The Forum > Article Comments > No reality holiday from this population challenge > Comments
No reality holiday from this population challenge : Comments
By Asher Judah, published 20/5/2011As much as some would like to see a slowdown in the pace of growth, the socioeconomic costs of doing so far outweigh the benefits.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 17
- 18
- 19
-
- All
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 20 May 2011 7:50:07 AM
| |
I congratulate Asher for being one of the first to recognise the importance of urban design and population. It's a confusing article but makes some interesting points.
Much of the anti-people/population rhetoric is based on end of the earth scenarios of Mayan prophesy proportions, eg more people will kill the ecosystem, raise sea levels by metres (good news for lifesavers, bad news for coastal development), induce earthquakes and generally spoil our breakfasts. This is silly and I fear the anti-pops know it. Asher's article might have been stronger is it had concentrated on the anti-capitalism/anti-humanist side of the 'get rid of the people' lobby. I'm not alone in finding it curious that Dick Smith, whose claim to fame was selling millions of dollars of cheap electrical equipment, is now their spokesperson. The problem has never been the number of people. The problem is how to design cities for the next 100 years and the population peaks in 2050 and then declines. If the anti-people lobby were really visionaries (as they claim) they'd look at the problems of building massive infrastructure to cater for more people only to find the numbers falling from 2050-2100. That's a wicked problem. Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 20 May 2011 8:50:00 AM
| |
"Put simply, our miners and farmers require extra workers; our retailers desire additional customers; and our sick and elderly need more carers..."
This isn't a terribly logical argument. In the first 2 cases, they might 'desire' more workers, but do they really need them? Only to cater for a larger market, created by a larger population... In the 3rd instance, there are clearly enough people to cater for the sick and elderly; there are just not enough inclined to do so. Sooner or later, inevitably, we must accept the need to stop growing. At some point in a finite world with finite resources, it will be necessary to say "ENOUGH!". If we really believe we have a right to claim being intelligent, rational beings, surely the day to start planning for that day is today. Posted by Grim, Friday, 20 May 2011 8:50:55 AM
| |
Perhaps Asher should read the next article in today's OLO to get a more realistic outlook on life into the future.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12067 David Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 20 May 2011 9:39:43 AM
| |
Now I understand why some people believe the population can just keep growing if they perceive sustainability in terms of Mayan prophecies. All is clear, I probably would too if I leaned to those extreme interpretations.
However back in the land of reality, increasing populations creates greater demand on infrastructure and has an environmental impact. Unfettered population growth does not have any benefits, despite the growthists belief in greater demand for goods and services (consumerism) as the only indicator of prosperity or the health of communities. Increased skills migration and obligations to refugees could still continue as usual with skills migration based on need. Ideally skills training should be adeqaute to meet demands. There is certainly a valid case for better planning. That is relevant now, not only in consideration of increasing populations. Decentralisation is one way to reduce the pressure on the bigger cities, by creating smaller well serviced regional cities but so far there has been only talk on this, not much action. There needs to be flexibility in any population plan to adjust to changing conditions but ideally populations should not just be allowed to grow invincibly into the future without carefully considering the negative impacts for the many rather than the positive impacts for the few. Posted by pelican, Friday, 20 May 2011 10:21:02 AM
| |
Asher Judah is a Research Fellow of the IPA, so it's no surprise that he follows the IPA line that what's good for business is good for you and me. (A notion which was long ago discredited.) Ludwig's response was succinct: "Oh phoowey! Any benefits are far outweighed by the negatives."
As with the arguments about climate change, there's a disconnect between the proponents of growth, and the anti-growth worriers. That is, that growth advocates like Asher Judah are implicitly and explicitly political. The IPA is an explicitly political lobby group, supporting the notion of free market capitalism. Of course there are irrational people on both sides of the argument, but by and large, the opponents of growth are supported by good demographic, social, and environmental science. And, as with climate science, there is no way that one can infer the politics of a soil scientist, a hydrologist, or an atmosperic physicist, because they are concerned about human numbers and environmental degradation. One has to read Asher Judah's article as a political document, and look elsewhere for a scientific (or even humanitarian) view. Judah's penultimate paragraph is chilling: "The public must keep an open mind towards innovative solutions such toll roads, infrastructure bonds, road privatisation and planning, transport and construction industry deregulation to better manage our long term growth. By harnessing the natural strengths of the private sector, government will be better placed to leverage the best outcomes on behalf of the community." Posted by nicco, Friday, 20 May 2011 12:18:13 PM
|
Oh phoowey!
Any benefits are far outweighed by the negatives.
Come on, we’ve had very rapid population growth for a very long time…. and where has it really got us? Can you say that the quality of life in this country is better than it would have been if we’d had, say, a net zero immigration rate since 1980?
No you can’t!
And when you factor in our future wellbeing, we are much worse off than we would have been.
What do you think continued rapid population growth is going to do to Sydney and Melbourne? Is it going to make them better places to live?
Whatever the benefits of importing a constant huge supply of labour might be, we’ve GOT to get our heads around the absolute need to wind it back, and gear the country towards a stable population and a sustainable future.