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 > General Discussion > Save them or same us

Save them or same us

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Balancing humanitarian needs with ecological sustainability is arguably going to be the toughest thing we have to do this century.
Already we have climate-change deniers suggesting that reducing carbon emissions would be denying prosperity to poor nations without electricity etc. etc.
While I hesitate to put all my faith in technology, in reality it is the only desirable solution: we will have no choice but to make use of technology that allows us to live in currently uninhabitable regions, and to grow food in currently unproductive areas. The challenge is going to be avoiding the mistake that has been made with technology so many times in the past: solving one problem just to create two or three more.

I think there is a medium-term need to reduce Australia's immigration intake, as long as we have potential food, water and infrastructure shortages. But longer term we may not have much choice but to accept refugees from ecological disasters of one sort or another. Trying to keep them out will be not only largely impossible, but if it damns millions to certain death, a moral outrage. Further, I wouldn't assume that just because we have to allow millions of refugees in that they will be here permanently: once here, Australia can lend all assistance possible towards finding and building new homes for these people, as close as possible to their place of origin. This may well mean radical solutions such as building floating cities where now-under-water islands used to be (this is an option I see The Netherlands already taking - by 2050 most of its residents may well be living in floating housing).
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:00:27 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
"Balancing humanitarian needs with ecological sustainability is arguably going to be the toughest thing we have to do this century."

Thats why I posed the question.

I have to agree with Ludwig. Its sad but true, the easier we make
it, the more will flood in. We have clearly seen that in Europe.
Reality prevails, Australia cannot solve the world's refugee
problems, but simply make a contribution.

Bob Geldorf may well be correct, ie. that Australia should contribute
more in terms of aid. The question then arises, what kind of aid?

As we have seen in Ethiopia, the Geldorf model of sending more boatloads
of food, does not solve anything, it simply creates more
people wanting food. Perhaps Australia should be so bold as to
defy the Catholic Church and spend aid money and knowledge on
providing women of the third world with family planning, something
that hundreds of millions don't yet have.

So how much we spend is less important then how we spend it. We cannot
deny that constant human population growth is a huge issue for all
of us and for the future of our planet.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:22:33 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
Europe is not comparable to Australia, as refugees mostly reach European nations by land.

The reality is that getting to Australia is already difficult enough.

Yes, some of the harsh programs implemented by the Howard government to deter asylum seekers have been followed by a reduction in the numbers attempting the journey, but I would far rather see that we reduce our regular migrant intake first to give us the capacity to absorb extra numbers, and work more closely with the governments of the source (and stop-off) countries to help ensure that refugees have less motivation to attempt travelling here illegally in the first place. In other words, there are far better ways to solve the problem. We could look to New Zealand, for a start, where mandatory detention is kept to a minimum, treatment of asylum seekers is generally within UN guidelines, and it has yet to be "swamped" by illegal migrants.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 3:44:20 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
Hmm... it seems to me there is a lottt of woolly thinking going on.

Mandatory detention was introduced by KEATING..not Howard.

Wizo says:

>>but I would far rather see that we reduce our regular migrant intake first to give us the capacity to absorb extra numbers, and work more closely with the governments of the source (and stop-off) countries to help ensure that refugees have less motivation to attempt travelling here illegally in the first place<<

Wiz.. just to obtain a 'position statement' from you on this issue.

If Australian troops are in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban (who are the primary persecutors of the Hazara),.. does this fit in with your 'be more involved with governments at the source' suggestion?

It sure does to me, in fact.. I have absolute peace about that. It's about time that 'addressing the source' issues included destroying the destroyer...... After all, we have 2 choices

1/ Do nothing but treat the symptom... i.e. just pick up the damage bill, accept all the persecuted people.. and in time there will be another 'persecuted people' by some other warlord, and on it goes.

2/ Recognize the tru source of the problem, and
a) WARN IT, and if that fails
b) KILL IT. i.e. send troops to do what only an army can do and should do. (See Romans 13:1-5)

Now such a situation raises the very philosophical problem opened by Yabby. "Save us...or save them"

How about we change that to "Save us BY Saving them from evil in their own backyard"?

One more thing Wiz...don't you consider that reducing our normal immigration intake (which is skills based mostly) and taking in more 'country shoppers' will by any chance encourage MORE country shoppers? Specially when the word gets out.



Cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 4:16:24 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
Yaddy hit on key point with her questioning of ‘balance’.
Terms like balance (fairness & compassion) sound nice but can mean whatever one wants them to mean.

In the aftermath of a mega disaster, a 20m intake may well be considered by many of the most ‘moral’, as fair & balanced, especially since Aust convicted as it is by their ‘per capita’ measures, would be damned as holding prime responsibility for such a disaster.

The Green movements advocacy continues to be too one dimensional.
• They are very loud and active about CO2 emissions’ - (I suspect it’s easy & PC to blame the West) but do not show any where near the same militancy re population controls.
• Further, they usually ridiculed initiatives outside the Kyoto framework which are aimed at cleaning up existing processes - largely it would seem, because they’re outside of the Kyoto square.

And the tacit messages in a lot of the Greens literature is:
• The Third World communities may build in the most inappropriate of places & if it gets flooded, it’s all a climate change problem, &.
• The Third World communities may have as many children as they desire, but if times turn sour and they starve, it’s all a climate change issue.

The population issue is not just about curtailing growth rates -it should be about cutting existing numbers.Most countries are overpopulated -their numbers are too high to sustain when times turn adverse. The tragic irony is that when some like Western Europe, by default or design, reduce growth -they are flooded by Third World immigrants , most of whom- - are environmentally less committed -as in, for every one you abort we'll have four.
Posted by Horus, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 5:26:38 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
Yabby's right... the best aid is boatloads of condoms and info about the desirability of smaller families and how to plann for them, with incentives not to breed.
We need such a program in Australia too, as our sustainable population is around ten million or less. When there are about 5,000,000,000 fewer people on the planet, things will start to improve -- but not before.
This whole posting is a bit suspect. The obvious object of the original posting was 'Greens-bashing'. The writer took one contentious issue out of a complete manifesto that is basically excellent, and damned the lot of them. Not an admirable approach.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 6:14:39 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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