Immigration, Population and Environmentalism

Immigration is one source of population growth, which results in more people to consume goods and services. This larger market is better for local businesses and many migrants bring money into the country and some start up businesses that may offer employment. Many economists argue that, if carefully controlled, this can benefit the nation’s economy and hence, indirectly, our quality of life.

Environmental scientists point out that Australia is already suffering considerable damage to its soils, waterways, coastal zones and natural habitats through intensive agriculture, urban expansion, industrial development and the ever-increasing demand for goods and services. Groups who oppose population increase on environmental grounds suggest that even the present Australian population cannot be indefinitely sustained at its present rate of consumption by the renewable resources of the continent.

Read the rest here

I think it's important from an Environmental perspective to cover the issues of not just Immigration, but also the current population in Australia. If I may, I would like to use a very simplistic model to explain problems with over-population.

Firstly, let me talk about my own home. I live with my wife in a two bedroom house. We often have interstate family vistors, or just comrades who need to crash for the night. Although, there seems to be one unspoken rule, and that is, we only ever have people stay in the house when the spare bedroom is free.

We will refer to this as a 'one in, one out' policy.

Imagine, for the moment if we were to accept 10 people to stay in our very small two bedroom home. People would have to sleep on the floor, bathrooms would be in constant use, and the toilet could very well overflow. Issues with kitchen use will arise, and no doubt noise complaints will increase due to the varying hours that people keep in the house. All in all, it would lead to a diminshed quality of life for all parties. Not to mention, that living in such confining conditions would lead to resentment between house mates.

Any of this sound familiar?

I think its time for Australia to work out exactly how many bedrooms it has before trying to increase its population either through immigration or encouraging an increase in birth rate.

If there is only one thing I could ever agree with Pauline Hansen on, its a 'one in, one out' net zero immigration policy. I have continually lobbied for such things, written to ministers, and newspapers. The newspapers (The Age, The Australian), outright refuse to publish my constant letters asking for net zero immigration and population management to raise the issue.

At first I thought it was because they thought I was being "Racist". So I continued to write letters, making sure that I was clear that I didn't care who came into the country, that it was irrespective of race, religion or gender. I also specified that it didn't matter if they were skilled or unskilled, just that we might "look into" the issue. Nothing. Absolute Silence.

The only people who are really benefiting from high levels of immigration are the property developers, big business and all at the expense of the Australian Environment.

I'm dissapointed that the greens party hasn't investigated the impacts of population on the environment and consider policies for population reduction.

Freedom to hate striked down

Recently, an Anarchist comrade's blog was pulled down. @ndy or Slackbastard.

http://www.slackbastard.anarchobase.com/

On April 8, Mathaba News Network demanded host of domain name anarchobase.com be shut down. The subject of their complaint was a post on @ndys blog. The blog post in question concerned the nature of the news service, and in particular the recent history of its owner, Adam Musa King. From what I have gathered, Mathaba hosted some information about the New Right, which is @ndys current pet hate. (which is his right and choice).

To cut a long story short, @ndy has called Muthaba.net owner Adam King a Fascist based upon the theory of guilt by association (assuming NR are fascists). Which is the right of @ndy to do, under Freedom of Speech. However, Mr King has removed the site through legal libel proceedings.

@ndys blog recently was totally removed from the internet by the host after rightful legal pressure as a result of his extensive vilification and defamation of others and from using a fake name to register his blog along with a PO box address.

Aparently, websites must be registered at a home address not a PO Box. Haha! Thats some fine anarchist work there @ndy! Which follows Anarchy Downunder's 9th Commandment - Don't get caught! We could all learn a thing or two on how to dodge the Authorities from this Australian Anarchist!

Although, I do have one thought for my Anarchist comrade. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate, as you have quite rightly exercised. However, one cannot demand freedom without first granting it to others. Something to think about anyway.....

Karma is a harsh mistress.

Good Science doesn't have a consensus

It seems that like the holocaust, no dissenting views of anthropogenic global warming are allowed. At least you wont go to jail yet for denying the existence of global warming.

Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was "out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming "doesn't seem to stack up".

The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention, that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking because he would be demonised.

He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".

Read the full article here

Discussion and debate should be allowed, and if the science for anthropogenic global warming is good, the dissenting views can be shut down case by case, point by point.

I believe the same should be the case for holocaust deniers or revisionism. If the science and evidence for the Holocaust is undeniable, then let these dissenting views be blown out of the water case by case, point by point. To lock up people for thought crime, only adds credibility to their arguments.

David Irving was arrested in Austria and jailed for a year for denying that the holocaust killed 6 million Jews during WWII. I am not a revisionist supporter, but I'm not a supporter of political prisoners and thought criminals either.

Read about David Irving article here

FREEDOM OF SPEECH means you are not arrested or charged for your right to a dissenting opinion. Thought crime is just too 1984 for me.

State Claims Ownership of Newborn DNA

God Bless America!
Unknown to most new parents, or those who became parents in the last ten or so years, DNA of newborns has been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with. All 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Homeland Security Department. Excellent!

If you recall the movie Gattaca, embryos were created and screened to provide the ultimate eugenics program and the "super" human. Some refused to take part in this process and had "God" children, children who were made through normal conception. These children invariably didn't have the same superior genome compared to GMO children, and were thus forced into unwanted societal roles like cleaning and garbage disposal.

In Minnesota the state tests for 56 various genetic disorders and variants. At least 1/3 of these tests produce a false positive meaning that a flaw was identified that actually did not exist. Regardless, the false positive becomes part of the permanent record of the child and follows them for the rest of their lives as does any true positives. This means that the child may face discrimination in employment and the ability to gain health insurance at any cost.

Should we really be complaining? I mean, after all it's not required by law, you can opt out of the pogram, that is, if you knew about it in the first place.

Our legislators declared that if the parent doesn’t specifically opt out, they are presumed to have “informed consent” and have opted in.

So what are the long term implicaions of this?

The implications of the DNA database need to be viewed in conjuction with the Real ID Act in the US, and the requirement by Americans to carry around National Identity Cards. Combine the identity card with your DNA, and you've got yourself a highly controlled Statist system. I hear people saying? So, thats ok, if you're not doing anything wrong? Others look forward to a technocractic Utopia where everything you do will be based on your DNA, from your ATM card, your health insurance, driving your car, the locks on your house, all of which could be DNA specific.

It's all just a little bit Big Brother (1984) and This Perfect Day for my liking.

Read the full article by Marti Oakley

Read about RFID chips and the Real ID act here and here and here.