The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Population growth is bad for business > Comments

Population growth is bad for business : Comments

By William Bourke, published 26/10/2010

Increasing the population increases the pain for all of us.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Population growth is not just bad for business, it's bad all round. The morons who will inherit the earth will find out but unfortunately they're dragging the thinking minority down with them.
If business wants more business then why doesn't it focus on quality rather than quantity. Just imagine if business got into education. How much could be achieved by exploiting the intelligence of the young rather than dumbing them down. Let business take on education and it won't need population growth.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 8:18:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“We need to understand what the country can handle as a population and then plan our economy to suit.” (nairbe).
That is a very difficult ask: there are so many factors involved, and circumstances are continually changing.
The country is not handling very well its current 22.5 million people together with its 1.8 per cent rate of increase. It would be logical to work towards stabilizing numbers, and then attempt to adjust society so that it has cohesion with our natural and social resources. The policies of past and present Governments have been the reverse - at least 27 years of increasing numbers in order to cater for ever-increasing numbers. Economic activity has increased - but benefits have, per-capita, been diminished; as has natural capital.

There is no justification for any policy of facilitating population increase until stability is assured in agriculture, fishieries, forestry, energy, water supplies; and until social capital in areas such as provision for education, health, housing and infrastructure ceases to be in decline.
With socially responsible politicians in charge, it might be possible to rein-in the population gallop to halt at 28 million, and see how the country handles that stabilized number. On present indications - not very well.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 8:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know how our government seems unable to fund hospitals, schools and roads, and this is with our population failing to produce enough children to replace ourselves...

Have a look at this map of world poverty... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Basically the more red, the more poverty... But the surprise is that it is a map of FERTILITY - how many children are being born.

In Australia articles like this a complaining that we can't afford schools, roads and hospitals for our pretty stable population (we are suiciding by not having enough kids, but importing people through immigration). We can't afford population growth.

Imagine the problems of funding these essential services if the population was not declining, but trippling every twenty years... no wonder they are poor. Worse than schools and hospitals, they somehow they also need to find more farmland too!

Too many children means poverty, too few children also means economic colapse.

On the other hand, why is the 'aging population' such a bad thing here in Australia? Surely it means we are living longer, and isn't that a good thing?

The problem is not an 'aging' population, it is that we are suiciding... failing to produce enough kids to replace ourselves.

Here we need to give tax reductions for kids so middle class parents can afford the kids we want. Those on welfare are pumping out kids like there is no tomorrow because of the welfare bribes to have lots of kids. Meaning that single mums are pressured into having more kids than they can look after. And the incentives make sure that few get married, as this reduces their welfare paynments.

Also making divorce fairer, because Australian men don't want to become dads... because they are afraid of having their kids stolen by divorce lawyers
Posted by partTimeParent, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 9:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where is Pericles? Usually in articles like this he jumps in right at the beginning and bags the hell out of the outrageous idea that population growth is a problem. I miss him, because at least he cares enough to actually have a view.

What astounds me is the responses from Greenies who say "it's not the population, it's the greedy lifestyles of the Western societies that causes the environmental damage. You shouldn't blame the developing countries with their exploding populations, it's not their fault".

Well of course you cluckwites, it's BOTH, and if you can't see that you've got an unfortunate cognitive problem. BOTH population growth AND ever-increasing consumpiton of resources per person add up to more and more demands on the environment. Sure, if you use better technology like solar the damage will be reduced, but if there are more and more people it will soon overtake any improvements in technology. Is that a nose in front of your face?

Come in Pericles please, I miss you. Andrew Bartlett, too, if you're willing to open your mind - which I doubt, I suspect you're being paid off by wealthy developers to white-ant the Greens just as you did the Demos.
Posted by Thermoman, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:25:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talk of population always makes me think of the Eagles song The Last Resort, and its closing lines: "You call someplace Paradise, kiss it goodbye".

What concerns me about "big Australia" is that we cannot possibly maintain what we have while engaging in massive population expansion. If, by the time I die, Australia has a population greater than 35.5 million (a middle-of-the-road estimate from the ABS: [http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0]), we would be naive to believe we would be talking about the same country as the one we live in now. Obviously, I would be naive to endorse stasis - technology, environmental conditions, local and international affairs will all change the nature of our world. But, parochial as I may be, I kind of like things the way they are.

What would this new country look like? We need to slot those 13m people in somewhere. While we could engage some sort of conditional immigration (spend your first three years in regional Australia, or something), I suspect that people would do their time then hit the city where the jobs, money, culture and facilities are. I don't blame them. While city life is not for me, I can't imagine too many people setting out to start new lives in Mt Isa (not that there's anything wrong with the Isa): the people I know who have headed over there have done so to earn some cash, get a start in life and then head elsewhere. The result, then, is increased sharing and reduced access to the wonderful things our cities and their surrounding areas have to offer. Sydney Harbour? Too crowded. St Kilda? Alright if you get there early enough. Gold Coast? Well, even the little 'pockets of peace' will develop to accommodate the extra visitors. All the things people come here for will crumble through the very act of their coming.

I know this is selfish (and possibly even hypocritical) thinking: people, my family included, come from a lot worse to revel in what Australia has to offer. I'm not against immigration per se, just against growth for the sake of growth itself.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:41:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
colinsett,
That is pretty much what i was saying. The fragile environment of this country is with the current methods of energy production, transport, infrastructure and community structure well over populated. We should be aiming to reduce or at least stabilise the population while we get the infrastructure in place to support what we have. Changing our polluting ways would also make a big difference.

We complain about the murray darling and the farmers are worried about lost production but some of the best and most reliable farming land in this country is being subdivided to accomodate tree changers who are vacating the cities for the immigrants. We need to stop the whole cycle, Sydney used to be a fun city with a usable harbour. Now it is an overrun hell hole and the harbour so over used and over regulated that fun is something you can tell the kids about.

Yes Thermoman, the greedy lifestyles of the population are a major part of the population issue and of course we can support more if they were not so destructive. The other side is that the larger populations create social and community disharmony with divisions forming due to lack of understanding and compassion.
Posted by nairbe, Wednesday, 27 October 2010 6:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy