Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Gareth Eastwood: “This really depends upon what you consider social, religious and cultural norms, doesn’t it? If accepting folk from different backgrounds (religious, cultural etc) was a key hallmark of being an Australian (and I think it is), then you could be turfed out as not compatible, Alga. “

Whether you like it or not, religious ideology is the biggest problem this planet faces other than over population, and they both go hand in hand. Being non religious is a key part of cultural compatibility in Australia, just the opposite of how the ideological blinded fantasise. If you look at most countries where religion is in command, religious discussion is a major part of their lives. It's also quite apparent these countries are also overpopulated, riddled with sectarian and religiously inspired crime, social division and unrest. So I see all religious as socially incompatible, and when you listen tot what they determine as truth compared to reality, then it's easy to see the insanity of religiously inspired cultures and the destructive damage they do as they convert, expand and invade. All to make a better world. We see the worldwide results of this god of love: constant war on the planet, and to bring more of these idiots into the country is just a death wish for our society.

“What makes you assume that an Iraqi person couldn’t ‘fit in’ (or is not compatible in your words)? “

They believe in god, which is adequate evidence for incompatibility in this style of free country.

“Gareth, I've also noticed how quickly Alga and others shift from advocating a population cap "to protect our environment" to pointing at immigration as the problem and then swiftly on to setting criteria for who is to be deemed "incompatible" with our society. “

Craig, with a little thought, you may see protection of the environment and immigration go hand in hand. The more people, the more destruction of sustaining ecology. We just don't need any more people here. As it is we have a very high level of hidden unemployment and should be adapting our workforce so it can properly accommodate all kinds of people who may not fit the current approach. Put single mothers to work part time, design business and hours for many of the disabled so they can happily contribute.

“And where someone happened to be born on this planet doesn't come into that. If an immigrant has a light ecological footprint and they replace an emigrant with a heavy ecological footprint, then the tradeoff is in favour of our particular environment.

Dump a big fresh cow pat on the ground along side a small one and they both stink the same. So it is with any immigrant. Using your superior knowledge and understanding, how do you determine a heavy or a light ecological footprint. A highly qualified academic would certainly have a higher ecological destructive footprint, as they spent more money on useless junk and ecologically destructive food and services, whilst a poor immigrant will make a smaller footprint as they waste less, scrimp and adapt, so lessening their footprint.

”So I doubt that anyone leaping from concern for our environment to any "incompatibility" test that automatically deems those not born here as incompatible has really thought things through.”

I believe it is you who haven't thought it through. Not being born here has nothing to do with being compatible, as they are many already born here who certainly are not compatible with a sane life and 99% of those, fit into some form of religion or ideology. You certainly haven't thought it through if you believe bringing more people here will improve the liveability of the country.

Generally if you live longer the extra years are healthy.

Ill health tends to be compressed into the last few years - at whatever age they occur.

That is in the usual way - not with artificially sustained life and so forth.

The rising costs of medicine tend to be the cost of technology (pills and machines).  We need to move to preventive and light tech (including herbs and light tech health care such as acupuncture).  I think this is the only way out of the funding crisis.

"Why are we focused on longevity?"

I've been alive for long as I can  remember and death is unimaginable..

...in the way eternity is unimaginable; or is it?

The desire for longevity is nothing new;  as we all know  it is recorded (in detail) in our mythology, religion, and history. Think about it - think about the indelible historical and  mythological archetypes we all carry within our centre, not only as individuals but also in the collective; both conscious and unconsious.

Whether we know it or not, when we focus on longevity we also (by default)  focus on death. It is a very natural psychological dialectic. If one embarks on such a mental endeavour then conflict will be the result.

Should we destroy our (short) time in this wonderful universe waging  psychological  warfare with life and death, or should we simply - be? 

I've been alive for long as  I remember and death is unimaginable

Could eternity simply be a moment sans conflict?

In short, if we think not of life and death, we are, subjectively speaking, a little bit eternal.

OR

Paying innocent attention to the ever-present (conflict free) moment is a preferable path to longevity and eternal life than worrying your guts out about it.

I've been alive for long as  I can remember and death is unimaginable.

A new Dutch study has reported that it costs more to care for healthy people, in general, who live longer than their unhealthy - too often overweight, or obese - counterparts.

The study, led by Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, found that the healthcare costs of smokers or obese patients were less than costs for trim healthy people, on 2003 cost-of-illness data in the Netherlands.

The economists reported in the journal Public Library of Science Medicine that from age 20 to 56, health costs were the steepest for those who were obese. The reasons included the fact that both smokers and the obese in the model died sooner than the healthy group, cutting the long-term health costs in comparison to the healthier, longer-living group.

Data showed that, on average, healthy people lived 84 years, while smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived 80 years. Smokers and overweight subjects in the model also tended to have more heart disease than those who were healthy.

In dollars and cents, the comparison stacked up this way: lifetime medical care for those who were trim and healthy cost the most, about $US417,000, after age 20 until death; obese people cost $US371,000 in medical care and smokers averaged about $US326,000.

One answer to the population problem might be to actively encourage obesity and smoking. This could save the health system a fortune and reduce the demand on aged care facilities. We could all be happy obese smokers.

Why are we focused on longevity? Often the extra year or two is spent in pain or with a demented mind.

Evan Hadkins: "As people age and don't want to get into the hassle of long-term relationships they are going to look to pets.  Shares in the pet industry are a good bet."

Damn, that makes a hell of a lot sense! Pets (called companions, I believe) just aren't what they used to be. Forums do come up with some gold at times!

As people age and don't want to get into the hassle of long-term relationships they are going to look to pets.  Shares in the pet industry are a good bet.

'Continual economic and population growth are not consistent with an environmentally sustainable future. Anna Bligh, like every other Australian Premier wants more growth. She has just seen in devastated Mackay one small result of climate change yet she would pack another half million into the Gold Coast Region with its multitude of canal estates. These may well be under the sea within the lifetime of our children.

'At present rates of economic growth the black coal deposits of Queensland will all be gone before 2040, the carbon will be CO2 in the atmosphere making Queensland's climate even more inimical to future generations.

Wake up Premiers! Sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron. You can have one but not both! For the sake of the future of our children and the world, recognise that the only economic model which is consistent with a sustainable future is one that is dynamic but steady-state, in which the size of the economy is bounded by Nature's ability to sustain it, concluded the president of Sustainable Population Australia.

Further information: Dr John Coulter, National President, Sustainable Population Australia

Dr John Coulter, sees major problems in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

“Even eradicating hunger is going to be almost impossible,” he says. “Seventy-six million more mouths to feed every year, changing weather patterns and extreme weather events, rising oil prices and competition for land to grow biofuels, are all making it harder to grow enough food. As food supplies become scarcer, people are forced to find other areas to farm for food or to grow biofuels for sale. In the process they cut down virgin forests and exacerbate biodiversity loss. This is totally at odds with MDG7, namely, environmental sustainability,” says Dr Coulter.

Australia is a signatory to the Millennium Development Goals that were adopted by 189 nations during the Millennium Development Summit in 2000. There are eight goals and include the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, improving maternal health and ensuring environmental sustainability.

The Labor and the Liberal parties still advocate economic growth. With the environment steadily deteriorating we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Justin Obodie: “The exec. replied that he had heard the globes gave out poor light (which they do in comparison to the incandescent globes) and the shower heads gave you a pathetic shower (which they don't). In short he could not be bothered. Said heaps really.”

Well, yes it does. This guy probably won't notice the rising prices either (the luxury of being reasonably wealthy); many poorer people won't be so fortunate. Though, that's okay; this guy really, really does care - deep down - so he keeps telling you.

The truth is I could come on here and bullshit about just how much I really, really care - a bit like your above example - probably make people think I'm a real good guy. Perhaps though being a "real good guy" means being truthful about "real problems", "really unfortunate people (in the money stakes)", are "really going to face". I guess though, that's for others to decide, I'm really not into this moral superiorty thing.

Justin Obodie: "Got any tips on carbon shares before the show is over?”

I'll say that this whole "show" does prove a level of rising living standards (none of these things matter when you're dirt poor), and a fair amount of wealthy society narcissism.

If you're interested in long-term investments with large "growth potential", have a look over the health sector (been under performing for a long time in my view) - have a look at medical supply companies - especially cosmetic, dental and such. People are not only wishing to live longer, and healthier, people are wanting to feel better about themselves. The leaps forward in the health sectors, in only the last decade, are astounding (costs and the like).

There's also a lot of oldies around, and they're not about to go gracefully or quietly! So even the age health sector has a load of potential in the future.

Ps just my opinion, and you should do your own analysis before coming to a particular conclusion.

Many - most? - people work in areas that they don't admire, respect or even agree with,  but shut-up about it.

Many - some ? - people work in areas that they actively scorn, dislike or disapprove of,  but shut up about it.

Of course that can be justified by the mortgage, the kids, the oldies, the toys,  etc.

But the world won't become a good place to live in until people stop doing this.

Paul, I work with a North Sydney Ad agency one day a week; recently I was asked to comment on a pitch they had put together for a well know organisation. The theme was a footprint. At first I didn't say anything and was asked if I knew what it represented. I said it is a carbon footprint without any interest at all.

They put shit on me for being a climate change denier; I simply asked what all the fuss was over a wee bit of CO2. I got it up the arse for that one.

The following week I mentioned to the account exec. that I had installed (about a year ago) those long life globes in my home along with a water saving  shower-head. They save me around $120 a year in energy costs.

The exec. replied that he had heard the globes gave out poor light (which they do in comparison to the incandescent globes) and the shower heads gave you a pathetic shower (which they don't). In short he could not be bothered. Said heaps really.

About 18 months ago I was offered a gig with a new company that worked with government and business on climate change policies etc. (they were on Lateline last year). I spent some time advising them re their financial but did not have the time to assist on an ongoing basis. I learnt that there was big money to be earned in the business they were in.

There is a lot of money to be made in the "global warming" business but I'll be happy to call it climate change. Money makes the climate go round I suppose.

Yesterday it rained and today the climate changed; it was sunny.

I suppose tomorrow the climate will change again and do what it has been doing since the year dot.

Change is the ever present constant; adapting to change can be difficult and Buddha warned us about that yonks ago.

One day the sun will devour the Earth and Nirvana here we come.

Got any tips on carbon shares before the show is over?

Alga Kavanagh: “Cultural compatibility is found in those who integrate with Australian secular society and not bring and remain within the social religious and cultural norms of the country they have left.”

This really depends upon what you consider social, religious and cultural norms, doesn’t it? If accepting folk from different backgrounds (religious, cultural etc) was a key hallmark of being an Australian (and I think it is), then you could be turfed out as not compatible, Alga.

“The plan to bring more Iraqis here is stupid as all it will do is import dissent, incompatibility and unwanted religious disruption.”

I’ve been working with an Iraqi colleague over the last few years. I haven’t seen any evidence of your concerns; they seem to fit in quite well. What makes you assume that an Iraqi person couldn’t ‘fit in’ (or is not compatible in your words)?

However, "climate change" seems less open to challenge than "global warming", Justin.

Gareth, cultural compatibility is found in those who integrate with Australian secular society and not bring and remain within the social religious and cultural norms of the country they have left. Anything else is proven to be disruptive, except to those whose only aim is profit and economic growth.

The plan to bring more Iraqis here is stupid as all it will do is import dissent, incompatibility and unwanted religious disruption, as we already see with the growing muslim, jewish christian and tribal enclaves around the country. Those who don't or refuse to speak Australian are not compatible and a burden to the country, just as are the large amount of immigrants who are on welfare, for no other reason than they don't want to fit.

Er - I think you haven't quite thought this through,

Actually David Roffey I have thought it through and there is no other way unless you class ecological, environmental and social collapse as being a viable way forward. I didn't say I knew how to reduce the population to that number, just that it was a sustainable number to aim for. Are we actually living longer, or is it a con job? People may be active longer, but health problems are on the increase and our approach to improved health is the opposite to the solution. Who needs refugees or more doctors? We should be exporting our ideas to other countries so they can sustain themselves, not moving numbers around the world in a futile attempt to change the reality the planet can't support the number we have now. We need fewer doctors and a better preventative health system which begins in the first year of school, with a proper education in life, instead of now, children are educated to be economic slaves. Life skills and knowledge are neglected so as to provide more profits for the elite. I wonder how many people are aware the vast majority of doctors' surgeries are under the control of a large corporation and are geared to profit, not health outcomes, just as our hospitals and all essential services are.

With the current approach to health, the growing collapse of fertility and other lifestyle diseases, economic induced attrition will lower the numbers very quickly, as people falter under the upcoming drastic changes. So none of these are sustainable under the economic growth mantra and will collapse as we are now seeing, more people means more strain and as our infrastructure is failing now, more people will just make it collapse quicker.

Justin Obodie: " Shit, I don't know who to believe now.

Justin, watch for the subtle change from "global warming" to "climate change". The hysteria will end; the moment people work out just how much it's going to cost them. They'll be a trading carbon (on the index), right along side oil, currency, and gold....etc; in about five years - perhaps even less.

Simon Dennis: "Things Are Hotting Up!"

Well, oddly enough, they haven't for the last seven years straight.

The world's temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - part of Britain's Met Office and a citadel of the current global warming orthodoxy - has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill.

Alga Kavanagh: “only allow people to come and live in this country who are compatible with our culture”

Could you please give me an idea of how you determine if a person is “compatible with our culture”? Are you compatible with our culture, am I?

Re “It sounds nice when people continue to state it's a global problem and not just Australia's, but all they are doing is trying to find excuses to not take a responsible and sensible stand for the future.”

If it is a problem, it is global. People who continue to state otherwise are not living in reality. What do you think of Joel Fitzgibbon’s plan to resettle up to 600 Iraqis in Australia?

Does Australia need a population policy?

Yes it does and it should be set at 10-12 million, because that is the only figure or less which is sustainable under the present and looming conditions. It sounds nice when people continue to state it's a global problem and not just Australia's, but all they are doing is trying to find excuses to not take a responsible and sensible stand for the future. You hear this excuse from those whose only interest is in power and more profits, not from people with rational sense.

As long as globalisation and economic growth are the ideological mantras held up as sacrosanct, all we are doing is talking to brick walls of psychological insanity. Unless one country actually takes action to address the situation of climate and population and sets an example, then the world will never change and our society is in a fatal melt down of immense proportions.

We must stop general and special worker immigration now and only allow people to come and live in this country who are compatible with our culture, able to contribute to a viable future and not an economically driven one. We should be heading towards a sustainable economy and technological growth, with aims to give our population a future balanced between work and reward, not the current direction of profit growth and wanton destruction for the benefit of the elitist right wing conservatives of the lab/lib coalition and their corporate masters.

Social and ecological sustainability should be the aim of this century, not destructive debilitating economic growth.

 If our children and theirs are to have a future on this planet, we must start living within the limits of the Earth's resources. Humans are becoming a plague species with exponential popuation growth. Biodiveristy is essential to maintain a vibrant ecosystem, so there must be space for all Earthly inhabitants.

Australia is a dry land which for tens of thousands of years supported humans without major environmental damage - the original people lived sustainably, with a relatively small population. Europeans and thier decendants have managed to destroy our river systems and cause many extinctions within a couple of hundred years.

Cultural diversity is as important as ecological diversity, so immigration should continue, but at a level that does not put at risk the biological systems that sustain us. Current housing shortages, shortages of doctors and other professionals, and maybe even the massive current account deficit are largely due to the massive current population growth consuming resources we can't provide.  An immigration policy should address all the current issues that are affected - the negative as well as the positive effects.

Fiona: Welcome to Webdiary, Jennie, and let's hope someone out there hears your arguments. 

Very interesting. I think that we should think about a population policy, right now, before it's too late. Yes, there is a lot to gain from immigration and from having a bigger population, but let's not forget the fragility of the Australian environment.

I think that our world has entered in an age where we might have to think about our planet before thinking about our economy and our immediate quality of life. 

Climate change is global.  If we allowed in lots of African migrants and they had less children here than they would in Africa then the world benefits.

Resources are related to infrastructure.  Eg if we collected water in Sydney instead of out west and then piping it to Sydney there wouldn't be a water problem in Sydney.

It is unclear how much we could feed ourselves from our backyards.  This would require a change to water restrictions: currently those with backyard gardens can't water them but industry can waste as much water as it likes.

So what the viable population would be would seem to me to be a nice calculation to make.   

I think the population policy should probably end up being a reduction and issue in policies for sustainable resource use.  (You can generate power lots of ways but it's pretty hard to replace oil or a species.)

I think Australia desperately needs a population policy.  And I think it needs to have the debate even more. 

The Judicial humorist -I've got him on the list!

W.S. Gilbert.