You dont seem to understand my point at all. This is very strange given the profound understanding of all things you seem to have. I am a great fan of capitalism. I merely made the point that if population growth produces no net per capita gdp growth, then any benefit derived by some necessitates that others will pay. That would make such derived benefit parasitic. People pay in many ways: infrastructure costs, traffic congestion, and environmental degradation to name the main ones. And with housing demand exceeding supply capacity currently, high housing costs are causing adversity amongst society's disadvantaged.
And before you become so set against the idea of an Australian welfare state, you might like to consider what would stand in its place. You might even like to read some Dickens, or at least a biography of the man. Why Dickens? Because he grew up at a time when the 'poor laws' were in force in Great Britain. Basically, these laws worked on the premise that welfare creates poverty, so dont have welfare. Australia's current welfare system reflects what people thought of the alternative.
I have no problem with technology either. After all, atomic weapons keep a much better peace than great armies ever could. Technological development is the main contributor to human welfare. In contrast, population growth in Australia today makes no net contribution.
My concern with your view of science is that it seems political, or religious, in that it will always deliver to those who believe. Your comments would also suggest that you believe science to have good and evil components. Science only seeks to understand, and it is through understanding that technology has advanced and humanity benefited. Remember Thurlow, science defines, religion and politics decree. What do you do?
But I guess that none of this is new to you, is it, Thurlow?
