Pelican, I responded to your claim that the Chinese one child policy
was a disaster. From the Chinese perspective, 300 million less mouths
to feed, with that much less strain on the environment, has clearly
not been a failure. The foreign wives didn't replace all those
people.

Of course human rights were trampled on, that is how China runs
itself.

The second point was a separate issue, one of saving resources.
Many resources such as metals etc, are and can be recycled. As
their value increases, the more they will be recycled. Market
economics will see to that. But some of the Greens for instance,
think that we should ban air conditioners. Why on earth would
we want to do a silly thing like that?

Life is not fair and never will be. Resources will land up being
used by those who can afford them, not by some quota allocation
for everyone on the planet, in the name of fairness.

MindlessCruelty, "So invite them in and be in control of that with planning, for there's too many of them to fight.
And if history has taught us nothing else, it should be that people will take what they need if it is denied them long enough."

If you happen to see Dick Smith's interview of Australia's most respected soldier, General Peter Cosgrove, a professional we definitely know is batting for us and will give an independent opinion, you will heartened and reassured to find that he doesn't agree with your dismal scenarios. Look at Population Puzzle.

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/

General Cosgrove does not see the menace that you see. He dismissed the view that a larger population provides a superior fighting force through numbers and he was confident that our security is best placed in a smaller, well equipped, professional force. Populate or perish is bunkum. Populate or else jealous hordes will take it from us is also bunkum.

Cornflower, thanks for the link, as I hadn’t seen the program.

However, the crux of the issue was only mumbled at the beginning, and then avoided in the rest of the program…words to the effect of, ”…population growth is important in a Capitalist system.”

Though I totally agree on a global approach to population control, while the globe is governed by Capitalist enterprise(s) we are well short of realistic solutions that won’t be ugly, or require radical change in attitudes and thinking.

Issues mentioned in the program;
Property prices…it stated that immigration puts pressure on property prices. Yes, while government doesn’t release more land, it does. But developers want a return on their investment, and property value must steadily climb. But again, with better and more controlled planning, property values can be made more affordable but more land released, still controlled, but not so stringently has it has been, which has caused our property values to sky-rocket.

But if we’re talking about sustainability, then maybe what we should be talking about is building underground, rather than above ground.

Losing farmable land….yes, that’s true while the land that is released for development is farming land. So release land that is not desirable for farming. Or go underground.

Increased pressure on infrastructure…the most pressure placed on infrastructure is the fact that it is a political football…one government spends more on education, health and roads, and the next one comes along and rapes them. There’s no planning and what expansion occurs, happens too late and in the interests of some big business, not community. Or because community on its rare occasion comes together united on a cause, and something is done.

Infrastructure should be a percentage of GDP with bi-partisan agreement, and not used as political footballs.

There used to be government departments called Town and Country Planning. Not anymore. Bring them back.

TBC

Funding an aging population… Make it law that a person’s income from their very first job until retirement is 12-15% of their income so that their retirement and health needs are funded, rather than people spending every dime they have and then relying on a pension…”because I paid taxes, I deserve it.” Because you paid taxes, means you earned an income, and should have saved some. Taxes are for infrastructure, and shouldn’t be for retirement. We should all be self-funding. This would free-up billions in tax dollars alone, while making retirees financially independent.

Peter Cosgrove…fundamentally, I agree with what he says. However, if I might put forward a possible scenario…if China and the US come into dispute, we can bet it will be over resources, and both of them have a large reliance upon littl’ ol’ us. You know, there’s a strong possibility in that scenario that a war between them could be fought on our turf. It would be nice to know that we had a population and economy large enough to be a deterrent of its own to larger forces, for at the moment, we rule nothing of our own, as we aren’t powerful enough to do so.

The Bangladesh comparison; If we as the First World hadn’t spent so much time denying the Third World of electricity, and therefore industry, power, growth, infrastructure and an economy, they wouldn’t be Third World. But by keeping them Third World, enabled The West, China, and the USSR when it existed, to control and compete for resources. But now they’re joining in the game and the hunt. When we consider that America alone consumes 25% of the world’s oil production, we can start to see the real pressures of a few billion more people wanting live as we do, when only 270 million people consume that much oil alone. Impossible. Why not compare population density with Japan, another industrialized and technological country, rather than a Third World country? Bangladesh was not a fair comparison.

TBC

! see two choices…find and get everyone to agree with another system other than Capitalism, or be smart and plan for growth and expansion, rather than reacting to expansion pressures too late. Sydney has doubled in size in the last 20 years, but there hasn’t been a dam built in probably 40-50 years. Since I can’t see Capitalism going anywhere quickly in the foreseeable future, I suggest that a few of the measures I mentioned above worthy of consideration.

From Crackcup’s opening post:

<< With the Election drawing closer, and Population Sustainability …. becoming an important voter factor for both sides …. >>

Well, those bloomin Greens have just made a deal with Labor, in which they set out a number of concessions that Labor has agreed to.

Do you think that there is anything about population growth on that list?

Nope, not a razoo!!

The Greens had the greatest opportunity ever to steer Australian politics towards a stable population and a sustainable future….. and they’ve BLOWN IT!!

They’ve just demonstrated that they are not really interested in this all-important political imperative.

Bob Brown’s recent good comments on population were apparently just hot air, uttered because the issue has become a mainstream discussion and NOT because he believes in population stabilisation or a lower rate of growth or anything of the sort!

I am utterly appalled.