Who will you vote for? Australian political parties (4 Viewers)

[katie tully]

Oh my. I think she should have paid maternity leave, then when the child goes to school etc she can go back to work. What are you talking about? You basically asked the same thing as me - How is she supposed to support the child? Did you actually read my post that you quoted. You don't make any sense.

Maternity leave only works for up to something like, 3 months full time or 6 months part time pay.

What do they do for the next 5 years before the kid goes to school, eh?

 

[katie tully]

because we fucking need babies! for chirst's sake. it's already been said 5000000 times.

and besides, if a woman has a baby for the sake of having a baby, we've a duty of care to provide for that baby because it isn't its fault that its mum's a douche.

No we don't?

We can barely sustain ourselves, let alone repopulating at rapid rates.

Food shortage man, give it a google.

 

[katie tully]

We don't need babies. The world is overpopulated. Babies from other countries can be adopted and immigration can increase and we'd be doing the world a service.



That's true though.

Tully still hasn't dealt with the fact that irresponsible mothers are going to have babies anyway.

It's not the fault of the babies that their parents are stupid.

It also costs more in the long run when the babies grow up in destitution with almost no chance of becoming a productive member of society.

I don't need to touch on retard mothers. Chances are if they're a douche bag, they don't have a job anyway, so the issue of paid maternity leave is completely irrelevant to them.

I don't know how this became a 'well tully didnt touch on this' argument. I was merely pointing out that paid maternity leave is a farce, and should not be forced upon businesses as a law.

If women want to have children, they should implement means of support before they choose to do so. If they go and have a child with full knowledge of the inability to support the child and herself, then they can fuck off and get their ovaries removed.

People seem to think that children are a right. They're a god damn responsibility, and I don't understand why people think it's everybody elses responsibility to look after it.

 

[Graney]

Yes but with that argument comes the problem of overpopulation. Australia cannot really support a much larger population can it?

Flannery: Really because the ecology of Australia is so different and so unique. Land size really has very little to do with the number of people you can support on it. Witness the Antarctic which is larger than Australia, and no one's suggesting in could even support a million people. The tiny island of Java which is very, very rich and fertile can support a hundred million. But Australia's ecology is very, very limiting.

Q: What do you think the ideal population of Australia should be ?

Flannery: Well, my personal estimate is that's probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million. But the great tragedy for the nation is that we don't know the answer to that question. We've never asked it sensibly. I may be proven to be wrong, but I don't think I'm going to be greatly wrong. The answer may be 20 million, but it's certainly not going to be 200 million.

 

[boris]

Flannery: Really because the ecology of Australia is so different and so unique. Land size really has very little to do with the number of people you can support on it. Witness the Antarctic which is larger than Australia, and no one's suggesting in could even support a million people. The tiny island of Java which is very, very rich and fertile can support a hundred million. But Australia's ecology is very, very limiting.

Q: What do you think the ideal population of Australia should be ?

Flannery: Well, my personal estimate is that's probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million. But the great tragedy for the nation is that we don't know the answer to that question. We've never asked it sensibly. I may be proven to be wrong, but I don't think I'm going to be greatly wrong. The answer may be 20 million, but it's certainly not going to be 200 million.

So in reality we should be trying to limit births to keep the population steady until the ageing population starts dying, leaving us with a smaller but more sustainable population?

 

[Lentern]

Yes but with that argument comes the problem of overpopulation. Australia cannot really support a much larger population can it?

Are you joking? We're the sixth largest country with a 52nd largest poplulation. 21 million is nothing, within my lifetime I expect us to top 100 million, we are one of the worlds more tolerant countries of migrants, we are peacefull and free making it a desirable place to raise a child, in terms of having the natural resources to support the country the only issue is really water and once we start recycling that problem will be dealt with, and any scientific body will tell you that we will have to sooner or later and heres the deal maker, we want to be important. Australians love to think of Australia as irrelevant and a country of Australia's population can't be, they can't raise a big enough GDP to be an economic power, even if we wanted it we would still struggle to be a military power due to the limmited number of able bodied personel that we could afford to commit to the military and really how else does one become a player?

Considering how organised our economy is and how resourcefull our land is the government would lick their lips at the idea of a 60 million man country, and really so would the people. Australia's covetted place on the world stage will come through population increase.

 

[Lentern]

Flannery: Really because the ecology of Australia is so different and so unique. Land size really has very little to do with the number of people you can support on it. Witness the Antarctic which is larger than Australia, and no one's suggesting in could even support a million people. The tiny island of Java which is very, very rich and fertile can support a hundred million. But Australia's ecology is very, very limiting.

Q: What do you think the ideal population of Australia should be ?

Flannery: Well, my personal estimate is that's probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million. But the great tragedy for the nation is that we don't know the answer to that question. We've never asked it sensibly. I may be proven to be wrong, but I don't think I'm going to be greatly wrong. The answer may be 20 million, but it's certainly not going to be 200 million.

Flannery is talking from an environmentalist perspective, six to twelve million would be ideal for the environment, enough people to cultivate it without consuming it.

 

[katie tully]

lol

 

[Graney]

Flannery is talking from an environmentalist perspective, six to twelve million would be ideal for the environment, enough people to cultivate it without consuming it.

Yes, and 60 million would be a disaster. We don't have the landscape required to support a population sufficient to make us a worldpower. Better to be small, efficient, with a high quality of life, like switzerland.

Environment isn't something we protect just for the abstract value of it existing for it's own sake. Even small environmental changes have human impacts. 60 million is too much.

 

[boris]

Are you joking? We're the sixth largest country with a 52nd largest poplulation. 21 million is nothing, within my lifetime I expect us to top 100 million, we are one of the worlds more tolerant countries of migrants, we are peacefull and free making it a desirable place to raise a child, in terms of having the natural resources to support the country the only issue is really water and once we start recycling that problem will be dealt with, and any scientific body will tell you that we will have to sooner or later and heres the deal maker, we want to be important. Australians love to think of Australia as irrelevant and a country of Australia's population can't be, they can't raise a big enough GDP to be an economic power, even if we wanted it we would still struggle to be a military power due to the limmited number of able bodied personel that we could afford to commit to the military and really how else does one become a player?

Considering how organised our economy is and how resourcefull our land is the government would lick their lips at the idea of a 60 million man country, and really so would the people. Australia's covetted place on the world stage will come through population increase.

Yeah cool idea. Water is a massive issue that will not be fixed by just recycling it. Especially not with a population of +30million. Then there is the issue of food. There is already a massive food shortage in the world, and with an increased population, Australia will be hard pressed to ramp up its food production beyond what its already at.

 

[katie tully]

Desert basil, desert.

 

[boris]

Oh thats without factoring in slideys predictions on a billion percent drop in annual average rainfall in the wheat belt

 

[scaredytiger]

Considering how organised our economy is and how resourcefull our land is the government would lick their lips at the idea of a 60 million man country, and really so would the people. Australia's covetted place on the world stage will come through population increase.

I'm the people.
And I dont want a 60 million man population.

Our land really isnt that resourceful. Have you, by any chance, looked at a map of Australia in your entire life?

Theres a fucking huge load of desert in the middle of our country. There are no main rivers that penetrate central Australia.

Until you've lived in the country, and you've seen why it is called "sunburnt," shut the fuck up about increasing the population.

 

[Lentern]

Yeah cool idea. Water is a massive issue that will not be fixed by just recycling it. Especially not with a population of +30million. Then there is the issue of food. There is already a massive food shortage in the world, and with an increased population, Australia will be hard pressed to ramp up its food production beyond what its already at.

Food will be addressed with genetic modification, water recycling will be a massive help, You can't limit a population it is not an option. Our standard in living will drop yes but it's absurdly high anyway. Even if we were to contain our poulation through birth control and immigration control tosay 25 million then what? We go along our merry way in an isolated bubble as the rest of the world combats or crumbles?

We will populate and we will rise to the challenges as our renewable resources are depleted, we'll get more rainwater tanks, we'll recylce water, we'll find other coolants to stop water being wasted so dramatically in industry. We'll solar panell roofs, we'll genetically modify crops to grow faster and bigger but we aren't going to curb a population to any number. It may not happen in my lifetime but Australia's population will pass 30 million, the 50 million, than 100 million, then 200 million and it cannot be stopped, instead of worrying about delay tactics how about some pursuit of genuine solutions.

 

[Lentern]

I'm the people.
And I dont want a 60 million man population.

Our land really isnt that resourceful. Have you, by any chance, looked at a map of Australia in your entire life?

Theres a fucking huge load of desert in the middle of our country. There are no main rivers that penetrate central Australia.

Until you've lived in the country, and you've seen why it is called "sunburnt," shut the fuck up about increasing the population.

I don't have article at my fingertips but I saw in the paper a few weeks back crops that through genttic modification can grow using a fifth of the water their natural counterparts require, that's one way we'll grow things. The other is by using the desert to not grow things, off the top of my head I can think of solar pannelling it but i'm sure the scientific minds at HQ have dozens of things they can do with empty kilometres of land with blazing son on them 12 months a year. Heck if nobodies living there we could use it to dispose of Nuclear Waste, I'm sure some countries would pay a fair bit for us to take it off their hands. Honestly use your imagination the options are endless.

 

[scaredytiger]

I don't have article at my fingertips but I saw in the paper a few weeks back crops that through genttic modification can grow using a fifth of the water their natural counterparts require, that's one way we'll grow things. The other is by using the desert to not grow things, off the top of my head I can think of solar pannelling it but i'm sure the scientific minds at HQ have dozens of things they can do with empty kilometres of land with blazing son on them 12 months a year. Heck if nobodies living there we could use it to dispose of Nuclear Waste, I'm sure some countries would pay a fair bit for us to take it off their hands. Honestly use your imagination the options are endless.

so, um, now we want to genetically modify our crops?
and deposit nuclear waste?

sounds real healthy.


also, just because the desert cannot sustain cities doesnt mean there arent communities there, dumbfuck.

 

[katie tully]

I'm still loling at him for thinking that environmental issues are faux pas or something, and we can just ignore the fact that the Earth is in dire straights.

LOL AUSTRALIA IS HUGE, IF IT REACHES 1,000,000,000 BY 2031 ILL NAME MY KID BATMAN!

 

[Lentern]

so, um, now we want to genetically modify our crops?
and deposit nuclear waste?

sounds real healthy.


also, just because the desert cannot sustain cities doesnt mean there arent communities there, dumbfuck.

Genetic modification in many cases is a perfectly safe process that has been trialed, tested and is only prevented because of these intellectual spivs who've read too much Huxley and Orwell. As for Nuclear Waste no I don't see it as the most desirable option but it is an option which beats doing nothing with the boundless land.

And finally I'm sorry but these communities of sixty or so people may have to make some small sacrifices for the betterment of the continent as well as the world, it's hard I know for them to move to areas where they will enjoy a higher standard of living when the only perk is massive economic growth, more efficient utilisation of natural resources and an increase in standards of living for thousands. I know it's so unfair.

 

[Lentern]

I'm still loling at him for thinking that environmental issues are faux pas or something, and we can just ignore the fact that the Earth is in dire straights.

LOL AUSTRALIA IS HUGE, IF IT REACHES 1,000,000,000 BY 2031 ILL NAME MY KID BATMAN!

I never said the earth was looking good but how is roping it off from the rest of the world helping anyone but the 21 million who are allready here? As for 2031 I plan to live well past then and I said 100 million not a billion.

 

[black_kat_meow]

Because everybody looooves eugenics!

And population ageing, too, how awesome is that?

Fairly sure is obvious I wasn't serious.