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 > Democracy has evolved, now environmental protection needs to evolve > Comments

Democracy has evolved, now environmental protection needs to evolve : Comments

By Eric Claus, published 18/1/2018

Similar to the development of democracy, population stabilisation measures like reducing immigration and removing tax breaks for more than two children, requires the consent of the full community.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It's a pity that common sense hasn't improved along with the understanding of science and technology. Understanding something is one thing; applying the knowledge usefully is another altogether. Each generation, supposedly smarter then the previous, has got sillier and dumber.

Democracy grew up to 50 years ago until the cultural Marxists decided enough was enough. Since then, it has been on the wane, with all indicators suggesting that it probably will not last until the end of this century. Eco-mania, multiculturalism, licensing homosexual relationships, unrealistic and unnatural ambitions of females and the feminisation of males, politicisation of police and military, self-serving, career politicians all these things will kill off democracy.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 18 January 2018 10:15:01 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
Nothing like that has happened before. Doesn't mean it can't, but like our better angels, suppressed by those currently in power.

We don't have to pay more tax, just that everyone within their means pays their share of a communities burden. And goes for families large and small.

The interests of struggling families and others are better protected by raising the threshold plus a flat tax rate everyone pays. The latter eliminating bracket creep, all current avoidance and tax compliance costs.

A 15% flat tax minus average compliance costs,
would return around 7% to the average business bottom line, which would mean an effective tax rate of just 8% for business.

The best way to stop the use of coal is to offer something vastly cheaper, that industry will prefer! That something is, Thorium cheaper than coal and demonstrably so.

Yes the demonstration was a long, long time ago and we'd have been further along but for a clearly corrupt President, pulling the funding plug.

The fact that thorium is carbon free does not detract from its ability to outperform coal and hydro economically! Neither of which can claim a potential $00.1.98 PKH as the median. (economist Robert Hargreaves)

In an land a dry as this one, all our effluent needs to go inland and to essential agriculture. But only after producing our entire industrial and domestic gas needs. It can be done, but particularly with $00.1,98 PKH, which will insure it can.

Special vested interest politically active to see it'll never ever happen. And to hell with the economy and the Australian people?

Were this not demonstrably so, things would be very different, instead of suppressed or verboten.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 18 January 2018 11:06:51 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
Population control is the start of oppression. Other solutions are needed to be explored, before we succumb to that option.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 18 January 2018 6:55:21 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
Not_Now.Soon: How is net zero immigration, for example 70,000 out and then 70,000 can come in, and no tax benefits for more than two children born after say 1 January 2019, the start of oppression?

We need to pursue the other options as well as trying to stabilise the population, if we truly want to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren.

Right now we have a government that is aggressively trying to increase population with the support of the opposition and the greens. Just being less aggressive would be a start, and nothing even close to oppression.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 18 January 2018 7:29:41 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
To Ericc.

The article counted China's one child policy as a success. But I don't know the success it had. I know that after the policy, girls became abandoned as babies because parents wanted a son. And because of this both international adoption of Chinese daughters grew, as well as a distorted population of more men then women. The effects of the policy I think are less then successful.

Immigration control, that's one thing. So perhaps I should have rephrased my wording. Population control through policies that restrict the family size will have oppressive effects, and should not be supported. If nothing else it might increase abortion rates due to those wanting to have at least one boy.

I think teaching responsible family sizes is better then laws to enforce family size. Change the culture and the laws won't have to be made to harm liberties.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 18 January 2018 8:11:18 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
Not_Now.Soon

When the one child policy is viewed through the lens of a country like Australia it seems very cruel. When it is viewed through the poverty and oppression that was daily life in China in 1978 it can be seen as an important improvement in the lifestyle of the average Chinese person.

The poverty level in China has decreased from over 60% to less than 3% today ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China ). Without the "one-child" policy (it never really was a one child policy) there probably would have been 400 million more people in China today, much worse pollution and no where near the economic growth and prosperity.

We don't want to have to do something as drastic as the one child policy in Australia and we don't have to. I don't see changing the tax and welfare laws as "Laws to enforce family size." You can still have as many children as you want, you just don't get a tax deduction.

If we stay on the same high population course worldwide, that we are on now, we will have a much more pollution, more refugees, more congestion, higher prices for food and energy, worse soils, fewer natural areas and fewer wild animals. Stabilising the population isn't the only thing we need to do but it is absolutely critical or we won't be able to sort out the rest.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 18 January 2018 8:58:19 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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