51 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. thoughts on vegitarianism from a scenic path perspective if anyone cares.
    Pigs are highly intellegent. Their lives have can have value. Factory farming certianly robs what ever value a pigs life migh have from the pig. But a pig growing up on a traditional farm that gets feed table scraps and forages in a field for worms and mushrooms and has a mud pool to enjoy and gets protected from preditors that would tear it limb from limb is in pig heaven. If humans eat pigs there is the potential for a lot more pigs to be in pig heaven than if humans did not eat pigs. If pigs were not eaten they would simply be a competitor for food resources. Humans might not kill wild pigs as competitors but they would certianly take measures to prevent their reproduction. Humans would certianly not domesitc pigs if they were not going to eat them. One might say that a few might get domesticated as truffle locators. But although a pig might be a better truffle locator than a dog, a dog can do the job well enough and do other things as well and for less pay.
    So although we humans do not NEED to eat pigs it seems to me that if we give them a good life and then kill them humanely by sneakin up behind them them and shooting them in the back ot the head when they are totally not expecting it we have created a win win situation. If someone wants to kill me by sneaking up behind me and shooting me in the head they not only have my permission they have my gratitude, as long as the ammunition used is larger than than a .22 caliber. And one other thing you better do it right because if I see you sneaking up behind me with a gun I am going to run. If by chance I should find and Axe or a baseball bat while I am running away and a good location to stage an ambush I will try to kill you first, even though you might have just been trying to do me a favor. Why? Because I do not know what your motive is? To me that makes a huge difference. Maybe you just like murdering humans at random and I was to be your next victim. If that was the case I would want to do something so that you could not do that again.
    We do not need to eat pigs but the idea creating food off of table scrapes and some scavaging seems to be a pretty sensible way to me ensure human survival as long as the number of pigs does not get to large. The case of pigs, because of their high intellegence seems to me to be one of the most important cases in the debate about meat eating. Now allow me to turn to cattle.
    The environmental case against cattle seems really strong. Still,I love cheese. Do I have to give up cheese? A dairy industry can not exist without a cattle meat production industry. At least at the present time. But at least one important change can be made to the way that we do business now. We could bring the males calves to slaughter rather than raising them to be full grown cattle. It might also be possible to solve or at leat greatly mitigate the methane production caused my dairy cows be the introduction of seaweed in to their diet. None the less I think that if I want everyone to be able to enjoy a bit of cheese every now and then it has to be a rationed and expensive item to greatly discourage its consumption, especially cow cheese.
    When one consders the environmental and economic impact of sheep and lamas and camels I think that the economic contributions of these animals to humans can outweigh their environmental costs.
    We have wool production, plus milk production, plus meat production, plus the maintence of dikes and levys, and aid in transporting goods that are all in the plus column for these animals.
    Then there is polutry and rabbits and guniea pigs. Creating a pound of meat by raising these animals has a quite low opportunity costs. In addition they are not very smart. They are going to be totally clueless that they are about to be eaten.
    Finally what about frogs,snails, worms, crickets and other insects? In these cases it would seem to me that even factory farming would be appropriate because these creatures would not be able to tell the difference anyways.
    Now I present fish for consideration. Over 57% of the earth is covered by water. We humans need to sue this precious resource. Whales, dolphins, and other sea mammals should probably not be placed on a human table. What about squid and octopus? Fish certiantly seems to me to be fair game. It is to bad that we were not able to manage our waters better before we perished for our Pershings.

  2. ignoratio elenchi

    Firstly see above.
    Facts and figures.
    References and links.
    3 million non resident migrants onshore in Australia.
    The majority of third world origin.
    2.75 million adult working legally or illegally.

    A Royal Commission is now calling up spirits?
    Are you on drugs?

    We have Royal commissions continually / often concurrently.

    They are usually initiated by a government, but can be by petition and by popular demand if they meet the criteria of being in the economic and social interest of Australians.

    And with over 3 million non resident migrants (it means specifically non citizen or non PR) onshore and with 2.7 million of those as adult third world unskilled migrant guestworkers..
    And with at least 1.7 million of those on a visa pretext or in visa breach – well that is clearly a national crisis, and major social & economic impact.

    Australians agree as many polls show.
    The majority of Australians don’t know the full horror or that it’s the TR / SCV & TVWI who are the bulk of the issue – but they do know they want ‘the migrant intake’ reduced’.

    A Royal Commission is by design apolitical – once initated, the government of the day can do little to influence or control it.
    Given the refusal by both major parties to address the Australian people’s concerns then either a minority party in a hung parliament or a people’s petition can initiate a Royal Commission into our broken and corrupted visa program.

    A Royal Commission can often span successive governments.

    The Royal Commission recommendations have the power to make changes to a governmental authority.

    The concept of an Australian people representative body that dictates immigration policy, numbers, quality, settlement and other settings for the government of the day in border control and visa enforcement – is neither unusual, nor is it difficult to implement.

  3. A Royal Commission is now calling up spirits?
    Are you on drugs?

    I just had a cup of tea–does that count?

    You wrote that people could demand a Royal Commission. Anybody can demand anything, but demanding something is not enough to make it happen. That’s what Shakespeare was having Hotspur tell Glendower.

    You can demand a Royal Commission, but will it come when you do demand it?

    You also wrote:

    A Royal Commission is the highest authority we have in our political structure.

    No, it’s not.

    It’s function along with the Governor General is to act on a government request (or to dismiss a government) in the people’s interests when the political process fails.

    No, it isn’t. The function of a Royal Commission is to make an inquiry and report within the limits of the terms of reference defined by the government that appoints it; no Royal Commission has ever dismissed a government, or had the power to do so.

    They are usually initiated by a government, but can be by petition and by popular demand if they meet the criteria of being in the economic and social interest of Australians.

    They are invariably initiated by governments: only a government has the power to nominate Royal Commissioners and to state their terms of reference. If you think a petition can create a Royal Commission, why haven’t you started a petition?

    The Royal Commission recommendations have the power to make changes to a governmental authority.

    A Royal Commission can make recommendations, but it is the government receiving those recommendations which decides whether and how to act on them.

    Given the refusal by both major parties to address the Australian people’s concerns then either a minority party in a hung parliament or a people’s petition can initiate a Royal Commission into our broken and corrupted visa program.

    A minority party in a hung parliament, or a people’s petition, can argue that the government should set up a Royal Commission, but only the government itself can decide to set up a Royal Commission and determine the terms of reference if one is set up. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can try it yourself and find out what happens.

  4. J-D says April 12, 2019 at 7:23 pm – “If the number of people in country X is about a hundred times the number of people in country Y, then … country X will probably have something like a million times the number of people in jobs that country Y has. … The correlation isn’t a perfect 100%, because..”

    Because why? What evidence, or is this just another baseless assumption asserted? Please provide lists of relevant comparative stats and sources over time. That’d best at least cover all OECD data to be relevant, but you will have to go way wider as well for reasonable comparisons to the Australian ponzi migration exception, no? You know, authoritative, comprehensive, truly comparative, real world data.

    J-D – “There’s no pattern of countries with more people having higher unemployment rates (and no patter of their having lower unemployment rates, either). When the number of people in a country goes up (or down) it has no general tendency to make the employment rate (or the unemployment rate) go up (or down); it might just as easily do either (or it might do neither).”

    But we are talking about Australia in fact, and not make-believe elsewhere assumptions. Here there is more than a sufficient resident Australian supply of labour available, including skilled labour at that. Yet there is a migration/guestworker tidal wave swamping the country. It floods in now as unskilled, or the specifically skilled but overwhelmingly not to be employed in the specific skilled occupations stated but in those of lower or unskilled categories, or it floods into occupational categories that are falsely designated as having a skills shortage that in fact do not have anywhere near a shortage of resident skilled potential workers.

    You don’t mention underemployment. Reported underemployment in Australia runs at higher official rates than unemployment! Reported rates are also recognised as being lower than either of the actual numbers! Both un- and underemployment result from resident Australians being displaced from work here by migrants/guestworkers/illegal guestworkers. As shown above approximately one in eight to one in six Australian workers are displaced from gainful employment in this way.

    J-D – “Obviously if population increases while GDP decreases, by definition GDP per capita decreases.”

    That is not what you asserted above. Good to see you now on the same reality page at least with this.

    J-D – “But a change in population size has no general tendency to cause a change in GDP per capita: it might go either way, or neither.”

    But we are (and we are many) concerned in fact with the reality of the situation in Australia where long term economic policy deliberately is set to force decreasing GDP per capita.

    Australian economic policy is clearly seen as set to grow GDP by massive ponzi migration numbers irregardless of GDP per capita falling. GDP per capita falling is a second order concern, if indeed it causes any concern to the oligarchy and their major four political party fronts. Top priority is given to the only significant trick they have left which is to grow GDP, by growing consumption, by growth through massively high ponzi migration numbers that also acheives other top priorities, such as decreased employment conditions, high unemployment, high underemployment, suppression of wage growth along with rapidly increasing growth in income and wealth for the one per cent.

  5. J-D says: April 14, 2019 at 9:48 am…

    J-D the fact is that people, eg., individuals, community groups, journalists, and smaller formal political parties, and dissenting subgroups within larger political parties have frequently led to Royal Commissions. Of the four* called during the two consecutive terms of the current national misgoverning party coalition only one arose directly and solely from the governing party itself. The last three saw the misgovernment dragged kicking and screaming until unable to avoid the issues any longer it finally conceded that a Royal Commission was indeed necessary, and at the same time as each reversal on the issue it was heard saying that it was an idea of their own!. The first was opposed by the 20percent of the time opposition party just as it opposed the last one for the longest time until due to community, journalistic and small party pressure it opportunely changed tacks.

    The RC (institutional child abuse) begun by the previous misgoverning incumbents also arose due to individual, community, journalist, and small party pressure.

    That is an 80% positive strike rate for interests outside the sham representative power structures of misgovernment and opposition being the instigators of Royal Commissions.

    * Turc, banking, aged care, and disability services.

  6. Oops, I forgot the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program. There’s been so much continuing to backslide under the bridge for some forty-five years it can be hard to keep track of it. The pink batts RC arose from community and journalist force, but airc mainly directly from within the Abbott misgovernment without opposition support. Similar to the turc.

    Amend the 80% to, give or take, 70% positive strike rate for RCs arising from interests outside the sham representative power structures of misgovernment and opposition and despite the sham representative misgoverning system attempting to block such RCs.

  7. In Australia, since 1901, the total population has gone up and up and up and up and up. And while the total population has gone up all the time, the unemployment rate has gone down and up and down and up and down and up and down. Population going up doesn’t make the unemployment rate go up; iit doesn’t make it go down, either; there’s just no correlation; other things make the unemployment rate go up or down, regardless of what the population is. It’s the same with the underemployment rate, which also goes up and down, but not because of what’s happening with the total population figure.

    J-D – “Obviously if population increases while GDP decreases, by definition GDP per capita decreases.”

    That is not what you asserted above.

    Well spotted. It isn’t a repetition of an earlier statement. It isn’t a contradiction of an earlier statement either.

    If you think you can get the government to call a Royal Commission by starting a petition, then why are you wasting your time complaining about a blog commenter disagreeing with you instead of starting that petition? I look forward to seeing what your petition says. If it makes sense I might even sign it myself. If you can’t be bothered, it’s not my fault.

  8. JD – “In Australia, since 1901,”

    The past is another country… The globally exceptional circumstance of concern, the ponzi migration scam, is that of Australia in the here and now where sustained staggeringly high levels of population growth is due to unprecedented migration/guestworker rates. In the current and long sustained circumstances unnecessary imported cheap labour definitely increases unemployment and underemployment per supply and demand. It also by design accelerates growth of inequity by increasing the growth in the share of real wealth of the one per cent and decreasing that of the majority sitting further down the scale.

    JD – “Well spotted. It isn’t a repetition of an earlier statement. It isn’t a contradiction of an earlier statement either.”

    An earlier statement wrong in context, and deliberately disingenuously so, and so then a further contrived nonsense.

    JD – “… why are you wasting your time complaining about a blog commenter disagreeing”

    There you go again. I make no complaint, but moreover neither have you disagreed. To do so you would have had to have comprehended some basics at the least, and engaged in some pertinent considered rational evidence based disputation. I do thank you though for stimulating further my personal research into and understanding of the facts. Also thanks for your wrong-footed beginning of this thread that has brought mike mb’s knowledge of the facts, and clear and well expressed understanding and comprehension to bear on the issues.

  9. JD – “In Australia, since 1901,”

    The past is another country… The … circumstance of concern … is that of Australia in the here and now … In the current and long sustained circumstances …

    Over any long period in Australian history, including the current one, total population has only gone up and not down, while the rate of unemployment and underemployment has moved both up and down.

    … neither have you disagreed …

    I disagree with that statement.

    If there is no disagreement between us, then by definition there is agreement between us. I don’t think there is agreement between us, and therefore, by definition, I must conclude that there is disagreement between us. If anybody else is still reading this exchange and would care to chime in, I would be particularly interested in any third-party opinion on that question: is there disagreement between Svante and me, or is there agreement?

  10. Well J-D I can’t follow the actual point of contention but I find that reading Svante’s comments in general is a disappointing experience because he disagreeably uses undefined terms such as ” staggeringly high levels of population growth” and he is so ready to make criticisms and judgments that are not backed up by any rational argument.

  11. Australia’s population is growing faster than that of most Western nations (and by that I mean real Western nations, not Brunei and Saudi Arabia which Professor Q has tried to rope in). Folk in major cities are complaining about the hardship this is causing while some rural areas would like to attract people.

    The issues of population growth and preferable population size are incredibly difficult. The UN projects the world population will reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Will planet Earth ever be able to accommodate 11 billion souls at first world living standards? Even if it’s possible, is it desirable? If it isn’t desirable, what can be done about it without trampling on human rights? Or is Julie Thomas correct in saying that humans rights considerations are a nonsense on par with otiose theological discussions?

    If Svante is saying that we should think very seriously about Australia’s population and global population now rather than later, I agree with him. But I doubt it will happen because the issue is so complicated and emotional.

  12. Predicting world population 30 years from now is difficult, but I expect it will peak at under 10 billion. With fertility rates in India and Indonesia approaching replacement rate this seems likely. Of course, even under 10 billion is cause for caution. To assist in lowering world birth rates I suggest Australia greatly increase its intake of people from high birth rate countries such as Nigeria.

  13. Hugo, please take a bit more care when commenting and avoid *anything* that might seem like a personal attack.

    In relation to your statement about “Brunei and Saudi Arabia” I am confident that I have never said anything about population growth in those countries, since I have no idea whether it is fast or slow, and also that I have never described them as “Western nations” – I don’t use this term and wouldn’t apply it to medieval theocracies if I did use it. Unless you can quote me saying this, I expect a retraction.

  14. Professor Quiggin,

    My comment was a reference to your claim that Islamic countries are part of Western civilisation. It seems obvious to me that if Saudi Arabia and Brunei are a part of Western civilisation (both are Islamic) they are by definition Western nations. I also did not say or imply that you said anything about population growth in said countries.

    Nonetheless, my apologies if I have inadvertently misrepresented your view and notwithstanding that, I apologise for any offence caused.

    BTW, are you aware that more than half a dozen Curt Kastens involve killing, often in disturbing detail? In previous posts he talks of burning folk alive. Above he writes:

    If someone wants to kill me by sneaking up behind me and shooting me in the head they not only have my permission they have my gratitude, as long as the ammunition used is larger than than a .22 caliber. And one other thing you better do it right because if I see you sneaking up behind me with a gun I am going to run. If by chance I should find and Axe or a baseball bat while I am running away and a good location to stage an ambush I will try to kill you first, even though you might have just been trying to do me a favor.

    Eek!

  15. Ronald:

    With fertility rates in India and Indonesia approaching replacement rate this seems likely.

    The UN medium scenario predicts 4 billion Africans by 2100. Africa’s population is still booming.

    ***theconversation.com/theres-a-strong-chance-that-one-third-of-all-people-will-be-african-by-2100-84576

  16. Hi Hugo. The median projection is about 11 billion humans in 2100 but I expect it will peak under 10 billion. I certainly could be wrong about this.

  17. Remarkably, the population of Ethiopia has gone from ~ 40 million at the time of “live aid/feed the world” famine in the 1980s, to 105 million today.

    If Ethiopia has another comparable famine, I imagine lots of ugly things will be said.

  18. Julie Thomas, I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to respond, even though you didn’t feel able to offer a direct answer to my specific question.

  19. Hugo, fortunately Ethiopia has moved beyond the point where a 1980s style famine is possible — barring worldwide disaster. Ethiopia’s per capita GDP has quintupled over the past 15 years in real terms. Their fertility rate is also falling rapidly and is close to half its peak which was in/around 1985. I am optimistic about economic development about Africa and this is a major reason why I suspect world population will peak below 10 billion.

    (The main reason I think population will peak below 10 billion is because no one wants to get it on with me and if I’m not considered worth mating with, what chance do people who aren’t incredibly good looking have?)

  20. The main reason I think population will peak below 10 billion is because no one wants to get it on with me and if I’m not considered worth mating with, what chance do people who aren’t incredibly good looking have?

    Hahaha! I’m sure your adorable, Ronald.

  21. J-D says April 15, 2019 at 7:51 am
    “Over any long period in Australian history, including the current one, total population has only gone up and not down, while the rate of unemployment and underemployment has moved both up and down.”

    More waffle. In saying that you again offer nothing of relevance nor of factual accuracy now including pre-European archaeology. You might assert similar for total population increase globally since 1800, but again you merely attempt to duck the current 20-some years of nasty concrete Australian global exception.

    “If there is no disagreement between us, then by definition there is agreement between us.”

    You waffle again. You mistake your irrational disagreeableness for rational disagreement. You have demonstrated only disagreeableness not disagreement of any substance. It’s incoherent disagreeableness at that, like an oppositional smart-arse petulant child, a substance addled addict, or obstreperous obstinate drunk. You’ve shown neither rational agreement (except perhaps often where dropping, twisting, or dodging a prior assertion) nor disagreement but a losing misapprehending disagreeableness from the start.

    “I would be particularly interested in any third-party opinion on that question: is there disagreement between Svante and me, or is there agreement?”

    Lost it now, have you?

  22. Julie Thomas says April 15, 2019 at 8:06 am
    “Well J-D I can’t follow the actual point of contention”
    That’s not surprising J-D hasn’t got one, and is just flopping about like a fish out of water. But I suspect that, as seen before re western civilisation, you too are in here being averse to the seeing and naming of elephants in the room.

  23. So true Svante I don’t see elephants in the room and can only speculate about why you really really want to talk about the name you give your elephant.

    Are you sure you are seeing all of this elephant or maybe you have ahold of just one small part and can’t see the wood for the trees? There is a lot of that going around.

    Maybe we will all turn Japanese?

    Perhaps you are virtue signalling? Unfortunately only Hugo knows if it is virtuous virtue signalling or not.

  24. Julie Thomas:

    Perhaps you are virtue signalling? Unfortunately only Hugo knows if it is virtuous virtue signalling or not.

    Nope. I don’t subscribe to virtue ethics, which incidentally is often (but by no means always) associated with religion, hence the age old question: “What would Jesus do?”. I think consequentialism and deontology have more to offer.

    I also believe ethics are subjective (i.e I don’t believe ethics can be objective) and I don’t claim to be particularly ethical, smart or wise. I’m just another punter on the net.

  25. Julie Thomas says

    “Well J-D I can’t follow the actual point of contention”

    J-D’s flopping about like a fish landed in the sand here was a diversion from the big migration ponzi metaphorical elephant in the room spotted initially elsewhere stomping about in a post that linked a NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/upshot/australia-lessons-economic-miracle.html

    “So true Svante I … can only speculate … Are you sure you are seeing all of this elephant”

    I certainly have as for those with eyes to see it’s impossible to miss. And I have no wish to be squashed. Both seen and called it. The only wood in the room to be seen is the collateral metaphorical broken furniture piling up all about. Sorry, no trees, like many an actual elephant this one’s economic purpose in the general jungle gloom is to clear fell all before it.

    “Maybe we will all turn Japanese?”

    Drugs is it?

    “Perhaps you are virtue signalling?”

    Nope, but whatever now are you signalling? Waving some page from the J-D book of incoherent confusion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s