You are here

Ms. Universe Competition: Introductions

Hello my name is Ms. Russia

I lost 7 million people since I stopped being a Communist in 1992. Before that I couldn’t stop my weight gain. Nothing else worked. Not cardio, strength training, dieting or yoga.

I shed 250,000 people in the first half of 2008 alone. I feel and look great. But according to economic theory I should be dead. I guess it proves that both communist and capitalist theoreticians had porridge for brains.

What are my prospects? Despite losing demographic girth, I expect economic growth of 5.5% next year and in ten years I will apparently become the 5th largest economy in the world.

So here is a question or two for my rivals. For Ms. Canada, Ms. Australia, Ms. UK, Ms. Singapore, for the dozens and dozens of those out there who still believe that population growth is necessary to propel economic growth--- how do you account for MY success, and that of Ms. Japan’s?

And must you always conflate aggregative quantitative growth with qualitative development? When you come to the realization that population growth is not a necessary catalyst for economic growth, and you have spent enough time in that mental decompression chamber, you might then be ready for the next one. That economic growth is neither necessary nor sustainable.

If I win the Ms. Universe contest, it will be a victory for population stability and reduction, but not a victory for steady state economics. People will still aspire to consume more and more of the earth’s resources when it is manifestly beyond its absorptive capacity already. But at least the process will be slowed somewhat. I will have broken a path, and perhaps another bolder contestant will challenge for and win this competition. Ms. Negative Population AND Economic Growth.

Image icon porcelaine-forte-petite.jpg3.44 KB


In light of Garnaut's climate change report, environmental stress, water shortages, housing crisis, the financial downturn and peak oil prices, our doors should be closed permanently to immigration. Artificially boosting our population through immigration may be good for the economy, to prop up the demand for goods and services, but is detrimental to any attempts towards climate change adjustments and to our general living standards. Immigration Minister is defending his position but our government should be able to make policies that are more than one dimensional. Policies first and foremost should be for the benefit of present citizens, not job prospects for foreign labourers.

The only thing that our leaders seem to understand is economics! Knowing that it is human pressure on the ecosystem that is causing climate change and the loss of wilderness areas and biodiversity, we need to aim for zero population growth.