purification. Plenty sun out there. Demand = R&D = industry = jobs etc etc.

Problems solved. Not idealistic. Realistic.

US and the rest of the world, watch out, the technology you will be using in the future to solve YOUR problems will come from the 250 million aussies living here.

"the unions might become...addicted to high immigration" - Wonderful, let's hope so!

Maybe the workers of the world would become addicted to Unions in the process and tell the bad Property Investors and Landlords and Capitalists to go where the sun don't shine, or better (politer), stop being so Capitalistic.

good point well missed

I like your optimism, John. I don't know about the viability of using the artesian basin as a water source. I haven't read much about it, but I assume scientists are considering it.

The problem, as I see it, is really a global one--although at present the dillemma of overcrowded cities is a natural consequence of global overpopulation. The world's population has gone from 1.5 at the start of the 20th century to 6.5 billion now, and is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. (I haven't got the figures handy so I apologise for inaccuracies).

These additional people require water, power, food, housing, roads, jobs and many other things besides. Carbon emmissions from burning fossil fuels is a problem as is the vast quantities of waste generated by an average western household (I have read the figure of one ton of dispoable nappies is used by the average western baby). There's also the issue of human habitation encroaching on the habitats of other species. Again, I don't have the actual numbers handy but I know that species are becoming extinct at the highest rate in history. How will they survive if the vast majority of the planet's surface is designated for human habitation, food and energy production? What gives us the right to crowd out many of the other species which share this planet and cause their extinction?

The endless growth paradigm supporting capitalism is unsustainable. I think the global opinion leaders already know that. We'll need to switch to more sustainable and less environmentally damaging lifestyles, if we are to avoid economic and environmental disaster.

While we're in the process of doing that, I think we should look at curbing the growth rate of our own species. It's too dangerous for the planet and its occupants.

Sustainability rather than growth for growth's sake.

The rest of the world should take heed from the lessons learned as a result of the actions of one Wickliffe
P. Draper, of The Pioneer Fund, who persecuted and prosecuted both Sacco and Vanzetti to their deaths.
He and his close fiends at the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies sponsored the anti-Immigration Act
of 1924 because he knew that this was the best way to prevent the upcoming flood of refugees from Nazi
Germany from ever reaching safe haven from the upcoming pogroms. When he formed the Immigration
Committee at HUAC under Rep. Francis Walter, he and Richard G. Arens used the anti-Immigration campaign
to promote their brand of Xenophobia that eventually culminated in Proposition 187 long after their deaths.
FAIR sponsored most of Proposition 187 and received their funding from The Pioneer Fund itself. Draper
was one of the staunchest opponents of Unions in America because most of his 500 Textile Mill clients relied
on cheap labor and the presence of Company Towns (Hopedale, MA was the FIRST one) to keep their
Cotton Spinners in a state of indentured servitude forever. Draper's ancestors were Cotton Plantation and
Cotton Gin owners and they knew how to keep their "Cotton Pickers" picking as either slaves or for slave
wages. When Lincoln put an end to this little monopolistic tyranny he was murdered by these plantation
owners who tried to reverse the tide of the Abolition Movement or to punish Lincoln for bringing it to reality.
The same thing happened to JFK when he essentially bankrupted The Draper Corp. and the entire Textile
Industry by refusing to put up tighter barriers to textile imports and to reduce the power of Unions. The
few remaining Textile Mills moved to the safe haven of North and South Carolina where Helms and Thurmond
created an anti-Union atmosphere which encouraged Textile Mill owners to move there. There was even a
murder of a striker at J. P. Stevens as recently as the 1970's as I recall.

Both Lincoln and JFK were murdered after they went against the Draper and Company Textile interests.
Then Draper turned his Butter into Guns (according to Samuelson) and was bought out by Rockwell Intl
in 1967 even though the Draper Corp. was nearly insolvent and bankrupt at the time. Can you guess why?

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says it's half empty. I say it's both.
________________


(Permanently flooding Victoria Lake (from around port arthur, not douglas, my mistake) will increase the size and reliability of the artesian basin.)

________________


Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. Where security, health care, job opportunities, childcare exists for all, the birth and death rates tend to equalise.

Poor nations with poor education and women with little to no rights tend to have large families and a high infant mortality rate which prompts further children etc.

Therefore, if one seriously considers that the earth cannot sustain its present populaton (which IMO is not so : many more can live in it, we are nowhere near the doomsayers limit) then the right thing to do is to redistribute wealth, ease/abolish debts, create a level global playing field, counter patriarchy, equalise and improve education opportunities, and in Health Care : provide sustainable nutrition flows, clean water and quality health care, abolish the patenting of impotent hybrid food seed, aim for multi/rotational, not large scale mono agriculture to naturally buffer against pests, diversify to absorb shortfalls.

Peace, comfort and security, particularly protection from indigent governments, free flow of people throughout the world ie multi-culturalisation, diversifying the gene pool, drop anti 'right to choose' and adopt Womans control over her own body. et.c. along that vein is the soluyion, ie there is no problem as presented.

The 'problem' is the absence of these things. Immigration, overpopulation, is indeed a right wing agenda issue, the solution is not.

The result will be a self sufficient world where sufficient resources will be available to not just humanity but to all species.

I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate:


http://environment.independent.co.uk/natur...icle3098853.ece

One of the main causes is habitat loss. In countries like Indonesia and Brazil, rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple. Species which have taken millions of years to evolve.

It's easy to dismiss those who claim the planet is overpopulated as doomsayers, but what then is the optimum human population level which would guarantee relative prosperity and sustainability for the planet's inhabitants? Nobody ever seems to focus on this question. Governments don't want to investigate the issue because they see their future national prosperity as being directly linked to endless population growth. You claim Australia can potentially sustain a population of 250 million (I disagree), but why is a tenfold increase in our population desirable or necessary? And what happens when the population reaches that level? Will it then become necessary to expand it even further for economic reasons? Will we then require an even larger gene pool to save us from disaster?

There doesn't seem to be any reason or logic behind our apparent desire to cover the surface of the planet with only one species. It's seems that religion has seared this madness into mankind's psyche.

Water is not your problem Down-Under, your surrounded by it. De-salinization by solar would be the way to go; nuclear, sadly, more likely the choice of industry. Australia, Israel, America and quite a few other nations have much atonement to do on 'immigration' as the invaders (called first immigrants/pilgrims/settlers...what you will) displaced, killed, the populations already there and stole their land and resources - and still keep them as second-class citizens after the genocidal exterminations and other maltreatment. What is frightening to me is how the right usually gets to 'frame' the debate. OK...so the American Pioneers killing off the Native Peoples, giving them treaties never to be honored; killing them and herding them onto the most unwanted baren lands; even at times having them not eligable to vote; given disease-infected blankets in the first recorded use of biological weapons...and more - is too long ago. Fine. Let's draw the line in this millenium. Just two years into it the USA sent several hundred thousand soldiers and tanks into Afghanistan and then Iraq and I don't think they were invited; nor passed border 'controls'; and are building permanent bases there. They have killed approximately 1 million; displaced about  4 million and destroyed a nation, who now lives in poverty, darkness and fear. Israel is building more settlements and a Wall and has invaded Lebanon. And one could go on. The faux arguments of 'defence' are just that...faux.
Halliburton moves its HQ to Quatar to avoid War-Crimes charges and taxes. Most US Companies have outsourced their work and factories to cheaper labor markets - but hey those persons can't come to our country and try to better their lives after we have ruined theirs.....Globalization is an evil plan by the Elite Rich to steal the Planet blind; thwart national laws and regulations; use the cheapest labor; maximize their profits; move [immigrate] where ever they want and keep others stuck as their quasi-slaves. Uno-Mundo would be the People's way to make it a one-world structure; fair for all; shared weath and mutually dealt-with problems; Peace not Empire; break up into smaller and less powerful 'states' or entities; share the planet fairly; brother and sisterhood. Atone for sins of the past - make apologies and reparations; live as one with other humans and all other living creatures which we [humans] are crowding and killing off of the planet in our blindness, hubris and the greed of the Elites. The current extinction rate is 200 species per day...estimated to go up to 500 species per day by 2030. Half of all other species are predicted to be gone by the end of the century. Humans I fear along with them, if the Elites are not stopped. See the excellent film What A Way To Go: The End Of Empire. Native Peoples which we have subjected to genocide and poverty, always had much to teach us - they do still, if we can only listen. We are now deaf to their wisdom. Humans have become the greatest destructive force on the planet and to each other. We have great potential. I do not see it being utilized. Those with the most humaine and sane ideas are usually marginalized. the most cruel, corrupt and greedy in power and control. This is the way the world ends...not with a bang...but a whimper.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDJ6Nrj6y_Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0cJGjC8ek8
http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/

The current World population is 6.5 Billion and it will rise to within the range of 9-14 billiion depending on decisions we make. This NOW is beyond the Earth's carry capacity for the species, estimated to be about one to two billion, maximum! [at an advanced level of technology. If the planet is to survive, the population must be brought down to that without kiliing or pain. Immigration now will become more desperate with great population shifts and wars over food, land and water due to climate change. We have made this mess and we must provide for those who will need it most. Now those in control are ignoring this Natural Wisdom and rushing us headlong to destruction and war; greed and avarice.....hubris gone insane. Nothing short of 180 degree emergency turn is needed! Now.

John Dolva:

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says it's half empty. I say it's both.

(Neither bereftness nor cheerfulness will fill it. It takes action.)
___________

Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights** for men and women** naturally move towards ZPG. Where security, health care, job opportunities, childcare exists for all, the birth and death rates tend to equalise.

Poor nations with poor education and Woman with little to no rights tend to have large families and a high infant mortality rate which prompts further children etc.

Therefore, if one seriously considers that the earth cannot sustain its present populaton (which IMO is not so : many more can live in it, we are nowhere near the doomsayers limit) then the right thing to do is to redistribute wealth, ease/abolish debts, create a level global playing field, counter patriarchy, equalise and improve education opportunities, and in Health Care : provide sustainable nutrition flows, clean water and quality health care, abolish the patenting of impotent hybrid food seed, aim for multi/rotational, not large scale mono agriculture to naturally buffer against pests, diversify to absorb shortfalls.

Peace, comfort and security, particularly protection from indigent governments, free flow of people throughout the world ie multi-culturalisation, diversifying the gene pool, drop anti 'right to choose' and adopt Womans control over her own body. et.c. along that vein is the solution, ie there is no problem as presented.

The 'problem' is the absence of these things. Immigration, overpopulation, is indeed a right wing agenda issue, the solution is not.

The result will be a self sufficient world where sufficient resources will be available to not just humanity but to all species.

OOOOOOOOOOO

Mark : "I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate."

John : I never argued that "global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious" though it certainly could be an outcome. Rather, as Peter repeadedly and pointedly on many occasions in many posts argues, it's time to ACT.

This touches on the JFK forum issues. For 100 years, repeately, President after President told the Blacks to 'wait' re the fulfilment of the post Civil war 'freeing' of slaves and giving them equal rights.

JFK, in mid '63 declared the time of waiting is over. Five months later he was dead.
______________

Mark : "One of the main causes is habitat loss. In countries like Indonesia and Brazil, rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple."

John : Core issues : "rainforest clearing is the problem. Human population growth is causing the extinction of other species, pure and simple." Beg to disagree.

Rainforests are cleared to expose minerals. Starving treasure seekers flock to live short dangerous lives, killing Native peoples (negative population growth) and ecosystems in the process and washing delicate soil foundations into the Amazon. The result is, among other things, a drop in world Oxygen levels, ie reduction in fundamental resources which makes for an argument that there are too many people.

Why IS it so.

Well, one can trace it partly to what Castro recognised as the one serious challenge to the Cuban peoples solution, Kennedy's (or at least the rhetoric of it, (he was not around to see it's subversion)) "The Alliance for Progress". which has turned into a massive debt problem. ie pressure to reap resources, come what may, to service debt. Partly, the land after mineral resources are exploited and/or concurrent with it the previously balanced eco system supplying a significant percentage of the worlds Oxygen, feed cattle that are turned into flavoured cardboard called 'quarterpounders' in obese rich nations.

Again to service debt.

Costa Rica (not sure about how it is today), but certainly, while Raygonzo's 'freedom fighters' (CONTRA) were impoverishing and killing off people in Nicaragua, (negative poplation growth) following Somozas reign of terror (negative population growth) and hub as deadly-drug supplier (negative population growth) the native Costa Rican fishing fleets were catching enough food to feed the whole nation, yet near 100% was sold (service debt) to the USofA where it was/is processed to be tinned and stacked in supermarkets to be bought to feed cats. A species not native to the Americas. Meanwhile the poor Costa Ricans starve and are forced into IMF, World Bank agreements that further impoverish them.


Mark : "It's easy to dismiss those who claim the planet is overpopulated as doomsayers, but what then is the optimum human population level which would guarantee relative prosperity and sustainability for the planet's inhabitants?"

John : I agree, it is very easy indeed.

Optimum? : That which is self sufficient, sharing, green and sustaining, ie. the product of 'Right (correct) Thinking". A naturally achieved harmony.

Mark : "You claim Australia can potentially sustain a population of 250 million (I disagree), but why is a tenfold increase in our population desirable or necessary? And what happens when the population reaches that level? Will it then become necessary to expand it even further for economic reasons? Will we then require an even larger gene pool to save us from disaster?"

John : My 'claim' is illustrative of 'thinking outside the box'. ACTION : easing population pressures elsewhere, developing self sustaining green technologies.

As Peter states, there is no water shortage here. There is an established dogma that counetracts non profit raising endeavours that can provide global solutions, and in turn change economies to ethics driven ones and lo : there are indeed profits to be made. (me) : "Generally it has been found that prosperous educated nations that have equal rights for men and women naturally move towards ZPG. (re-emphasis)"

In the process, problems are being solved, population growths stabilised

Mark : "There doesn't seem to be any reason or logic behind our apparent desire to cover the surface of the planet with only one species. It's seems that religion has seared this madness into mankind's psyche."

John : Who has this desire? I'd like to have some harsh words with this person!
Religion or Ethical Spirituality? Religion, yes maybe, elaborate please?

Finish: A scenario: a Volvo factory in Sweden. 27 hour week, no stationary assembly, a team follows a car from start to finish, long paid holidays, free health care, free education, 18 months paid maternity leave to first one partner (usually, sensibly the mother, with a job to go back to, followed by 18 months same to partner). A country with near ZPG for decades, the second or third largest in area country in Europe and one with one of the lowest population number. 150 odd multinational companies, many significant, Bofors, Saab, Volvo, Asko, ASEA, Ericsson/Sony, etc. Why? : Will and planning.

Why did Mandela visit Sweden first? Why was Sweden one of the first, if not the first. to recognise Israel AND the PLO, and the palestinians rightful claim for a sovereign nation? Why did Palme march with Ho Chi Minh, recognise and visit Castros Cuba? They build factories that make wooden rulers for schools rather than sponsor death squads.

If you want sweet mango to eat you plant sweet mango seed. If you plant thistles, no amount of prayer will lead to anything but a harvest of thistles.

Kennedy, spiriual (ethical, scholarly) recognised this.

This is a large factor in making his assassination so pivotal and important. There was a before, a promise, and an after.

A new wave will come. The lessons are there. They can be learnt, and this time we CAN win.

WILLINGNESS, ACTION, not 'waiting'.

**Patriarchy is a typical Fascist posture.

The Russian revolution, that pre Stalin Dictatorship enacted equal rights, was triggered by the "International Womens Day" parade. Woman is fundamental to much positive change.

Anti ERA, subversion of the growth impetus of poltical correctness, under Reagan stymied change.

The mothers and grand mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina significantly led to the downfall of 'the Generals'. et.c et.c

Mark : "I agree that wealth redistribution and improvements to global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious, but while we wait decades, or even centuries for this to happen, species are becoming endangered and extinct at an ever increasing rate."

John D : I never argued that "global education and healthcare will make the planet more harmonious" though it certainly could be an outcome. Rather, as Peter repeadedly and pointedly on many occasions in many posts argues, it's time to ACT.



Mark : As far as I can tell, nobody's disagreeing that it's time to act. However, you claim that Australia's population should be multiplied tenfold. You haven't explained why this is a desirable course of action.

Joh D. : I suggest a number which happens to be roughly tenfold. Perhaps a hundredfold would work as well.

In the previous posts a number of reasons are suggested. As in the poem posted, the surplus of other nations can be partly absorbed, benefitting not only australia but also other nations. A modern green technology driven frontier nation, (quite different from the "wild west"), would make the large cities a renters and buyers market resulting in an easing of the burdens that poorer people bear as they pay the landlords mortages for them and further, the demand on resources there would also be eased.

The 'make or break', no liabiity contract with the government for those 'heading bush' would drive the development of those technologies which can significantly benefit globally and locally as the successful settlements attract others and byproducts such as in time providing labour pools et.c. et.c.. Admittedly, some in the cities, and the 400 odd who would be bereft of owning australia may have to swap ferraris for corollas, but as they are in a tiny minority it's of no real consequence. Capping 'enough' at a few million $, or for those who would get severe stoamch cramps at a transitional billion $ or so, for this tiny minority, again of no real consequence to the world except as something contributing to equalty. Other reasons are gone into in previous posts. As well working people globally would be more empowered and united as a number of problems are seen as solutions waiting to happen.

John D, : Optimum? : That which is self sufficient, sharing, green and sustaining, ie. the product of 'Right (correct) Thinking". A naturally achieved harmony.

Mark : Nice words, John, but vague. What's the optimum level of human population? In numbers, I mean. If I am to be dismissed as doomsayer, then you're also putting Peter Lemkin in that category, because he opines (post #22) that the current world population of 6.5 billion is well over the earth's carrying capacity of about 2 billion. Looks like you're in the minority, but I'll refrain from labelling you.

John D: "What's the optimum level of human population? In numbers..." No idea, I suggest one will know when this harmony is achieved.

Certainly I put Peter, or anyone else suggesting there are too many poeple, in this category. Personally I consider there are too many (who happen to be real tiny minority) for whom a billion +$ is 'not enough' and wield an unwarranted power in the world as it is, creating the problems that makes it at all possible to argue that 'there are too many people'.

(Mark, where does this 2 billion (people) figure come from BTW?)

Please don't refrain from telling it as it is, as far as my sensibilities go. Labelling is so pervasive one becomes somewhat innured to it. However while the subject is at hand, labelling does have certain attenedants consequences as it makes it easier to shuffle, through stereotyping, 'undesirables' 'off the scene'.
Ultimately though, it's of no consequence.

I suspect future sociologists will find a well manured harvest of 20'th - 21'st century thinking on this forum.

Mark : My personal opinion is that religion has instilled in us the notion that as we occupy primacy among the species, our species should multiply, seemingly without limitataion. Reality has now caught up with us, and I notice the Pope is now making statements about environmental degradation. As I see it, problems like rainforest clearing can be sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population.

John D : "Mark" "My personal opinion is that religion has instilled in us the notion that as we occupy primacy among the species, our species should multiply, seemingly without limitataion." - arguably correct.

"Reality has now caught up with us..." - I wonder...

"the Pope is now making statements about environmental degradation." - About b....y time too.

"As I see it, problems like rainforest clearing can be sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population." - a tiny minority is degrading the rainfrest due to the massive greed of another tiny minority, certainly not to be "sheeted home to the relentless expansion of human population."

The needs of capitalism is a cause of population growth in this already crowded island.The Uk population was going to fall prior to the immigration of the last 50 years.With modern technology this population could have managed ok if wealth distribution had been more even ,dispite the greying of the population.The quality of life would also have been much higher.But from a capitalistic perspective this would have resulted in a smaller workforce and probably a more demanding and difficult one to control.So immigration to keep the social cost and taxes down whilst providing cheaper labour and larger profits and better control of the workforce with ever widening disparities in wealth and income has been our experience.All this dispite the objections of the existing population who instinctively,and not for racialist reasons, realised the longer term implications.Over the years propaganda,manipulation and repression, somtimes subtle and sometimes less so have weakened the objections and we now face the prospect of 70-100 million people by mid century. We will need to continue to concrete over naturally fertile ,well watered land ,whilst in other countries a fortune will be spent to try and make land productive.
What would be the point of making more of Australia habitable and agriculturally more productive unless the religious,cultural and poverty problems of the potential immigrants are resolved.If this was not sorted first they would simply overpopulate Australia.Just look at India ,Bangladeash ect they do not constrain their populations even when at bursting point and make up a disproportionate part of the population growth in the Uk in recent years.The sub continent will overpopulate everywhere the diaspra is allowed to reach;just look at fiji.
A more viable approach to overpopulation would be to prevent those populations whose beliefs ect cause them to disregard the negative impact of continuos high fertility from disgorging their excess
population elsewhere,until such irresponsibility is curtailed.
While we have capitalism we must face the hard fact that everything is about supply and demand(baring cartels )and this goes for human beings;the more there are the less individuals are generally worth.We cannot protect ourselves while people can be "imported "from other places and we are all beggered. With capitalism there are always cheaper places to get labour or exploit populations;we need to realistically resist this and not be brainwashed into accepting our own demise by these ruthless tactics.

I agree, Bill.

Overpopulation is an urgent global crisis. An economic system based on endless growth can't be sustained so rampant capitalism will need to be confronted otherwise we'll be history.