Comments

Marisa, This is about the most brilliant analysis of a complex subject that I have ever read. I think that it would be poetic justice that Canada offer some compensation to Italy for bearing the brunt of so much illegal immigration. You rightly point out that the impetus for this mass migration is overpopulation for want of birth control programs. Canada, as our Senate report of 2007 concluded, has been criminally responsible for participating in the wasting of more than a half a trillion dollars in African development aid in the last 40 years not made conditional on family planning. We have fueled population booms that have left people more miserable than they were before aid was dispensed, and living in countries whose environments have been left utterly destitute by the increased human numbers. What is the result? Africa is poorer. Canada's working class is poorer because their tax dollars paid for the aid. And Italy's social safety net, its health budget, criminal justice system and educational system is breaking under the strain of an illegal African wave. And then you have the Romas. That we can help you with. Our official state ideology is Multiculturalism and we are always seeking ways to make ourselves more culturally diverse. Could we import 50,000 Gypsy pickpockets to make up for some migratory pressure that our unconditional foreign aid in Sub-Saharan Africa placed upon Italy? Ottawa's Department of Foreign Affairs and Citizenship can set up tables at the train stations in Naples, Milan and Rome to recruit the most promising Roma children. The thieves with the fastest hands, who can also dance and sing at the festival on Canada Day will be waved to the head of the queue and given instant citizenship. Our favourite criminals though, are still the billionaires from Hong Kong and elsewhere. We love developers best because they bribe and lobby politicians and newspapers to open the floodgates in the first place. It's a circle game isn't it?

"We are a very culturally diverse community, which is another reason why people are moving to the state." What Ms. Green should have said: "We are giving the populations of other countries the green light to colonise Victoria, which is another reason why people are moving to the state." The fact that immigrants are only moving to Victoria to join their co-ethnics should be ringing alarm bells. It shows that they have little interest in embracing mainstream Australian society and culture. Put bluntly, Ms. Green's idea of "cultural diversity" sounds more like cultural colonisation to me.

"In Canada, the implications of social and demographic change have not been the subject of much political or public discussion and little effort has been expended considering what Canada will look like 20, 50 or 100 years in the future. Basically, a commitment to a high flow rate constitutes the sum total of Canada's ‘population policy’. The situation is so unmanaged that studies of new census reports are greeted with careful media review and even amazement as if demographic change was some uncontrollable natural process as opposed to the result of an identifiable public policy." The same problem exists in Australia. The Rudd Labor Government's recent decision to lift immigration to record high levels received little media attention, aside from approbation from the open-borders crowd at The Australian and other like-minded publications. Afflicted with a severe case of tunnel vision, Australian politicians and media commentators seem unable to look beyond the solely the economic aspects of immigration, as though our country were nothing but an economy. This bizarre inability or unwillingness to consider what sustained mass immigration means for Australian society, for Australian culture, for the Australian people and their quality of life essentially means that Australia is flying blind into an uncertain future. Our country is on the verge of a profound demographic transformation, but we lack a plan to cope with the massive changes that mass immigration will inflict on every aspect of our society. Our policymakers refuse to even recognise that such immigration-driven changes are occurring!

Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — (...)The government is on the defensive here today with the latest revelations about the public transport woes of the Brumby government. Here they are rolling them out one after another, trying to defend what is an absolutely appalling record in public transport delivery in the state of Victoria over the last nine years. The fact of the matter is that when the current Premier, who was formerly the Treasurer, turned up here in 1999 he had the money courtesy of the former government — and he has had the time. All of the predictions have been there in relation to public transport growth. What has the current Premier and former Treasurer done in relation to improving the public transport network throughout metropolitan Melbourne? He has done absolutely nothing in the last nine years. The Premier, the disgraced former Minister for Transport and member for Thomastown, and the struggling Minister for Public Transport who never wanted the job in the first place, share the blame collectively for what public transport users are putting up with as we speak. The Premier and former Treasurer has his fingerprints all over this disaster, from fast trains through to the myki smart card. These are projects that were signed off by the former Treasurer, who is now the Premier of this state. The Premier knew how to stitch up the ambitious member for Altona. He was right — she was not up to it, she was out of her comfort zone and out of her depth when she was rolled into the role of being the Minister for Public Transport in Victoria. What are we facing? There is predicted patronage growth of 28 per cent for trains, predicted patronage growth of 13 per cent for trams, all by 2011, which is just around the corner. That is the type of patronage growth that we are expecting here in Melbourne — and the government has known this all along and has chosen to do absolutely nothing about it. Yesterday’s Melbourne mX newspaper states:

… Brumby’s admission today that almost one in five passengers risked being stranded by overcrowded trains, trams and buses by 2011.

One in five passengers risked being stranded at a railway station, at a tram stop or at a bus stop by 2011. What has the government done about it? It has done absolutely nothing. The article goes on further to say: Under the government’s predicted passenger growth figures, added services will fail to absorb even half the extra travellers. What is the government doing about it? The government knows the situation we are facing by 2011 and yet the government, the Premier and the Minister for Public Transport simply put their heads in the sand and do nothing about it whatsoever. The article continues: Brumby told 3AW the answer was to squeeze in commuters. The government wants to squeeze them in: The government will cram a predicted 28 per cent growth in passengers into an 11 per cent growth in capacity, he said. I think that is what you would call an insertion. That is what is going to happen to our public transport system and those people who take up the offer to travel on public transport in Victoria. The article further quotes the Premier and states:

‘Our goal is to make it fit’, Brumby said, ‘The objective is to carry the increased number of passengers’.

How on earth are you going to carry the increased number of passengers when you simply do not have the rolling stock to carry them — and that is the position that we are facing here in Victoria. All this is supposed to be fixed with 18 trains and a handful of trams on loan courtesy of the Yarra Trams parent company. The so-called early bird free train travel is up for review in two years and there is every chance that it will be declared a dead duck. As Bernie Carolan from Metlink said, it has not set the world on fire. We then have the Premier’s brainchild known as Flex in the City, and it would appear that Melbourne commuters are going to suffer the same fate as some of the actors in the Premier’s take of that tacky television show, because there is no joy for public transport commuters out of the Premier’s Flex in the City. It seems to have almost died a natural death. We have heard almost nothing much of that particular project since it was announced. There just does not appear to have been any planning at all. Government members are in their offices hoping like hell that fuel prices are going to fall overnight, sitting alongside the Minister for Water, who is staring at the sky hoping it is going to start to rain. That is exactly what this government is all about in relation to planning for the public transport network and services generally right across the state of Victoria. There is interest in the Sydenham line, which runs out to Kororoit. It will reach capacity in a year’s time — in a year’s time there will not be room to squeeze in any more passengers commuting on that Sydenham line. Connex did a presentation recently that appeared on its website, but the page that referred to this impending disaster somehow or other seems to have disappeared. It was within the presentation made by Connex, but when it was put onto its website somehow or other this particular page, which embarrassed the government in the lead-up to the Kororoit by-election, appears to have disappeared. You have to think about the poor people in the Kororoit electorate having to put up with a rail service that is going to be at capacity within 12 months, having to face death-trap level crossings and rail lines that are at capacity, and — as was revealed from an examination of yesterday’s leaked expression-of-interest document for the franchising of Melbourne’s train and tram network — having to deal with an admission that public transport in areas such as Kororoit are ‘deficient’. Yet we have member after member from the Labor side rising to their feet and trying to talk up the government’s commitment to and involvement in public transport in the Kororoit area. Looking at the report about the leaked document, it is the state secret that is not really a secret, the expression of interest that is not really an expression of interest but a draft that is not a stamped draft, and that can change. This is a leaked document that the Liberal Party released yesterday. The document talks about the capacity of Melbourne’s train and tram network and how the contracts will be run in the future. There will be capped fines for operators, with no incentive for an incoming operator to improve services for 15 years, and the ability for tenderers to factor in the capped fine amount when preparing their tenders by simply including that amount as a cost of doing business on the public transport network in Melbourne. Patronage growth for trains will go up 28 per cent and on trams it will go up 13 per cent, but there will only be an increase of 11 per cent in the capacity of trains to cope with this growth. As I pointed out before, public transport services in the outer metropolitan and regional areas are deficient. The government will have to fork out up to $5 million to assist each tram network tenderer, including the current operator, Yarra Trams. The free lunch the minister had with transport operators in Paris has come at a very high cost to taxpayers. It was a very expensive feed of escargot in Paris for the minister. Potential bidders who have seen this very close and cosy relationship unfold between Yarra Trams and the Minister for Public Transport have been frightened away from tendering for tram contracts in Victoria. The government is now offering each potential bidder for the tram contracts up to $5 million to help prepare their bids, and of course this $5 million also flows on to Yarra Trams. It is not being extended to the train contracts but is simply for the tram contracts. It is an appalling situation. The relationship that has formed between the minister and this company has grown to such an extent that it has turned potential bidders away from what should be a very lucrative business in Victoria. It has them in a state of fear, and they are not prepared to tender." An honourable member — "Labor mates." "Mr MULDER — Labor mates — you can smell it coming a mile away. The situation is that $5 million is on offer. If you go to the contract site, you find the current contracts are there. If you went and had a look at the Yarra Trams annual reports and all the other information that is published in relation to train and tram patronage rates and service delivery rates in Victoria, I do not think it would be all that hard to put together a tender — and $5 million jumps into your hip pocket simply because of this situation and the perception that the government has created out there in the general and business communities that this is already a done deal. The trams are on loan from the Yarra Trams parent company. How convenient and what great timing that is — they arrived just prior to the tenders closing! Why did we not buy new trams? Why do we have to go through the situation of drip-feed, hire-purchase arrangements? This is an absolute disgrace." VICTORIAN HANSARD, JUNE, REVISED BOOK 9, MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 25 June 2008, pp. 2482-2484

"Water: desalination plant Mr K. SMITH (Bass) "— I wish to raise the hypocrisy of the Brumby socialist government which seems to think it can run roughshod over the people in the Bass electorate. First it forced six wind towers to be built in a pristine foreshore area, and they are hardly ever in use. Then the government told us it was going to supply a third of Melbourne’s water supply from a desalination plant, on which it never consulted with the local council or the community. Now we find this government is going to supply power to the desalination plant by a 75-kilometre-long, 120-megawatt powerline through a 500-metre-wide easement in some of Victoria’s best farming and grazing land, again without any consultation with the local councils or communities. This proposal has devastated many families who live along the proposed route, and it shows this government has no care or concern for the local community. If it has to go in, the powerline should be put underground and not above ground. The water minister has said that the government has consulted widely. That is a lie. He and his Premier have lost the confidence of the councillors and the community in the electorate of Bass. They do not care what they do down there, but I can tell them that this farce, on top of suing the Your Water Your Say group, has amalgamated the community against them. The powerline must go underground; and this government will go underground at the next election — dead and buried!" From Members Statements, Hansard, February - June, 2008, revised book 9, 2408.

As the Victorian government assures us the economy will boom if only we trust them on channel-deepening, it looks like "economic hit men" are thriving somewhere in Melbourne. We are expected to trust in the planning for Melbourne 2030, roadways, desalination and more. In the meantime courts effectively fine community groups who dare to question any of these matters. What's ahead? With Sue and the Greens holding legitimate political positions, I feel encouraged. Knowing the dedication of community leaders and their supporters, I feel encouraged. Knowing that I've experienced major shifts in community attitudes over 30-40 years*, I feel encouraged. (*eg smoking, premarital sex and single parenting are vastly different to the 1960's) Bold, vocal, steadfast leaders do make a positive difference. Speak up and speak out! The snowball effect is unstoppable.

I wondered why I see so many UN "studies" touting how great Icelandic life is, giving it the highest marks in the world on liveability, based on health care, crime, air quality, and wealth. The studies are always used as a battering ram against capitalistic countries, particularly the United States. It's as if you could compare a small homogeneous WHITE country of 300,000 with our 300 MILLION racially diverse people living in climatically diverse America. It's sad Iceland has abandoned religion, but lo. The fucking UN views that as a positive. Premarital sex? No problem for the U.N. Christian people view that as a big problem. I guess it's all in the values Me? I'll take America and George W. Bush any day of the week

It is impossible for GM and non-GM crops to co-exist. Farmers will not be neighbours anymore, they will be enemies, aided and abetted by Monsanto's lawyers. Allowing GM farming means the guy next door who wants to stay non-GM will be in constant fear of contamination. So please keep the ban.

As a consumer in Japan, who likes Australia a lot, I wish Australian farmers would respond to the nonsense in the article. "Much ado about nothing" is the wrong quote, and shows that author's ignorance of the trust needed for farmers and consumers to continue making markets work. How about "To be or not to be" or "Something is rotten in the state of Monsanto" …

Only four countries (US 53%, Argentine 18%, Brazil 11.5% and Canada 6.1%) currently farm 90% of the GM crops. The rest of the world continues to say NO THANK YOU.

I hope Australia will continue to ban GM farming.

I am a member of the group which visited WA to ask the government and the farmers to extend the moratorium on GM crops (see section in main article #VisitOfJapanese">Visit of the Japanese consumer group reps). I met a lot of wonderful farmers in Williams and realised that we, Japanese consumers, had to keep supporting the non-GM farmers.

When I read the article written by Mr Peter Lee, I was shocked and surprised very much. Because there are many factual errors and one-sided information in it. I will point up only one thing.

As Yuki pointed out, we were not be sponsored by the Conservation Council of Western Australia. When our representatives visited Australia last October and handed over the petition, which is the letter of request to extend the state bans on commercial GM food crops, the media distorted the truth in their report that Greenpeace sponsored our visit. The same thing happened again.

Why did Mr Lee write this glaring lie? For what?

Additionally, I can not understand that the editor of Farm Weekly adopted the opinion in the paper. I think that the editor abdicated the responsibility and duty as a news organisation.

This kind of misleading pro-GM propaganda that Yuki Otoko mentions is very common and is backed by government and the research sector because they have a massive vested interest in promoting GM crops.

The research sector was previously public and relied on government funding. Research is now more expensive due to the patents and intellectual property rights that replaced "common good" research incentives. The Australian government owns a lot of these patents and has strong alliances with companies such as Monsanto as the public institutes use Monsanto's patented technologies free of charge in exchange for confidential deals. GM crops are an incentive to attract corporate investment to plant breeding and for government research institutes to capitalize on their research.

That is why government and research institutes are trying to push GM crops and foods onto a reluctant population.

The public is told that GM canola has been rigorously tested and proven to be "safe" for human consumption. This is an untruth promoted by governments as the regulatory process is self regulated by the GM companies that submit the testing data to FSANZ. No testing data on canola oil was submitted which is the product that is used for human consumption. The only feeding trials submitted was for the remaining meal which is used for stock food and Monsanto found a rapid increase in liver weights of 17% after only a few weeks. This problem was ignored because stock feed escapes regulation because FSANZ has no authority over stock food. So how can canola be proven safe for human consumption when oil is not tested and meal is not regulated?

The coexistence protocols are also self regulated and the GM company makes the rules. They have decided that all the costs and liabilities should rest with the non-GM grower to try to keep GM out rather than the GM grower to keep it contained. As a result coexistence is not possible which means giving consumers a choice is not possible.

See also: www.non-gm-farmers.com

Mark O'Connor's articles at The Social Contract:

When Is a Country Overpopulated? of Fall 1992 issue.
Immigrationism, Racism And Moral Monopoly of fall Winter 1993-1994 issue
Where Does the PC Line on Immigration Come From? of Winter 1997-1998) issue

The Sierra Club in the US and Canada is like the Australian Conservation Foundation here. They serve as roadblocks to input from really committed groups. The ACF here always gets asked to forums on population numbers because it is well-known that they will go along with the government, from which they get hand-outs. You've heard of the corporatisation of government? Well, the corporatisation of so-called environment groups is part of the same process Tim. Daisy Uriad

Sheila You have said in your 'Romanticism and fossil-fuel societies' piece, posted posted June 24th, 2008 that: "I think there is a conflict in the anti-population movement between those who have not sufficiently explored the fossil-fuel connection between wealth, technology and mass propaganda and those who look at thermodynamic underpinnings of culture and social systems." Well I think there is a problem in realistically assessing the human condition for "those who have not sufficiently explored" .... the connection between wealth, technology, overshot ecosystems, excessive human numbers and the excess food production that has been carried out by the soil degrading practice of cultivation agricultue for the last 10,000 yeras --- read on through this LONG serial email and its various attachments: Peter Salonius Research Scientist Natural Resources Canada email [email protected] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Salonius, Peter Sent: Sat 6/21/2008 6:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: 10,000 YEAR MISUNDERSTANDING /soil fertility, energy and population I have just read the article entitled 'Can the World Afford a Middle Class' by Moises Naim in the March/April issue of Foreign Policy, wherein he writes: "The debate about the Earth's limits to growth is as old as Thomas Malthus's alarm about a world where the population outstrips its ability to feed itself. In the past, pessimists have been proven wrong. Higher prices and new technologies, like the green revolution, always came to the rescue, boosting supplies and allowing the world to continue to grow. That may happen again." I hope Moises Naim will have time to read my LONG serial message (below) and having read it, perhaps respond by return email as to whether he still believes that there is any chance that "new technologies, like the green revolution" will come "to the rescue" in the 21st century. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Salonius, Peter Sent: Wed 6/18/2008 10:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: 10,000 YEAR MISUNDERSTANDING /soil fertility, energy and population PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EACH OF: The Commissioners of the World Bank's Commission on Growth and Development. I have just read the recent Overview report from the Commission at: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/Report/Overview.pdf -that ends with these words: "We do not know if limits to growth exist, or how generous those limits will be. The answer will depend on our ingenuity and technology, on finding new ways to create goods and services that people value on a finite foundation of natural resources. This is likely to be the ultimate challenge of the coming century. Growth and poverty reduction in the future will depend on our ability to meet it." As I read the report's concluding statement (above), I must conclude that the Commission has not been introduced to the increasingly accepted thesis that the lack of sustainability of the 'cultivation agriculture', that sustains most of the people on the planet, has been sidestepped and not evident for millennia. I have been a research scientist for 42 years and I thought the commissioners may be interested to read my essay/rant positing that soil resources have been used so unsustainably since the advent of cultivation agriculture as to have been as non renewable as fossil fuels, and as it is the unsustainable mining of soil mass (erosion) and soil nutrients (by leaching and export in harvested crops) by cultivation agriculture that has allowed human numbers to reach the current 6.7 billion --- THE WORLD HAS LIMITS, AND CONSTANTLY SEEKING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE EXPONENTIALLY BREEDING HORDE IS JUST NOT A RESPONSIBLE TACTIC. I have left several introductory notes to people to whom I have sent this material that includes: - videos from Albert Bartlett - a slide show from Russ Hopfenberg - a couple of web sites featuring my ideas AND - a journal paper and 3 relevant book reviews attached to the RELOCALIZATION one from the Post Carbon Institute. Happy reading ---- comments are welcome. Peter Salonius Research Scientist NRCan, Fredericton, NB ============================================================================ -----Original Message----- From: Salonius, Peter Sent: Wed 5/7/2008 8:07 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Salonius, Peter Subject: 10,000 YEAR MISUNDERSTANDING /soil fertility, energy and population Hello Bruce I recall writing to you about how thrilled I was some time ago to have discovered your fine synopsis/review entitled: 'Topsoil Loss and Degradation - Causes, Effects and Implications: A Global Perspective'. I have just had a look at your more recent work entitled: 'Sustainability of the World's Outputs of Food, Wood and Freshwater for Human Consumption' -at: http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/su0.html#A1, --- in which you give some credence to the concept that present food production systems could be modified to render them sustainable and to the thesis that basic carrying capacity as limited by the photosynthesis that can be achieved by CULTIVATION AGRICULTURE. Since I wrote to you about your 'topsoil loss' work I have arrived at the conclusion that most CULTIVATION AGRICULTURE is unsustainable and I have posited that IF INDEED ------- most CULTIVATION AGRICULTURE is unsustainable, then our goal must be to decrease the global human population (by attrition) to a few hundred million during the next few centuries in order to achieve some semblance of long-term sustainability. I hope you will have time to read the smattering of recent messages I have sent to various pundits who have pronounced on sustainability issues and to examine the presentation of my thesis that includes videos, web articles, attached book reviews and published papers. Peter Salonius ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Salonius, Peter Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 21:57 To: [email protected] Subject: 10,000 YEAR MISUNDERSTANDING /soil fertility, energy and population Hello Janet Larsen, PLEASE FORWARD TO LESTER BROWN In Lester Brown's April 16,2008 EPI Plan B Update entitled: 'World Facing Huge New Challenge on Food Front: Business-as-Usual Not a Viable Option' ----- he writes about the necessity of "stabilizing population", while "stabilizing population" at presently levels that FAR OUTSTRIP long-term carrying capacity is simply not good enough --read on: I have believed, for the last 40 or so years, that population pressure cancels almost all conservation/green/recycling activities that we can adopt and that our only salvation will come by intentionally shrinking human numbers before geological depletions force the shrinkage upon us. As I know you are interested in the global population issue, it occurred to me that you might find some interest in reading my current rant/essay that calls for a program of shrinking the total human enterprise on the planet -- in opposition to the neoclassical economics recommendation for continued GROWTH. It tries to identify the historical antecedents of the present global human dilemma and suggests a long-term path toward the ultimate goal of sustainability. I am sure you have noticed the news of food price escalation that is bringing the global carrying capacity 'front and center'- with food riots all over the world. This is being precipitated by food-to-ethanol programs, although with constantly rising populations fed by the increased food produced by various AGRICULTURAL revolutions (the Green Revolution being the latest) -- these riots would have eventually happened, the speed of these developments is awe inspiring. On Monday, April 14, we had Robert Zoellick, head of the WORLD BANK calling for a crash program of food production increases to stave off the approach of famine //?? I wonder how many times he thinks we can pull new RABBITS OUT OF THE HAT when soil resources of the planet continue to be degraded to produce MORE FOOD FOR THE IRRESPONSIBLY BREEDING HORDE ?? I am leaving, attached, to the LONG essay/rant (below), my note to Branko Milanovic, another officer of the WORLD BANK -- for your interest. Peter Salonius ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Salonius, Peter Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:55 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Salonius, Peter Subject: 10,000 YEAR MISUNDERSTANDING /soil fertility, energy and population To Branko Milanovic and Jeffrey D. Sachs Gentlemen I have just read Branko Milanovic's review of Jeffrey Sachs' new book entitled: 'COMMON WEALTH: Economics for a Crowded Planet' in the Saturday, April 5, 2008 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail's BOOKS. Milanovic says that "Sachs argues ......... the identification of the problems and the technological solutions for them are already available." / AND that Sachs correctly identifies the key issue as: "At the core of our problems today has been the collapse of faith in global problem-solving and a widespread cynical disbelief in global co-operation itself." Meanwhile I have concluded based, on lifetime of studying, that --- -- At the core of our problems today has been the unwillingness to see the relationship between the unsustainable population numbers, that we have built up since the advent of cultivation agriculture, and the global problematique. I hope you both have time to skim the material I have pasted below. Since 1969 my approach - to the problems faced by the global human experiment - has concentrated on the way population growth has continually made them worse. I now have developed a long-term (several centuries) plan to begin to move the global human family back toward a sustainable relationship with its supporting ecosystems. I have recently been moving away from the reductionist research that I have carried on in soil science for over 40 years and I have finally started to marry my soil dynamics knowledge with my interest in the cultural history of the human race -AND- I have reached some startling conclusions concerning the human overshoot dilemma, and its depletion of essential resources that began long before we started using fossil fuels in the last few centuries ---- read on: ++++++++++++++ Many keen thinkers have understood that the driver that has enabled our numbers to shoot so far over long-term carrying capacity is the planet's one-time gift of fossil fuels and this overshoot has resulted in our rampant destruction of the biosphere. The global human population before the start of the Fossil-Fuel Revolution was about 1-billion, while it is now about 6.6 billion and rising. These holistic thinkers suggest that without oil, the earth will only support about 2-3 billion. Their forward thinking has not yet included an understanding of the thesis that: THE OTHER MAJOR FACTOR THAT HAS ENABLED OUR NUMBERS TO SHOOT SO FAR OVER LONG-TERM CARRYING CAPACITY IS THE ONE-TIME GIFT OF ERODABLE SOILS AND THE VAST STORE OF PLANT NUTRIENTS THEY CONTAINED - UNTIL WE BEGAN TO IRREVERSIBLY MINE THEM ABOUT 10,000 YEARS AGO WITH CULTIVATION AGRICULTURE. I suggest that without petroleum, AND AFTER WE STOP MINING THE PLANET'S SOILS, the Earth will only support about 100-300 million. The global imbalance between humans and their supporting environments is much more serious than most people on Earth realize. Recent prognostications about the possibility of SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT in the context of further population and economic growth, are in direct opposition to a growing understanding among ecological economists that all economic and population growth, since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago, has effectively lowered the basic long-term carrying capacity (food productivity potential) of the Earth's soil resources. William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel have developed the ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS and they appear (many publications) to believe that humanity overshot global carrying capacity sometime in the 20th century, while I have been circulating the thesis that the human family has been in overshoot for the last 10,000 years // Rees agrees that I am on the right track. I hope the material presented below in a series of video clips, a slide show and a couple of essays will help you in the presentation of your ideas ---------- or at least help you to consider giving those ideas a very long historical perspective. Peter Salonius Research Scientist Canadian Wood Fibre Centre Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service P. O. Box 4000, 1350 Regent Street South Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 5P7, Canada Tel.:(506) 452-3548, Fax: (506) 452-3525 Email: [email protected] Chercheur scientifique Centre canadien sur la fibre de bois Ressources naturelles Canada Service canadien des forêts C. P. 4000, 1350, rue Regent sud Fredericton (Nouveau-Brunswick) E3B 5P7, Canada Tél. :(506) 452-3548, Téléc. : (506) 452-3525 Courriel : [email protected] http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/directory/psaloniu ============================================================================-----Original Message----- From: Salonius, Peter Sent: Sat 2/23/2008 8:49 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Salonius, Peter Subject: Population, Environment & the Future of Human Society Good Morning Dr. Hopfenberg I am ecstatic: I have been looking for a VISUAL presentation on the relationship between food availability and population to growth go along with a 20 minute video by Albert Bartlett on the subject of THE EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION that I found at: http://tinyurl.com/2gfyla ( ONE HOUR VERSION: http://tinyurl.com/yr3crr ) I have just watched your excellent slide show entitled: 'WORLD FOOD AND HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH' at: www.panearth.org I will circulate this slide show to the widest audience possible. I hope you will find some interest in the two URL web sites that I have been circulating for the last couple of weeks. I will paste (below) the MESSAGE I have been circulating to various recipients. Comments, suggestions and/or criticisms of my ideas are most welcome. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CIRCULATED MESSAGE BEGINS Please forward this message and its attached PDF to the electronic mail boxes of members of your organization who may be interested in dealing with the basic cause of the imbalance between humans and their supporting ecosystems -- as opposed to concentrating on the symptoms of this imbalance. ----------------- I encourage you to read the material below - including the two (2) URL web sites provided, and I encourage you to make use of the ideas present as you see fit. Please contact me by return email if you are confused by anything I have written and/or if you wish to have further clarification of the ideas presented. NOTE that the CULTURE CHANGE web site leads to a second essay based on a peer reviewed journal paper - AND NOTE ALSO that the 'Relocalize' web site, operated by the POST CARBON INSTITUTE has the original journal paper and three (3) relevant book reviews attached to it. The material presented deals with the novel thesis that most cultivation AGRICULTURE, not just modern industrial fossil-fuelled agriculture, has been unsustainable since its adoption 10,000 years ago --- and that it follows that: IF "AGRICULTURE, not just modern industrial fossil fuelled agriculture, has been unsustainable since its adoption 10,000 years ago" then the global human population has been in overshoot of the carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystems since the abandonment of hunter gathering and the adoption of farming. Many of us have finally understood the dilemma faced by humanity in the context of the depletion of the fossil fuel energy subsidies upon which modern complex societies are dependent, however I have finally come to understand a more serious and basic resource depletion that has been looming over us during most of the run up to the present global human population of 6.7 billion ---- please see the development of this thesis in the two essays that have been posted on the CULTURE CHANGE web site at: http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1... Also you may find some interest in the following email message I been sending to various creative colleagues. The message entitled 'SCIENCE AND MEDIA AVOID THE MAIN ISSUE'(below) features another version of the same ideas at another URL web site operated by the POST CARBON INSTITUTE. Peter Salonius Research Scientist Natural Resources Canada Fredericton, New Brunswick Day time (WORK) Phone (506) 452-3548 Home phone (506) 459-6663 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SCIENCE AND MEDIA AVOID THE MAIN ISSUE My reason for sending this email has to do with your authorship on articles/papers/films/letters to editors concerning (usually unsustainable) aspects of interactions between our species and the ecosystems upon which we rely for life support. In most of the items I have read/seen the issue of remedial measures, to relieve the environmental pressure/damage caused by human numbers, is given short shrift --- and in some cases we see writers and thinkers actually interested in further demographic and economic expansion, in apparent denial of the finite nature of the planet Earth and its resources. We have generally concerned ourselves with individual aspects/areas of the imbalance between humans and their supporting ecosystems - - however we very seldom stand back and assess the major drivers of this imbalance // and in the few instances that we do stand back to assess these drivers, we resist the temptation to suggest remedies to policy makers that involve reshaping the direction of human society -or- we are told by peers, employers, reviewers or editors to stick to individual issues and leave social organization to policy makers and politicians. The enormity of required solutions usually makes it less stressful to get back to picking away at the easier digested symptoms of the global human dilemma that can be addressed by reductionism. In 1999 I published an appeal (CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 13(6): 1518-1519)that scientists consider spending a considerable portion of their efforts to educate policy makers "about the diminishing ability of the biosphere to withstand the onslaught of exponential human population and economic growth." In 1999 I thought that measures "to stabilize or slowly reduce population numbers" would suffice. I am now convinced that we will have to orchestrate Rapid Population Decline -or- have such a decline imposed upon us by resource depletion realities. Most of us agree that the human experiment, which is now the size of the Earth, has gone terribly wrong. At issue is the point at which humanity took the unsustainable fork in the road -and- what we must do to get back on track. There is a growing realization that human numbers will decrease, either by planned contraction or by the development of various scarcities. My recommendation for the necessary decrease of the global human footprint includes allowing the functional integrity of terrestrial (and aquatic) communities to begin to re-establish by ceasing to stage manage ecosystems. A reliance on self-organizing/self managing systems, that evolution has already created, would feed a very small number of humans sustainably - if they regulated their exploitation/harvesting activities to fall within the (now better understood) capacity of their supporting ecosystems to maintain critical breeding populations, species and structural diversity, to replace soil lost by erosion and to replace soluble plant nutrients lost by harvest export or leaching. In fisheries, because they represent such as small fraction of the global human diet, a return to sustainably harvesting wild populations would not cause widespread starvation. In forestry a shift, to alternate harvesting systems that accommodate the time requirement for full species and structural restoration, and that approximate natural disturbance dynamics - as opposed to creating ecosystem-simplifying, product- driven species assemblages - could be initiated very quickly. The abandonment of agriculture in favour of the re-establishment of self-managing, native, nutrient conservative forest and grassland/prairie ecosystems would require much more time because these unmanaged systems can not produce enough food for humans -- until population numbers have fallen to a fraction of present levels. I have said, in the recommendation I have for the sustainable future of the global human experiment, that agriculture must be relied upon to feed us until we have reduced our numbers to a level that can be supported by regulated exploitation/harvesting activities that fall within the (now better understood) capacity of supporting ecosystems to maintain diversity, to restore soil mass lost by erosion and to replace soluble plant nutrients lost by harvest export or leaching. This recommendation is outlined in an essay entitled: 'POPULATION AND INTENSIVE CROP CULTURE ARE UNSUSTAINABLE' -------- that can be read at: http://www.relocalize.net/population_and_intensive_crop_culture_are_unsu... ------ to which is attached one journal paper and 3 book reviews. The attractive aspect of moving toward sustainable co-existence with self-managing ecosystems is that the hit-and-miss process of evolution has our numbers have fallen to sustainable levels) will be to learn to live within the regeneration capacity of restored self-managing natural ecosystems. The penalty for exceeding their regeneration capacity will be hunger and privation, as it was for our hunter gatherer ancestors. Please forward this email to your colleagues if you think its message may be of interest to them. Peter Salonius

Apalling. An appalling government. Thank you for this.

Chairman Rudd’s Secret Weapon

Much has been written about the effect of the Budget on inflation. The general consensus of opinion seems to be that if the ALP were going to honour their election promises, the Budget would be more or less neutral. However the Government and the Reserve Bank are clearly worried about inflation in view of the rise in commodity prices, which are determined overseas.

They fear that there will be a wage breakout, forcing up prices, especially since they are repealing WorkChoices and relaxing pressure on the unemployed to get a job.

Their solution is to flood the country with a record number of immigrants (up nearly 40,000 to nearly 200,000) and temporary work visas, increasing the competition for jobs, forcing up unemployment and hence deterring workers from seeking higher wages. The Budget papers allow for an increase in unemployment and for a decrease in the wage share of GDP from 47.9% to 45.9%.

The media in general has not drawn attention to the significance of the policy, but there has been strong approbation from big business. A few unionists on the Left have expressed alarm. Most of them are silent, supporting the party ahead of the best interests of their members.

The social effects are of no concern to Chairman Rudd, headline interest rises are his major worry. Where are all the immigrants to live? Housing starts have fallen, rental accommodation vacancy is at the lowest in living history. Desperate seekers are bribing estate agents. In the middle of all this we have touching features about Chairman Rudd cuddling up to the homeless. Concern is no substitute for action. The main reason for homelessness is lack of accommodation for them at anything resembling affordability. Older houses in around the city that used to provide rooms for the homeless are being pulled down for blocks of units to house all the newcomers.

The Infrastructure Fund will allegedly help with the transport and other bottlenecks that Australia is experiencing. But it won’t start spending for a year or so and capital works like these take time to implement. In the meantime ordinary Australians will have to put up with crowded public transport choked roads and clogged health services.

Now is the time to buy a rental property. With housing starts in decline and record immigration, rental rates must go up further. Tough on long standing Australians who can’t afford a house, but when did the ALP ever care about them? Uppermost in the minds of ALP long term planning is that immigrants tend to favour the ALP.

www.theindependentaustralian.com.au

Note the qualifier at the end, 'invest in services'. I read this as mainstream news code for 'divert money to property developers, engineers and finance'. There is no intention to stop growth; just to profit from it. As for not detecting the costs of growth, there are plenty of complaints if government were only interested in looking at them, but it is more interested in diverting our money to the so-called 'service providers'.

And we are intensifying domestic animal farming here in Australia, with new laws passed to make it worse for pigs. And with spurious notions of efficiency pushing for feedlot farming and the quick, sick dollar. Australia's economy is out of control in more ways than one. Good writing, Stoptac. Keep it up. We are a wussy lot and have to start coping with the truth. Daisy U

James, sorry for the delay. I went collecting info on Iceland's immigration and found too much. I will post it to my blog shortly, hopefully. I don't disagree with anything in your comments. Thanks for the tip on blogs that I link to: whilst some of them are a bit gung-ho the main reason I link to them is their info on Islam, immigration, Left-liberal lunacy, etc.

Perhaps the permits are a way of managing the fishery which currently requires no special permits? Shark fishing has been happening for a long time on the great barrier reef, a well managed fishery. Recent laws require each fin to be accompanied by the rest of the shark, which is a huge positive. I feel the attachment makes no distinction between shark species (more than 125 on the great barrier reef) and different shark habitats. nor bases it's conclusions on any actual study. Shark fishing IS sustainable, there are millions of them, when you kill one, another takes it's place. The fact that many species are in decline is due to over-fishing, poor management and human population growth. Maybe this media release, like the movie mentioned, focuses on the cruel slaughter of individual sharks (which is just like a dolphin with big teeth), rather than the problem: over fishing, over population. Reduce immigration.