Rudds vision of population

When He stated recently on the 7.30 report that; “I make no apology. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing.”

He exposed for all to see that he is not the man to lead Australia into the future.

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

Australia is already starting to suffer from overpopulation and it’s effects.

The river systems are on the brink of destruction.

The transport system is verging on the chaotic and there is not enough time or money to replace it with an efficient rail system.

We are dependent on a vastly polluting network of coal-fired power stations instead of building a new alternative energy system.

Money that should be spent on developing this is instead diverted into so called R & D by the coal industry to develop mythical “clean coal”.

Water is in ever decreasing supply and only by building power hungry desalination plants can the major and some minor cities be supplied.

Agricultural land is vanishing at an astonishing rate to be converted into yet more housing.

Housing is also in short supply due to the pressure of a rapidly increasing population.

How can there be any benefit to a population liable to increase by 60% in the next 40 years, when it is going to reduce our standard of living drastically?

If the country follows the Populate at all costs program, it will eventually bring disaster.

I would urge the ALP to seriously consider a replacement for him, before he does any more damage.

Sarnian,

"When He stated recently on the 7.30 report that; “I make no apology. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing.”

He exposed for all to see that he is not the man to lead Australia into the future."

Agreed but the other side will do the same because it suits the big end of town and because the ethnic lobby is now too well organised and strong to resist. Any mention of reducing immigration numbers and there is a barrage of criticism from predictable sources.

The only hope is to create enough awareness in the community of the risks and downside of large immigration to cause a swing of votes (preferably in the Senate) that is larger than the number the ethnic lobby can threaten the major parties with.

I totally agree Sarnian. Rudd is NOT the right person to lead this country. This has become patently obvious. He's GOT to go at the next election.

It is of the utmost importance that we impress on Turnbull that the path he and the Libs MUST take is the 'sustainable future' path, of which the stabilisation of our population is vital.

Numerous times on this forum I have implored Turnbull to set himself up as a very different alternative to Rudd by taking on the challenge of genuine sustainability. Sure it is a daunting ask, but I reckon that if he did this, he'd garner a huge amount of support from the general community and when they could see that he was genuine, he'd have enough support to win power.

This political direction simply HAS to happen in the near future. So if Turnbull doesn't do it, it will be up to his replacement.

Surely the Libs can see that if they just continue to be a shadow of the incumbents, with essentially the same policies, then they haven't got a hoot in hell of winning power.

I agree, sarnian, Kevin Rudd, for many reasons, is not the person to lead Australia into the future, though I'm afraid he seems to see himself more and more as the natural contender for the role.

I don't think it's the ethnic lobby, Cornflower, as much as the business lobby who's pushing for high immigration levels. Business wants a trained up and on tap labor force plus it needs an ever expanding population to keep consumer demand high.

As pointed out by sarnian, it's all totally unsustainable, but unfortunately both sides of politics seem locked into this mindset of continual growth at all costs.

Our humanitarian obligations need to be honoured, but apart from that, immigration in my opinion should be wound right back to minimum levels.

I agree with sarnian - however, the ALP has always advocated population growth and Rudd is simply parroting the party line. Unfortunately, the Coalition is, if anything, even more 'growthist' in its philosophy - so anybody who thinks they can convince Turnbull (or Hockey or whoever) to run on a sustainable population is seriously deluded.

The only mainstream political party to advocate a sustainable population for Australia is of course the Greens.

<< Population boom 'a recipe for tragedy'

September 18, 2009

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Bob Brown has taken issue with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for expressing enthusiasm for a growing population.

The Federal Government has released revised estimates showing Australia's population will increase from 22 million at present to 35 million by 2049, boosting 2007 estimates by more than 7 million people.

Mr Rudd said "it's great'' from an economic perspective that Australia's population was growing as other nations experienced a decline.

But Senator Brown said Mr Rudd needed to explain how population growth would affect economic prosperity.

"This population boom is not economic wisdom, it is a recipe for planetary exhaustion and great human tragedy,'' he said. >>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26092455-12377,00.html

They want a big Australia for National Security reasons - people from the over crowded nations up North will eventually charge into Australia if they see all this room we have.

But what Australia should do is keep the Australian population as homogeneous as possible and around 20 million people. We should develop a stock pile of nuclear weapons, all problems solved, no nuclear armed country will ever be invaded (at least not till the end of days).

If Australia's Prime Minister was prime minister of a men's legislature in leadership with the Prime Minister of a women's legislature the nation's population of whatever size would be sustainable.
patriarchy is poulation imperfect.

Australia's population would be sustainable if the Prime Minister was prime minister of a men's legislature in leadership with the Prime Minister of a women's legislature. patriarchy is population imperfect.

I was thinking about the age-old legend of the Inland Sea, achievable according to some by the irrigation of salt water canal/s from the Bight to the central salt lakes which if I recall lie below sea level in some places., although there appears to a current discussion on this topic on another forum which I only just found after a quick search:

http://ozideas.wetpaint.com/thread/1226866/Australian+Inland+Sea?offset=80&maxResults=20

The evaporation/precipitation in the Dead Heart and the long-term possibility of fertile soils to feed and water an evergrowing population of Australians.

Now though, I'm intrigued by Whistler's suggestion, for as a Western Australian, seccession and division of the continent into two separate nations is a fairly natural geographical progression. Seccession by gender could save some overland transportation costs, and I'd have to agree that the separation of economic budgets along gender lines would be a bonus IMHO.

When our population was around 11 million in the 60's most struggled to own a home, eat out or own a TV. Now with a population of around 21 million most have a choice of food daily, have more than one TV in the house and have a holiday most years. Drrr. The more people we have in this nation the higher standard of living the vast majority have had traditionally. The doomsdayers in the 70's complained that we were over populated. What a load of lies so many swallow when it comes to this nation being overpopulated. The perverse Greens just hate people. Kill off a few animals if you really believe we don't have enough food and water. Of course we have an abundance for many more yet. The Greens are the first to scream when we reject illegal immigrants or adopt sensible selective immigration policies and then the first to preach their doom and gloom human hating dogmas. If we are a smart country we will continue to grow by natural means and importing grateful migrants. As our national anthem goes (you get the drift - only the legal drift)

Let's face it- ALL of Labor, Liberal and the Nationals would push this idiocy on behalf of big business and particularly the property developers. Rudd, Turnbull, Barnaby, the "Small l Liberals" would jump into bed with them at the drop of a hat.

The sooner we put ALL of these clowns at the bottom of the ballot where they now belong the sooner this will be averted.

Instead, you can vote for parties that clearly show a reluctance towards rapid population growth.

Feel free to google Australian political parties, and check out some policies.

Does anyone know what happened to my earlier
post on this thread?

Did anyone see it?

I think I'm losing my mind - I could have
sworn that I posted it, read it, and now
it's gone.

Why?

Foxy,
Same here. I posted on a thread in the articles section and I just went to see if there were any comments and, like you,it is gone.

I assume it is to do with problems the website is having.

We may all get withdrawal symptoms after a bit.

Foxy,
The post i am missing is not in my history either, so there you go, i don't know what has happened. Its likely floating around in cyberspace somewhere. I expect the experts are working franticly and up to their elbows in grease.

I tried to get on here several times today without success. Not being able to access OLO is a bit like running out of smokes, as i recall. Is it that addictive?

One thing that may interest you. I just caught the tail of what i think was an announcement,last night, that the government will be making an apology to the 'forgotten Australians' on the 16th November(I think)

huffnpuff will be pleased and i wish them all good luck. I'll see if I can get there for that.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for responding. My previous post is not
in my user file either.

However, I do remember reading it after posting
it, on this thread. Which is a bit strange - that
it did get posted and appeared online on this thread
but now it's disappeared.

That's what I don't understand.

It is good news about huffnpuff though!

Dear Banjo,

I've just discovered another post that's
disappeared from another thread.

Is anyone else having similar problems?

Good post CJ.

Bob Brown is getting a fair bit of media about his opposition to Rudd's manic growthism. Of course he and the Greens should have been doing this years ago, but at least they have finally seen the light...or the dark future that massive population growth threatens to bring upon us.

Now he really needs to develop his arguments and hound Rudd to the max.

And as per my last post, Turnbull needs to seize the moment and start advocating a genuine sustainability paradigm with a stable population of no more than 25 million.

So our esteemed PM is now threatening to withhold billions of dollars from the states if they don't open up much more land in order to accommodate his enormous population growth. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/prime-minister-kevin-rudd-flags-a-federal-takeover-of-urban-planning-rules/story-e6frf7jo-1225791944446

Rudd has no mandate to do boost Australia's population growth rate. The first thing that he did when he won power was to greatly increase immigration. But he hadn't even mentioned this in the election campaign. He is not serving the people. He is not doing what the voters would want. He is not doing what predominating scientific research indicates in terms of the relationship between population growth, quality of life and environment.

He IS doing what the big-business vested-interest lobby wants.

He is not acting in accordance with the principles of democracy. He has GOT to go at the next election.

Ludwig,
Come on old fella, be realistic. The Greens will not continue any sustainable or population/migration debate, except for this one statement by Brown. The Greens will shut up and toe the no comments line, especially as we get closer to election. They rely on Labor preferences to get their Senate seats. So their ideology is put aside.

Turnbull is also bound by the agreement not to comment on immigration matters and why would he anyway, both major parties are in the pockets of big business.

I know you are keen on the sustainability thing, but unless one of the major parties breaks the 'no comment' agreement, immigration or population will not make it as an election issue.

At present you are having false hopes.

Personally Banjo we WOULD sooner see different results if we woke up and voted for a different party, than hope Liberal and Labor (and Nationals and the Democrats) would suddenly grow a conscience beyond their hip pocket and lobbyists.

But sadly that seems EXACTLY the plan everyone seems to be hoping for- hope that one of the major parties 'magically' turns into a bunch of nice people so we can vote for them.

Bronwyn

You might read the new OLO article by Joseph Chamie, former former director of the United Nations Population Division that confirms what I wrote:

Chamie: "In addition, powerful interest groups, such as business communities, political elites, ethnic associations and labour-exporting nations, actively lobby and pressure governments for policies that promote immigration and advance legalisation or amnesty for illegal aliens.

....
The benefits derived from these pro-immigration lobbying efforts are considerable for these various groups. ....Government officials and political elites gain from promises of political backing and campaign financing, enhanced overseas influence, greater numbers of supportive voters, prospects of increased tax revenues as well as a larger pool of potential recruits for the military. Ethnic associations also gain with additional members reinforcing their culture, adding to their coffers and strengthening their political and voting clout."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9611

Ludwig, "Bob Brown is getting a fair bit of media about his opposition to Rudd's manic growthism. Of course he and the Greens should have been doing this years ago, but at least they have finally seen the light...or the dark future that massive population growth threatens to bring upon us."

That is just the usual Bob Brown political opportunism and grandstanding - all B.S. - which is NOT reflected in the policies, general and rubbery as they are, of the Greens. Brown is like a weather cock, spinning this way and that.

Cornflower, Bronwyn et al

Remember me?
I'm the one that constantly points out that the parties do what corporation do....they look after their interests first.

As Prof Lawrence pointed out in a recent ABC fora debate.
Democracy ceases in Australia one we vote untill the next election.
This as pointed out by Bronwyn it's 'the golden rule' 'the group that has the gold rules". Democracy ceases once we vote untill the next election.

One wonders therefore why the seeming surprise?

Of course Rudd isn't a super man but neither is Turnbull(or who ever).
Again party comes first.Most elections are in reality a choice between Tweedle compromised and Tweedle more compromised. Its the baggage that bothers me about the Libs.

Neither party nor the Greens (sorry CJ)will run a divisive policy like population control if they hope to be in power. the emotions of the conservatives and generations of religious culture would be too accessible to big business. Who want need unlimited consumption.Which is portrayed as more people= more consumption = prosperity.

In reality this is BS the missing factor is "surplus" without which we simple use more and more resources to stay stationary financially. interest, inflation etc to understand this in context I recommend you watch (http://www.chrismartenson.com)the best quick and easy (no economics knowledge needed) description of how economics works I've ever seen.

The scariest thing he shows is the link between our money system and exponential population growth not just here but WW. He rightly and graphically shows how business as we know it is drive us into a hole we may never get out of (or survive to be dramatic) [my emphasis].

Due to the magic pudding syndrome (ever increasing consumption of energy and resources in a finite world). It boils down to we are living on debt, anyway look at the site and watch the lessons they run from a few minutes to 12 minutes each

Cornflower: << That is just the usual Bob Brown political opportunism and grandstanding - all B.S. - which is NOT reflected in the policies, general and rubbery as they are, of the Greens. Brown is like a weather cock, spinning this way and that. >>

That's just untrue, Cornflower. You've never actually looked at the Greens' policies, have you?

Bob Brown's far from perfect, but he's distinguished among Australian politicians for his courage and consistency over time, among other virtues.

That was just an ignorant anti-Green spray, wasn't it? I hope it made you feel better.

C J Morgan

Well yes as a matter of fact I did look at the Greens site prior.

Now what about you show everyone the specific references in the Greens policy to support your contention it is "the only mainstream political party to advocate a sustainable population for Australia is of course the Greens."

Since you are the expert on Greens policy, What exactly do the Greens propose to do to achieve that 'goal'? Fact is, there is no chance they will countenance any wind back on immigration at all is there?

It is all waffle and hot air, right?

Cornflower - have a look here: http://greens.org.au/node/792

<< Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population. >>

<< Australia’s population policy should be determined by its commitment to:

ecological sustainability;
both global and domestic social justice and equity;
intergenerational equity;
multiculturalism;
international human rights obligations; and
decent wages and conditions for all workers. >> Etc etc.

Yes, too general I agree, but at least the commitment to sustainability is there, unlike other mainstream parties. The Greens are the only mainstream political party arguing against the "Big Australia" fantasies of the Laberals.

<< It is all waffle and hot air, right? >>

Yes, that's what your spray seems to be.

C J Morgan

What 'proof' is that? It just more of the trademark personal insults you have gained notoriety for on OLO and the usual general bumpf words, nothing practical and certainly nothing specific on any proposed action, from the Greens.

Any number of the vague aims are competitive and one would think that the Greens would feel obliged to at least offer some definitions and give some weight one way of the other.

As a first cut on the butchers paper by Year 8 students, yes fine, but it really isn't much to go on from a political party is it?

"Ludwig. Come on old fella, be realistic. The Greens will not continue any sustainable or population/migration debate, except for this one statement by Brown."

Ah Banjo, you just want to spoil my fun. I want to hope for a political reality that is in line with a healthy future, rather than one that will steer us towards a major collapse of the quality of life that we take for granted.

"At present you are having false hopes."

I want to live in the real world and hope for a sustainable future at the same time. But alas, I fear that you are right. It is indeed a false hope (:>(

However, as idealistic and dreamy as it may be, I'm gunna continue urging Brownie and Greenies and Turnbully and the Libbies to turn away from their rampant antisustainability preudogreenery and Krudd-imititationary fartarsery and towards a political paradigm of sensible sustainability.

So there!

"That is just the usual Bob Brown political opportunism and grandstanding - all B.S. - which is NOT reflected in the policies, general and rubbery as they are, of the Greens."

Cornflower, I wouldn't put it quite that strongly. I'll give old Bob a bit more credence than that, as being someone with a genuine desire to do the right thing as he sees it and not just a political cock swinging in the breeze!

The main problem with the Greens is that they don't observe their own policies, when it comes to sustainability, and hence to population growth. Bob Brown's biggest flaw, as their leader, is to allow this to happen.

His comments to date are at least heading in the right diection, but they are far too rudimentary and gentle, in relation to the urgent attention that this issue requires.

I'll just point out that Cornflower is the only commenter thus far in this this thread who's tried to derail the discussion with personal invective. "Waffle and hot air" were her words, not mine.

The fact remains that the Greens are the only mainstream political party to have a policy that addresses population sustainability in Australia - albeit too generally, I agree - and their spokepeople have been the only Australian politicians to speak out publicly against Rudd's vision of a "Big Australia".

C J Morgan

More insults from the master! Good one, C.J.

A policy is more than vague, undefined words. What precisely does 'population sustainability mean'? What are the practical consequences for immigration or for women who would like to have children at a future date?

What is the maximum sustainable population, when should it be achieved and how?

Cornflower - you must be a very sensitive little petal if you can find an insult in my posts on this thread. I think you just want a stoush.

I've acknowledged that the Greens' population policy is too general. You need to acknowledge that they are the only mainstream party to have a policy that mentions population sustainability, and that it is only Green politicians who have spoken out against Rudd's vision of a "Big Australia".

Have a nice day, won't you?

C J Morgan

Your behaviour is always predictable - insults and personal abuse then like the typical bully, dog whistle for spineless supporters to indulge in a bit of abuse while you retreat to find some way to bolster your own argument. Beats facts, huh?

It is laughable that you pretend that the mere mention of the word sustainability passes for a policy on it. Bob Brown and the Greens have had years to flesh it out. Plainly the emperor has no clothes.

Like I said Cornflower, you just want a stoush.

Yawn.

Cornflower

"CJ Morgan your behaviour is always predictable - insults and personal abuse then like the typical bully, dog whistle for spineless supporters to indulge in a bit of abuse while you retreat to find some way to bolster your own argument. Beats facts, huh?

Indeed!

.
Brown and the Greens just don't seem to have a clue about real sustainability. They HAVE had years to work it out. Of course it should have been their CORE policy area. It is more important than everything else put together, by an order of magnitude or two.

The Greens have failed us.

OK, so they could make amends. There is no time like the present, given that we have been prompted so strongly by Rudd's 'big Australia' and massive population growth rate. But will they? Or will they continue to mumble a bit in the background, making very weak and generalised noises of discontent, which is basically all that Bob Brown has done so far.

Problem is Ludwig, we have like, TWO parties that care about population sustainability. The Greens and One Nation.
Although One Nation are the only party that actually has a comprehensively thought-out policy regarding sustainable population management, they at present get a woefully low vote- while the Greens currently get quite a broad vote.

I'd at least give the Greens a chance- at least two rabidly pro-growth parties are more likely to be ousted.
But so you know, I am NOT a "best chance gets my vote" guy- ALL parties that I support get a high score on my ballot paper- no matter how small. (the beauty of numbered voting).

There's a thought, Ludwig - why don't you stand as a candidate for One Nation in the next Federal election? That is, if they're still registered as a political party in Queensland.

They have polled very well in your neck of the woods in the past, and I reckon you'd be right at home with them - at least on the basis of the stuff you've been posting here lately.