Nhoj,

It's not about technology alone - like you mentioned. It is about "technological solutions" in terms of reducing environmental damage from our Australian population - which doesn't exist or isn't sustainable at present.

Example: I know of a town where a large re-zoning of land has occurred for more housing in Australia and a new 'old style' power station has been put in, companies will profit and their system isn't environmentally friendly.

Home generation (like solar electricity) which the majority of people cannot afford - is too expensive. So this large housing estate is not environmentally friendly.

Each country worldwide can only sustain so many people environmentally - and in a range of other areas to properly maintain a good standard of living.

People will not just slowly change, because of no choice. Change simply won't be forced, because of survival or because of mother nature doing her job.

I watch SBS world news and see things worldwide. Our world is not balanced. Australia has its own issues. Our government however isn't helping to "balance our planet" when it aims to cut billions of dollars out of our foreign aid budget. It does not enable countries of a poorer nature to 'balance' themselves to a natural state of living.

We need direct action from our community, real solutions for the future and government policies and we need them now.

Nhoj,

You and Runner are a pair. He denies science because it challenges his fundamentalist religious beliefs (evolution, the age of the Earth, etc.), and you deny it because it challenges your belief in unlimited population growth, at least for the foreseeable future. Why should we pay any attention to members of the Australian Academy of Science, the CSIRO, or other people with PhDs in conservation or marine biology, soil science, climatology, etc., all of whom have worked in their fields for years and are up with the literature. These are the unintelligent Greenies. We have the wisdom of Nhoj!

Before you count on unproven technologies, you might consider how people got it wrong in the past.

“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”

Lewis L. Strauss
Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City September 16th, 1954."

Strauss wasn't a science fiction writer; he was the head of the US Atomic Energy Commission. Last I checked, electrical power is still expensive, I am aging at the usual rate, I don't have a flying car, one of my friends is still dying of cancer, and about 1 in 8 of the global population is still chronically hungry.

Yes, we need better management, but if there is an affordable way for an Australian farmer to grow as much wheat per hectare as a French farmer, never mind 10 times as much, without wrecking his land for the future, why isn't one of them doing it? Farmers like money as much as anyone else.

See also why even a free, completely clean, unlimited source of energy wouldn't save us in the long run

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Divergence wrote, "it challenges your belief in unlimited population growth". Ummm, I said no such thing. Unlimited population growth would be a *DISASTER* for planet Earth.

You've totally missed my points, which are "finding suitable technology is *NOT* the problem" and "mankind itself *IS* the eventual solution".

We already possess the scientific knowledge and technology to manage our planet sustainably, even with large overall population increases. So, why is this not actually happening? Because it's not a "technology" problem, it's a *MANKIND* problem. Our species, as I have already pointed out, has behavioural problems .... we invade, fight, kill, intimidate, squabble, comepete, are territorial, we seek domination etc etc etc etc etc. *WE*, via our natural behaviours, are *THE* reason why famines, starvation, poor living conditions etc etc exist.

The problems will continue to exist *REGARDLESS* of whether the Earth has a smaller population or a larger population.

As MANKIND itself is the problem, only MANKIND can be the solution. And the solution is for the behaviour of mankind to alter. I believe that will eventually happen, it's already started, and it will take many, many, many more hundreds of years to complete.

Mankind will only change it's overall behaviours when it's very survival is threatened by those behaviours. That's how the survival instinct works. That's mother nature itself at work. Mankind is 100% bound by the laws of physics and nature.

Nhoj,

I think you might want to read a dictionary.

Sustainable: "Capable of being sustained". So if the majority of people can't afford solar electricity at all, as it is too expensive - at present - how is it sustainable to reduce Australia's environmental damage via solar electricity - with a higher population? It's like saying gold rings exist - and then thinking a person on a low income can afford to buy one. Its not sustainable or real.

If we do have the solutions re population, you still haven't answered my point:

"Australia is the second highest producer of waste per person in the world at approximately 650 kilograms per person and "The average Australian family of four people makes enough rubbish in one year to completely fill a three-bedroom house from floor to ceiling."

You say in terms of mankind changing its behaviour: "I believe that will eventually happen, it's already started, and it will take many, many, many more hundreds of years to complete." How many? It's just your own belief - not a proven fact. So thinking everything will change in hundreds of years - just to make yourself feel better, doesn't apply to me.

Every person living in Australia has an ecological footprint. If you want the levels of rubbish, like mentioned above - you can have that waste put in your backyard. Yes I've started change in my life - but I'm the lone person in the family. We need a balanced population worldwide - and better strategies to reduce our ecological footprint - but I'll be waiting more that a few hundred years for others to take day to day action - in terms of more environmentally friendly living in Australia - unless we change our current 'we must grow' approach to everything.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Yuyutsu, population increase "by womb" has been declining in Australia and all Western countries for decades, so that's not really the issue, is it?>>

Of course it is: there are way too many people on this earth and guess where they all come from...
(they are not immigrants from Mars)

The rest of your post is adequately summarised by:

<<This is *our* society, our air, our water, our space, our streets.>>

I only half agree:

Yes, it is *your* society, yes these are *your* streets and the part of the water which you invested in collecting is also *yours*.
The air, the rest of the water and space itself - are not *yours*.

The word "immigration" is ambiguous. I make a clear distinction between moving into your society and moving into this continent.
You have every moral right to control the former. You have no moral right to control the latter.

This of course is of no interest to you since you already expressed your contempt of morality by stating:

<<then to hell with other people's opinions or desires>>

So I leave it at that - perhaps others who read this and do prioritise morality over selfish desires, may be convinced.

Quote
“Australia's ecological footprint - we must reduce our population intake”

The argument as put is actually a strawman. It implies a simplistic solution to a highly complex question. It associates a problem with the wrong solution, reducing population intake will not reduce Australia’s ecological footprint in anything other than a minor way, nor is it the primary reason why Australia has such a large unsustainable footprint.

The question as to what is the most desirable size of the Australian population does not have a simple answer. Any person living in Australia is going to have an ecological impact, but due to efficiencies of scale more people does not necessarily mean the impact has to be more severe. For example city dwellers actually have a smaller impact than those who live in the country areas.

If Australia wants to reduce its footprint the following actions would be much more useful and relevant:-
Making much greater use of renewable power.
Providing much better public transport.
Shifting much of the heavy transport of goods to rail.
Stopping the destruction and damage to the remaining natural areas.
Controlling introduced species.
More appropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides.