Australia & Population

[scuba05]

So as you can probably tell, iv just watched Dick Smith's doco on population growth, and i would have to say, he has hit the nail on the proverbial head.

I do believe that Aust, and indeed the world, needs to implement controls to stop this spiraling growth. Our world has a finite amount of living area, and finite resources. We cannot sustain our current ways.
The problem is, as DS said, no-one is game enough to raise the matter. It is about time that someone has stepped up, and im glad it is an Australian of such a high caliber that will demand action, and who is persistent enough and has enough pulling power to get change.

So what did we think of the doco. Who agrees? who disagrees? who doesnt give a crap either way?

Anyone who missed it, it is availiable to watch on ABC iView, http://www.abc.net.au/iview/

 

['Ross]

Couldn't really care what Dick Smith thinks....but certainly our major cities don't have the infrastructure or plans in place to cope with increased population.

Catching a peak hour train in Sydney in Melbourne is a nightmare, every time I've driven around Sydney it was awful, and Melbourne's eastern suburbs are pretty woeful in the car as well. Some areas really are on the brink of being totally crippled.

I plan to live in Melbourne in the future, the thought of population increasing a lot more concerns me a fair bit actually, I guess as long as the suburbs I like stay the same and I have an easy commute to work/places I like, the rest won't worry me too much.

 

[RCOH]

There are more people in LA than in Australia. Hell, the UK has 60 odd million people in a land mass the size of Victoria.

I think Australia can handle a few more people.

 

[adman]

Yeah I watched it - and couldn't agree more.

It seems that population control, like SO many issues today, are just mentioned during the lead up to elections and then nothing is done for 3 years... Rudd just contradicts himself everyday, Julia and Tony are just saying broad statements about it but nothing is actually getting done.

It really will take somebody to make a harsh plan that might not appeal to everybody, but that will work. Politics in Australia, and the world for that matter, is just s**t because nobody can think beyond the 3 year term that a party is in power.

I think the person who steps up, makes some solid plans that work and will be able to face the criticism, and possible loss of their position as PM/ a minister, but actually do something half decent for this country will be the person who will hopefully stay in power for a lot longer than the 'tennis players' that we have now, who just push the agenda onto the other side of the net.

Of all the rich people in Australia, I think Dick Smith is one of my favourites - the fact that he puts his money and powerful position to good use, rather than squandering it on crap.

Did anybody see the Q and A debate after it? John Elliot was going red like a lobster with rage, and as was that other developer. Dick took all the criticism like a champion and THAT is what will sway peoples minds - often not what is the background of their argument but the way that they present it.

Wow... what a ramble. Pretty much all of the above is my opinion, so don't take it too seriously.

 

[adman]

There are more people in LA than in Australia. Hell, the UK has 60 odd million people in a land mass the size of Victoria.

I think Australia can handle a few more people.

People are seriously misled by the size of countries in comparison to their population.

Are you suggesting for one second that Victoria could hold the 60 million people that the UK has? I'm English, and I know for a fact that if there were 60 million people in Victoria it would be shredded - the compactness of the UK is only possible because of the climate.

Many times on the documentary they said that bangladesh had the same size as Tasmania - remember that Tasmania is about 70% protected and so you're actually looking at an area that is 30% the size of Tasmania - to make the statement correct you'd have to compare 30% of the population of Bangladesh.

Also, lets say Victoria COULD hold the 60million that the UK has. Would you want that? Would you want Melbourne to sprawl over an entire state?

Australia is unique because of the space we have - why not keep it that way?

 

[RCOH]

Approx 90% of Ausralians live in 10% of the land mass. Why not use another 20% of the land and accomodate another 38 million people (based on above numbers). We'd still have 70% of our "space" available.

 

[adman]

Do you want that though? I certainty wouldn't?

Clearly I believe in a smaller population - but can't people see that we're coming to all sorts of environmental crux's in this century - climate change, oil running out.etc. etc. I would have thought that as a planet, we should be trying to reduce our effect on the environment, and hence, reduce our growth which will increase that effect?

 

[Jimass]

You also have to remember how much of Australia is desert, and the fact that many parts of Australia is struggling with water and other resources as is.

 

[DJninja]

Australia's used up most of it's live-able land and what's left is farmland. Of course we can sustain some population growth but do we really want massively congested cities and the problems that are associated? We should be aiming for limiting population growth through things like controlling immigration.

The doc was over the top but what else is going to get peoples attention.

 

[NCR600]

A good mate of mine, who was a founding member of the "Australians Against Further Immigration" party (he resigned when the racists got involved), scouted around the bush for a big, white, cockatoo feather to send to Dr. Tim Flannery when he recanted his statement about Australia being able to sustain no more than 10 million.

He sent it to him over 10 years ago now.

While I totally agree with Australia only being able to sustain a limited number of people, I also believe the Liberal Party, and the 'other Liberal Party's 'bleating about "stopping the boats" to be dog whistling of the highest order.

If they wanted to be serious about reducing immigration they'd ban Poms, Kiwis, the Irish, and North American academics from coming here.

 

[Purt]

While I totally agree with Australia only being able to sustain a limited number of people, I also believe the Liberal Party, and the 'other Liberal Party's 'bleating about "stopping the boats" to be dog whistling of the highest order.

If they wanted to be serious about reducing immigration they'd ban Poms, Kiwis, the Irish, and North American academics from coming here.

Australia is a racist country, saying stopping the boats makes most of the population think that this is a great way to get rid of Asians or muslims or whta ever other "foreigners" they can associate with them. Just saying were going to stop the planes won't do shit for abbott to get a vote.

 

[hifiandmtb]

Wow, there are some strange comments in this thread so far.

For those who think we can afford to further grow our population, did you actually take the time to watch the 1h6m documentary? If so, please point out what Dick Smith said that wasn't factual or further-discussion focussed?

 

[flamshmizer]

We've been covering exactly this sort of thing in a subject at uni. I have an article here that describes how simply having some dude take up 200 square metre's for a house is not the issue, its making adequate water to supply that person, and adequate farming land to support them as well. As an example, the water supply for New York city is 6 times larger than the city itself. Then you might figure out that you need, say, 1 square kilometre of farmable land to feed a person for a year, that ends up taking up a huge area.

Previously we have been growing exponentially (at the moment it appears to be linear). If you know how exponential growth works you'll know that until the very last minute your still only half the max population, then all of a sudden you are full. Just remember the story of the two kings playing chess, when one king wins he demands the other king give him 1 grain of rice, then double it for each square on the board. You end up with 1.84X10^19, probably more rice than has ever been harvested. For real world growth figures, the last billion people we gained happened in 12 years. At that rate its not going to take long to start straining our resources.

Lets also say Australia can just satisfy twice the population it has now. Then a massive drought comes through, and we all have to lower our standards of living because there are to many people. Not to mention you would start taking resources and land away from wildlife to keep people alive.

Its not bad, evil, or racist to have a budget for your population. If our government started spending without a budget we'd toss them out on their ass, this really isn't all that different.

 

[scuba05]

For those who think we can afford to further grow our population, did you actually take the time to watch the 1h6m documentary? If so, please point out what Dick Smith said that wasn't factual or further-discussion focussed?

Precisely.
We live in a country, as previously stated, that has large deserts, which are unsuitable for habitation(with exceptions of Alice Springs etc). This means our land mass is greatly reduced. From what is left, we have large areas of protected areas(National Parks etc.), which can't(and hope) dont get touched by developers. From this remaining area(as someone already said), we have agriculture.
Unfortunately, as DS showed in the film, SOME farmers are being given $200k to stop growing and shut up shop to make way for more people. Now is it just me, or is this absolutely fucking wrong? Without farmers, where in hell do we get food from? Admittedly this may only be a few farmers, but where will it stop? This will soon snowball outta control, and before we know it, all the suitable agricultural land has got concrete over it, and is ruined forever, along with our local food supplies.
The reason we need all this land? Population growth. As DS showed in the doco, Aust population grew by 480 000 in 09. 480 000!!!!!! Thats almost 1/2 a million!!!!!!! It is the highest popn growth in the world(2.1%), BY FAR. Of this, 1/3 where born here. I have no problem of this. I do not believe in telling people not to have children. It is the other 2/3 that have migrated here. Approx 333 000 people!!!! I believe this has to be drastically reduced in order to sustain our current lifestyle and levels of wealth.

This was one (summarised) part of the doco. There were many other arguements put forward by DS, but none that are against, apart from those who directly benefit from popn growth.

Our country cannot continue the way we are going, otherwise before we know it, we will end up becoming almost a developing country

PS Well said flamshmizer. exactly what im on about

 

[Mica]

In reading this I'm curious why population growth is the main issue (think I'm going to take this thread on a tangent). Surely the issue is the wasteful (and selfish) society that Australia has become. The big car, large house, big television..... is what is not sustainable, not the population numbers. With a more sustainable society greater population numbers and density can surely be supported.

A realistic look at consumerism and lifestyle in AU as opposed to many countries will see why we are struggling with resources. We have all grown up with large homes, two car families and all the modern conveniences and this is what everyone strives to have. We are building some of the largest homes in the world at the moment (here's one quick google find to proove the point LINK) with everyone thinking they need 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2 car garage.... The only place to put these homes is 40km away from the CBD, people then need to travel large distances for work and pleasure so massive roads are built to support this... I could continue. The amount of unnecessary waste caused by this "need" is enormous and this is why Australia struggles.

I wont claim to have a solution or be better than the rest, I have n+1 bikes, a good size home, a decent size TV, I work in the development industry. But I also try to do what I can. We deliberately bought close to shops, work and services so we can walk are ride rather than drive (compromised house size, quality etc for convenience), only own 1 car, try to be conservative with water and waste... It's not much but it's surely better than nothing.

For those that wish to argue that is my 2c, enjoy. I'm going to go jump and the bike and ride to the local trails (another reason for the house location )

 

[Downhill Domination]

Approx 90% of Ausralians live in 10% of the land mass. Why not use another 20% of the land and accomodate another 38 million people (based on above numbers). We'd still have 70% of our "space" available.

A lot of that land isn't suitable for good living conditions though.
A lot of the land isn't fertile and will most likely never be.

I watched the show, and thought it was very insightful and raised a couple of issues that weren't even apparent to me.
I think we have a lot of work to do to step it up to the rising population, but I think the twats in parliament are all to weak and cowardly to do anything about it.

 

[thecat]

There are more people in LA than in Australia. Hell, the UK has 60 odd million people in a land mass the size of Victoria.

I think Australia can handle a few more people.

It's not about space it's about sustainable water and food resources.

 

[flamshmizer]

In reading this I'm curious why population growth is the main issue (think I'm going to take this thread on a tangent). Surely the issue is the wasteful (and selfish) society that Australia has become. The big car, large house, big television..... is what is not sustainable, not the population numbers. With a more sustainable society greater population numbers and density can surely be supported.

A realistic look at consumerism and lifestyle in AU as opposed to many countries will see why we are struggling with resources. We have all grown up with large homes, two car families and all the modern conveniences and this is what everyone strives to have. We are building some of the largest homes in the world at the moment (here's one quick google find to proove the point LINK) with everyone thinking they need 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 2 car garage.... The only place to put these homes is 40km away from the CBD, people then need to travel large distances for work and pleasure so massive roads are built to support this... I could continue. The amount of unnecessary waste caused by this "need" is enormous and this is why Australia struggles.

I wont claim to have a solution or be better than the rest, I have n+1 bikes, a good size home, a decent size TV, I work in the development industry. But I also try to do what I can. We deliberately bought close to shops, work and services so we can walk are ride rather than drive (compromised house size, quality etc for convenience), only own 1 car, try to be conservative with water and waste... It's not much but it's surely better than nothing.

For those that wish to argue that is my 2c, enjoy. I'm going to go jump and the bike and ride to the local trails (another reason for the house location )

I'd have to agree completely with what your saying. Unfortunately, it will be rather difficult to convince most people to take a step backwards from what they're used to, so our only real option is to keep the population down. Quantity vs quality if you will, you could probably make a graph of it

 

[sxereturn]

Approx 90% of Ausralians live in 10% of the land mass. Why not use another 20% of the land and accomodate another 38 million people (based on above numbers). We'd still have 70% of our "space" available.

Where, exactly? Australia has the highest rate of extinctions in the world, due mainly to habitat loss. "Space" is not the issue, environmental sustainability is (as is the lack of resources). I for one, thoroughly enjoy being able to drive half an hour from the centre of Brisbane and not be able to see or hear a single sign of civilisation.

 

[INTENSE DHER]

Approx 90% of Ausralians live in 10% of the land mass. Why not use another 20% of the land and accomodate another 38 million people (based on above numbers). We'd still have 70% of our "space" available.

your an idiot.

its not about space its about not wanting my nice australia crowded with people, has any one been to clayton melbourne theres more asians and Indians then there are whites, if i wanted to live in a crowded country with asians i'd move to china.

if dick smith was running for pm id vote for him.