New Zealand comp in planning to replace Super Rugby

That was the most god-awful apology ever. But, apology accepted nevertheless.

Well now you know how I feel Paulo dealing with TWAS, and him trying to pedantically shift the goalposts. He went off on his own tangent for whatever reason. How did we ever get onto this subject anyway?! :stoked:

Funny, I feel the same way TWAS! :silly:

Oh Lord help me and grant me peace and patience. Maybe re-read my comments. I have never commented on emissions in anyway at all, in any post on the roar, ever. Period. I have merely supported the comment 'migration' and 'population growth' not the same thing. Nothing you have said supports that they are universally interchangeable terms. Yes, on the scales and examples you have highlighted, the main mechanism of growth IS migration. I have never contradicted you on that.

It still adds to Australia's carbon footprint. All I'm saying is the mass migration agenda isn't great for the world, and certainly not great for Australia's environment!

No. You just say dumb things that I disagree with.

It's not that simple. Aside from humanitarian migration (which is a tiny percentage), people migrating from developing nations are generally wealthier. They are not the average emitter in their home nation, they would be well above average. Even the poor who migrate have a small carbon footprint well below the average Australian. They take public transport that is already running, and consume little.

TWAS is a contrarian just making up rubbish to be correct. And in fact as I pointed out it DOES mean growth in world emissions as Australia and other western nations per capita are higher emitters than places like China & India: where Australia & NZ receive a lot of migrants. So in fact TWAS & yourself are incorrect: moving developing & third world migrants to first world nations like Australia will no doubt mean these individuals are responsible for more emissions. Even with the widespread use of coal in places India & China they don't match us per capita for emissions.

“Migration and population growth aren’t the same thing.” This was TWAS post you disagreed with. I agree with it. He even further clarified it by, “Migration isn’t population growth in the context of world emissions.” We are talking about different things. TWAS statement is about the broad concepts of the terms, you keep bringing specific examples. The differing points are not antagonistic opposites, they are different fields entirely.

I'm not denying anything Paulo. I'm just pointing out the truth which TWAS: a consistent contrarian on here will argue against but never concede. I'm saying that an economic growth model based on relentless population growth is a bad thing.

Not my Rebels. Red and Black (and sometimes a fugly blue) for life. And the point I was supporting was "immigration and population growth are not the same thing." Yes, I agree, in some areas the main mechanism for growth is immigration. In some areas it is not. They are different things. Immigration is an action, population growth is a statistic, a result of many different actions. All your examples show is that at some scales, yes, the mechanism for growth is immigration, I'm not disagreeing and I don't know why you keep trying to dispute that with localized examples I agree with?

Yes but that's a disingenuous argument from you & TWAS Paulo: "humans on planet earth multiply by reproduction"....sure I'm not denying that at all Paulo. What I'm saying is the massive population growth in nations like Australia & NZ is through large, unnecessary and unsustainable rates of migration, NOT through Australians & New Zealanders rapid reproduction, which as I pointed out, isn't a feature of modern Australia & NZ. In fact the only person I know of this generation who has more than three kids is a guy who wanted a third kid...and ended up with twins! :stoked: Now in regards to the rugby I think they're all setting up national comps, so you'd presumably be able to watch your Crusaders on Foxtel/Kayo...or you could start becoming a local and support YOUR Rebels Paulo! :silly:

I’m not trying to refute you example, i agree with it, but what I am saying is that population growth and immigration are not the same thin. Immigration is the mechanism by which a localized population can grow. But on a larger scale, like Earth, where there is no immigration to earth, earth population is growing solely by reproduction, not immigration. So, therefore population growth and immigration cannot be the same, in all instances. That is the point I was supporting that TWAS said to begin with. All this talk about Australia and NZ is distraction from the original premise. Damn, I wish I had some Ruby to watch, instead of arguing pointless rubbish on here.

To further illustrate my point Paulo. A quarter of a century ago Australia's population was 15 million, today it's over 25 million! So in just 25 years we've essentially created a population increase that is two NZ's worth of people! :shocked: Now that is helped by you kiwis flooding here, but as I pointed out, despite the exodus from NZ to here in that same 25 year period, NZ's population has been increasingly steadily as well! So that implies to me that NZ has a greater immigrant intake per capita than Australia does!

You're not really refuting anything I've said though. The population growth is through mass migration. People in Australia aren't reproducing in large numbers anymore. The woman who raised me was one of 7 daughters living on a farm, whose previous owner had 7 sons! Australians don't have these large families anymore and neither does NZ. You've proved my point exactly!

"The massive rate of population growth is ONLY through mass migration." At a localized level, yes, but those people came from somewhere. In your example, NZ is replacing the people that emigrated with new immigrants. You are not thinking big enough yet, scale out and include the whole World. Also, your example disproves your point: "the fact kiwis (like yourself presumably) are only normally having 2-3 kids" My wife and I Immigrated here = Population + 2 We had 3 kids = Population +3 Population growth through reproduction was greater than immigration. Of course, this example is only true for my family, but it also serves to show you can prove any point you want if you choose the right scale and proportions.

Of course it is TWAS. Per head of population, western nations like Australia are far greater emitters than China & India, where a massive chunk of our migrants come from these days

Yes, but NZ doesn’t feel those effects as they pursue the same mass migration policy. Apparently the demographic of Chinese & Indians are through the roof in NZ now from what I’ve heard? So presumably the amount of NZ citizens who move to Australia should see a population decline in NZ, but that isn’t the case, as NZ’s immigration intake is possibly at a far higher level than Australia’s? NZ’s population has grown to around 5 million now, and that’s even when taking into account the aprox. 15% of NZ citizens (like yourself) living in Australia, and the fact kiwis (like yourself presumably) are only normally having 2-3 kids. The massive rate of population growth is ONLY through mass migration.

Yes, Micko, in this instance on a local scale, I’m migration has grown the local population. However, those people had to come from somewhere. The issue is TWAS is looking at a much larger view. If 10,000 Kiwis move to Perth (conservative I know), then yes Perth population grows. For you at that level, migration equals growth. However, in New Zealand, there are 10,000 less Kiwis, so on that scale the net growth is 0. That’s the difference in scale you two are not aligned with. You are solely looking at the impact of Immigration (coming) but TWAS is also considering Emigration (leaving). When you scale it up to Earth, the ONLY growth mechanism is breeding.

Migration isn’t population growth in the context of world emissions.