If Bob Brown fell in a wood, but no Green saw it, did it happen?

That is the question confronting every Fake Green today. The godfather of Australian environmentalism, the man who got arrested, who blockaded Franklyn Dam, who ploughed through the slings and arrows of fossil-fuel rent-seekers, who gave environmentalism power, who is gay, who is left, who is a living legend of global green politics, is now being edited out of existence by the architecture of the Fake Left that has stolen his movement.  Via the blood-sucking MURDOCH PRESS:

Greens founder Bob Brown says Australia needs to be a leader in helping drive down the “alarming” rate of global population growth as he laments the reluctance of the environmental movement to ­address the issue.

Dr Brown spoke out after Greens leader Adam Bandt this week played down the environmental impact of a growing population, with the issue likely to drive a wedge between the party’s dual support base of dedicated environmentalists and inner-city cosmopolitans who are in favour of high levels of migration.

With population increasing from 2.5 billion to nearly eight billion in his lifetime, Dr Brown, 75, said Australia should be “leading a global discussion” to avoid projections of an 11bn population by the end of the century. He said the global population should ideally begin to fall before 2100.

“It has more than tripled in my lifetime. It is nearly, but not as, alarming as the consumption of the planet growth rate. We are ­already using more than what the planet can supply and we use more than the living fabric of the planet in supply. That’s why we wake up every day to fewer fisheries, less forests, more extinctions and so on.

“The human herd at eight billion is the greatest herd of mammals ever on this planet and it is unsustainable to have that growing.”

Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society told The Weekend Australian they did not discuss the issue of population growth.

Dr Brown said environmentalists were reluctant to talk about population levels because they were “frightened of the Murdoch media”, in reference to News Corp Australia publications. “Because in the past when someone comes out and discusses it they get ­walloped about division and the so-called detrimental side of discussing population,” he said. “We should be having a mature debate about it.”

…Population expert Katharine Betts, an adjunct associate professor of sociology at Swinburne University, said any environmental cause was “a lost cause without population control” and declared the Greens had “not been particularly helpful” on the issue.

“What you find is that if people suggest reducing the population (growth rate), particularly the number of immigrants, was that they immediately get clobbered with the racist slur,” Dr Betts said. “The Greens do seem to make that connection.”

This story was published on Saturday at The Australian. So far, it has gotten zero coverage in any other media outlet. Nothing from Domain. Nothing from The Guardian. Nothing from the ABC or SBS. Nothing from various progressive or green sub-media.

Absorb that for a minute. Nothing. Not one peep.

Bob Brown has been edited out of existence by his own followers for stating the most obvious and most vital environmental truth that there is. Population growth must be stopped. And as the nation with the most to lose from climate change, Australia must lead it.

This extraordinary censorship by the Fake Green movement is typical of where Bob Brown’s misbegotten progeny has steered his legacy. Fake Greenism is now little more than an autocratic grab bag of progressive tropes. It is a tribal political party, no more or less toxic than all of the others, ruined and unable to deliver substantive change owing to its total failure to debate basic reality in the ideological centre.

In short, The Greens as a party are now an anti-environmental, political rent-seeker.

It did not use to be this way. The first national report on the State of the Environment was delivered in 1996 and stated that Australians are not living sustainably, and that all of the country’s environmental problems are more or less proportional to the number of residents, as well as the material standard in which we live:

The problems are the cumulative consequences of population growth and distribution, lifestyles, technologies and demands on natural resources over the last 200 years and more.

The latest State of the Environment report, also prepared by independent experts, was published in 2016 and similarly found that population growth is a key driver of Australia’s environmental problems:

The key contemporary drivers of Australian environmental change considered in state of the environment (SoE) 2016 are population (demographic change) and economic activity…

Continued growth in Australia’s population and economy, including to meet demand for exports, is likely to increase pressures on the Australian environment…

The concentration of Australia’s population near the coast, mostly in urban areas, creates substantial pressure on coastal ecosystems and environments in the east, south-east and south-west of the country.

In 2010, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) called for Australia’s population to be stabilised and nominated human population growth as a “key threatening process” to Australia’s biodiversity.

And last year, a team of scientists published their recommendations for slowing current rates of biodiversity loss in a paper in Nature Ecology and Evolution, which included limiting human population growth.

In his latest and last great “witness statement” on environmental destruction, Sir David Attenborough declares reversing population growth as one of the top priorities to prevent catastrophe:

This is unalterable, indelible, bedrock, fact.

Yet, the following is the response that the Fake Greens of today give to notions of capping population growth. Jenny Leong:

Where does this anti-green, anti-human rights, anti-feminist, anti-poverty alleviation, autocratic orientation come from? A racial fanaticism so extreme that it puts Fake Greens into bed with the most environmentally destructive forces on earth:

How do we stabilise populations?

First, we lead by doing it ourselves and slashing immigration.

Second, we invest in educating developing countries to raise institutional quality and awareness, as well as standards of living so that women get better choices than pumping out progeny.

What we do NOT do is exactly what Fake Greens endorse:

  • pump our own population to the moon destroying all moral power that we might possess, nor
  • to do it, steal the best and brightest from developing nations by turning universities into migration agents, destroying green reform on both fronts.

In short, to save the planet we must vote the Fake Greens into oblivion and start again.

Bob Brown himself seems to have realised it.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

  1. +1

    Was he not at the helm in the 90s when they quietly abandoned the population policy because of fear the r word? A lot of this is on him and his leadership and its a bit rich of him to say this when its nearly 20 years too late, and then travelling to working class towns in Qld at the last election telling them to eat sht.

    They can FOAD with the LibLabs.

    • Yes he was. Until 1998 (IIRC) the Greens had a zero net population growth policy but after Pauline Hanson suddenly became a political mover and shaker they abandoned this to avoid any association with One Nation.

      Stupid stupid reactionary nonsense with Bob Brown at the helm. Seems like he’s seen the light two decades too late.

        • They’re basically reactionaries against white male privilege, sins of the colonial era and Christian dominance. All of which are still problems to address but you can’t get them to say a single critical word about CCP oppression because that may be perceived as racist or stoke racism.

          What I wouldn’t give for the old days where the left (long haired young Torchwood1979 included) had “Free Tibet” stickers on their Datsun 120Ys and Honda Civics.

      • I’m not meaning to start a bidding war (I recall a Greens’ TV interview in the 80s where they suddenly rescinded their low population growth policy out of political correctness) but certainly the Greens overturned their previous policy at some point for a base political motive.

        The Greens like to drone-on about how they’re not poll driven but they’re just lying.

    • +1 But at least he came from the right place i.e. care and concern for the environment first, which clearly to the Greens of today is just a prop on which to hang their extreme racialist socialist agenda

  2. +100 Judas Priest thank you so much for publishing this.
    Population control is the first EASIEST MOST EFFECTIVE THING to start with to combat climate change.
    Combine it with increased amounts of automation and its win win.
    First a ban on all immigration here for the next 10 years.
    India has developed a 20 minute contraceptive procedure for men that lasts for 10 years and is 98% effective.

    • How does reducing immigration into Australia reduce CC; same number of people on the planet? If you’re argument is by not coming they’ll reduce their repo rate, I don’t think so.

      I’m all for reducing the stupid levels of immigration, but I think the CC argument is bloody weak.

      • We could set an example by stopping all immigration and make population control part of the equation to deal with climate change. Assuming it could be a rational mature discussion but we know the fake greens will never allow a rational argument.
        The idea would be we set a starting example for other western nations. Effectively all western nations would close their borders to permanent immigration. We send the message that controlled population growth controls resources used and greenhouse gas emissions. It sure as hell wont be easy. And i dont think for a minute this country has the fortitude to pursue such a policy. But it would be a policy enacted in conjunction with a move to non polluting energy sources.

        • happy valleyMEMBER

          Never going to happen under a LNP gubmint which at a federal level we are likely to have for a far as the eye nor under a Labor gubmint who are totally compromised. As for the Greens, they are irrelevant but on the other hand, dangerous. Di Natale could see the writing on the wall as to their irrelevance and took his pension money and ran. Bandt is your latte-sipping big city megaphone. We are screwed.

      • The average Australian lifestyle consumes ten times, roughly, that of an emerging or third world life style – and second most of any country on earth. A 100 million more Australians is a billion more third world consumers in effect.

        Moreover rampant population has an exponential effect in Australia as it manifests in urban sprawl throughout our coastal regions which is also our forested regions and causes the highest rate of deforestation on earth.

        Those two things combined make Australian population growth on global warming a serious issue.

        Couple this with the environmental impacts – loss of mangrove, loss of bio-diversity, habitat destruction and we rank first (or last) in almost every single environmentally negative metric there is.

        Greens are the number one proponents of this.

      • PalimpsestMEMBER

        @dennis – there were two actions at the bottom of the MB article, not just one. The investment in actions that reduce pop growth in other countries is critical. One more point. Australia is already over capacity, we now have desalination plants that get fired up from time to time. How does more immigration help climate change anywhere?

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          Not to mention woke pin-up guy Flannery (along with many other ecologists) says Australia’s sustainable population is somewhere between 9 and 12m.

          They cherry pick what they listen to. Fake left.

          • Less Woke More BlokeMEMBER

            Is that Flannery bloke woke if he says 9-12M carrying capacity

            I posit, no. A woke bloke would cough couhg Bandt and Dim Chalmers cough cough would be calling for 30M

      • 1. Australia is one of the highest carbon producers per capita.
        2. If Australia wasn’t spending so much money on building houses, schools, hospitals, roads to cope with exploding population we could provide more foreign aid, and increase educations levels in developing countries. It’s widely accepted that agrarian countries or those with high childhood mortality, or low levels of education and economic mobility, especially for women, have much higher birth rates.
        3. Stripping developing countries of their wealthy and educated people to fill our migration scheme in return for money seems pretty immoral and can’t be good for environmental awareness in those countries.

        • Kermit The Frog

          Global corruption and money laundering is a big factor in keeping developing nations poor and uneducated. The US has a big role to play here with the CIA supporting tin-pot dictators and puppets who are payed off so that the royalties from mineral extraction can be waived and added to the profits of multi-nationals. Pretty much the same game the Liberals play with Australia’s natural resources.

      • We can lead by example here by implementing sound public policy favouring small families. Running a mass immigration scheme alongside such a small population strategy would make no sense at all.

        If a person moves from Tierra del Fuego to Sydney, you can be sure that their emissions will rise as lifestyle adapts, making CC happen even faster.

          • Australia is currently sourcing most immigrants from India and China where their consumption patterns are likely to be much more modest than those of Aussie locals.
            In general, moving folks from Nepal or Sri Lanka to Australia will result in a net increase in emissions.

          • Denis, I have travelled extensively in India and visited China several times.
            Urban members of those nations live much like those in Australia, but in much smaller homes and they consume much less energy than their Australian brothers and sisters. If you can substantiate a claim that emissions per person in those nations match those of Australians, I’d be pleased to see that.
            https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-vs-production-co2-per-capita?time=latest&country=AUS~CHN~IND
            Australians on average emit ~18 tonnes per person, Chinese ~7 and India is about 3 tonnes per person. Even allowing for the importation of middle-class folks, Net emissions will rise as people from less developed regions move to more developed regions of the planet.

        • Peter, are those emissions figures Australia’s total emissions, because if so (and I believe they are) they’ll include our mining emissions, which to include them for individual emissions will distort the outcome. Btw, those are average figures and somewhat difficult to break down to individual income segments, I’d have thought.

          When I first left Australia I spent two years in the M.E (2002). and the level of consumerism left Australia for dead, especially when it came to gadgetry (mob phones, computers etc), I then spent 5 yrs in HK, to find the same. Prior to this I always thought of the west as being at the forefront of consuming, it was a surprising awakening for me. It showed for me that people aren’t that different and will consume if they have the ability to (in general). Their percentage of the pop (consuming) may be lower, but I seriously doubt outright numbers are.

          I worked with many people from different ethic groups and there really wasn’t a lot that separated us, what sent most of them overseas was more money and lifestyle (less crowded, education for children etc). It did’t really involve anymore consuming for them and in some respects cost of living was higher. Plenty of Indians I’ve spoken to here have mentioned that in spending terms they aren’t much better of, higher wages, higher taxes, higher C.O.L. A better life for their children is what they mostly seem to mention.

          I still support slashing immigration numbers regardless of my thoughts on it’s impact on CC.

      • We can lead by example here by implementing sound public policy favouring small families. Running a mass immigration scheme alongside such a small population strategy would make no sense at all.
        If a person moves from Tierra del Fuego to Sydney, you can be sure that their emissions will rise as lifestyle adapts, making CC happen even faster.

      • Dennis the Troll: “How does reducing immigration into Australia reduce CC; same number of people on the planet? If you’re argument is by not coming they’ll reduce their repo rate, I don’t think so.”

        Carrying capacity. We’ve taken a couple of hundred thousand off India in the last decade. Is there population smaller now? No. They are having more kids to backfill. Their population is out of control.

        Related topic. Australia sent possums to NZ where they took over. It is estimated that there are 30 million possums in NZ. Does that mean there are now 30 million less possums in Australia? As there should be the same # of possums on the planet?

        • So your claim is if they hadn’t immigrated their pop wouldn’t have increased as much. Hahahahahaha. Using possums in NZ is a poor analogy.

          Btw, you hurt my feeling calling me a troll.

          Must be difficult for you to get shoes that fit.

        • Yes – if they hadn’t of emigrated then there would’ve been less resources in their country and they will hit their own limit.

          At the end of the day we can only control the population of possums in this country.

      • Did you miss the article here about Chinese Immigrants’ consumption far exceeding that of the average Australian yesterday? All immigrants aspire to reach the highest level of consumption in the shortest time – it’s why they come here. They’re not interested in our culture or our country, or our fragile environment, but of achieving consumption far greater than they could ever achieve in their country of origin. And they succeed!

    • Population control is the first EASIEST MOST EFFECTIVE THING to start with to combat climate change.

      No it’s not. It’s literally the opposite.

      * It’s extremely hard because there’s basically no ethical way to stop people worldwide having babies in the short term.
      * It’s the least effective because it takes decades to have any meaningful effect, and even that is assuming the smaller number of people won’t increase their consumption.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        “basically no ethical way to stop people worldwide having babies in the short term”

        That’s ridiculous.

        “It’s the least effective because it takes decades to have any meaningful effect, and even that is assuming the smaller number of people won’t increase their consumption”

        Decades? So ignore it? Humans have been here for 100k years. In 200 years our population has risen 10 fold. We can reduce it rapidly by preventing unwanted births, stopping immigration into the west, and stop with the woke “bringing the world out of poverty”.

        The woke can’t solve problems. That they’re gaining strength will bring the entire westerrn world to its’ knees, and only make global problems bigger and worse.

        • That’s ridiculous.

          What’s your plan ?

          Decades? So ignore it? Humans have been here for 100k years. In 200 years our population has risen 10 fold. We can reduce it rapidly by preventing unwanted births, stopping immigration into the west, and stop with the woke “bringing the world out of poverty”.

          So your plan is to keep the third world in crushing poverty so the western world can continue to live in decadence and comfort by exploiting and extracting its resources ?

          Maybe you missed that part above where I wrote “ethical”.

          You cannot reduce population quickly by “preventing unwanted births”, even if your idea of an “unwanted births” is all of them. Annual global deaths are about 60 million. So even if EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD TOOK A DECADE LONG HIATUS FROM REPRODUCTION, population would only drop from about 7.8 billion to about 7.2 billion, or roughly where it was in 2012-13.

          The slightly good news is that global births are flattening and should go into decline in the not-too-distant-future (at least, assuming the religious wackos don’t end up with power, which is still looking a bit shaky at the moment). So at least the rate of population increase has peaked, even if population hasn’t, yet.

          The woke can’t solve problems. That they’re gaining strength will bring the entire westerrn world to its’ knees, and only make global problems bigger and worse.

          Given your Underpants Gnomes-esque ideas about “solving problems”, you’re in no position to judge anyone.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            You show me you understand nothing about the environment, ecology or humans.

            Humans, like animals exploit their resources. In most of the world the local population exceeds the resources.

            How are you going to fix that? Bring populations that have exceeded theirs to the west to do the exact same thing? Are you serious?

            Ethics? You think a Lions pride applies ethics when fighting for resources? Humans are no different. Thinking otherwise is so mind numbingly naive.

            We are the west, we’ve got the power, we take the resources. More westerners, more resources from the 3rd world we’re going to take.

            Pretty simple stuff. A 7 year old could understand it.

            I’ve said it before, you think like a 6 year old.

      • Kermit The Frog

        Yes, let’s hurtle down the trajectory that we’re currently on, with no thought for the ‘morrow. Population growth will be fixed one way or the other. I’m betting the other is less humane.

          • Kermit The Frog

            You seem to be in the camp that believe that the population will stabilise at 9-11B and then fall from there. There will be mass starvation and horrific global wars before then. If one of the super powers have their back up against the wall, nuclear annihilation is on the cards.

          • I am of the belief that there isn’t an ethical or moral way to rapidly (on the scale of a few decades) depopulate the planet.

            Do you have one ?

          • Kermit The Frog

            No, but we should at least try to stabilise as fast as we can, not let the natural processes that lead to lower birth rates do it. Providing financial incentives to everyone so that each person has no more than two children is a good start.

          • No, but we should at least try to stabilise as fast as we can, not let the natural processes that lead to lower birth rates do it. Providing financial incentives to everyone so that each person has no more than two children is a good start.

            Average in the western world is already under that and has been for 10-20 years.

            Average in the third world is higher but on a consistent decline. It’s unlikely “financial incentives” there would work as the bodies are likely more important due to much higher higher mortality rates.

            But the simple fact is it can’t work in a meaningful timeframe. Annual global deaths are about 60m, so if everyone in the whole world decided not to have any babies for a decade, we’d still only be ~600m people down, or roughly where world population was in 2012.

      • There are millions of women the world over who don’t want (any more) babies, For decades the most shameful US republican aid policies have been conditional on no hint of family planning or abortion assistance, ongoing under Trump. This alone could have saved millions of unwanted births.

        Many millions of women die each year from having unwanted babies and back yard abortions, and many millions of unwanted babies die of malnutrition and starvation.

        In your fantasy world you ignore this horrific reality. The fact is if we don’t reduce our numbers humanely and ethically, nature will do it for us in short order and in ways you won’t like.

        Reality is, the single greatest contribution any human can make to reduce their environmental footprint is to have one less child – or none

        • That is literally the complete opposite of anything I’ve ever said, and particularly anything I’ve said above.

          The people in a “fantasy world” are the ones insisting we can do anything about climate change by encouraging (or even forcing) the third world to have fewer babies, or by preventing a relative handful of them immigrating to the west.

    • You don’t need to snip Aus men. Just full stop on immigration, then consider those groups who marry at 20, don’t believe in contraception. Those where two breeding pairs arrive in 1946 and there are 160 descendant relatives in 2010 at the wedding of two 20 years old that I attended. Sweden I think had the same population as Aus after WW2 and by natural growth had excellent size population and wealth without immigrants. Until the Merkel arrangement.

        • This is a bs argument. Via marketing we have been lead to over consuming, education doesn’t have to mean over consuming. I have three daughters and they are not anything like your average Australian consumer, they don’t like brands and aren’t into social media etc. Consuming is a learned behaviour, they’re the way they are from learned behaviour.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            dennis

            Educated people have money, people with money spend more, ergo more resources.

            Do your daughters use more resources than Africans? Indonesians? South Americans?

            Do they go to school, work, eat, holiday, live in a fabricated building at 1 person per 60m2, go to hospital, use roads, water, sewerage, own devices, tables, chairs, sofas, swimming pools, pesticides, fertilisers, beauty products, medicines, etc etc etc etc.

            Industry and agriculture all over the world support your daughters consumption.

            “they don’t like brands and aren’t into social media etc”

            What difference does that make?

            I’m not sure if you’re just winding me up or you actually think this way.

          • hahahaha, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You just spray words. I doubt you’ve been anywhere but Bali. Africa isn’t a country of mud huts anymore, same as most of Asia (yes, plenty of poverty) and neither is South America.

        • They consume what they actually need, that’s it. Btw, my bet is they do consume less than Africans, Indonesians and South Americans. Those countries are not like what you must be assuming.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            What a low consuming Westerner needs you mean.

            I’ve been to all of them dennis. You have to get out more.

  3. happy valleyMEMBER

    I am surprised that the fake Australian even let something like that article be published? Does Rupert know that the editor let it slip through the net or was it done to pretend that the fake Australian and the rest of the RWNJs care about something important?

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      The Murdoch press hate any political organisation with an economic Left bias.
      Editor’s know it’s their job to to paint the Greens in a negative light whenever possible.
      The purpose of said Bob Brown story above is not to rally against Over population but rather to point out how shyte, hypocritical and irrelevant the Greens have become since Brown.

      • the murdoch mafia survives on kickback advertising and advertorials from the various business they support.
        I say they are losing subscriptions at a record rate as the whole ponzi story they put about is seen through by their quiet Australians.
        If the stories put about by the murdoch journos were any where near accurate, this joint would be boom town.
        the actual results show that they do not have a clue.

    • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

      ….and yet:

      This story was published on Saturday at The Australian. So far, it has gotten zero coverage in any other media outlet. Nothing from Domain. Nothing from The Guardian. Nothing from the ABC or SBS. Nothing from various progressive or green sub-media.

      TBW is right about one thing – the reason why we have had a succession of LNP idiots in charge of the country as the default Govt, isn’t because of the Murdoch press, it is because of the complete ineffectuality and betrayal of the so called “Left” in this country to actually address working class concerns.

      The ALP and all the so called ‘left’ media are just a bunch of ex-Uni students that recieved a mind enema in post modernism, critical theory and post colonialism, and who spend their day’s larp’ing as unionists.

  4. Wow! This exact situation is what sent me on a strange learning journey a while back.

    A few years ago I read a facebook post where an acquaintance had said something like, “More evidence that Bob Brown is racist. He wants to reduce population growth!!”. A whole bunch of this persons fellow travelers chimed in with agreement, including some downright nasty slurs.

    I responded in surprise because I like and respect Bob Brown and included the comment that I was always suspicious of any argument that automatically included ad hominem attacks such as calling a person racist. So they turned their guns on me and a “robust” discussion ensued. So far, so Facebook normal. However three (new to me) themes stood out and had my eyebrows heading for the back of my head.

    1. Racism is systemic in society.
    2. There is no such thing as a “little bit” of racism or sexism.
    3. When they ran out of arguments the original poster said, “We can’t have this conversation right now” and deleted the whole thread.

    At the time I just thought it was a bunch of nonsense and ignored it. However not long after I got into a series of separate and completely unrelated discussions with young relatives all studying at university. In every case when they got to a point where their arguments fell short of logic they all responded with the same sentence, “We can’t have this conversation right now”

    OK, so now I was suspicious. That was just too much of a coincidence. So I started searching and ended up going down a rabbit hole of Post Modernism, Critical Theory, Epistemic Justice, Post Colonialism etc etc etc.
    For two years I read source paper after source paper and started getting a very rough idea of what was going on. I do NOT recommend this approach. These papers are some of the most horribly written, obfuscatory pieces of gobbledygook you will ever find. They make art critic gallery notes read like sparkling prose.

    After all of that reading I now think I have an idea of what has created what MB calls the Fake Left. This is a huge subject, so I will keep this super brief (and hence incomplete).

    It stems from a world view that is rooted in the idea that knowledge is created by the discourse coming from the dominant or oppressors’ class. The oppressor class has historically been white European males. Thus, the “logic” goes, in order to restore epistemic justice, we must reduce the influence of knowledge from the privileged class and increase the influence of knowledge from oppressed or marginalized identity groups.

    Obviously, with all of these competing epistemologies to choose from, you need a way to rank them. Enter Intersectionality. This is the idea that oppression can have intersections. For example women could say that they experience a certain degree of discrimination, however a black woman would experience a double (and different) discrimination and a gay black woman more and so on and so forth ad infinitum. I actually think there is a lot to be said for this insight and the seminal paper on it is actually written in clear English, so worth a read . {Mapping the Margins. by Kimberle Crenshaw}

    The upshot of all this is a generation of students coming out of university who are obsessed with detecting oppression and discrimination in absolutely everything. Hence your identity politics and the Fake Left

    OK, I have glossed over a lot here, so you need to read more to understand what I think is a really dangerous threat to society. This is not just a bunch of silly university students who will grow out of it. These students are now in administrative jobs, political advisory roles, HR (shudder) and well, everywhere.

    I totally understand that no-one should be made to read what I did. However, to my delight and surprise I discovered a book that came out in August that does all of the hard work for you. Two academics have written a wonderful book:
    Cynical Theories. How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody
    by James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose

    I think this is essential reading for all MBers. Also check out their website that includes a hilarious dictionary they call “Translations from the Wokeish”
    https://newdiscourses.com/

    Sorry for the long post

  5. Population momentum related to the current global age distribution (most people in the world very young) means that 10-12 billion population is locked in unless there is a major depopulation event (war, famine, plague etc). We can set whatever policies to reduce population we want. They won’t work.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Of course they’ll work. You do the opposite of what we’re doing.

      You stop the movement of people from depleted resources.

      You starve the people of resources in the west before the resources are actually exhausted.

      Australia can either have great lives or we populate. We cannot have both. Something LNP, Greens, and MSM hoodwink a naive electorate with. Especially the “cosmopolitan city” type.

      BTW, the worst war resulted in 60m deaths. Not even 9 months of global population INCREASE.

    • MountainGuinMEMBER

      It remains to be seen if we have wider food shortages in the near term. COVID restrictions and less freight, spare parts, lower workforces, constrained processing and less international trade cannot be good for a food supply that was pretty stretched to begin with. XI’s clean plate directive is also a sign.

  6. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    Not sure about the Murdoch criticism of the Greens. Who’s going to believe criticism that doesn’t add up? It’d hurt Murdoch not the Greens.

    Greens should welcome it.

    Overwhelmingly, Australians do not want immigration at these rates….and growing opposition.

    Greens completely lack conviction and integrity. What a disgrace they are.

    • Nearly a quarter of a million people have signed Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s petition calling for a royal commission into Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp (NWS).

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        That’s great, but people like me fear that without Murdoch, there’d be plenty Labor got away with, and they’d gain strength.

        I’m scared of Labor. I don’t want them to have more power. I want them gone.

        It’s all about immigration for me, and the only solution I see, is replace Labor with others that will effectively oppose LNP on exactly this issue.

        There’s a reason other MSM doesn’t expose Labor’s hypocrisy, incompetence, etc etc etc etc. Labor are helping LNP hand our country to the elites.

        • I put this up yesterday.
          the issue is some have debt and some have money, that is what is driving the balance of power to the wealthy, elites.
          This was all kicked off by John Howard, with unilateral support. So what happened.?

          Gareth Hutchens from the ABC wrote an article, I have amended it for the average punter here
          Were you born in the past 40 years?
          If so, you’ve grown up in a world in which huge economic trends have been grinding away, influencing politics dramatically, which makes it impossible to escape this depression.
          Since the 1980s, politicians in advanced economies have pursued a policy framework that has failed large segments of their populations.
          This applies to Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
          Over the past 40 years, for said countries, the average rate of economic growth has been slowing, investment to GDP ratios have fallen, business productivity has declined, and inflation has slowed noticeably, while the average real interest rate has dropped from 6% to near or less than zero.
          At the same time, household debt and government debt has exploded.
          It has underwritten a huge transfer of wealth up the income distribution, to the top 1%.
          The economic boffins say, rising income inequality, and the liberalisation of the financial sector — both of which originated in the 1980s — had pulled said 14 advanced economies into their current low-growth, low-interest rate, high-debt environment.
          It has implications for our current attempt to pull ourselves out of the coronavirus depresson
          Now the economic boffins are telling us the bottom 90% of households in said countries, and governments, had become so indebted in the past 40 years
          it is weighing on aggregate (total) demand.
          At the same time, there has been a huge accumulation of income and wealth among the top 1% and since the super-rich have a greater propensity to save, interest rates have been falling.
          The boffins tell us debt-financed deficit spending may lift interest rates in the short-run,
          but demand will eventually be weighed down again when governments inevitably raise taxes or cut spending to service their even larger debt burdens.

          So the outcome is, in Ermo speak, we are already in the toilet and spiralling toward the S trap.
          There is no way out. (but most of you already know that)

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            Yes, but I’d rather Australia go broke with 25m, than 50m people.

            We are losing our options by populating further.

            There’s still plenty of poor Greens and Labor voters who think they’re the answer. It’s tragic.

  7. The most successful “environmental movement” to slow down the global population growth has been urbanization. People simply stop breeding like rabbits after they move to cities, period. They do so by necessity, not by choice, because doing so would be unaffordable in cities. Oh yes, rising house prices in cities surely help furthering that cause.

    In other words….. the accelerating urbanization – more than half the entire homo sapiens now live in cities for the first time in human history – and the rising house prices in cities worldwide have been very environmentally friendly.

    Whether the accelerating urbanization worldwide and the rising house prices in cities had been designed to curb the population growth is a moot point. If it had been by design, the Force is VERY strong with the one who came up with this idea.

  8. I always find this issue curious because it was the right that framed the debate decades ago through race and other country of origin factors including class for political Idpol, all whilst letting in heaps through the back door at the instance of the business lobby.

    Anywho covid seems to have made the entire fracas moot …

    Yet the disdain for the greens by some is quite obvious as it is to the left of all the other parties, then some will moan about where is the traditional left.

  9. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    “In short, to save the planet we must vote the Fake Greens into oblivion and start again.”

    AND LABOR.

    Labor are getting sssmmmaaaccckkkeeedddd in marginal seats.

    https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-federal-politics-electorate-polling-nsw-macquarie-dobell-scott-morrison-anthony-albanese-support-covid19/84043355-0101-49a7-b5ba-f30032df19b0

    LNP are now $1.65 to win the next federal election.

    Not found anywhere but a small clip last night on 9 news.

        • Labor returned in the ACT by a massive margin
          Not so long ago scotty was going to sort out the APS,
          It is us who were elected to govern,not the APS, he shouted.
          I think it was about then he went, was sent, to Hawaii.
          so I say the issue is the APS is running the joint, and they support socialism.

          • I know lots of APS and not a lot are pro socialism and most seem weirdly quite right wing on most things but are also mostly anti religious nut job…. which is 90% of the ACT Liberal candidates…

            Politics in the ACT is a lot more complex than the “APS love socialism”

          • Dunno about love socialism
            but socialism keeps em in jobs.
            and changes arent going to come about with out breaking a few eggs

            Bain Capital (who now own Virgin) was founded by Bain and Co operatives (led by Mitt Romney) who wanted to apply “the same results-oriented approach to the private equity market”.
            A huge face off coming just in this small area.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        Perhaps. Need to get organised and not allow abandoning Labor to result in an LNP landslide, but instead lots of Independents and others to keep LNP honest.

        It’s for the better, and the only way we’re getting democracy back.

        • happy valleyMEMBER

          Keep LNP honest. That would be a first but it’s never going to happen. That lightweight McCormack on ABC TV this morning – all Kiwis coming here are healthy. How would he know? That air bubble is as good as a core promise from John Howard.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            LNP will get away with whatever we let them. They need immigration to get away with everything they do.

            At the moment, no one is opposing them on what matters.

          • Less Woke More BlokeMEMBER

            It’s hard to pick the most odious character in the sh$tshow that is the Laberalist Nationalist Corruptist Party but he would be right up there in the odious stakes. Hot damn he does my head in.

  10. There is rightly immense frustration that the only party we have that looks to focus on environmental issues is now little more than a marketing machine for woke ideologs.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Yep. You can’t understand science, maths, etc etc and not understand population is by far the biggest environmental issue both here and globally.

      It’s been an incredibly successful scam by the elites to infiltrate absolutely everything for the core environmental party to avoid it at the expense of everything else they apparently stand for.

      The positive is I think more people are finally working it out, but will we force Greens and Labor to change?

  11. The worms will live in every host
    It’s hard to pick which one they eat the most
    The horrible people, the horrible people
    It’s as anatomic as the size of your steeple
    Capitalism has made it this way
    Old-fashioned fascism will take it away

  12. BoomToBustMEMBER

    Dont be so shocked by his idea’s, he would fit in well at Davos where they are currently working on releasing their plan for a the great reset under the WEF (google WEF reset, heaps of information available including directly from them), their ultimate plan is to push people into cities where they can be monitored and controlled for everything they do. From CCTV (checked out many major intersections in Melbourne since the lockdown and seen all the new CCTV installed ?? (google strong cities a Soros backed project) with facial recognition, using your phone to track you and reducing the global population, social credit scores, destruction of the powerful and wealthy middle class, etc etc etc, its all coming. They are using the green agenda to drive this rhetoric which starts in schools, Labor and Liberal are the same coin, just different sides of it and the master flipping the coin is the UN. They have been re-educating the population for many years via the school system, basically teaching a socialist / Marxist agenda. From there they have allowed capitalism to run wild and to the extreme where profits are so extreme and people are suffering so now they see socialism as their saviour for a better and easier life, unfortunately this to is a lie and in ceeding more control willing to their governments in exchange for perceived safety (think CV-19) they will end up loosing freedom and the screws tighten further.

      • BoomToBustMEMBER

        While you are attempting to be sarcastic, your are actually correct, here is the link https://www.weforum.org/great-reset

        There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.

          • BoomToBustMEMBER

            Plenty more information if you look for it – and to follow on from your question about them putting their evil plans online. Most crimes are solved because people cannot help but tell someone, this is the same principle, they cannot help but tell you.

    • +1 You only have to look at the raft of new global governance policies brought in under the guise of Covid….those Davos blokes have indeed been busy. Problem-Reaction-Solution again and again.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      drsmithy is a Greens shill, or journo, or elite…I haven’t worked it out, but he’s got skin in the game and lies and obfuscates to sell his bogus unscientific, illogical garbage.

      Is that where you got your “How does reducing immigration into Australia reduce CC?”?

      He is dishonest, and should be excluded from any environmental or immigration debate.

      Not to be taken seriously.

    • Yes.

      Apparently the proprietors didn’t like me pointing out that the man himself disagrees with what the Australian’s article is claiming, that these points:

      * pump our own population to the moon destroying all moral power that we might possess, nor
      * to do it, steal the best and brightest from developing nations by turning universities into migration agents, destroying green reform on both fronts.

      Are flat-out false, and that the things they think should be happening worldwide are advocated by the Greens (far more strongly than they are the other parties, who have to pander to the religious extremists in their ranks).

      An anti-Greens clickbait article always generates some good traffic preaching to the choir so there’s usually at least one a week.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        Greens steal an environmental vote from the unfortunate naive youth, they then push policies that directly hurt the futures of the young without an honest narrative regarding what they’re voting for.

        Greens are up to their necks in dishonesty. Australia and the world would be far better from an environmental perspective without them.

        Greens don’t have to actively support immigration to do damage. Not opposing it is why Greens, the environmental party, have to be destroyed.

        Even less honest than Labor.

        • Today’s lesson in slang could apply to the Greens

          fish or cut bait:

          Get on with what you’re doing or quit and give someone else a chance; stop putting it off. This metaphor, alluding to a fisherman who ties up the use of a boat or rod when he could at least be preparing bait for others to use, originated in nineteenth-century politics. It appeared in the Congressional Record in 1876, when Congressman Joseph P. Cannon, telling the Democrats to vote on a bill that would legalize the silver dollar, said, “I want you gentlemen on the other side of the House to ‘fish or cut bait.’” A ruder twentieth-century American version is shit or get off the pot.

          shit or get off the pot:

          Either commit to doing something productive or step aside and stop wasting time.
          Do something or give someone else a chance!

          Source:
          https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/shit+or+get+off+the+pot

  13. “Greens leader Adam Bandt this week played down the environmental impact of a growing population”

    Evidence that:
    – the Greens have no grasp of basic economic concepts
    – the Greens willfully ignore basic economic concepts

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      – the Greens are unscientific

      – the Greens are hypocritical, dishonest and illogical.

      100% the opposite to the narrative they try and sell our unfortunate naive youth.

      • Sadly, true. They don’t want the new arrivals to move into their own, leafy, suburbs, but only in Western Sydney. If 1000 immigrants are brought in and crammed in to tiny apartments somewhere out west, maybe one out of the 1000 will somehow make a lot of money and be able to pay 3 million dollars for their house in Birchgrove, instead of a measly 2 million.

        • Actually, it’s interesting sometimes to gauge the views of people outside of the goldfish bowl that is this blog. The other day I was chatting to a good mate, an engineer, and he commented: It’s crazy all this urban sprawl in cities — we should be living in far more concentrated communities i.e. units. It’s more efficient, less wasteful etc. I’m keen to poll the rest of my engineer mates discretely and see if they all think the same.

    • It’s ironic in a way that Adam Bandt, who lives in the epicentre of dog-box-in-the-sky land, in cheering on the population ponzi while Bob Brown, who has lived in rural Victoria, Tasmania and Canberra, and probably never seen a tall building in his life (except perhaps in London) is the one who’s eyes have been opened.

    • Jumping jack flash

      “Evidence that:
      – the Greens have no grasp of basic economic concepts
      – the Greens willfully ignore basic economic concepts”

      On the contrary, they know which side of their bread is buttered. The key is debt growth. You dont get debt growth if we all live subsistence lives in the forest.

      Sign me up. I was 19 before i experienced the luxury of electricity. I also intend to go off grid for water and electricity once i obtain the enormous pile of debt that is required to afford the land to do it on, [and then work for the next 30 years like a slave to repay it.]

  14. Mr SquiggleMEMBER

    Bob brown’s comments where on global population growth, which is a function of fertility. He avoided talking about Australia’s population growth, which is a function of migration.
    Whenever anyone asks him about Australia, he shifts attention to global population growth and so avoids the topic of migration.

  15. Perhaps Brown is not taken seriously because he is the first person to take 2 full parliamentary pensions -one state and one Federal and as he is gay with no children then he may spend all this money on consumption and telling other punters to not consume or run population growth. However this does not negate the very real argument but ABC and SBS irrationally support ponzi population growth which is a negative economic outcome per person and definite environmental negative as these people produce much more greenhouse gases here than in their home country. Go figure.

  16. I think this is misrepresenting the Green’s position. I am not a member of the Greens, but when this topic came up on MB last year, I dug a little deeper to attempt to understand their internal debates on this.
    1. Their base-level argument is that the system of production needs to change to avoid environmental damage. Renewable energy, recycling used materials, move away from CO2 production, denser living to reduce sprawl, etc. We need to upgrade how we produce and live.
    2. They deny a direct link between that and Australia’s population: if we fixed our production and living arrangments, we could support a larger population with much less environmental damage. And we also did great damage to our environment in the past with a smaller population.
    3. Global population does need to decrease, at least stop growing. That is Green’s policy, and is what Bob Brown is talking about in the cited article.
    4. Limiting Australia’s immigration so that we can maintain our current wasteful ways and avoid fixing our environmentally wasteful production and economy is not a responsible approach. Instead, they argue that Australia’s immigration level is a minor contributor, and we need to crack on with the huge task of fixing our economy.
    5. So don’t blame migrants for our own ineptitude. We should just get on with fixing our economy.

    In the light of that, I don’t see any disagreement between Bob Brown’s comments, and the Greens/Guardian viewpoint. Bob is talking about global population, not Australia’s population. It is the usual Murdoch press misrepresentation and beat-up of a non-story.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      “with much less environmental damage”

      With a fraction less environmental damage. We are massive resource users by everything we do. Not just electricity, not just eating beef, not just cars.

      The Greens are ridiculously deluded.

      Are we going to reduce our resource use from a 10 to an 8, then double population? You’ve got to be kidding me. The concept is so mind numbingly ridiculous. Our environment is dying, and Greens solution is to go from a 10 to a 16. Are they the LNP or the environment party?

      “And we also did great damage to our environment in the past with a smaller population”

      Absolutely incorrect, by 10000.

    • Fundamentally, the root problem that needs to be fixed is consumption. There needs to be less of it, either due to simply using less stuff or increased production efficiency (or a combination of both).

      It is impossible to address climate change – at least ethically and morally – in a meaningful timeframe via reducing population. Much like trying to address climate change with nuclear power, that opportunity came and went decades ago.

      Consequently, the primary focus MUST be on consumption to have any hope of success.

      China, India and other third-world countries are not going to stop modernising, and it would be unethical and immoral to even ask them to, let alone try and stop them. The best we can do is encourage/help them to modernise in the most efficient ways possible, so they don’t have billions of people moving into the same grossly wasteful consumption patterns as countries like Australia and the USA.

        • It’s that “populating the west” is irrelevant in context.

          Most third-world immigrants into western countries are already middle class and relatively high consumers in their societies anyway, so the individual delta is relatively small, the delta across entire countries relatively smaller still, and the delta across the entire world, compared to the consumption increases coming from billions of people over the next 10-20 years, isn’t even a rounding error.

          This is particularly true of Australia which, as the climate deniers so like to remind us, is responsible for a fraction of a percent of global emissions. The ONLY thing we could MAYBE do that would have any impact on climate change would be to stop exporting coal.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            Please don’t pretend to care for the environment while being okay with its number one problem.

            You’re riding the woke money train. I don’t know in what form, but I know you are.

          • You can’t pretend that there is no difference between the average migrant’s consumption in their home country and their consumption here

            https://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/2018/11/chinese-migrants-follow-australians-giant-ecological-footprints/

            We are also taking many migrants from countries much poorer than China. In any case, their children are going to consume like anyone else in the (now larger) Australian population.

            Having one less child (i.e. not adding an additional person to a high-consuming population) has been calculated to be by far the most effective choice that a person can make to fight climate change, not even considering the effects on other environmental problems. It is 25 times as effective as the next most effective choice (not having a car). In fact, you could hairshirt yourself in every imaginable way and not come close.

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

            There is a link to the original paper in Environmental Research Letters.

            So far as consumption is concerned, greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the US are actually less than at any time since the early 1960s, and not much more than in the 1940s or 50s. In Australia, they are back where they were in the 1990s. The big growth in consumption is occurring in middle income countries such as China and India. The Greens are concentrating on the problem that has been getting better in Australia and the US, and ignoring the one that has been making the situation far worse.

            https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states?country=~USA

            https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia?country=~AUS

            https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN

            https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india?country=~IND

          • You can’t pretend that there is no difference between the average migrant’s consumption in their home country and their consumption here […]

            I didn’t.

            But in the grand scheme whatever happens here is irrelevant. There’s literally hundreds of millions of middle-class Chinese, with consumption increasing, and hundreds of millions more rural peasants still to come.

            Then there’s India.

            Even ten million of third-worlders going from dirt-floor huts and paddy fields to north shore SUV-driving Karens are a rounding error in this picture.

            Having one less child (i.e. not adding an additional person to a high-consuming population) has been calculated to be by far the most effective choice that a person can make to fight climate change, not even considering the effects on other environmental problems.

            And ? The problem is the people already here.

            The big growth in consumption is occurring in middle income countries such as China and India.

            Yes. I believe that’s one of the points I’ve been trying to make. This growth has and will continue to utterly dwarf anything happening in the western world.

            The Greens are concentrating on the problem that has been getting better in Australia and the US, and ignoring the one that has been making the situation far worse.

            How’s that ?

            Nothing we do in Australia can make the situation “far worse”. We are utterly insignificant on a global scale. As I said above, about the only thing we can do that might make it measurably better is to stop mining coal.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            Smith

            What the?

            Greens are big advocates of bringing the poor out of poverty. You helped do this, now want to destroy the West as well by bringing them here?

            You can’t have ethics and fix the world. That’s why the delusional wokesters MUST be removed from power.

    • Bob is talking about global population, not Australia’s population.

      Well, as an Australian voter I have no control over global population. My vote has only control over Australia’s population.

      If one of Australia’s leading environmentalists cannot be bothered considering what I can control, then I cannot be bothered considering what I cannot control.

      It’s out of my hands. I can’t be bothered doing anything for the earth’s environment any more, if he can’t.
      Blow global population
      Blow the environment
      Blow Bob Brown.

  17. Go Green-need to Get Lean :
    Up to 3/4 of New Hope Corporation’s (NHC) corporate staff will lose their jobs next month as the coal miner prepares for years of volatility.
    This is not the first time the billion-dollar company has been forced to cut positions.
    Previously, a delay in approvals for the new Ackland mine on the Darling Downs project saw 175 employees lose their jobs.
    The decision comes after New Hope posted a $156 million loss and a 17% slump in revenue over FY20.

  18. Jumping jack flash

    The Greens party consists of people and people need debt. Enormous piles of it. Ridiculously huge piles of debt that no person should have any business taking on.

    Then once you have a soul-destroying, economy-crushing pile of debt you have to get rid of it at some point.

    Only the greatest losers of the New Economy repay their own debt with their own money, the winners use a pile of someone else’s debt to repay their debt principal, all the interest, the equity and the capital gains they expect. Until then they “service” it.

    To do that requires people. Once you own your own pile of debt you’re unlikely to take on another [without some additional requirements being met to get eligible] so the easiest thing to do by far is import a ton of people without debt and who are then made eligible for the right sized piles of debt to take the debt off the hands of the last wave of debt patsies, to make the system work.

    This is the foundation of the New Economy and it transcends political alignment or ideology.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now