Related: Australia headed for hung parliament

This is the issue Immigration Watch Canada is trying to get discussed in Canada. It's amazing how most of the politicians in the country, except Rob Ford, simply refuse to talk about it. And yet, in the overall scheme of things, immigration and a national population target is the second most important issue facing Canadians.

I've copied the Dick Smith series to my blog. Good work.

I guess they won't be accepting any Tamil illegals any time soon!

Ian>

Australia is amazingly Liberal and lax with thier immigration of third worlders. Last year several boat loads of Tamils were turned away from Indonesia and held by Australia in international waters. The "boat" people went on a hunger strike threatening to starve themselves (including thier children) at sea. As if, huh? Anyway the Rudd government at the time "negotiated" and brought them into Christmas Island for processing. They received the promise of free social assistance and housing in Australia, as part of the terms to not commit suicide. They then opened the floodgates of Tamil boat people and are still dealing with it today.

Knight 99 at 10:54, perhaps that's part of the reason that the "Rudd government" is the first in 70 years to be thrown out after one term.

Perhaps the silent majority of western society is waking up.

Very interesting, but what can be done about the population growth on planet earth?

I can see the problem, but what exactly is he prescribing as a method of dealing with the problem.

And is he a warmist? Sounds like it.

If the suggestion is end immigration, that's fine, but what stops the existing population from having all the kids they want to have. Especially the immigrants already in each country whose culture is to have six or eight kids ... and you know who I am talking about.

So, Australia is experiencing steady, healthy population growth. And that is bad exactly why???

At about 2.9 million sq. miles, Australia is a very big country, roughly 2/3 the size of Canada or the US...but with only about 22 million citizens, according to their 2010 census. A very wealthy, advanced Western society in a country with much rich ag. land and natural resources, Australia can easily support the est. 2050 population that video's doom & gloom idiot "journalist" is going on about. It probably could easily support double that even.

If all the West's "eco-friendly" hard lefty "journalists are so worried by population growth, they ought to lead by example and commit their own hari-kari first. Adios morons, you won't be missed.)

Increasing population is at the root of many of the world's problems yet it's something that many are reluctant to discuss. People who limit their own reproduction, for economic reasons, or from a sense of social responsibility, see their efforts overrun by groups who don't share such an ethic. In fact, they have an opposite ethic--reproduce as freely and often as possible, whether they have the resources to support their offspring or not.

We can see that limiting population size would avoid the misery of famine, and the problems of settling in marginal areas such as flood plains. Fewer people would impose less of a burden on the environment. But attempts to tinker with the size of families have unintended consequences such as in China. The skewing of the population towards more males than females has not yet played itself out--though I suppose that will further limit their population as the numbers of women able to reproduce will diminish. However, India, South America, Africa, and other nations are easily erasing the effect of China's population limitation efforts.

One way or another, the situation will regulate itself but I have a feeling that we will be looking at more catastrophe and misery to do this. We are mitigating some of the problems with improved food growing and technology but if all this accomplishes is to support yet more people, it too will lead to an unpretty end.

Any population that survives only with regular injections of food aid, is living on the edge of disaster and by supporting this, we only increase the problem. A population should produce its own food and provide water and other necessities for itself. Helping them achieve this should be the main purpose of the "aid" industry and the UN--NOT redistributing what they see as inequitable bounties that are found in other places. The present course simply means that we will have growing numbers in areas that are not meant to sustain them and the rest of the world will run out of resources in its efforts to support them.

Speaking of "you know who I am talking about."

Saudi Arabia sees 333% population

And how much of it's own food does Saudi Arabia produce?

Time for Darwin to step in.

YOU HAVE ALL MISSED THE POINT.

He goes on about immigration.

Immigration from where to where?

Are people leaving canada to move to somolia?

Are american's leaving to move to china ?

Are australians moveing away to libya?

no no no.

His point is australia is doing fine on it's own with out immigration ,i think it would be safe to say that for all western nations .

Start attaking all asian ,indian,black,so on and so forth immigrant gangsters and jusr send em back no questions asked . if you in a gang and caught your out.

there are lot's of way's to quelle this issue .

Stop immigration period ...for say 25 years or what ever suit's the particular countries fansy ..nobody . And i mean nobody can ever tell any country that they have to immigrate people this is all horse sh!t .

say belguim said we will never accept any more immigrant's from this day forward for no reason what so ever does the u.n. have any say in weather or not they can do that ....HELL noo. even if they put sanctions and so on and so forth who cares western countries could and still would do buisness with belgium . same gos everywhere ...if we hold our citizens accountable from a patriotic stance we could easily over come the ding baby boomers as a duty to our countries ,but we are soooo selfish self centered ,ignorant and materialistic that we can't see the forest through the tree's ..what good is having everything for youro ne little golden baby when in a few short generations they will be handing it al over to a forgien or completley alien culture ?

You owe it to your country to have children AND to do a damn good job raising them ..there is absolutly no point in spitting out 8 kids when they will be all stupid uneducated trash they are then no different then an immigrant who comes here with no education ,can't speak english ,has no skills except for building camel sh!it hut's and beating there wives .

I bet if every single western nation stoped immigration it would just stop almost entirly all together as no other poor nation want's to move to another poor nation do they ?

no so again the white man is his own worst enemy the white liberal,self loathing man is his own worst enemy becasue they do back room deals with countries like saudi arabia and say o.k. you sell us your oil and you can pollut our nation with islam and your culture we will let in 5 miilon saudis,iraquis,afagan's,pakistani, people o.k. ? and along with that comes the throw back culture of islam ,or some other messed up culture like ukrainian...lol just kidding ..who paint's egg's anyway?

Paul in calgary

Abe @ 11:22AM: "...fine, but what stops the existing population from having all the kids they want to have?"

Since you asked;

Extortionist taxation levels for one.

Only indexed pension bureaucrats and others similarly living on the backs of the squeezed middle class can procreate without responsible planning.

What else, job security, needing two incomes for a reasonable house, the 50/50 chance you will be cleaned out by some tag team of divorce lawyer and judge.

Think as a single person coming out of post secondary today. And saddled with unnecessary debt due to having to take the required 'electives'. Plus in my estimation more than half of all university graduates have nothing usefull (i.e. the ability to get a non- ngo job outside this country, a proveable true skill) to show for four years other than having managed to get a stamp of approval from one of these politically correct thought sausage-factories.

Through taxation we will reach the trudeaupian nirwana, a country without roots or past, ripe for the taking.

increasing population is NOT an issue in the west ..our problem is our decreasing population and replacing it with ever more increasing third world populations ...simple .

Is canada over populated? ,is america overpopulated? is britain over populated ? is australia over populated ? is new zeland over populated ? what about sweden ? denmark ? norway ? italy ?ireland ?

i know a few places that are over populated china ,and india are over populated ....afaganistan is NOT over populated it is over corrupted along with iran ,somolia,and the likes and now they are tring to export there corruption ,Pakistan is NOT over populated it is over corrupted ...so make of that what you will .

But that is how i see it .

Paul in calgary

For those above who are concerned about population growth- don't be.

First, the carrying capacity of the globe is far from being maxed out - food and energy production can both be greatly increased if need be.

Second, there are two things that reduce and then reverse population growth: prosperity and secularism. Outside of the Islamic world the world has become increasingly more of both and the more secular and prosperous the society the lower the birthrate of native-born citizens. The coming collapse of the CAP and the Farm Bill portend a breakthough in the GATT and with it galloping free trade and a continuation and spread of globalization and the prosperity it delivers for all involved.

Third, arguably the single-most important achievement in world history has been the development of the birth control pill. It has revolutionized society in manifold ways and has enabled a dramatic growth in per capita income worldwide again excluding the Muslim world. Remember that the pill has only widely been available in the western world for less than fifty years and much less than that elsewhere. Pill usage explodes (pardon the pun?) when point two takes hold.

The complicating factor is, as has been hinted at, is islamism. I think that this can and will be reversed in time for a number of reasons including things such as cheaper energy and the collapse of western welfare entitlements robbing it of funding and the continuing information revolution destroying the myths and ignorance upon which it thrives.

Hopefully within the next thirty years global population growth will reverse itself and your concerns will be nullified.

Come off it.

This is just plain DUMB.

Australia paved over and sinking into the ocean? What a silly sophomoric animation device that was!

Folks, Australia is EMPTY. To take a line from Gertrude Stein, for most of the Australian continent "there is no there there". There is squat-diddly but outback.

Australia is the sixth largest country in the world but ranks 232nd in population density. The biggest urban agglomeration the country is Sydney at about 4.5 million. Downtown Sydney is crowded and has traffic problems? Gosh, who would have guessed? New York clocks in at eight million with an urban agglomeration from New Jersey through to Connecticut of 25 million - that's nearly three million more than ALL of Australia.

Funny, I always thought they were all inveterate world travellers but this would suggest to me that the Aussies need to get out a lot more.

Hate to disagree with you Gord, but the sad fact is that we are approaching a population climax that the west has already recognized and unfortunately Islam has not. The European Union will be converted in the next thirty years and then it will be too late. As I've mentioned before in previous posts the Wests constant assistance in disaster relief to areas of the Third World that cannot fend for themselves only helps to spread and prolong the misery. This practice deepens the hatred for the West, notice the demand for aid now coming from Pakistan and the criticism that it is not coming quickly enough. Flooding in the Sub-continent has been happening for thousands of years but today it is somehow the Wests fault. If we wait long enough our 'Welcoming and Tolerant Society', that has taken a thousand years to produce, will be overthrown and tossed into the dustbin of history by societies that cannot sustain themselves.

@GORD TULK

the pill is mysteriously only availible to western nations the ones that can barley muster enough will to have kids are now pre-aborting them by a convienient little thing called the pill if there was no condom's,no birth control andn o abortion we in the west would be doing fine but with our sliding morality it is matched with our sliding birth rates we like you said are leaving the church in a double line ..so who will replace the aborted and pre aborted babies in the west ...obviously another coulture of course ..so my issue has nothing to do with world population it has to do with the west's ability and will to have children and replace and grow it's own patriotic western civilians ..that witch we are no doing at all right now again just like you said we are richer fatter and more lazy then ever before in history our will to live/survive as a western civilisation is a flickering light about to be blown out by a number of other cultures ,indian,chinease,islamic/middle eastern ...so on and so forth and we are aiding this by giving our wealth to them out of guilt of being great.

I don't get it.

Paul in calgary

When you talk about immigration and overpopulation, you have to take into account migration to usable living space.

Much like Canada, the vast majority of the Australian population lives in the coastal cities, which also happen to have the most arable land surrounding them.

It doesn't matter that Canada and Australia have huge tracts of land. If it is not economically viable to live in the vast majority of the country, what's the point?

If you want to live in areas that under serviced and where a t.v. dinner and a bottle of water will cost you the better part of $50, be my guest.

If anyone has ever traveled through the Canadian Shield or Arctic, or the Australian Outback, knows why these areas are underpopulated.

They are virtually uninhabitable.

Rita, the earth is quite capable of feeding the population that lives on it. It's a matter of getting the food to the population. Do Americans or Canadians look like they are starving? We only have a ninety day growing season yet we feed ourselves and others. North Koreans aren't starving because they cannot grow rice (though South Korea has more arable land). This "resources vs population growth" scheme has been tried before and it still doesn't fly.
As for immigration, when my parents were kids, many people were xenophobic yet they needed the migrants to replace the numbers killed off during the war. Because these migrants were expected to work and assimilate, they did. In Canada, we stress dysfunction and disunity through some flimsy concept of multiculturalism and, coupled with the West's weakening, it has resulted in the rise of cultures less compatible with the values we prefer.
And Australia- it has arable land, fruit, flowers, opals and sharks. It will be fine.

Idiot!

First, there's no world population problem.

Second, immigration is good, and a completely separate issue from abuses of refugee status and balkanized immigrant groups.

To use a sports analogy, it only makes sense to try and attract the best talent available. Teams that bring the right people in and get rid of the riff-raff have the most success. And teams that have more money can often attract good talent. And teams that don't have money complain and try to get rules to limit the success of others while padding their own pockets at the same time. And Unions!!!

That guys an idiot; and many of you are falling for the new AGW! Use your heads and quit parroting this overpopulation nonsense.

JJM

Who wants to live in a crowded society where it's all hustle and rush and dirt and problems out the ass?

With small populations, there are small problems and are mostly solvable. Big population problems are not solvable and will lead to never ending strife and disaster as we see in our major cities. Drugs, crime, poverty, corruption, pollution etc.

I know that the big city is an exciting place for young people looking for cheap thrills and oh ... sex ... also a great place for useless artists and their berets, jazz musicians who don't make much money, but at least may find a place to play their never-ending scale variations to the chord changes of some old standard ... also a great place for misfits, the so-called homeless and gangs to thrive in the blur of big fast populations.

But that life style is counter productive to humanity and it is not desirable for families or older folks.

These huge populations in metropolitan areas is a relatively new thing that has, in my view proved to be a bad development in human history.

Why do we need so many people to have a world?

"When you talk about immigration and overpopulation, you have to take into account migration to usable living space."

Come off it again!

Even removing the outback from the equation, the amount of usable land available in Oz is VAST.

By comparison, The Netherlands, with a population of over 16 million, sits on hardly enough usable land to grow a few tulips.

I agree with you Kursk (If anyone has ever traveled through the Canadian Shield or Arctic, or the Australian Outback, knows why these areas are underpopulated. They are virtually uninhabitable.)

You don't just need "area" to live on. You need the resources to make it possible. There are reasons why Mongolia is not overrun with people (or the desert, or the Arctic). With massive injections of energy and resources, you could truck in or fly in the necessities of life, or build giant greenhouses, but that's expensive and often, just not feasible.

"At the present, if the world wants to live in Fremont, California-type suburban sprawl - and a lot of the world seems to - then every one of us on the globe can have a single family home in Europe, with most of Russia west of the Urals left over for landfill. If we'd prefer a more cosmopolitan environment - such as San Francisco, with its density of 15,502 per square mile - then all 5.3 billion of us can fit into Texas and Oklahoma, with a few million left over to keep the planet's bird-feeders full and rake and weed the rain forests. If we want a more get-down, def and slammin' zip code, then - at the Manhattan population density of 52,415 per square mile - everybody on earth can live in former Yugoslavia. And, if we're going to act like New Yorkers, Yugoslavia is what we deserve."

- P.J. O'Rourke, All The Trouble In The World (1994)

"That guys an idiot; and many of you are falling for the new AGW! Use your heads and quit parroting this overpopulation nonsense."

Indiana Homez,

There absolutely is an over-population problem and an even bigger population management problem which is why so much of the Earth's population lives in squalor and poverty not to mention fear of their own leadership.

I did ask the question in my previous comment about whether or not this guy is a warmist. He seem to believe that there is global warming and chide the older folks for their refusal to believe that humans have anything to do with it. I am one of those older folks. I am not sure there is truly warming and if there is, I don't care because not knows for sure what it would mean to the world. Might be good ... might be bad ... but so what!

We are lucky to be born at all never mine living the fault-free, safe, abundant life often at the expense of others.

I support what he saying because there is no question we are over-populated. If all societies were peaceful and cooperative we might be able to enjoy an slightly over-populated planet, but half of the humans are socially and mentally at or near the level of monkeys ... then there are the really stupid people such as what is infesting America's white house at this moment.

Kursk @ 1:58pm

"huge tracts of land"
(shades of Monty Python!) :)

Abe

Look at then world population projections over the next 50 years. We should see a large decrease in my lifetime.

You can not quantify the statement that the world is over populated, or heading there. You are simply going by your instincts based on what appears to be a large number. The same as the warmists. The problems and issues discussed here are political; it's not nature.

My perspective is this, it is the greatest of all infringements on human rights when the government starts to intervene and dictate who can and how many babies someone can have.JMO

Here's something to ponder for those that prescribe to the overpopulation theory(?).

Since the world is "over populated", in hind site, do you support China's "One Child Only" policy?

If you combine all the rivers of the island continent of Australia, you get about the volume of the Mississippi river. North America has an awful lot more water than that. Canada by itself has more fresh water than the rest of the world combined. Much of the tension in the middle east is over water, not religion. Australians are wise to be concerned over immigration and resource issues at this time.

The tension in the Middle East is more over water than religion?
Surely, you jest.

"There absolutely is an over-population problem and an even bigger population management problem which is why so much of the Earth's population lives in squalor and poverty not to mention fear of their own leadership."

Belgium

Area (sq km): 30,528
Arable land (sq km): 27.42% of above (8,370)
Population: 11 million
Population density: 354.7/km2
GDP (per person): US$35,421
Average lifespan: 79

Senegal

Area (sq km): 196,723
Arable land (sq km): 12.51% of above (15,725)
Population: 13.7 million
Population density: 69.7/km2
GDP (per person): US$1,743
Average lifespan: 54

Then why are folks in little old Belgium doing so much better than they are in relatively wide-open Senegal?

Belgium is five times more densely populated.

I rather suspect it's all quite a bit more complicated than a simple question of "overpopulation".

the earth is quite capable of feeding the population that lives on it.

Not when 50% of the 3rd world poor live in urban mega-slums where they can't feed themselves.

I'm not about to lower my standard of living so the 3rd world poor can breed more.

In the early 80's millions were raised for the Ethiopia famine. A large percent of that 'aid' went to purchase weapons. The food aid that did get to the people allowed them to double their population and move to urban mega slums. The problem is much worse now because of 'do-gooder' meddling. Let people find their own level of sustainability for their population in their region.

My goodness

if leveled ukrain we could feed all of europe with everything ..plain and simple ..over population i disagree with over population of china india and so on and so forth i agree with we in the west have no problems with over population ....and don't give me that crap about the arctic shield being unlivable you iniot's the eskimo's have been living in much more hostile climates than that my uncle lives in northern ontario and he has absolutly no problem going hunting fishing ,drinking his face off at the local watering hole ...sledding ,quading,you name it ..so please sparem e humans are extremely adaptable...we have been to the moone and seveal hundred miles below the ocean and we have lived next to volcano's and in desert's as well as on ice and extremley cold environment's there is nothing on this earth that we can't conqure or manage .

There is only one proble the white westen secular/christian men and women are NOT having enough kids. endo f story the rest of the world is doing just fine soon enough it will replace us western white christian/secular men and women well christians are doing fine but still.

so the world is not over populate not in the least.

Paul in calgary

"Then why are folks in little old Belgium doing so much better than they are in relatively wide-open Senegal? "

JJM,

The answer could get us in front of the Canadian Human Rights Court, cost us money and our reputation.

We all know the answer but it is dangerous to mention it.

Paul at August 21, 2010 12:40 PM
says
"YOU HAVE ALL MISSED THE POINT."

===========================

And the point is:

ALL THESE IMMIGRANTS INTEND TO KEEP THEIR ORIGINAL CULTURE.

They've exhausted the natural resources of their homelands. They want to escape the corruption and oppression of their governments. They want to come here, where they have freedom and a social safety net, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY DO THINGS. "But --this is our custom," they say. "It is part of our culture."

They don't understand --and neither do the feel-good liberals who so stridently claim that "tolerance" and "diversity" are our primary values-- that they are bringing with them the mind-set and lifestyle that will re-create the evils they ran from, right here in the New World.

You won't GET "new Canadian citizens, eager for Canada to prosper".

You'll get "Somalia in Saskatchewan", or wherever they ultimately move to.

"They've exhausted the natural resources of their homelands."

Hyperbole thy name is A_Nonny_Mouse.

Fine; YOU go find firewood in Darfur. And enough grass for your goats.

Darfur?

That's in Sudan, isn't it?

Sudan is a big country with quite a range of natural resources.

Sounds to me like their problems have little to do with overpopulation...

Paul (4:56 pm) I really have trouble reading through your posts because they run on and on and get repetitive. I did pick one thing out where you mention an uncle who does really well in the north killing moose, fishing etc. How many people per square kilometer could be supported in this way? The notion that you could have the same density of population in the north as can be sustained in more benign places doesn't work. That's why simply calculating land area and suggesting that there is unlimited room for more people doesn't work either.

"They've exhausted the natural resources of their homelands."

and now they are here to exhaust our financial resources.

( ok ok not ALL of them but many of them )

Immigration with zero social services sounds fine to me.
Smash the public sector unions!!

Perhaps ironically, Canada and Australia share a similar population distribution - 90% of Canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, and 90% of Australia's is within 100 miles of the ocean. We are both narrow strips of people next to huge undeveloped areas.

But let's not confuse "undeveloped" with "ripe for development". Most of Australia is too dry, and most of Canada too cold, to support the population density of a Sydney or a Vancouver. Extrapolating urban densities to the entire country is ridiculous.

Now, if these new immigrants were to go to these undeveloped areas - as the Ukranians went to the Prairies in the 19th century - then, maybe, just maybe, one could make a case for them. But, in Canada, they end up disproportionately in either the GTA or the lower Mainland, and (without checking), I'd bet Sydney and Melbourne in Oz. And I'm sure if you asked the average resident of Richmond, BC, or Richmond Hill, ON, if they need more people in their town, they'd answer "NO!!".

At least in Oz, they make immigrants pay lip service to Australian values; here, we bend over backwards to prostrate ourselves (officially, at least) to any foreign creed at the expense of our own.

Glasnost@11:17am>

To right. This story I mentioned played out big time during the election that though Rudd out on his ear. Harper could do well to pay attention and use this similar situation to his advantage. The lesson learned? Send them home.

Osumashi Kinyobe at August 21, 2010 2:12 PM

"Rita, the earth is quite capable of feeding the population that lives on it. It's a matter of getting the food to the population".

Sounds like collectivism to me.

We work our farms and lands to strive and get food to the rest of the world because they overpopulate and can't feed themselves. That's the definition of overpopulation, when you can't sustain yourself as a population.

This is not about some temporary crisis, it's about the exponential growth of the third world on the backs of a few, artificially stimulated. Any other animal or species in nature dies if it can't feed itself, humans are no different, and the third world brings nothing to the table.

So, to recap.

This isn't really about overpopulation at all. Both Canada and Australia have plenty of room for more people.

Plenty of room for several million more people.

This is all about who those several million should be.

Yes, I don't think we can allow illegal immigrants into the country, and those who pay exorbitant sums to sneak in should be refused entry.

The Tamils are not the poorest group of people and every country has extreme poverty cases where parents sell their children to slave labour, and the sex trade.

We might not save them all, but we could do a great deal more than we are doing presently. Not through governments, but get more involved ourselves through programmes already in place.
I heard recently that if the same amount of money we (the west) spend on pets was used to help the truly needy, no child would go to bed hungry and everyone in the world could have access to clean water.

After reading the posts here, and some of the comments about overpopulation, I realize that God should hold monthly meetings to consult with you about how best to deal with problems arising from the wrong people have too many children.

Following through on the suggestion that spending at least as much on the world's children as on pets I saw these figures on a website:
Thus, the USA and Canada have roughly 250 million people and an equal number of pets. If each costs $1 per day, the annual cost is $365.00 X 250 million = $91.25 billion.

Some of these posts have a Suzukiesque quality to them, or worse.

JJM,

Who they should be is obviously fundamental to sustaining our way of life.

The bigger point I got from the clip was overcrowding and the deterioration of society because of it. North America & Australia are huge continents with vast streaches of open land. When was the last time we saw any immigrants stretch out in mass into the land to make something out of it?

Pioneer, build a small town or city?

The answer is, That's not why they come!

Indeed it's different cultures that make up western society, the founders were builders, the late comers are parasitic.

Knight 99, believe you me- I am no collectivist. We import and export food all the time. Is coffee a native crop of Canada? How is it that other populations cannot eat? Is it because there no crops at all or are there political reasons? I've made mention of North Korea which is self-evidently a very good example of how a population can starve for political reasons.
As I've also alluded to, this talk of overpopulation and the ability for people to feed themselves has been gone over before. There were extremists who believed by 1999, there would not drinkable water or food. Surprise, surprise, it's 2010 and we have populations that eat too much!
Even Africa could feed its entire population if it wasn't wrapped up in tribal and/or military conflicts.
I'm not buying this overpopulation tripe. In this day and age, we can do something but are we?
Just my thoughts.

Posted by: gellen at August 21, 2010 8:54 PM>

I couldn't agree more!

Reading some of the posts I'm under the impression that I need to sell my house, live in a cardboard box and send the proceeds to Africa. Pets? Why should I have that luxury, when Obambas uncle in Kenya has 4 wives and 24 children to feed.

I feel so guilty. If only I can work harder and pay more tax's for relief aid so that in ten years time we can have twice the starving AIDS babies to feed. It's only right, because I'm white (get the T shirt).

"If you combine all the rivers of the island continent of Australia, you get about the volume of the Mississippi river. North America has an awful lot more water than that. Canada by itself has more fresh water than the rest of the world combined. Much of the tension in the middle east is over water, not religion. Australians are wise to be concerned over immigration and resource issues at this time.
Posted by: cryptic cynic"

So my evil plan to corner the market in Antarctic Ice shipping is working out just as I planned, heh heh heh.

Seriously, with an estimated 30M cubic kilometers of freshwater in the form of solid ice, and an average annual temperature of -50, it's just going to make more when you start hauling it away.

Sure to be a profit in there at some point.

Osumashi Kinyobe at August 21, 2010 9:08 PM

That comment I can get behind. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with "help" when it's needed (as in temporary crisis). It's the generational welfare to artificially feed and maintain populations.

I couldn't agree more that Africa could feed itself. It has some of the most fertile lands on earth, with more natural resources than almost anywhere else. There is no reason we should be there and involved in thief affairs. Leave that to China, they seem to want to tackle Africa and it's natural wealth these days.

Actually I'm not sure we're having enough kids to sustain our social services to begin with so immigration is a kind of like Faustian deal isn't it? Besides overpopulation is completely solvable, people just start killing and eating other people. I think it will be inevitable anyways since we'll have to start to viciously compete for mineral and energy resources. I don't see how some "one child" government enforced measure is a solution. Europe is doing that voluntarily anyways. Vae Victis I guess.

I understand, Knight 99.
It stuns me that Africa will need our help years down the road. Oil, gas, coffee, green produce, diamonds, people- all are resources Africa has. Unfortunately, the continent is plagued with problems. Dombisa Moyo has some great insight on Africa.
Cheers.

Paul @ 12:40. Careful who you call uneducated trash, I counted, at least 22 misspellings, in your diatribe. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with your statements, but you must have had a lot of red ink on your last essay in school. Or else you attended one of those really liberal phonetics style schools. Please excuse any of my own spelling errors.

By the way Paul, I'm giving you a lot of slack here, pretending that some of the misspellings were actually typos, and not counting some very questionable punctuation etc., or the lack of capitals on proper nouns, etc.. Everyone may now critique me for being off-topic.

Typical BS. Just like in Canada, all the immigrants go to the three big cities. Australia is a vast empty-land, just like Canada, with ghettos in the three largest cities.

BTW Interesting news from Australia http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

I think there are couple of different problems.

1) Australia is covered by sand dunes and 40% of interior is arid or semi-arid. A total of 18% of Australia mainland is desert. Therefore although it does have a lot of space, there is no water to sustain much increase in agriculture and/or animal husbandry. If there is no water then there is problem with cooling in factories and with building of new factories. From that follows that 2.1% birth rate is a replacement rate and that is OK for Australia. However large immigration rates, particularly from Asia would make life in Australia difficult in the long run, particularly because majority of immigrants would settle down in major Australian cities.

2) The second problem is birth rate difference between western countries and Middle East/African countries. Presently immigration goes from Africa/ME/part of Asia to highly developed western countries. That would not be a problem however the immigrants bring with them their own customs and do not want to follow customs of the countries they immigrate to. That makes it difficult for the countries they immigrate to sustain their own high level of productivity. Furthermore because the immigrants have stronger ties with their own countries (sustained by communication over internet, phone and frequent trip to their original country) then with country they immigrate to, they have difficulties with integration.
The low birth rate in western countries will be in time reversed, however there is no time for that because of pressure from high birth-rate countries.

3) Africa could feed itself. However one of the problem they have is the culture of corruption and kleptocracy which prevents the full usage of their resources. Furthermore this corruption is exploited by other countries (mainly emirates, KSA, China, South Korea and some businesses from USA and Europe/France+Germany) which buy/lease land for their future agricultural/farm use. Presently, China also cornered majority of mineral rights in Africa.
***8
btw. Paul is wrong. China is not overpopulated. Their population density is lower then population density in India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Netherlands, Japan or North Korea (to mention just a few).

In the days of old England,
Before safes were invented.
They placed a sock,
Over their c*&?.
And this way birth was prevented.

Well yes i went to a liberal school where feeling good about what you did meant more than weather or not it was right.lol

So yes i admit my spelling is atroshious but it does not mean i am a piece of trash as i can still articulate well enough to understand what people are talking about and also form an answer/opinion ...no matter how misspelled,unpuctuated or grammorically retarded it may be. lol..i know no excuses.

but hey i love to work andi am a resposible tax payer i have been for 16 years and i am 31.

Paul in calgary

Paul, using Internet Explorer is like trying to cut wood with a dull tool. Download Firefox for free and the built in spell-checker will become your friend. The more you use it the better your spelling will become. What you want to communicate will be understood much better, rather than simply dismissed, if you take advantage of the tools available to easily improve your communication skills.

Paul >

Another good method is to write your comments on a Microsoft Word Document. It can either be set to auto spellcheck, or you can manually check.

Once happy with the result just cut and paste your comment from "Word" to comments window.

I know how you feel, I've been traveling the last several weeks and my laptop has a problem connecting to the Internet. It's been a bummer with typo's from my iPod, until I get home and have PC fixed..........

Overpopulation? Not enough of me, way too much of you!

What I've never understood is why immigrants choose to come to big cities. When my parents came to Canada, they ended up in the bush of northern Alberta because that's where the opportunities were at the time. You can't grow food in Northern Alberta aside from carrots and peas and my father finally gave up on gardening. There are trees and oil and those can be traded for food.

Vancouver used to be a nice city until someone decided to see how many people one could cram into a small place and I was glad to leave it. Haven't been back there in over a year and absolutely no desire to even go and visit. The nice thing about living where I do now is that the people that do move out here tend to be a lot more motivated to work than those who just go to a large city because of the "social services" that the city provides.

Most of Australia could be made far more habitable with technology; towing icebergs from the Antarctic for fresh water, nuclear power plants and air conditioning. Pheonix is in the middle of the desert as is Las Vegas and they exist using 1950's technology.

I have to admit, though, that the concept that Australia is overpopulated is the funniest thing that I've heard today.

overpopulationisamyth.com