"For more than a decade, the Productivity Commission has debunked the common myth that immigration can overcome population ageing. [...] If Australia was truly a ‘clever’ country like Japan, it would manage population ageing by: 1) better utilising existing workers, given there is significant spare capacity in the labour market; and 2) where required resort to technological solutions.
A business blog, calling itself, The Advisor, is advertising its 'Better Business Summit' with an article quoting the well-known population growth spruiker, Bernard Salt, who they describe as 'One of the nation’s leading demographers'.
A panel in Japan has proposed the government take measures to halt the country's population slide so it goes no lower than 100 million people. At present Japan's population is likely to fall to about 87 million by 2060. This new proposal probably reflects outside interference by globalists, who are pushing for cheap imported labour. We should take into account that Japan's population numbers were stable until international trade and 'development' pushed them up by reorganising the population away from largely rural and small cities to massive land-less labour sources in huge cities. The Japanese are a very big tribe and have managed to regain control over their numbers. This push for immigration will once again destabilise them. Japan can only feed itself by importing food and energy. Already the national atomic power production system has shown itself to be hugely unstable and dangerous. This should be taken as a signal that Japan needs to go with its natural trends to return to a smaller, stable population. Reference: Anthony Boys, How will Japan feed itself without fossil energy? in Sheila Newman, (Ed) The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, 2008.
Video and transcript inside: Dr Karen Hitchcock: "My core message is that we really need to think about our ageing population as a triumph and really rethink what it means to be old and what it's possible to do when you're elderly. Most elderly people are not sick, most of them are not in nursing homes, but I think we can do a lot more to integrate elderly people back into our communities and try and reimagine what it is that we want our communities to be. I think we need to start from an ethical perspective of what we want our community to be, and then from that, imagine our society and then find ways to create it and fund it, rather than starting from an economic position." Congratulations to the 7.30 Report, Karen Hitchcock and Quarterly essay for criticising the appalling depiction and treatment of Australia's elderly, implicitly and explicitly advocated by the growth lobby in the mainstream media and government. See, for instance, "Should Jeannie Pratt and Elisabeth Murdoch downsize to high rises in Activity Centers to give young people more room?" The negative message about the elderly has been so overwhelming that most of us find it exhausting to fight. The ABC has often also carried this message uncritically. Perhaps it took a woman-led news commentary program - the 7.30 Report - to try to break this mould. Dr Karen Hitchcock (who is a staff physician in acute and general medicine at a large city public hospital) is a very effective ambassador for the elderly, although she is a young woman herself. Her work deserves our collective support and promotion.
Weekend of 7-8 March 2015: Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) - Australia’s only environment group campaigning on the impact of human population - will examine the question “Population and Ageing: Disaster or Triumph?” in a half-day symposium to be held in Adelaide. “Population and Ageing: Disaster or Triumph” will be held on Saturday, 7th March at 1 pm, at the Hawke Centre, UniSA West Campus, 55 North Terrace, Adelaide. The public is welcome to attend and admission is free.
Note that the United Nations is made up of many associate members, and this event includes the National Bank as a sponsor. I am publicising it because Katharine Betts will be speaking at it, and she has a good scientific approach to the issues around the concept of an 'aging population'. The notion of a 'demographic transition is also controversial.
This article Oz Population Growth Lunacy is a nice example of the scrambled head-space of some journalists. Yes, Monica Attard (ex ABC, now working for the Hoopla website) can see David Attenborough's point that population growth can't go on for ever,and she can even see that "It’s hard to fathom how governments (all levels of them) can act fast and smart enough to ease the congestion we are seeing in the major cities across Australia, the spiraling cost of housing and an environment which looks stressed."
From 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population. The rate at which Australia's population is ageing has been accelerated by immigration. Furthermore, this effect will increase. Immigration is a major contributor to the dementing demographic. These statistics run counter to the ideology peddled by the growth lobby and its promoters should be held responsible.
5000 Singaporeans demonstrated Feb 18, 2013 against mass migration blaming influx for infrastructure strains, record-high housing and transport costs and competition for jobs. Government plans for even higher immigration have been greated with cynicism, distress and mass protest. Three video-links inside, two indie-media.
A graph from "Australian Population Scenarios in the context of oil decline and global warming" at http://www.crudeoilpeak.com shows that the bulge in the Australian population pyramid which growth economists say will cause a larger number of aging people than the economy can cope with, was obviously caused by high levels of post-war immigration.
We look at Dr Katharine Betts's latest graph of ABS statistics on the ratio of working to dependent in Australia, noting that it is both untrue and discriminatory to imply that the 'Aged' are by far the biggest group of 'dependents.' In relation to the graph, we also look at the role of land-use planning and t
In this article: Kelvin Thomson talks about Global Population Speak-out, full employment and asks why the economists are not concerned about rising prices for food and power due to Australia's overpopulation, whilst expressing great concern about the cost of supporting an 'aging population'. Amazing to find that there is a sane and compassionate voice in Federal Parliament, Australia.
Mark O'Connor's comments are in italics, in the form of a running commentary through Bernard Salt's article.
In an editorial piece in
"The Australian" newspaper, Bernard Salt explained that over the next 50 years, the Australian tax base (the segment of population who contribute to tax) will be eroded, as more people retire and our low birth rate.
Reducing our immigration numbers is not enough. Our Immigration Department should be closed except to manage the intake of refugees and individual cases.
The "problem" of an ageing population is being used as a smoke-screen to artificially increase our numbers because it is "good for businesses". Any skills lacking should mean an adjustment to our education and training schemes. Businesses don't pay students' prohibitive HECS fees!
Wednesday 21 May, News from France.
In France at the moment there are national strikes over government proposals to make people work for 41 years instead of 40 years in order to obtain full pensions. In 2015 there will be around 14m workers to 18m retirees, according to demographic trends.
The Aging Population Hoax
Over and over, the media tells us that we have an aging population, and that it is a bad thing.
Never mind the problem of growing overpopulation, the media is only concerned with the aging population angle.
They claim that the cost of taking care of these seniors will be tremendous.
They propose a solution: multiculturalism.
How do they define multiculturalism?
To them multiculturalism is the injection of 260,000 immigrants into Canada annually. In other words, cheap labour for big business and lowering of labour standards.
They claim that this makes for diverse, vibrant communities.
They would classify an unsustainable urban nightmare with 6 lanes of gridlock traffic, smog, sewage smells, etc such as Toronto as a diverse, vibrant community.
Multiculturalism/Mass-Immigration is the friend of big business as a way to boost their profits by adding more customers.
Big businesses like the Royal Bank of Canada lobby hard for the Canadian government to accept more immigrants so that they can make more short-term profits at the expense of Canadians and their environment.
The media has had a powerful influence deceiving the Canadian public.
People like Sean Webb from TVO's "The Agenda" forum discussion ask:
"And how do we deal with our aging population? In the next twenty to thirty years we are going to have a very old population. Who is going to care for all of these people when they are not able?"
To which I would respond:
- Actually, children are more expensive than elderly.
- Europe has a more aged population than Canada. Do you see any crisis there in looking after their seniors? It is countries like Brazil with a young population that really cause social problems.
- Population growth can't go on forever, so therefore it is not a long-term solution to an aging population.
Could it be that big business wants us to fear an aging population only so they can gain public acceptance of bringing in a quarter million immigrants each year to Canada so they can grow their short-term profits at the expense of Canadians and their environment?
The media has tried to convince the public that it is more compassionate to let the world into Canada than to protect the rights of existing Canadians and Canadian wildlife by not letting the world immigrate into Canada.
Sean Webb says: "It doesn't make any sense to just close off the border and seclude ourselves from the world. Not only do we hold a huge percentage of the world's available fresh water relative to our population, but we are really good at water purification. If we aren't willing to continue taking in so many immigrants can't we offer our expertise and resources to nations that need clean drinking water?"
I agree that Canadians should try to help other nations solve their problems. The best way would be making sure they have access to birth control.
There is no point in giving other countries the utmost water and sewage technology if it just means they'll grow their population so much that they'll make extinct all of their native species. Canada can't possibly play the parent of every other country in the world let alone allow in everyone who wants to immigrate here.
We must help other countries in their country of origin, when appropriate. Bringing them here is not a solution. We are a cold, arctic land with hardly any arable land and we are liquidating all of our fossil resources as exports to the point where in a few decades we won't even be able to sustain our present population.
What does Sean mean by "close off the border" when he says "It doesn't make any sense to just close off the border and seclude ourselves from the world"?
Is having a negative net migration synonymous with "closing off the border"?
If we have more freshwater than the rest of the world per capita, is it really ours to play Santa Claus with or should we protect it for all the salmon, otters, brook trout, etc that call Canada home?