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 > Cost of living just the symptom > Comments

Cost of living just the symptom : Comments

By John Coulter, published 12/4/2012

Living costs are rising faster than inflation because of a failure to deal with the underlying causes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
I wrote:

< Surely our future as a nation and the quality of life of us all therein and the quality of our environment, are a WHOLE lot more important than the extent to which governments might impinge upon our personal freedoms >

You replied:

<< The problem with this is of course that you pose the two sides as being mutually exclusive >>

No, not at all. I could have levelled the same criticism at you when you expressed your bottom-line question: “how far are you prepared to let your government rule your life, and make laws about what you can and cannot do?"

I’m surprised that you level this obviously incorrect criticism at me. Of course government intervention in our lives is not mutually exclusive from quality of life / sustainability / population policy.

<<…the only possible implementation of your policies is through a command-and-control structure that subjugates individual will… >>

Really?? Absolutely not at all.

The greater the population becomes, the more out of balance the demand and supply-capability will become and the more agitated the populace will be. It is under this scenario that governments would have to move decisively and implement ever more restrictive laws.

You see Pericles, you attribute a mean highly restrictive world to me if I were to get what I want – a stable population within a sustainable society. I completely can’t see that.

It is surely exactly the opposite – if we continue to get what you apparently want; rapid growth until it is blindingly obvious that it can’t continue, we will end up with a highly restrictive governmental regime…for sure!!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 19 April 2012 7:28:27 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
You are still looking at it through your population-control-at-all-costs lens, Ludwig.

You ask:

>>...what about the copious evidence that it cannot continue?<<

Your "copious evidence" is no such thing; it is just speculation. Speculation that starts with your assumption that population must be controlled at all costs. And the reason for that assumption is that you continue to insist that there are only two options: enforced population control or "rapid growth". You cannot accept that, just as we have done in the past, we can grow our population numbers organically in line with our ability to support them. Which is a purely economic equation, and one that we can measure daily.

>>What about the sensibility of erring on the side of caution if we are not sure whether this country can support a growing population?<<

Why is that a sensible course of action? If the cure turns out to be worse than the disease - which is my principle concern with your ideas - there will be no turning back. The sensible approach is to wait until there is genuine, irrefutable evidence that we are exceeding our carrying capacity as a country, before imposing draconian legislation to stop people breeding.

Because I'm afraid that is what it amounts to. The only weapon you have to control the population numbers in this country is to apply legally-enforced sanctions.

Which, I notice, you avoided to address. Your argument seems to be limited to "highly restrictive governmental regime now, or later".

I'll take my chances on "later", thank you.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 19 April 2012 8:57:57 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
Pericles,

From the ABS figures, approximately half our population growth is coming from net immigration. The rest is from natural increase, although a fair few of those births would be to recent migrants. I haven't been able to find the exact figures. The natural increase is entirely caused by demographic momentum, as our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976.

Demographic momentum occurs when a population that has been rapidly growing moves toward stabilisation. If the young adult generation is much bigger than older generations, then there will still be more births than deaths, even if family sizes are small. Here in Australia, the natural increase is predicted to continue at a decreasing rate until some time in the 2030s, after which the growth will stop and the population will begin to slowly decline without net immigration or measures to encourage a slightly higher fertility rate.

The bottom line is that we don't need to do anything about fertility or restricting people's right to have children in any way. Fertility is taking care of itself. Unless you believe in open borders, however, governments must set immigration numbers.

Australia probably could support a much larger population, at least for now. Just force the average person down to a Bangladeshi standard of living, don't worry about the environment and long-term carrying capacity, and accept that large numbers of people will starve if we have a really nasty long drought. We on the other side are concerned about the environmental and quality of life issues, and feel no compulsion to cram in the maximum number of people on the minimum standards of living. You are a confirmed city person and don't see how much many of the rest of us dislike the deterioration in quality of life that has been occurring as a result of population growth - crowding, paying a fortune for housing, losing our gardens, etc. We are also concerned that future carrying capacity could be a lot less - if we can't get the phosphate to put on our clapped out old soils, for example.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:28:29 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 are still looking at it through your population-control-at-all-costs lens, Ludwig >>

Pericles, you’re wildly off-track here.

Firstly, my bottom line is the achievement of a sustainable society. Population stabilisation is but a part of this.

Secondly, you are hung up on the notion that in order for us to achieve a stable population, some enormously draconian and restrictive policies would need to be introduced. This is entirely wrong.

I’m not chasing population control in the way that you are thinking about it. And indeed for us to achieve it in this country, very little in the way of government intervention would be needed.

The most important thing can be done with the stroke of a pen, without any new laws being introduced – simply reduce immigration to about net zero. And it doesn’t have to happen I one hit, it can happen progessively over a series of years.

Beyond that, some financial incentives/disincentives to slow down pop growth in Sydney, SEQ and perhaps some other resource and infrastructure-stressed cities / regions would be in order. But this is just an extension of the control that governments already exercise by way of approving urban developments in some areas and making sure other areas remain undeveloped. It would not involve more laws restricting our freedom. At least, not to any significant extent.

And it is TOTALLY within the role of government to control population size and distribution in this manner.

Hey, I’m with you when it comes to fighting against unnecessary government intervention and restrictions in our lives.

But again, I think you are completely misfocussed if you are worried about governments imposed significant new restrictions upon us in order for the country to reach a stabilised population.

And again at the risk of rerepeating myself (but it is such a vitally important point); if we remain addicted to rapid continuous growth, THEN we will DEFINITELY be suffering a much more restrictive governmental regime… and a much more lawless one as well, as governments will really be struggling in vain to control a much-increased level of discontent in our society.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 20 April 2012 9:58:36 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
Ludwig
You're spot on in your last paragraph. The more people, the more restrictions. And what we have to face in a world of diminishing resources is the prospect of social breakdown as people fight over food, water, petrol etc in order to survive. And that kind of fighting brings on repressive policies from government/police/army.
Posted by popnperish, Friday, 20 April 2012 10:24:16 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
Cost of living increase the symptom of ever increasing taxes (ie GST, carbon tax, compulsory superannuation etc). These have and are being introduced constantly to raise revenue and keep everyone in the rat race, thus perpetuating the system.
The system initially consisted of income tax, however the wider community started to open their eyes to concepts like fiscal creep so government had to find other ways to rob you of your money.
Posted by phooey, Friday, 11 May 2012 2:28:28 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

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