The Forum > Article Comments > The critical election issue: population > Comments
The critical election issue: population : Comments
By Jenny Goldie, published 12/8/2013With one or two notable exceptions, our political parties are not acknowledging that population lies at the heart of most issues.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
-
- All
Posted by Atman, Monday, 12 August 2013 10:17:14 PM
| |
Russia a basket case, Andras? It just passed Italy as the world's ninth largest economy. And even war ravaged Serbia and post communist Bulgaria are well ahead of nations with high population growth rates, and are hardly in the state of decline that you suggest. Further, how do you determine that the circumstances of these nations is all due to population decline?
Were you to look at the stats you might observe the correlation of high population growth rates with poor education and infrastructure and government corruption. Hardly the road to Nirvana. Posted by Fester, Monday, 12 August 2013 10:42:36 PM
| |
It's an issue in Central Eastern Europe, like the laboratory or Petri dish, that is realised by many, inafrastructure, tax/benefit systems, decreasing tax base, declining and ageing populations, what do we do, nothing (that's what many neo cons want)?
Compare headline stat for Russia with Italy does not change undelrying fact, same as Italy has, ageing declining populations... Serbia and Bulgaria, so they have no probem because there are probably high population growth countries worse? Can you share your comparison here? Accordingly, Serbia has about 2 million + dependent upon pensions or welfare and increasing, while there are only 1.5 million taxpayers and decreasing, Bulgaria similar. Hungary too is similar, and like the above remittances and expertise are important from working elsewhere in the EU (or immigrants), as the country slowly evolves, more labour mobility and no borders due to Schengen agreement, may dig itself out of a fiscal hole, but very severe medicine (of it's own making and appealing to nationalist socialist tendencies....). Unemployed in Hungary are eligible for only 3 months unemployment benefits, then it's rely on family and friends, or choose a "work camp", Serbia etc. much the same or worse.... It's why the anti population and anti immigration advocates use strawman arguments, distort headline statistics and attack others (personally) because there is no evidence for their beliefs and claims, population growth/immigration bad, restriction/closed economy good, it's simply a religion for bigots ...... This should not surprise anyone who knows John Tanton and his network who provide the writers' workshops and propaganda material in the US (and internationally), distorting statistics, presenting opinion as fact and flirting with white supremacists, eugenics, debunked Malthusian philosophy etc. SPLC in US explains best re. John Tanton's Network and which parts are deemed to be 'hate groups' http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/summer/the-puppeteer/john-tantons-network Sure the writer of this article recognises some of the groups especially FAIR and NumbersUSA. It's simply bigotry wrapped up in a fancy green wrapper. Posted by Andras Smith, Monday, 12 August 2013 11:47:38 PM
| |
Jenny Goldie "Whether natural increase or immigration makes up the bulk of the growth is not really relevant"
That answer is incorrect. It makes a bloody big difference. Language is the foundation of human society and even wires our brains for life. Growing up in Australia, children learn our dialect, accents, slang, euphemisms, figures of speech, many of which differ even from other English-speaking nations. This will inevitably influence their success in school and work. They know our customs, habits, folklore. They will make no significant demographic change, reflecting the genes and memes of their ancestors. Foreigners will always be a mile behind. Their brains were wired for another language (even other Englishes) and they learnt social "reality" through it. Having human DNA means little. We don't exist or live as a species. We live as ethnicities, as Peoples. Research also indicates birth order is a significant developmental influence. The last thing we want is to discourage multiple births/large families. Do you really want a society of "only child" types? Yikes! If we need to limit population, the first, easiest and most sensible choice should be to limit immigration, an artificial process *totally* under government control. If our political leaders refuse to bite the bullet, the people will inevitably take matters into their own hands. There will be population reduction through civil war. Let's hope it doesn't have to come to that. Let's do it the "nice" way, while we still can. Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 13 August 2013 2:35:35 AM
| |
Jenny, I for one agree that the best times have come and gone.
It is my view that most of our answers for the future lie in a better, fairer and simpler tax system, a transaction tax for example, one that taxes money movements, not income earners. The other problem with population growth is the lack of jobs WE ARE going to experience, especially once the mines become less and less dependent on people, through automation, and that's already happening. So in short, we are screwed, perhaps not in the near future, but the end of our way of life is coming, and this who think that is laughable, as some on this site do, are simply kidding themselves. Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 13 August 2013 11:41:48 AM
| |
Hi Divergence,
So by posting some of the complexities, issues for consideration and algorithms commonly used for the analysis of just a single species, let alone human population sustainability, it is somehow me that is being too complex and taking the debate beyond your comprehension? I guess it is much simpler to reduce thousands of issues down to the four you can cope with? What was it I said about oversimplifying problems so that you could offer oversimplified solutions? Oversimplified solutions for oversimplified people I guess. Aren’t you due back at primary school, lunch break is over. Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 13 August 2013 12:51:24 PM
|
The author quotes Ian Dunlop who himself made a large fortune from being an Oil company executive and is now a peak oil nutter. I am loathed to listen to these "born again virgins" who make money at both ends of the spectrum.
Diversity and fear of loss of species? There have been 5 major extinctions on earth and new species flourished as a result every time. Humans being one of them. If a species is lost (which they aren't very often actually) it is quickly replaced by another in its habitat. Species loss is a natural process and always has been. Its no big deal. The idea that there would be a collapse of an ecosystem because of loss of species is a pervasive myth.
The Population Bomb made numerous false predictions which have been often documented. It beggars belief that this easily falsified Malthusian approach is still swallowed by the gullible.
People now have far better nutrition that 50 yrs ago when there were far fewer people. There is no evidence that we have too many people - none at all. We have less starvation, better nutrition, better standard of living, better medical care even though we have more people. Ehrlich and his fellow Malthusians have been wrong so many times it is difficult to count. Why do people still swallow this stuff?