Greg Boyles

What is the difference between a politician and a computer? You only have to PUNCH the information into a computer once!

I fully support all forms of renewable replacing fossil fuels. But I implacably stand against dim wit politicians and business leaders using renewable energy technology as a propaganda tool to help prop up their fairytale of perpetual economic growth in the face of declining fossil fuels. And I am implacably against any scientists that aid and abet dim wit poticians and business leaders in their fairytale when most of them clearly know better. By all means develop the technology, but publicly contradict the poltical and business establishment on the issue of continued growth.

Some of my detractors are clearly followers of economic doctrine.

AGREED

And you would have to add another lot of solar panels to cover coal consumption and that would probably be an even larger area. At some point renewable energy will have to entirely replace oil because oil production is believed to have peaked a decade or so ago and is expected to rapidly decline in the coming decades as demand rapidly increases with the global population peaking at 9-10 billion. And the oil companies themselves, or elements within them, that are increasingly saying this. And when cheap oil is gone we will no longer have the industrial might to pull off such a massive transformation in energy infrastructure. And let's also remember that cheap coal is also dependant upon cheap oil - all the extraction equipment runs on diesel fuel.

Roughly 3-4 months ago we had a delegation of CSIRO climate scientists head off to the federal parliament at Canberra, and a media conference, to tell Australians that personal opinions on climate change are NOT equivalent to a scientific consensus. About bl00dy time that at least part of the scientific community was prepared to get their hands politically dirty and make a stand. About time for the same thing to happen as far as this over population issue goes.

Then perhaps I should re-arrange it into an inductive form of reasoning!

I am not telling you what their implicit position should be 'swansont', I am telling you what it is based on all the evidence from polticians and business leaders in the media day in day out. If this was not the implicit assumption in economic theory, and by all who follow it, then why is there NEVER a suggestion that perhaps their might be some long term benefit in a period of economic/population contraction????? Name a single politician or business leader that has ever suggested this! The global population and our consumption is of a magnitude that further population expansion cannot occur without major and unrecoverable (in the short term) environmental degradation. "What about people who support population growth, but not at the expense of environmental and social degradation?" Perhaps several hundred years ago this might be a valid option. But today it is a fairytale that needs to be challenged where ever it is raised.

You know what pi$$es me off the most about this whole thing? Most scientists will privately acknowledge that population and economic growth must cease ASAP if the Earth is not enter the next and biggest mass extinction event in Earth's long geological history, including possibly of our own species at our own hands. And yet day in day out scientists continue to develop the technological tools that enable fwit politicians to 'spin' their fairytale of 'growth is good' to the naive masses. Why are scientists not taking a moral and political stand and REFUSING to develop any technologies that will faciliate further expansion of the human population, e.g. GM food crops that will slightly increase crop yields. Why are they at least not talking about this publicly and loudly? Are their careers and personal prestige more important than god damned biodiversity on this planet, more important than our current civilisation, more important than the survival of their own species. Politicians and businessmen with this attitiude I can understand, but scientists?????? Why is their not a global scientific union that dictates which technologies will be worked on and which wont and that generally wields a little political muscle that can rival the political muscle of big business? Imagine the message that would be sent to the world if all scientists took a wider moral stand and simply refused to carry out any further work on GM crops or any other technology that would facilitate the global population from blowing out to the expected 9-10 billion, unless the western governments simultaneously massively fund a global family planning program.

I am not so sure there are to many in this forum that are naive enough to believe that infinite growth of the human population and our economy is entirely plausible and possible. But the problem is that there seems to be a fair number that think growth is sustainable for another 500 year or what ever. The problem arises because every generation that comes along says the same thing. It stems from NIMBYism. Most recognize that growth must cease, but no ones wants shift to a steady state economy/population in their life time because it will require serious individual sacrifices that they will have to share in. No one wants to sacrifice their lovely retirement lifestyle with ocean cruises or round Australia camping trips etc for example.

I assume you are referring to solar voltaics replacing fossil fuels for example. However there is a flaw in this notion that renewable energy source like this can replace fossil fuel energy and be sufficient to sustain the current population at its current rate of energy consumption. I have previously found a website (which I might be able to find again) where they did a bit of maths to determine the viability of solar voltaics repalcing current annual oil consuption of the US. I don't recall the exact figures but they calculated that it would take an area roughly the size of Malaysia packed solid with solar voltacis to entirely meet the USA's current annual energy consumption as oil. That's a lot of silicon Cap and a awful lot of energy to manufacture it and the panels and then install them all. Then of course they will have to be kept dust free and any damaged by storms or terrorists etc will have to be of course replaced. Similar situation with wind turbines and solar thermal. Including all this the EROEI of solar voltaics, solar thermal and wind energy is very low compared to fossil fuels. And we all know that when we are low income earners we don't have an awful lot of surplus income to enable us to live a rich and varied life. Compare that to the energy required to build a deep sea oil rig and the amount of surplus energy it generates over its life time. So renewable energy source may well be a viable source of energy in the future, but not for the current number of us and not at our current level of our consumption.

Most people can grasp the constraints to growth when considering bacteria in a test tube of the small island nation of Naru. But few can when it comes to the USA or the globe. I think Dr Albert Bartlett from the University of Colarado has hit the nail on the head when he describes most of science uneducated humanity being inumerate when it comes to large numbers and large scales.

Oh joy.......oh breath of fresh air........ Finally another rare moment when some who can see the big gaia picture, and how humans and our economies fit into it rather than the inverse, steps forth from the mob. If only there were more of us. But there probably are many of us, just few who are prepared to defy the mob and risk their popularity, social status or job. Have you heard of GPSO Essay? Global Population Speak Out: http://www.populationspeakout.org/ Perhaps you might consider making a pledge and raising this issue at any and every opportunity until enough people on this planet change their mind about the current direction we are collectively headed in.

The claim is implicit in all who support immigration driven population growth at the expense of environmental and social degradation. Otherwise I can see no other reason why they would advocate it, other than blind herd mentality perhaps. You have a point 'swansont'. Perhaps there is indeed some merrit in starting over with a full description of my hypothesis. But as you say it is complicated and I might have to spend a bit of time in private trying to formulate it in as clear and consise a way as possible.

You still have not provided supporting evidence for this statement Captain Panic Cap'n Refsmmat. My mistake.

Alright Arete, I will be more specific. Infinite monotonic growth is impossible on a finite planet and ecosystem at all levels and in all ecological niches. It is a universal and unchallengable 'rule', on planet Earth at least. 'Infinite growth' is theoretically possible if it is part of a cycle of boom and bust. But then over the long term there is no net growth so 'infinite growth' is moot. There can only be perceptible growth over short period, e.g a human life time. But then you have the issue of successive boom phases often degrading the long term carrying capacity of the ecosystem, so that each boom is a little smaller than the last one. Of course over geological time scales all degraded ecosystems will be renewed through volcanism, tectonic activity and local climate change etc. E.G. Rabbits population booms, strips all the vegetation, erosion sets in and takes away all the top soil, rabbit population crashes, all subsequeny regrowth is more sparse and less luxurient and can sustain fewer rabbits in the next population boom. Regardless of differences in detail, bacteria and humans share a common ancestor. We share the same fundamental biological processes and are subject to the same ecological 'rules'. So I reject the proposition that I cannot compare bacteria and humans at the fundamental level! Besides the bacterial growth in the soil is equally restricted. It is just that the test tube scenario is easier for the non-biologically literate to grasp.

How about we abandon growth economics and pursue steady state economics. We have no choice anyway because we live on finite planet with finite resources.

You have still not provided any evidence for your claim that So now you have made two statement that "countries are no where near their sustainable limits". Desalination plants may become cheaper and more efficient but never the less humanity's fossil fuel energy consumption will increase for the forseeable future. We are supposed to be reducing our fossil fuel consumption to reduce global warming. Hence it is more logical to put all our efforts into reducing our numbers rather than facilitating further increase in population, energy consunption and water consumption. I suspect the underlying premise of your argument is that you agree that growth must come to an end, but just as long as it does not happen while you are still around to bear any of the burdon. That big drunken buffoon John Elliot mounted the same argument on ABC QandA one night. It is analagous to the NIMBY phenomenum - Not In My Back Yard. "The economy as we have it now is not directly linked to resources" you say......I assume you are referring to the service economy. Well how do they render their services Captain? With telekinesis and mental telepathy? Whether economic activity is directly or indirectly linked to resources is irrelevant. All economic activity consumes resources or the goods made from them and resources are finite. Therefore the service industry is also subject to ecological limits despite the fact that it is not involved in selling manufactured goods. Even if the service is rendered without vehicles, without telephones or computers and without manufactured goods of any kind. Even if the person rendering the service runs around naked and sleeps on the ground in the open. The business still consumes resources - food. Food production is subject to ecological limits and therefore the afore mentioned type of service is subject to ecological limits......ultimately.

And the tables turn...... On what supporting evidence do you base that claim????? If we could just make deaslination more energy efficient and if we could just get fusion power to work and if we could just colonise the other planets and if this and if that.............. We don't base our spending on if we can just win tattslotto or if we could just win the jackpot on the pokies. At least those humans with at least half a brain don't How about we base our judgment on what is a sustainable human population on what is possible now and what we have now! We can make adjustments if and when miraculous new technologies arise at some point in the future.

Never the less the time WILL come when no further growth is possible regardles of improvements in efficieny and technology. And we also need to remember than improvements in efficiency are themselves finite in many areas and I will give the most obvious and intuitive example I can think of - water. To remain alive every human must consume 1-2L of water per day. Consumption of less water will eventually result in dehydration and death. Water consumption can simply not be any more 'efficient' than 1-2L of water per person per day. There must be minimum electricity consumption for electronic devices, i.e. the semi conductor components must have a minimum current required, fixed by the laws of quantum mechanics etc, below which they will not function as designed. Time the total electronics consuming population = the minimum possible electrcity generation that is necessary......short of banning the use of electrical devices for sections of the population. The rate of usage varies, the types of resources used varies, bacteria cannot innovate and switch to alternate resources like humans can......... But regardless of all these differences in detail, the fundamental truth remains unchallengable. I am not so sure you can claim false attribution here. Both humans and bacteria use DNA is a means of transmitting physical characteristics to our offspring. Both humans and bacteria share many of the same metabolic pathways. Both humans and bacteria occupy the same global ecosystem. . . . So I don't believe that your argument, that we share no attributes with bacteria, stands up at the fundamental level.

The west has an oblgiation to stop taking resources from the third world to prop up its own population and profligate consumption level and to stop paying baby bonuses to induce its citizens to have more children than they otherwise would. But the third world has an equal obligation to cut its fertility down to replacement levels as rapidly as possible or to seek help from and to cooperate with the west in order to facilitate this. Currently the third world's solution to over population is primarily to allow its excess population to migrate to the west which only makes the inequity between the third world and the west and the west's insatiable demand for resources even greater

RE: Effect of high immigration on property prices in Australia Come on iNow! Are you seriously going to start denying one of the central tennents of economic theory that pretty much everyone DOES agree with? If you increase the demand on a finite resource then you increase the price. You sound like the bloody Australian property developers who make the same ludicrous argument and attempt to blame it all on the government not realeasing more land because they don't want unsustainable urban sprawl to continue. If it does not push up property prices and increase the profit margins of big developers, then why are they spruking for higher immigration the loudest???? If there was no link between property prices and population growth then why would they bother spruking it......just for the hell of it???? Evidence..... What about the fact that, several months after the Gillard government slashed the list of skills on which foreign students could gain permanent residency, the property market across Australia has stagnated or fallen and there may soon be major job losses across the building sector. Would a comparison of property prices before Howard ramped up skilled immigration in the 90s and soon after he did so suffice? What level of evidence would meet your rather pedantic requirements.....if any? Immigrants on welfare rent. There is a chronic shortage of rental properties. That encourages many Australian citizens and permanent residents (particularly soon to be retirees) to invest in a portfolio of rental properties. That contributes to pushing up property prices. Increased economic activity as a result of high immigration has not brought net financial gain to the majority of Australians. At least that is what Australians seem to have been telling politicians for some time. And it is certainly the message that Howard and his government got after making hios comment "Australians have never been better off". Clearly some one is benefiting from it - property developers and governments Last time I checked there are no tent cities or slums any where around Melbourne, or the other capital cities, where immigrants are housed. So one way or another they are getting houses to live in, whether it is as an owner occupier or as a renter. More damand for houses and finite land to build them on means increased prices. Swansont, I am saying NOTHING of the sort. You are guilty of attacking a strawman yourself. Ecological factors alone ultimately determine the sustainable population limit of each country or region, and that will vary with the differing ecological nature of each. Therefore the number of deaths per year will vary with different sustainable population sizes. And that will determine the maximum sustainable immigrtion intake for each country, i.e. such that each country or region is in zero net population growth. That is if we are smart and limit our numbers ourselves. If not then the human race will be in and endless boom bust cycle. Our numbers will build up until all resources are exhausted and then our population will crash. There will be a long period where the global ecosystem repairs itself and biodiversity is restored. The human population will build up again, though perhaps not to the same levels as last time. Will again exhaust all the available resources and our population will crash again.............. I would prefer the first scenario where we use that grey matter that we are so proud of......and limit our own numbers voluntarily for the greater good of our civilisation and our species. By the way, the crash part of the cycle is happening locally in Somalia at present! But the aid organisations will go in and save lives until the drought breaks. That will cause more people to be around to have more kids than otherwise would be the case. The Somali population will build up again until the next drought and it will again crash. The aid organisations will go in again and save lives................... Talk about bashing our heads against a brick wall!

This will be accepted without question by biological scientists in particular. Bacteria cannot multiply infinitely in petri dish or test tube - sooner or later the resources are exhausted and the population crashes. Bacteria in a test tube is a biological system in a finite space Humans on planet earth is a biological system in a finite space. Therefore human population and economic growth cannot grow indefinitely - sooner or later the resources will be exhausted and our population will crash. Is there anyone in here that rejects this as a logical fallacy?????

OK 'swansont' then I admit that I did not spend enough time in my original post explaining my position which led to some people, who don't have the same educational and vocational background as me, jumping to wrong conclusions about it. I will make efforts not to assume that people can see where I am coming from based on a minimal description of my position in future. They are all linked Jackson if you take a step back and look at the global picture. Third world over population combined with western appropriation of third world resources is causing individuals to spill out of the third world and seek a better life in western countries where all the globes resources are ending up. That then increases over population in western countries and is leading to some social and political instability and economic problems in many western countries. One of the studies I provided ended up being from dubious secondary sources. No such criticisms were made about the other studies/articles I provided. As far as I can see the only evidence my opponents have provided to support their claim that immigration into the US is sustainable that it always brings net financial gains for the Americans are the per capita immigration figures themselves. And I do not regard that as adequate supporting evidence of their position. I think the main problem from the beginning of this debate is as follows. To most with science quals, and particularly in biological sciences, the concept of ecolgical limits for the human population and our economies is self evident and requires little explaining. Where as to many with economic and business quals or experience, such a concept is totally foriegn and outside their world view. From the outset I have clearly made the mistake of assuming that everyone or most in this forum can see what I see simply because it is a science forum and that I do not have to fully elaborate on the reasoning. I will try not to make that mistake again.

I absolutely do not dispute this! But I do dispute, as do many economists these days, the blanket assumption of economic theory that this increased economic activity ALWAYS brings net financial gain to the host population! Because those immigrants also incur costs to tax payers - welfare payments, increased public infrastructure, increased capacity at public hospitals and more public hospitals, increased electcity generation capacity, increased water supply,......... And my argument is that beyond a certain threshhold, related to the carrying capacity of the country, the total costs to the host society exceed any revenue that the increased economic activity generates. Immigrants are certainly increasing economic activity in Australia within the housing market. But that is not bringing any benefit to the majority of Australians. Wages may be increased but so have property prices and mortgage repayments, so have electrcity bills due to the need to upgrade the distribution network, so have water bills to pay for the Wonthaggi and many other desalination plant. Apart from the minority of owners of local capital, the vast majority of Melbournians are no better off or wrose off as a result of that increased economic activity in the property market. Let's go back to Naru. It is a finite and all of you can obviously see that. Finite land area for crops and housing (competing interests), finite fresh water yield, finite fertile land for growing crops, finite natural resources. No amount of increased economic activity will increase the available land. No amount of increased economic activity will increase the available natural resources. No amount of increased economic activity will increase the amount of fresh water that can be harvested from the land area. Therefore, over a certain threshhold, population growth and economic growth will not bring net gains to Naru. Scale that up susbstantially, and you have the situation in Australia and the USA. Note to moderator..... I have provided detailed reasoning why I do not believe that increased economic activity due to high immigration, in Australia in particular is not bringing net financial gain to the majority of Australians. I have provided some facts and figures from various authors to back this up the idea that this blanket assumption of economic theory is false. I would now like to see my detractors provide me with some evidence (other than per capita immigration figures) to back up their claim that increased economic activity due to immigration ALWAYS brings net economic gain to the host population.