Should Australia grow its population to 100 million? (1 Viewer)

[Silver Persian]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

Or a baby tax?

 

[Trefoil]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

How do you limit population growth?
Do we adopt China's one child policy?
Cut immigration in half?
Turn away all assylum seekers?
Intoduce an Australian values test that asks you to reproduce all theories of string theory?

Saying OMG POPULATION IS TOO HIGH, GET OFF MY TRAINS is one thing, but how do we solve this problem?

a) Cut immigration (say, 50,000 instead of the current 150,000 to 300,000 per year under Howard and Rudd)
b) The number of accepted asylum seekers make up less than 1% of immigration each year - turning them away more wouldn't make sense
c) Encourage people to have fewer kids - probably the best way would be to advertise a family with one children as perfect, and encourage women to work. You don't need any messy abortion policies like China to slow growth.
d) Think of a way to deal with the inevitable population ageing (we can just ask Japan)

 

[Trefoil]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

*smacks self for kneejerk response to 'Asylum'.* -> Though I do think the dichotomy is slightly unfair, but I can see the benefits in taking those who need safe haven over bob xyz who wants a new life.

I'm short selling you for that.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

Australia's birth rate is below replacement levels currently, isn't it? How do we keep it that way, then?

As others have said, getting rid of the baby bonus is certainly a start. And you know? Make the adoption process cheaper and easier.

 

[Lex152]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

I like the idea of adoption incentive...

Anyway, looking broader you know how we cull kangaroos because if we didn't they would be ecologically hazardous... just an interesting dichotomy.

On a more serious note, do you think we would be able to secure ourselves away from the rest of the world. I mean if we can somehow reduce our population to a sustainable level, whilst the rest of the world doesn't then will we still be able to change our habits. (Not saying we should do nothing, or moderate any action that was created in response to this problem... just saying that these ideas need to be discussed and addressed within a larger community.)

I mean the article said Australia could suport 8-12 Million, that would include the exportation of food stuff/products. Maybe even exporting these products and/or minerals would reduce or soil quality leading to less exports.
But by reducing exports we will lowever our international integration, thus in a global market, our standards of living.

I have a dew ideas, but like most they are too radical, any ideas here?

 

[Lentern]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

Having read up on the issue a bit since a rather arrogant comment or three a little while ago where I suggested that it was going to infinitely grow and that trying to stop it was like trying to cup water and we might as well look to how we'll adress it when it does my stance has changed slightly. I think it will largely be dependant on two things as to how it grows.

How savvy we are in managing our finite resources. Those cotton farms in particular have to go they are in water terms a boondoggle if ever there was one.

The second which is far less popular then being sensible with finite resources, genetic modification. How it develops is a huge factor and it needs to be exploited to no end,

my revised population estimates have us plateua between 40 and 70 million depending on those two factors.

 

[Lex152]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

I don't know much about the problem but I'm interested in where you got 40-70 million.

It would also be interesting to see what kind of population our contry sustains calcualted with the impact of imports/exports...

One last thing. Given that price theoretically represents the forces of supply and demand, I find it weird that the cost of natural resources continue to be low (as there is limited resources, and unlimited wants). As a society we are so focused on the ends of production that we take little heed of the means...
Would people here agree or disgree with increased prices for commodities to sustain natural habitats and improve recycling ?

 

[Graney]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

Would people here agree or disgree with increased prices for commodities to sustain natural habitats and improve recycling ?

It depends. How and why are the price increases enforced? What are the specific practices threatening natural habitats and what are the alternatives to protect them?

Except for a few things like aluminium, recycling is mostly a sham.

 

[Lentern]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

I don't know much about the problem but I'm interested in where you got 40-70 million.

It would also be interesting to see what kind of population our contry sustains calcualted with the impact of imports/exports...

One last thing. Given that price theoretically represents the forces of supply and demand, I find it weird that the cost of natural resources continue to be low (as there is limited resources, and unlimited wants). As a society we are so focused on the ends of production that we take little heed of the means...
Would people here agree or disgree with increased prices for commodities to sustain natural habitats and improve recycling ?

Um...nothing very credible lol. Just took some estimates that didn't factor in increased efficiency, genetic modification and my theory about politicians wanting to preside over the grand economy and yeah just added a bit on the end projections which had us plateauing around 30 million I think.

 

[aussie-boy]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

idk about halting growth, but i think the suggesting of cutting kiddy bonuses is a great way to increase the quality of Australian children

 

[Lex152]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

It depends. How and why are the price increases enforced? What are the specific practices threatening natural habitats and what are the alternatives to protect them?

Except for a few things like aluminium, recycling is mostly a sham.

Mainly urbanisation, open cut mining... any process that destroys natural habitats... I think we can do more than just maintaining old growth forests, why can't we designate areas to create new ones, new national forests.
There has to be an eonomic imperative for either higher density living or human habitats that displace less of the natural environment then we currently do. It'd one thing to increase efficiency, but this usually increases hidden costs.

I think there are already rules for restoring environments after mining companies leave but I don't think funding is provided to fix wildlife dislocation...
This program wouldn't use all the revenue generated from the tax only part. The rest of the tax would be to increase public infrastructure. Since these minerals are a public assest before the land is sold, and these resources are ultimately scarce there needs to be checks and balances to make sure these resources are used efficiently, and not wasted on the latest consumerist craze.
I'm not talking about slowing technological advancement, only providing a dissencentive for inbuilt obsolescence.
This is to determine that their are enough resources for future consumption, by realising we wont be the only generation to need minerals.

Recycling comes under the same heading. By making extraction more expensive we can make sure we recycle more of our product, reducing our ecological footprint on the earth. Because looking at the end-game, our environment is in a constant state of flux, held in balance through the interplay of ecosystems. Ecosystems which we have destroyed year-in, year-out.

And with our current health system and social development I am not sure how an evolutionary response (to climate change) would play out...

I'd like to know why you think recycling (other than aluminium) is a farce?

I hate it at the moment, politicians (ALL politicians) are playing short-game. Taking long term debts for short term gains (votes). We can see this with our current account deficit... this is a huge problem which is being covered up by our capital account surplus (foriegn investment). However, this is unsustainable (and is a huge contributor to the 40 cent drop in the $AU), and will only increase our future accont deficits....

Some don't think we need to sacrifice some of our "lifestyle choices" but I see this as inevitable...

 

[Lentern]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

Mainly urbanisation, open cut mining... any process that destroys natural habitats... I think we can do more than just maintaining old growth forests, why can't we designate areas to create new ones, new national forests.
There has to be an eonomic imperative for either higher density living or human habitats that displace less of the natural environment then we currently do. It'd one thing to increase efficiency, but this usually increases hidden costs.

I think there are already rules for restoring environments after mining companies leave but I don't think funding is provided to fix wildlife dislocation...
This program wouldn't use all the revenue generated from the tax only part. The rest of the tax would be to increase public infrastructure. Since these minerals are a public assest before the land is sold, and these resources are ultimately scarce there needs to be checks and balances to make sure these resources are used efficiently, and not wasted on the latest consumerist craze.
I'm not talking about slowing technological advancement, only providing a dissencentive for inbuilt obsolescence.
This is to determine that their are enough resources for future consumption, by realising we wont be the only generation to need minerals.

Recycling comes under the same heading. By making extraction more expensive we can make sure we recycle more of our product, reducing our ecological footprint on the earth. Because looking at the end-game, our environment is in a constant state of flux, held in balance through the interplay of ecosystems. Ecosystems which we have destroyed year-in, year-out.

And with our current health system and social development I am not sure how an evolutionary response (to climate change) would play out...

I'd like to know why you think recycling (other than aluminium) is a farce?

I hate it at the moment, politicians (ALL politicians) are playing short-game. Taking long term debts for short term gains (votes). We can see this with our current account deficit... this is a huge problem which is being covered up by our capital account surplus (foriegn investment). However, this is unsustainable (and is a huge contributor to the 40 cent drop in the $AU), and will only increase our future accont deficits....

Some don't think we need to sacrifice some of our "lifestyle choices" but I see this as inevitable...

Of course it's inevitable but an ageing population means old people have far greater say then their demographic should in electing governments and as they could cark it any day they vote for a government that will pamper it's citizens like there is no tommorow.

 

[yoddle]

"it's doubtfull Australia can even support its present population: the best estimate of a population sustainable at the present standard of living is 8 million people, less than half of the present population."
- Jared Diamond

Haha i saw the title of this thread and was going to say 'definitely not!' and refer the honourable gentleman to a book called 'collapse' by jared diamond. but i've been beaten to it.

 

[- L -]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

this is possible if climate change/ global warming occurs
all we need is for sea levels to rise so Australia has an inland sea again

and yeah we can go build up inland australia

 

[Iron]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

If it's sustainable, and life always finds a way to sustain itself, why the hell not? It's a beautiful thing

 

[Graney]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

If it's sustainable

All the science says it's not.

and life always finds a way to sustain itself

Does it? How about those mass extinctions... not to mention the current biodiversity crisis.

why the hell not?

The population needs to be sustainable for the forseable future. As ur bible says, we have a duty to be good stewards of the land.

Also, welcome back from your brief hiatus <3

 

[electrolysis]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

100 million ppl on our public transport system = epic fail.

 

[Iron]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

All the science says it's not.


Does it? How about those mass extinctions... not to mention the current biodiversity crisis.


The population needs to be sustainable for the forseable future. As ur bible says, we have a duty to be good stewards of the land.

Also, welcome back from your brief hiatus <3

Science says a lot of things. My diagnosis: more science. I dont like this ugly talk about population control, like we're some farmed animal, pest or disease. Human life is sacred and it is good; these scares to 'control' it are just veiled attacks on life itself by the usual cold and selfish suspects who seek to prevent and end it wherever possible.

Choose love planet earth
Choose life.

 

[nisseltaria]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

I'm not going to comment on morality here.

Does it? How about those mass extinctions... not to mention the current biodiversity crisis.

Mass extinctions occur periodically throughout history when an event triggers massive changes to habitats. We are now that event. Other organisms will develop to fill the niches created by our actions. An example of this would be the organisms that have developed around oil rigs, included in these is a fluorescent orange species of octopus.


Perhaps part of the solution to an expanding population could involve offering free contraceptives. Or a monetary reward for undergoing voluntary sterilisation.

We could even make voluntary euthanasia legal, say for those with intractable or terminal debilitating conditions. We could even allow people to select in advance of developing such conditions what level of quality of life they wish to be terminated at - conditions such as dementia can remove the capacity for informed consent so any such contract would need to be written in advance.

As a last resort, suicide could be actively promoted, or vaccination against life threatening diseases outlawed, we could even cull feral humans in areas where they are breeding out of control if things got really desperate.

Or we can convert to non-suburb based urban lifestyles and pray to the gods of technology.

 

[Graney]

Re: Should Australia grow it's population to 100 million?

Mass extinctions occur periodically throughout history when an event triggers massive changes to habitats. We are now that event. Other organisms will develop to fill the niches created by our actions. An example of this would be the organisms that have developed around oil rigs, included in these is a fluorescent orange species of octopus.

Thanks for explaining concepts in environmental science to me.

suicide could be actively promoted

I like your way of thinking.

I think most of your ideas for population control are a bit extreme and unecessary for the Australian situation. We already have birth rates below replacement levels, so we could stop the population crisis in this country with some pretty simple methods I mentioned here http://community.boredofstudies.org/4011270/post-21.html

Some of your other ideas could be good and relevant on a global scale though