Small & Sensible or a recipe for stagnation? You be the judge.

Peter Martin, James Ward and Paul Sutton for the Conversation.

Neither of Australia’s two main political parties believes population is an issue worth discussion, and neither now has a policy about it. The Greens think population is an issue but can’t come at actually suggesting a target.

Even those who acknowledge that numbers are relevant are often quick to say that it’s our consumption patterns, and not our population size, that really matter when we talk about environmental impact. But common sense, not to mention the laws of physics, says that size and scale matter, especially on a finite planet.

In the meantime the country has a bipartisan default population policy, which is one of rapid growth. This is in response to the demands of what is effectively a coalition of major corporate players and lobby groups.

Solid neoliberals all, they see all growth as good, especially for their bottom line. They include the banks and financial sector, real estate developers, the housing industry, major retailers, the media and other major players for whom an endless increase in customers is possible and profitable.

But Australians stubbornly continue to have small families. The endless growth coalition responds by demanding the government imports hundreds of thousands of new consumers annually, otherwise known as the migration intake.

The growth coalition has no real interest in the cumulative social or environmental downside effects of this growth, nor the actual welfare of the immigrants. It fully expects to capture the profit of this growth program, while the disadvantages – such as traffic congestion, rising house prices and government revenue diverted for infrastructure catch-up – are all socialised. That is, the taxpayer pays.

Full article

So, to get the population back to 15,000,000 – do you propose a civil war or some other culling technique?

Michael V said:

So, to get the population back to 15,000,000 – do you propose a civil war or some other culling technique?

I’m not personally proposing it, the writers of that article are. I remain neutral :)

They claim that if we halt immigration the population will reduce by itself:

>With Australian female fertility sitting well below replacement level, we can achieve a slow and natural return to a lower population of our choice without any drastic or coercive policies. This can be done simply by winding back the large and expensive program of importing consumers to generate GDP growth – now about 200,000 people a year and forecast to increase to almost 250,000 by 2020.

Michael V said:

So, to get the population back to 15,000,000 – do you propose a civil war or some other culling technique?

Andrew Bolt would say to send all the ethnics home. I propose that we start with the Dutch.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

So, to get the population back to 15,000,000 – do you propose a civil war or some other culling technique?

I’m not personally proposing it, the writers of that article are. I remain neutral :)

They claim that if we halt immigration the population will reduce by itself:

>With Australian female fertility sitting well below replacement level, we can achieve a slow and natural return to a lower population of our choice without any drastic or coercive policies. This can be done simply by winding back the large and expensive program of importing consumers to generate GDP growth – now about 200,000 people a year and forecast to increase to almost 250,000 by 2020.

Good idea. The present model is unsustainable. No pollie will touch it though.

I think the population can be wound back a back, some damning figures recieved lately in Victoria and the infrastructure is not keeping pace, moreover we are being very shortsighted in a arid continent with bad soils we are putting concert and asphalt over our best soils.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

So, to get the population back to 15,000,000 – do you propose a civil war or some other culling technique?

I’m not personally proposing it, the writers of that article are. I remain neutral :)

They claim that if we halt immigration the population will reduce by itself:

>With Australian female fertility sitting well below replacement level, we can achieve a slow and natural return to a lower population of our choice without any drastic or coercive policies. This can be done simply by winding back the large and expensive program of importing consumers to generate GDP growth – now about 200,000 people a year and forecast to increase to almost 250,000 by 2020.

Ah. Stop the Muzzies coming in, and the Whingers, and the Bludgers who would take our jobs off us. I suppose Pauline and co would be happy with the suggestion.

Personally I can’t see that reducing the population would be economically good for the country, but I understand squat-all about Economics.

And I am a bit over the growth for business always being the best thing, it might be good individually but not if everyone is doing it, what’s wrong with a company selling a product, it has its markets, it sells steadily year after year after year, it has no need to expand, it already has its market and servicing it, it employs and it pays taxes.

Michael V said:

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

So, to get the population back to 15,000,000 – do you propose a civil war or some other culling technique?

I’m not personally proposing it, the writers of that article are. I remain neutral :)

They claim that if we halt immigration the population will reduce by itself:

>With Australian female fertility sitting well below replacement level, we can achieve a slow and natural return to a lower population of our choice without any drastic or coercive policies. This can be done simply by winding back the large and expensive program of importing consumers to generate GDP growth – now about 200,000 people a year and forecast to increase to almost 250,000 by 2020.

Ah. Stop the Muzzies coming in, and the Whingers, and the Bludgers who would take our jobs off us. I suppose Pauline and co would be happy with the suggestion.

Personally I can’t see that reducing the population would be economically good for the country, but I understand squat-all about Economics.

the problem is that if the current population don’t have enough kids then when the population ages there are fewer tax payers.

Michael V said:

Personally I can’t see that reducing the population would be economically good for the country, but I understand squat-all about Economics.

Can’t be great if there are no jobs for them after they arrive, though as pointed out, good for sellers of stuff.

ChrispenEvan said:

Michael V said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m not personally proposing it, the writers of that article are. I remain neutral :)

They claim that if we halt immigration the population will reduce by itself:

>With Australian female fertility sitting well below replacement level, we can achieve a slow and natural return to a lower population of our choice without any drastic or coercive policies. This can be done simply by winding back the large and expensive program of importing consumers to generate GDP growth – now about 200,000 people a year and forecast to increase to almost 250,000 by 2020.

Ah. Stop the Muzzies coming in, and the Whingers, and the Bludgers who would take our jobs off us. I suppose Pauline and co would be happy with the suggestion.

Personally I can’t see that reducing the population would be economically good for the country, but I understand squat-all about Economics.

the problem is that if the current population don’t have enough kids then when the population ages there are fewer tax payers.

Won’t you root for Australia?

AwesomeO said:

And I am a bit over the growth for business always being the best thing, it might be good individually but not if everyone is doing it, what’s wrong with a company selling a product, it has its markets, it sells steadily year after year after year, it has no need to expand, it already has its market and servicing it, it employs and it pays taxes.

This is what I have done. On a micro scale.

Humanitarian migrants are big on starting their own business so wont need jobs but will create them.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/humanitarian-migrants-more-likely-to-start-their-own-business-abs/

and pommieland

https://www.ft.com/content/dc7f9f0e-a3ae-11e3-88b0-00144feab7de?mhq5j=e3

Cutting out immigration completely may come across as a tiny wee bit selfish to the rest of the world.

The bastards.

Trouble is God put a gene in us that drives us to explore to discover to invent to conquer.
Some people want to go back to a utopic bucolic life of communal living in some isolated region but it never works out, the gene is too strong.

Peak Warming Man said:

Trouble is God put a gene in us that drives us to explore to discover to invent to conquer.
Some people want to go back to a utopic bucolic life of communal living in some isolated region but it never works out, the gene is too strong.

don’t look back, you can never go back

I suppose the question remains for those who are recent migrants whether they agree with policies that would today have barred your entry. Much like St Augustine: ‘Ban immigration but not yet’.

sibeen said:

Cutting out immigration completely may come across as a tiny wee bit selfish to the rest of the world.

The bastards.

They say to continue accepting refugees, but not the others.

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Cutting out immigration completely may come across as a tiny wee bit selfish to the rest of the world.

The bastards.

They say to continue accepting refugees, but not the others.

So about an intake of 20K a year. I can hear howls of outrage forming in throats.

it’d be quite fun over at the Graun.

Population growth has different effects on various aspects of ourselves, our standard of living. the environment and the economy. The only aspect currently being considered by the political parties is the economy.

However, rapid and/or continual growth means we have greater competition for the available necessities of life, which drops our standard of living unless you have a considerable amount of money. The increased population impacts the environment, which must produce additional food, water, power, schools, roads, etc., etc. We really don’t get anything for nothing and most is paid for by the environment, which in turn also effects our standard of living, not to mention the displacement of our biological heritage.

I don’t hold with the argument that unless we continually maintain our population, all must be paid by the few. Within the last generation, many jobs have disappeared our become vastly more efficient, meaning things do not remain static and with the current interest in robots, human intervention will only reduce.

sibeen said:

Cutting out immigration completely may come across as a tiny wee bit selfish to the rest of the world.

The bastards.

I think being in line with OECD levels would be a start. The high rates we are currently running just ruin the living standards for those already here and make smarmy grub politicians look good coz’ GDP ‘went up’…

IMO:

It is ridiculous to discuss the population of Australia in isolation. World population control is a big issue which needs to be addressed, and Australian policy should be discussed in that context.

On that basis, continued high levels of immigration to an environment where families tend to have fewer children is a good thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

IMO:

It is ridiculous to discuss the population of Australia in isolation. World population control is a big issue which needs to be addressed, and Australian policy should be discussed in that context.

On that basis, continued high levels of immigration to an environment where families tend to have fewer children is a good thing.

So after you permit many millions of people to emigrate to Australia and there are even more wanting to come. May I ask when do you stop, before or after Australia is over flowing with people? World population is very important and the demands these people are placing upon the world’s resources are insurmountable. Even at this early stage you have countries in Europe blockading their borders to keep them out, which will become Impossible once our population rises to 9-10 billion people.

So yes it is important and we should be examining our immigration policy, so hopefully we too do not become swamped by the vast numbers of people currently looking for a new home, which when global warming really begins to bite will multiply many times over.

Things are going to change about how we see others and must be so for our own survival. This is what happens when we cannot control our population growth and the resulting strains we place upon the environment that is already screaming that it cannot cope.

The Rev Dodgson said:

IMO:

It is ridiculous to discuss the population of Australia in isolation. World population control is a big issue which needs to be addressed, and Australian policy should be discussed in that context.

On that basis, continued high levels of immigration to an environment where families tend to have fewer children is a good thing.

Just get the UN to step in… easy peasy

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

IMO:

It is ridiculous to discuss the population of Australia in isolation. World population control is a big issue which needs to be addressed, and Australian policy should be discussed in that context.

On that basis, continued high levels of immigration to an environment where families tend to have fewer children is a good thing.

Just get the UN to step in… easy peasy

Morning all.
Some years ago there was a CSIRO study which indicated the Australia’s ideal population would be about 12 million.

Tamb said:

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

IMO:

It is ridiculous to discuss the population of Australia in isolation. World population control is a big issue which needs to be addressed, and Australian policy should be discussed in that context.

On that basis, continued high levels of immigration to an environment where families tend to have fewer children is a good thing.

Just get the UN to step in… easy peasy

Morning all.
Some years ago there was a CSIRO study which indicated the Australia’s ideal population would be about 12 million.

I remember that….it was quite some years ago now, possibly in the 1970s?

buffy said:

Tamb said:

Ian said:

Just get the UN to step in… easy peasy

Morning all.
Some years ago there was a CSIRO study which indicated the Australia’s ideal population would be about 12 million.

I remember that….it was quite some years ago now, possibly in the 1970s?

Yes, somewhere about then.

And as we have had some sunrises here lately, here is today’s one from my front verandah. Gone now. It only blazed for a few minutes.

Sorry.

buffy said:

Sorry.

Apology accepted °

How will the world cope if the billions of poor people demand (and they are within their rights) a standard of living first world nation people already enjoy, especially when many consumer items seem to be designed as throwaway and often have terrible environmental impact to dispose of.

Cymek said:

How will the world cope if the billions of poor people demand (and they are within their rights) a standard of living first world nation people already enjoy, especially when many consumer items seem to be designed as throwaway and often have terrible environmental impact to dispose of.

Poor people don’t matter much, that’s how.

All profit is private, all debt is public

The market requires new loan takers and consumers continually

Those making profit require the loan takers to consume products like houses in the nice places and god awful, stinking hot, messy, crime ridden areas where social order approaches chaos.

New arrivals change society and skew it to their values because elections are won on slim margins – of course i believe in sharia law and female/ male mutilation mr smith , vote for me and i’ll make it legal OR make sure no one is prosecuted for it.

Australia is where holes are dug, cattle reared and crops grown. Ostensibly these can be seen as making real money by selling to a real buyer but money can also be created by creating loans. If immigration was halted the economy would collapse because manufacturing and primary industry has collapsed.

The only way the existing loans for housing can be paid off is by creating more loans to pay them off. Immigrants take the loans, more immigrants = more loans. Howard’s economic miracle was on the back of unprecedented immigration.

You need 5.5 % unemployment to make sure inflation is kept in check.

I’ve put aside all other follies now and am just building a lifeboat for when this whole thing comes crashing down ( it always does )

1 always make sure you have unemployment

Note: unemployment holds down inflation

2 always take money away from people

Taxes/ fines/ “licenses”/ permits/ registrations are used to bleed away real income

3 a government must always be in serious debt

If a government isnt in serious debt it cant justify the taxes to bleed money away. To be in debt means huge loans are taken. Kevin rudd blew a kings ransom on loan taking when governmental debt after howard was only 90 billion dollars ( the price of two sub fleets)

Elections are won on margins so things are going to become chaotic as each fringe group in society starts making unreasonable demands. The political party that listen to the fringe dwellers stays in power and massive economic, social, environmental problems will be left unchecked as the fringe dwellers demand their “problems” by solved first.

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

LOL

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

LOL

See? You’re happier already.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

LOL

See? You’re happier already.

Double LOL.

Thanks.

:)

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

I think you should make allowance for the fact that large parts of Australia are desert.

Perhaps about 500 million would be more realistic.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

I think you should make allowance for the fact that large parts of Australia are desert.

Perhaps about 500 million would be more realistic.

50 million would stretch the available water supplies.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

I think you should make allowance for the fact that large parts of Australia are desert.

Perhaps about 500 million would be more realistic.

50 million would stretch the available water supplies.

15 million, for good quality of life.

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think you should make allowance for the fact that large parts of Australia are desert.

Perhaps about 500 million would be more realistic.

50 million would stretch the available water supplies.

15 million, for good quality of life.

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

The will aim for first world but are unlikely to achieve it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

15 million, for good quality of life.

Please show working.

Things evolve not by planning but by chance and habitat change. Our habitat is about to change considerably and we can count ourselves lucky that we live in Australia that is surrounded by sea, our population is reasonably well educated and most don’t need to worry about where the next meal will come from and we shall have a comfortable bed in which to sleep.

Countries with large generally uneducated and exceedingly poor people are the unlucky ones and will be the first to feel the impact of global warming, lack of food and even water. These people have bred until their population size is unsustainable without overseas aid. This aid will be withdrawn and unless these people can go somewhere else, they will likely perish and there are countless millions of these people.

The basic law of nature stipulates that all organisms must live sustainably on what their territory can produce, and if they cannot do so, many will die to bring it back to a sustainable level. Humans have for a long time lived above that sustainable level, but have been saved by agriculture and medical science that have kept at bay the diseases that could otherwise wipe us out. But due to our excessive population and the demands it is making on the environment, it will soon be time to pay the ferryman, unless you are very lucky.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

15 million, for good quality of life.

Please show working.

Sydney and Melbourne traffic jams during peak hour.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

15 million, for good quality of life.

Please show working.

Sydney and Melbourne traffic jams during peak hour.

Inland rivers drying up.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Please show working.

Sydney and Melbourne traffic jams during peak hour.

Inland rivers drying up.

Until recently, Australia’s population has been governed by an unreliable climate and its ability to regularly produce food and water. Too many people will place additional pressures on that system.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Sydney and Melbourne traffic jams during peak hour.

Inland rivers drying up.

Until recently, Australia’s population has been governed by an unreliable climate and its ability to regularly produce food and water. Too many people will place additional pressures on that system.

Totally agree.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

50 million would stretch the available water supplies.

15 million, for good quality of life.

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

The will aim for first world but are unlikely to achieve it.

China is making a good shot at it. India not so much.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

15 million, for good quality of life.

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

The will aim for first world but are unlikely to achieve it.

China is making a good shot at it. India not so much.

Pollution is the price China is paying. They must soon begin to address the issue with subsequent price increases.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Human happiness should be the ultimate goal, and the world happiness report said that Denmark and Switzerland have the happiest people so that’s probably the kind of population density we should aspire to (133 to 200 per sqkm). This would mean about 1 to 1.5 billion people should live in Australia.

I think you should make allowance for the fact that large parts of Australia are desert.

Perhaps about 500 million would be more realistic.

Fine, fine. I’m a reasonable man.

Tau.Neutrino said:

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

China ( 145 per sqkm) and India (393 per sqkm) have lower population density than England (420 per sqkm).

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

China ( 145 per sqkm) and India (393 per sqkm) have lower population density than England (420 per sqkm).

Netherlands 477/km^2

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

15 million, for good quality of life.

Please show working.

Sydney and Melbourne traffic jams during peak hour.

ROFL … Sydney and Melbourne make up small pockets of Australia, geographically, and have infrastructure problems mainly due to poor planning.

Tamb said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What about high population areas like China and India, what levels should they aim for?

China ( 145 per sqkm) and India (393 per sqkm) have lower population density than England (420 per sqkm).

Netherlands 477/km^2

Mountainous areas generally do not permit high human populations of which China is well endowed.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

China ( 145 per sqkm) and India (393 per sqkm) have lower population density than England (420 per sqkm).

Netherlands 477/km^2

Mountainous areas generally do not permit high human populations of which China is well endowed.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

PermeateFree said:

Mountainous areas generally do not permit high human populations of which China is well endowed.

Fair point. When you remove the mountains, Switzerland’s population density must be around 800 per sqkm.

Nepal’s population density must be almost infinite.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Mountainous areas generally do not permit high human populations of which China is well endowed.

Fair point. When you remove the mountains, Switzerland’s population density must be around 800 per sqkm.

Nepal’s population density must be almost infinite.

Ah, the BC defense.

However, all those stats are meaningless for the context they are being used.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

dv said:

China ( 145 per sqkm) and India (393 per sqkm) have lower population density than England (420 per sqkm).

Netherlands 477/km^2

Mountainous areas generally do not permit high human populations of which China is well endowed.

They do have vast river systems & is 25% larger is area than Australia.

If we agree that Enzed is full to capacity, then on a pro-rata basis the maximum population for Australia would be about 130 million.

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we agree that Enzed is full to capacity, then on a pro-rata basis the maximum population for Australia would be about 130 million.

The two countries are totally different geographically.

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we agree that Enzed is full to capacity, then on a pro-rata basis the maximum population for Australia would be about 130 million.

I think you forget about about our fickle climate and that most of the usable land is already occupied with the rest being desert.

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If we agree that Enzed is full to capacity, then on a pro-rata basis the maximum population for Australia would be about 130 million.

I think you forget about about our fickle climate and that most of the usable land is already occupied with the rest being desert.

Better to compare us to Namibia.
“The large, arid Namib Desert has resulted in Namibia being overall one of the least densely populated countries in the world.”

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

There is ample water available in HK. The problem is in equitable distribution in such densely populated conditions.

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

There is ample water available in HK. The problem is in equitable distribution in such densely populated conditions.

They like us harvest rain water. But anyway, I wasn’t being serious, I was poking gentle fun at extrapolating what we can manage based on other countries.

We can manage more than we have but it will take a rethink in densities and stop spreading out in suburbs and a bit of building regulations re energy and water efficient houses wouldn’t go astray.

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

I bet they import most of their food too. This discussion is now in the realm of silliness.

I’m glad that people take what I post with such seriousness, but I did not intend that the comparison with New Zealand should be taken quite so seriously.

It was more an ironic counter to the suggestions that 15 million is a reasonable upper limit, based on traffic conditions in the 2 largest cities.

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

There is ample water available in HK. The problem is in equitable distribution in such densely populated conditions.

They like us harvest rain water. But anyway, I wasn’t being serious, I was poking gentle fun at extrapolating what we can manage based on other countries.

We can manage more than we have but it will take a rethink in densities and stop spreading out in suburbs and a bit of building regulations re energy and water efficient houses wouldn’t go astray.

I picked up on the gentle sarcasm.

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

Do we have a shortage or a collection/storage problem

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

Do we have a shortage or a collection/storage problem

West of the Divide a shortage.

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

Do we have a shortage or a collection/storage problem

You will see the point of my post when you go up a few posts, but yes, we were building desalination plants not that long ago but saved by some fortunate rain.

AwesomeO said:

You will see the point of my post when you go up a few posts, but yes, we were building desalination plants not that long ago but saved by some fortunate rain.

Not according to Bolt et al. Apparently planning for worst case conditions is beyond their ken.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Hong Kong like Australia has a shortage of fresh water and they manage a population of 690 per square km so therefore we could manage nearly 5 Billion.

Do we have a shortage or a collection/storage problem

You will see the point of my post when you go up a few posts, but yes, we were building desalination plants not that long ago but saved by some fortunate rain.

I should also note that SA has a desalination plant but with a power infrastructure so dodgy they might not be able to run it. In short, if we want to increase our population there are a few problems that need fixing.

sibeen said:

AwesomeO said:

You will see the point of my post when you go up a few posts, but yes, we were building desalination plants not that long ago but saved by some fortunate rain.

Not according to Bolt et al. Apparently planning for worst case conditions is beyond their ken.

What I don’t understand it now that they have built them why don’t they use them, the majority of the expense has gone, depreciation is still happening if they are going or not, and generally plant and equipment is better off being used, and of the dams are full so what, a bit of overflow into the river systems won’t hurt.

AwesomeO said:

sibeen said:

AwesomeO said:

You will see the point of my post when you go up a few posts, but yes, we were building desalination plants not that long ago but saved by some fortunate rain.

Not according to Bolt et al. Apparently planning for worst case conditions is beyond their ken.

What I don’t understand it now that they have built them why don’t they use them, the majority of the expense has gone, depreciation is still happening if they are going or not, and generally plant and equipment is better off being used, and of the dams are full so what, a bit of overflow into the river systems won’t hurt.

They do suck up a fair amount of power.

sibeen said:

AwesomeO said:

sibeen said:

Not according to Bolt et al. Apparently planning for worst case conditions is beyond their ken.

What I don’t understand it now that they have built them why don’t they use them, the majority of the expense has gone, depreciation is still happening if they are going or not, and generally plant and equipment is better off being used, and of the dams are full so what, a bit of overflow into the river systems won’t hurt.

They do suck up a fair amount of power.

SA can pass then.

Many people dislike high population densities. Unless you’re very wealthy it inevitably means less personal space, less control over one’s circumstances, a lot more noise and stress, degraded environment, vast infrastructure costs etc.

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m glad that people take what I post with such seriousness, but I did not intend that the comparison with New Zealand should be taken quite so seriously.

It was more an ironic counter to the suggestions that 15 million is a reasonable upper limit, based on traffic conditions in the 2 largest cities.

Yeah well just watch it.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m glad that people take what I post with such seriousness, but I did not intend that the comparison with New Zealand should be taken quite so seriously.

It was more an ironic counter to the suggestions that 15 million is a reasonable upper limit, based on traffic conditions in the 2 largest cities.

Yeah well just watch it.

ok, I made that up about the 2 largest cities

but I did think that traffic might be a good indicator

Tau.Neutrino said:

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

Yes. That’s an excellent point.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

No good for you newt; need plenty of tax paying workers to fund your lifestyle.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

No, fewer, not more…

Too late here anyway.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

No good for you newt; need plenty of tax paying workers to fund your lifestyle.

Walk a mile pilgrim.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

No good for you newt; need plenty of tax paying workers to fund your lifestyle.

False

you dont need more taxpayers, the growth factor is unnecessary

large populations only serve greed

to reduce carbon footprints, people should have less children

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children.

more…

No good for you newt; need plenty of tax paying workers to fund your lifestyle.

False

you dont need more taxpayers, the growth factor is unnecessary

large populations only serve greed

to reduce carbon footprints, people should have less children

greed you say. Thats rich coming from a person living off tax payer welfare, that spends a good proportion of that money on drugs & alchol.

and you say people should have less children, to “reduce carbon footprints”, while you continue to live off the grid & drive a car.

YOU, newt, start living without electricity, directly & indirectly, & get rid off your car, or shut the fuck up you hypocritical prick

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

No good for you newt; need plenty of tax paying workers to fund your lifestyle.

False

you dont need more taxpayers, the growth factor is unnecessary

large populations only serve greed

to reduce carbon footprints, people should have less children

greed you say. Thats rich coming from a person living off tax payer welfare, that spends a good proportion of that money on drugs & alchol.

and you say people should have less children, to “reduce carbon footprints”, while you continue to live off the grid & drive a car.

YOU, newt, start living without electricity, directly & indirectly, & get rid off your car, or shut the fuck up you hypocritical prick

Your full of abuse as usual

yawn

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

False

you dont need more taxpayers, the growth factor is unnecessary

large populations only serve greed

to reduce carbon footprints, people should have less children

greed you say. Thats rich coming from a person living off tax payer welfare, that spends a good proportion of that money on drugs & alchol.

and you say people should have less children, to “reduce carbon footprints”, while you continue to live off the grid & drive a car.

YOU, newt, start living without electricity, directly & indirectly, & get rid off your car, or shut the fuck up you hypocritical prick

Your full of abuse as usual

yawn

Oh yeh, while you dictate how many children a woman’s allowed to produce

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

greed you say. Thats rich coming from a person living off tax payer welfare, that spends a good proportion of that money on drugs & alchol.

and you say people should have less children, to “reduce carbon footprints”, while you continue to live off the grid & drive a car.

YOU, newt, start living without electricity, directly & indirectly, & get rid off your car, or shut the fuck up you hypocritical prick

Your full of abuse as usual

yawn

Oh yeh, while you dictate how many children a woman’s allowed to produce

Im not dictating anything

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Your full of abuse as usual

yawn

Oh yeh, while you dictate how many children a woman’s allowed to produce

Im not dictating anything

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

oh yeh, another mob (there’s too many people in the world) using climate alarmism to push their angenda.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The_observer said:

Oh yeh, while you dictate how many children a woman’s allowed to produce

Im not dictating anything

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

oh yeh, another mob (there’s too many people in the world) using climate alarmism to push their angenda.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Im not dictating anything

The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about

Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions.

oh yeh, another mob (there’s too many people in the world) using climate alarmism to push their angenda.

I don’t think the Observer can be convinced.

He’s either a politician or not such a good observer.

I’m sure he will be back with some more abuse.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

oh yeh, another mob (there’s too many people in the world) using climate alarmism to push their angenda.

I don’t think the Observer can be convinced.

He’s either a politician or not such a good observer.

I’m sure he will be back with some more abuse.

In between wellfare sponsered bongs and red wine gulps, Newt, you keep preaching to everyone how they must live there’re lives, & what opinions they must hold.

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t think the Observer can be convinced.

He’s either a politician or not such a good observer.

I’m sure he will be back with some more abuse.

In between wellfare sponsered bongs and red wine gulps, Newt, you keep preaching to everyone how they must live there’re lives, & what opinions they must hold.

PF, you just continue posting copy/paste pictures & cartoons

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I don’t think the Observer can be convinced.

He’s either a politician or not such a good observer.

I’m sure he will be back with some more abuse.

In between wellfare sponsered bongs and red wine gulps, Newt, you keep preaching to everyone how they must live there’re lives, & what opinions they must hold.

PF, you just continue posting copy/paste pictures & cartoons

Sorry, difficult to keep up with you.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

In between wellfare sponsered bongs and red wine gulps, Newt, you keep preaching to everyone how they must live there’re lives, & what opinions they must hold.

PF, you just continue posting copy/paste pictures & cartoons

Sorry, difficult to keep up with you.

Oh yes, I bet it is

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PF, you just continue posting copy/paste pictures & cartoons

Sorry, difficult to keep up with you.

Oh yes, I bet it is

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Sorry, difficult to keep up with you.

Oh yes, I bet it is

Nice to see your softer side pf

http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/why-i-love-a-big-australia-and-you-should-too-20170714-gxbrrz.html

NDGT gets it. There’s fkn no one here.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/18/neil-degrasse-tyson-fighting-science-denial-starts-with-people-not-politicians?CMP=soc_567

One particular benefit of this, he says, is to make the book available for those stuck in traffic in Los Angeles – and also for those stuck in traffic in Australia, a situation he nevertheless finds highly improbable.

“Why there is traffic in Australia, I have no idea,” he says. “Hardly anybody lives here. I don’t know what the hell’s wrong, y’all got to figure that one out.

“Within a 30km radius of where I live are more people than the country of Australia. And you guys have traffic. Maybe it’s just an inescapable law of the universe.”

A section of Houston’s Katy Freeway, which is believed to be the widest in the world.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/daniel-andrews-west-gate-tunnel-vision-for-melbourne-not-the-way-forward-20170717-gxcrx2.html

…

Surely it no mystery that when population densities get high enough you will get traffic jams. Certainly when there are less public transport options when compared to similar large cities.