The Ovarian Lottery

In stark contrast to the news headlines, last night I had the distinct priveledge of witnessing my friend and student Zaman become a citizen of Australia.

The obvious highlight was seeing someone I know, respect, love and admire recieve finally the promise of security his heart has been bursting for for so long.

I haven't written much this week So I think I'll play cath up now and do one of those 4 in 1 posts all centered around the 'issue' of population/citizenship etc.

The Malthusian Trap

Economics starts and ends with resources, the very study of economics is to answer the question eternally posed by scarce resources. Specifically before any economic system can operate a bunch of people have to secure a bunch of resources. Everything follows from there.

So call it a community or call it a gang, I'm an anarchist by the way, something I never thought I would be so I prefer to call it a gang. A gang bands together and seizes some natural bounty, that is it lays claim to a patch of earth/space that existed long before them and came to be through no effort of theirs.

Countries in my view are just words, sometimes noted and surrounded by lines on pieces of paper. But on the world itself, they do not exist. They do not exist in the same way dirt and water exists.

Now abridging somewhat, you have a community that has seized some resources and eventually formed agreements with other communities to respect their mutual territories and form some kind of super-community called a country, a nation.

But the important points are these: A) the resources at some point were seized. B) resources are limited.

Now classical Economists depending on your view are either undervalued or overvalued. Adam Smith did a good thought experiment that works 70% of the time and John Stuart Mill's concept of utility has some nice features. But Malthus, he's a cunt that should be better known as one.

He basically said that a country could not raise its standard of living faster than its population growth, and that if a population grows too fast it may be forced to return to a subsistence standard of living. (ie. scratching in the dirt all day just to obtain enough food to live for another day, that is spent much the same as yesterday).

Most people unwittingly agree with Malthus, HOWEVER Malthus theories have been CONSISTENTLY DISPROVEN more than any other popular economic theory in history, by history.

Worst case scenario - overpopulation somehow exceeds actual food production resulting in mass starvation/famines. Amartya Sen points out that famine's historically are not the result of a shortage of food per se, but of access to food - food pricing issues.

Whether it was the great Potato Famine or the Ethiopian crisis of the late 80's early 90's, you may be surprised to find that many countries undergoing a famine are NET EXPORTERS of food. The fact that livestock and grain were being shipped to Britain by the Irish during the Potato Famine remains a sore point between the two national identities.

Put simply, people starve because they cant buy food, not because there isn't enough. This should intuitively make sense to you, if you grew up in the 90's you would have been made accutely aware that the dinner you couldn't finish would save the life of some malnourished african kid by your parents always eager to instill a deep sense of guilt in their children for the crime of being alive.

Furthermore one has only to consider your gym membership also, what kind of society do we live in where we consume so many calories that we have a whole industry dedicated to burning the excess off?

Yet dickcunt organisations like 'Sustainable Population Australia' act as if we are blindly stumbling into some situation where the population will lead to a breakdown in society. The easiest thing to point to is water.

Yes, resources are limited. Except as a thought exercise one should just walk outside at night and gaze up into the universe and consider how much economic activity is required to consume ALL the resources OUT THERE in space.

There is no catastrophe being faced by an increase in Australia's population. The average Australian utilises 7.2 hectares of resources in their life (their eco-foot print) the average human being's foot-print is 1.4. We have plenty of footprint to share. Don't be greedy.

But the conclusion to this section is this: There isn't much evidence to suggest that the supposed adverse effects of population increase are real.

The Emmigration Question

Ultimately what yanks my crank when Abbot presses population(racist) issues and Rudd cowardly capitulates and Sustainable Population Australia lecture people on 'closing the boarders' is that the priveledge of citizenship is so one-eyed.
That is they are perfectly capable of recognising citizenship as a priveledge (not a right) when it comes to bestowing it on people from across the seas with funny coloured skins.
But of course it is a right when applied to gang members. Not a priveledge but something that is literally taken for granted. The population problem isn't a problem for 'our' children, nor is it a problem for 'us' who were here first.
This is racism pure and simple, gang behaviour. Dividing the world into insiders and outsiders.
So most people think it sensible to deny citizenship to illiterate unskilled migrants who aren't fleeing any real or percieved danger.

Why not avoid double standards and deny/retract residency from Australian born people who fail to attain literacy or any tradable skills? They have access to public education whereas many migrants never did (hence the desire to migrate here and secure a better future for their children and grandchildren).

I'm not suggesting this be the case, but I just point out. Anyone who argues there are too many people somewhere (even at a party) are never including their own presence. They are always invaded, and have some god given right to stay that is unquestionable.

Fucking kill yourselves you priveledged spoilt cunts. Ultimately you are a kid with a whole chocolate cake complaining about other kids coming to the party.

Rights and Wrong

Why do we have rights? Well surprisingly John Stuart Mill the big utilitarian, in his book on Liberty talks about something called the 'Tyranny of the Majority' that is something that is popular, but is also wrong.

For example, Timmy has $50 and 9 other people have nothing, they can all vote and the democratic consensus (9 votes yes, 1 vote no) would be that Timmy can be deprived of his property and his wealth redistributed.

Many would argue that this indeed is the population debate, that new Australian's will deprive existing Australian's (or whoever) of their property. THIS IS NOT the population debate. Those new members of the populace are simply given the right to operate in the market system. At most they can draw on the social safety net, but unskilled migrants (namely refugees) constitute such a minority of immigration anywhere that the consequences are a literal drop in the bucket.

No, Timmy being democratically deprived of property is tyranny of the majority. Put simply you can't vote on what is right and wrong. Now what IS right and wrong is a subject of great debate, for me the best explanation can be found in 'the selfish gene' or evolution to describe right and wrong behaviour. But rights exist to protect you from popular misconceptions.

For the population debate there is a particular set of rights of concern: Human Rights.

Oweing to the impotence of the UN, that is an inability for the UN to enforce it's Universal Human Rights they haven't as such had to be censured or corrupted or ammended. Thus precisely because nobody listens to the UN, they have immense value in what they say because nobody bothers to distort their message nor heed their admonitions. They are simply ignored.

But if the UN criticises you, YOU ARE THE BAD GUY. (admittedly at the local/program/administrative level the UN has its own track record of corruption). The UN has criticised Australia for it's refugee policies in the past. Specifically Temporary Protection Visa's (which achieved nothing but aggrevated misery for the uncertain holders) and mandatory detention and mandatory detention of children.

They are violations of UN human rights and these rights exist to protect human beings everywhere. Not Australian citizens vs. everyone else, but everyone. You, me, everyone.

What goes around comes around

Right now we are signing landmark deals with China and everyone is patting themselves on the back.

Imagine in ten years time that China decides that it would be simply cheaper to invade Australia and seize our resources than to continue trading with us.

This would not be unusual, after all a democratic freedom loving state like the US or Britain have not shied away in the past from taking just this course of action.

Suddenly you have sold the shirt off your back to an indonesian with a boat hoping to turn up one day on the shores of Japan for a better life. Then see how much you like 'sustainable population' arguments, how much you applaud 'mandatory detention' and 'temporary protection visas' while the Japanese beauracracy takes it's sweet time deciding whether you will be processed or shipped back to China-Occupied Australia.

I don't mean to make villain out of China. It could just as easily (or with difficulty) be America or hey, a suped up version of the Netherlands sick of our foot draggin over Carbon ETS or Carbon Tax or Carbon rationing.

All Resources are seized...

The most poigniant speaker was the representative of the first Australians. The Aboriginal Elder of the Wurundjeri people's who looked quite young and spoke about how great it was to welcome them to Australia, particularly those fleeing danger and tyranny to come to a place like Australia.

To see somebody who wasn't legally recognised as a human being until a few decades ago, whose oldest living culture was decimated by European Invasion welcoming people to Australia and how great it was to see the different cultures represented amongst the kids on the streets of Victoria is simply powerful.

If a person whose life and standing in society has been greatly eroded by an actual and long history of (European) population growth can welcome new Australians, so should everybody.

Conclusion

We may live unsustainable lives, but picking some 'sustainable' number for our population is folly. Largely because it ignores the basic fact of wealth distribution. Depriving the wealthiest 1% of Australians of their property and shipping them off to places unknown would free up far more resources than picking on the 'tired, hungry and poor'.
Migration enriches communities it does not impoverish them, unless our systems are designed to isolate, impoverish and alienate new migrants.

A simple start to ending the racist debate of 'population' which is really 'our gang feels our turf is being threatened' couched in psuedo-scientific language, would be to make attendance at citizenship ceremonies mandatory (in the same way voting is). If people could see for themselves how truly joyous and special these occassions are, and how filled with Good-Will a room can be, this debate would not exist.

But why stop there? I'd put an end to the Ovarian lottery, and simply make it mandatory for people to Earn their Australian citizenship. That is attend the ceremony and make the pledge just as migrants do when they apply for citizenship. Even an anarchist like me would do it, just out of practical necessity. But I'd appreciate the distinction that I was not born 'Australian' but an individual, and I may even appreciate the institution, the words, the lines that make a country more.