Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
For blowing my cover you are now being tracked by the AFP too chameleon
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Should Australia grow its population to 100 million? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Graney
- Start date
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
Who do you think crunches the numbers on the cost of say global warming? What possible background would a scientist have for calculating costs?
As far as economists and universal laws/truths I would argue that economics is very explicitly about just such a pursuit. Refer to such economic tenents as Supply and Demand, they seem like a pretty universal truth.
And a fundamental concern of economists - and environmentalists (even if they don't know it). Economists are the ones who will calculate the effect that a population of 100million would have on cost of living, standard of living, inflation, etc.
PS: Garnaut is an economist
Economics is concerned with managing scarce resources and unlimited wants... sounds like a pretty good basis for analysising the effects of increasing population (wants) on a strained environment (resources).....My Islam/Asian comment was directed at the fact that it was said that we should not enforce things onto humans, however the poster which trying to force things on specific minority groups.
I consider everyone human beings
On the economists bent thingo; I believe that is a cultural/political skew. With economics you need to look short-median term because conditions change so dramatically over time (it's not about assessing universal truths/laws).
Also you have things like retirement, the sick, disabled, ect. that need to be factored in to be provided for as society gears towards a smaller population (the elderly being the biggest problem, aka baby boomers).
But agri-science/agri-economists, along with climatologists, nutritienists, and some socio-economists would be the best team to analysis the situation. I know you could list a lot more, but the more you include the more authortarian that new society will be. But in the end to disclude economists is a bad thing as lon as you can include the right ones.
Who do you think crunches the numbers on the cost of say global warming? What possible background would a scientist have for calculating costs?
As far as economists and universal laws/truths I would argue that economics is very explicitly about just such a pursuit. Refer to such economic tenents as Supply and Demand, they seem like a pretty universal truth.
And a fundamental concern of economists - and environmentalists (even if they don't know it). Economists are the ones who will calculate the effect that a population of 100million would have on cost of living, standard of living, inflation, etc.
PS: Garnaut is an economist
dieburndie
Eat, Sleep, Repeat
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 971
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
Idiot.
Economics is a science.
Idiot.
dieburndie
Eat, Sleep, Repeat
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Messages
- 971
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
"Scientist" is an extremely broad label. Saying scientists aren't important in assessing the impact of a changing population on scarce resources is ridiculous.
Even if this is true, my point still stands.
"Scientist" is an extremely broad label. Saying scientists aren't important in assessing the impact of a changing population on scarce resources is ridiculous.
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
There's a couple of common mistakes made in these threads
1 is "lol we've boundless plains to share, we can fill it with 200 million people like the USA easy".
Physical space is the least important factor. The USA is hugely different in so many ways geographically. Due to the landscape, they have very fertile soils and relatively good, reliable rainfall. It is impossible to get crop yields like US farmers do in most parts of Australia. Australia is mostly an uninhabitable desert shithole. Even the coastal areas are often marginal. The WA wheat belt is failing hard.
2 is arguments addressing infrastructure concerns. These arguments seem to come from a proposition that, if you have sufficient development and investment, there is no limit to the amount of water, food and fertile soil that can be harvested and exploited. Soil is a renewable resource, but only if you use it with vary careful management. There is an absolute limit to sustainable crop yields. The idea of what constitutes sustainable crop yields for Australian soils has decreased, not increased in the past century. Present Australian farming practices basically have been mining the soils for their mineral wealth. Salinity isn't the only reason we have our whole agriculture industry in crisis, the whole thing needs huge reforms and massive expansion of agriculture is definetly not on the cards for the foreseeable future.
Economics and natural scientists aren't at loggerheads over this, like much of the modern workforce, population management in the 21st century is an issue best met by people from various disciplines coming together, listening to each other and working together. That sounds like hippie bullshit now I've written it, but it's true.
As passionate as I am about this, I get tired of these threads because I'm either refuting basic fallacies or doing a poor rehashing of experts I've read elsewhere.
I've realized I'm coming from a completely different paradigm from most of these HSC economics students, There's a basic illiteracy in modern enviro science thought. Basic truths that I understand are completely foreign to most people posting here, something I find easy to forget with the amount of time I've spent immersed in this field.
My advice would be to go read a book, or I'd suggest if you're interested, take a course in environmental sustainability as one of your electives at uni. With the growth in the environmental sector, you may well find it useful in later employment.
There's a couple of common mistakes made in these threads
1 is "lol we've boundless plains to share, we can fill it with 200 million people like the USA easy".
Physical space is the least important factor. The USA is hugely different in so many ways geographically. Due to the landscape, they have very fertile soils and relatively good, reliable rainfall. It is impossible to get crop yields like US farmers do in most parts of Australia. Australia is mostly an uninhabitable desert shithole. Even the coastal areas are often marginal. The WA wheat belt is failing hard.
2 is arguments addressing infrastructure concerns. These arguments seem to come from a proposition that, if you have sufficient development and investment, there is no limit to the amount of water, food and fertile soil that can be harvested and exploited. Soil is a renewable resource, but only if you use it with vary careful management. There is an absolute limit to sustainable crop yields. The idea of what constitutes sustainable crop yields for Australian soils has decreased, not increased in the past century. Present Australian farming practices basically have been mining the soils for their mineral wealth. Salinity isn't the only reason we have our whole agriculture industry in crisis, the whole thing needs huge reforms and massive expansion of agriculture is definetly not on the cards for the foreseeable future.
Economics and natural scientists aren't at loggerheads over this, like much of the modern workforce, population management in the 21st century is an issue best met by people from various disciplines coming together, listening to each other and working together. That sounds like hippie bullshit now I've written it, but it's true.
As passionate as I am about this, I get tired of these threads because I'm either refuting basic fallacies or doing a poor rehashing of experts I've read elsewhere.
I've realized I'm coming from a completely different paradigm from most of these HSC economics students, There's a basic illiteracy in modern enviro science thought. Basic truths that I understand are completely foreign to most people posting here, something I find easy to forget with the amount of time I've spent immersed in this field.
My advice would be to go read a book, or I'd suggest if you're interested, take a course in environmental sustainability as one of your electives at uni. With the growth in the environmental sector, you may well find it useful in later employment.
Last edited:
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
Or maybe I thought it might have been intellectually dishonest to simply identify economists as scientists and declare debate over?
Or potentially I didn't do it because whilst some economists identify it as a science many do not - and certainly most scientists do not (indeed they generally reject most 'social scientists' as 'real' scientists).
Or, and here's a really complex one, the majority of people reading this thread/in the general public do not view economists as 'scientists' and therefore I stayed within the constrains of the terminology already in use. But I see that you are the kind of brave individual who is able to turn people's perceptions of realtity upside down, woooooo, kudos to you...
Oh my mistake... I forgot....
Or maybe I thought it might have been intellectually dishonest to simply identify economists as scientists and declare debate over?
Or potentially I didn't do it because whilst some economists identify it as a science many do not - and certainly most scientists do not (indeed they generally reject most 'social scientists' as 'real' scientists).
Or, and here's a really complex one, the majority of people reading this thread/in the general public do not view economists as 'scientists' and therefore I stayed within the constrains of the terminology already in use. But I see that you are the kind of brave individual who is able to turn people's perceptions of realtity upside down, woooooo, kudos to you...
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
Yes, I suppose that could be true, so long as a reliable, cheap, large volume of food can continue to be imported in the future. We've experienced global food shortages in 2008, and it's only going to get worse as the population grows substantially in the 21st century, many other countries are facing the same problems we are, with declining crop yields.
If reliable food supplies can be secured for a sustainable future, than it would probably be fine to maintain a constant population or grow the population somewhat. I think it's a bit of a gamble to be relying on cheap foreign food imports to feed our population into the 21st century.
Yes, I suppose that could be true, so long as a reliable, cheap, large volume of food can continue to be imported in the future. We've experienced global food shortages in 2008, and it's only going to get worse as the population grows substantially in the 21st century, many other countries are facing the same problems we are, with declining crop yields.
If reliable food supplies can be secured for a sustainable future, than it would probably be fine to maintain a constant population or grow the population somewhat. I think it's a bit of a gamble to be relying on cheap foreign food imports to feed our population into the 21st century.
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
I think imported food is an unreliable source to feed a population of 20 million or more.
For one thing, we are set to see substantially increased oil prices in the 21st century as the impacts of peak oil start to be felt.
This has major implications for domestic food transport and markets too of course, but if oil prices substantially increase in the future it will have a greater impact on the prices of imported food. Relying on food transported across long distances is risky. What if oil prices rise substantially enough they start to erode the capacity of people on lower incomes to afford food?
You avoid a fair portion of the transport costs if you have a smaller population that can be fed by domestic food sources.
I think imported food is an unreliable source to feed a population of 20 million or more.
For one thing, we are set to see substantially increased oil prices in the 21st century as the impacts of peak oil start to be felt.
This has major implications for domestic food transport and markets too of course, but if oil prices substantially increase in the future it will have a greater impact on the prices of imported food. Relying on food transported across long distances is risky. What if oil prices rise substantially enough they start to erode the capacity of people on lower incomes to afford food?
You avoid a fair portion of the transport costs if you have a smaller population that can be fed by domestic food sources.
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
I agree.... not to live in a state of autarky is foolish - how could we survive a seige by Indonesia??? We need to claim our rightful lebensraum and secure our food supplies.
I agree.... not to live in a state of autarky is foolish - how could we survive a seige by Indonesia??? We need to claim our rightful lebensraum and secure our food supplies.
H@wkeye!
Member
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
rightful lebensraum, hrm that sounds familiar....
Indonesia lay siege to us; with what? I was in the Navy, and the Indonesian military (granted their army is large - but poorly equipped) doesn't even have the capacity to get here, little alone siege us. Rickety wooden fishing boats don't last long against (even out aluminum frigates) our navy....
rightful lebensraum, hrm that sounds familiar....
Will Shakespear
mumbo magic
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,186
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
we should grow our population to a billion so we can do all our own manufacturing
we should grow our population to a billion so we can do all our own manufacturing
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
I won't dignify this with a response. But I still needed a way for everyone else to know that.
Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?
@ Economics as a science:
Economics is a science but can become an art in some areas, although the focus in on the science.
@ HSC Economists being environmentally ignorant
How can someone possibly be environmentally ignorant in this day/age? I mean sure they might not be totally up to date... but I find that argument can only really be made to hermit economists.
@ Importing food:
Depends on the source really, if it's internal growth then maybe importing food is an option but if it's immigration than those people should move to the food belts. Australia can not sustainably support these people, and if there was a crisis, I mean complete crisis then the government may be able to interject with Australian sources to secure food for survival (what if it couldn't even get this?).
@ Manufactured goods
Foodstuffs should require more transport than manufactured goods because they are required on a weekly basis, manufactured goods SHOULD be built to last (but often aren't). Also farms closure to consumption reduce the needs of heavy refrigeration, preservatives and increase what quality controls we can place on our food.
I hope to move to organics (when I have enough money) because I don't think the pesticides/preservatives industry is transparent enough or thorough enough in it's research.
@ Economics as a science:
Economics is a science but can become an art in some areas, although the focus in on the science.
@ HSC Economists being environmentally ignorant
How can someone possibly be environmentally ignorant in this day/age? I mean sure they might not be totally up to date... but I find that argument can only really be made to hermit economists.
@ Importing food:
Depends on the source really, if it's internal growth then maybe importing food is an option but if it's immigration than those people should move to the food belts. Australia can not sustainably support these people, and if there was a crisis, I mean complete crisis then the government may be able to interject with Australian sources to secure food for survival (what if it couldn't even get this?).
@ Manufactured goods
Foodstuffs should require more transport than manufactured goods because they are required on a weekly basis, manufactured goods SHOULD be built to last (but often aren't). Also farms closure to consumption reduce the needs of heavy refrigeration, preservatives and increase what quality controls we can place on our food.
I hope to move to organics (when I have enough money) because I don't think the pesticides/preservatives industry is transparent enough or thorough enough in it's research.