What a con! Australia’s wealthiest have supported a 300% increase in migration since Prime Minister Keating’s time – without consultation with those who will be worse off.

The prime reason for the decline in living standards for many Australian workers is our population growth. Many in the workforce will become worse off because the wealth of our country is finite – coming primarily from mineral reserves and primary production. Increasing the population
results in less resources – therefore, less worth – per capita.

This results in declining wages in real terms. Also, with automation and robotics there are likely to be less jobs available.

Most importantly, it is the wealthy 1% who lobby for, and primarily benefit from, this clearly unsustainable population growth – the highest in the developed world. The present growth rate, if continued, will take us to over 100 million in Australia at the end of this century – when children being born today are likely to be living. This keeps wages down and house prices up, while providing more customers and profits for big business and increasing the strain on our infrastructure and environment – resulting in mind destroying, gridlocked roads driving us to
frustration.

We also need to fix the tax system so wealthy multinationals and the 1% of wealthiest Australians are encouraged to pay the amount they can easily afford.

For the first time ever, our living standards are in decline – other than for the wealthy. This is a catastrophe. Most importantly, some of our growth is being paid for by debt that future generations will be forced to pay back.

Our forefathers went to war to keep this country free and keep a ‘fair go’ and ‘mateship’ in existence. They did this so the wealth could be shared as fairly as possible. We are told by our politicians that taxes on big business and the wealthy must be reduced even further so we can compete with other countries where taxes have already been reduced. These are the countries where the inequality between the wealthy and the poor is even greater than Australia.

Are you going to reference where you got that from?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to reference where you got that from?

Looks like that’s been belted together using a large hammer and a few parts have been left off..

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to reference where you got that from?

I assumed he wrote it himself. Silly me:

https://www.dicksmithfairgo.com.au/pdf/Dick-Smith-Fair-Go-Aug.pdf

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to reference where you got that from?

I assumed he wrote it himself. Silly me:

https://www.dicksmithfairgo.com.au/pdf/Dick-Smith-Fair-Go-Aug.pdf

i wonder if dick considers himself one of the 1%?

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to reference where you got that from?

I assumed he wrote it himself. Silly me:

https://www.dicksmithfairgo.com.au/pdf/Dick-Smith-Fair-Go-Aug.pdf

i wonder if dick considers himself one of the 1%?

It would be interesting to know how much tax he pays anyway.

is nothing sacred???

Bogsnorkler said:

is nothing sacred???

should be in chat…

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/gaza-shootings-when-i-was-14#comments

Bogsnorkler said:

Bogsnorkler said:

is nothing sacred???

should be in chat…

Oh don’t know. Seems pretty appropriate here to me.

Bogsnorkler said:

is nothing sacred???

The sinister bastards.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to reference where you got that from?

I didn’t want to put it in in case it distracted you from the message, unfortunately it seems to have failed. Worth serious consideration if you care for this country.

lefty’s pejorative?

transition said:

lefty’s pejorative?

No, most have no idea of the consequences.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

lefty’s pejorative?

No, most have no idea of the consequences.

you’re not using the term lefty in a pejorative way

I got the feeling it’s in the title as a swearword.

a device directing adverse attention, to create interest that way.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

lefty’s pejorative?

No, most have no idea of the consequences.

you’re not using the term lefty in a pejorative way

All the same in the end.

transition said:

I got the feeling it’s in the title as a swearword.

a device directing adverse attention, to create interest that way.

No, lefty’s tend to think they have all the answers.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

No, most have no idea of the consequences.

you’re not using the term lefty in a pejorative way

All the same in the end.

don’t mind me, i’m thick.

don’t mind Dick Smith by the way, well-qualifies as Australian, says it as it seems(to him), no bullshit.

transition said:

don’t mind Dick Smith by the way, well-qualifies as Australian, says it as it seems(to him), no bullshit.

I disagree with Dick on the population question. As I’ve said many times here before, it is an urban planning issue not a population issue. Other countries manage it well enough, we don’t and we continue doing things stupidly.

party_pants said:

transition said:

don’t mind Dick Smith by the way, well-qualifies as Australian, says it as it seems(to him), no bullshit.

I disagree with Dick on the population question. As I’ve said many times here before, it is an urban planning issue not a population issue. Other countries manage it well enough, we don’t and we continue doing things stupidly.

More people require more of everything of which the environment must pay. Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

don’t mind Dick Smith by the way, well-qualifies as Australian, says it as it seems(to him), no bullshit.

I disagree with Dick on the population question. As I’ve said many times here before, it is an urban planning issue not a population issue. Other countries manage it well enough, we don’t and we continue doing things stupidly.

More people require more of everything of which the environment must pay. Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

yeah yeah, we’ve been through all the arguments before

nobody has had anything new to say about the topic for while

PermeateFree said:

Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

I disagree with Dick on the population question. As I’ve said many times here before, it is an urban planning issue not a population issue. Other countries manage it well enough, we don’t and we continue doing things stupidly.

More people require more of everything of which the environment must pay. Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

yeah yeah, we’ve been through all the arguments before

nobody has had anything new to say about the topic for while

We’ll just get it perfect and then BAM!!! the sun goes Super Nova.
Bugger.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

I disagree with Dick on the population question. As I’ve said many times here before, it is an urban planning issue not a population issue. Other countries manage it well enough, we don’t and we continue doing things stupidly.

More people require more of everything of which the environment must pay. Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

yeah yeah, we’ve been through all the arguments before

nobody has had anything new to say about the topic for while

What more do you want for Christ sake?

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

More people require more of everything of which the environment must pay. Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

yeah yeah, we’ve been through all the arguments before

nobody has had anything new to say about the topic for while

What more do you want for Christ sake?

I want to be put in charge so I can fix it up.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

The politicians are doing this, but the people who must live in these overcrowded conditions are not impressed unless they have migrated from an even worse country.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

The politicians are doing this, but the people who must live in these overcrowded conditions are not impressed unless they have migrated from an even worse country.

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

lefty’s pejorative?

No, most have no idea of the consequences.

you’re not using the term lefty in a pejorative way

I simply don’t comprehend. The earth belongs to us all as does the role of caring for what we leave to our descendants let alone our responsibility to our neighbours the non humans.
It has nothing to do with right or left it has nothing to do with unions. It does have a lot to do with basic human ignorance greed and selfishness. Nothing else.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

The politicians are doing this, but the people who must live in these overcrowded conditions are not impressed unless they have migrated from an even worse country.

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

No. Business doesn’t believe it is a good thing but FFS business usually has a better buffer than the average person. Particularly when the main game is to con people out of their hard earned.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

The politicians are doing this, but the people who must live in these overcrowded conditions are not impressed unless they have migrated from an even worse country.

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

Yes it is ALL economics, promoted by the top echelons and politicians who what it for their own benefit. Why do you think the people are having fewer children? It is just a very big con!

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

The politicians are doing this, but the people who must live in these overcrowded conditions are not impressed unless they have migrated from an even worse country.

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

Yes it is ALL economics, promoted by the top echelons and politicians who what it for their own benefit. Why do you think the people are having fewer children? It is just a very big con!

I’m orry PF but you should have left the lefty bit out of the thread title if you didn’t want all the flak.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

Including Australia.

Which is just stupid.

I’m sure DS agrees. Although it does seem a little strange that he doesn’t say anything about it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Population control is very much the number one topic of most countries, they being so overcrowded know full well the problems, we apparently have yet to learn and by the time we do it will be too late.

That’s just wrong. In much of the first world the issue is trying to encourage the people to have more children.

Including Australia.

Which is just stupid.

I’m sure DS agrees. Although it does seem a little strange that he doesn’t say anything about it.

But I repeat, it is NOT the general population, but those who will gain directly and economically from a higher population. It Australians want more people they could have them themselves, but they don’t because that is in THEIR interest.

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

Yes, something that is going to dramatically change this country, you would think they would, but there again, it is not in their interest to do so.

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

and there has been no planning for yonks.
Where are we going to find the water to drink?

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

A plan is going to upset 50% of the population so all sides keep stuhm.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

and there has been no planning for yonks.
Where are we going to find the water to drink?

A higher population means we shall need more of everything. Water is probably one requirement we could sufficiently produce for main population centers.

AwesomeO said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

A plan is going to upset 50% of the population so all sides keep stuhm.

Yeah. We saw what happened with trying to sort out the MDB plan.
Nobody wants to share the water equitably.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

and there has been no planning for yonks.
Where are we going to find the water to drink?

A higher population means we shall need more of everything. Water is probably one requirement we could sufficiently produce for main population centers.

Could but are we?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d like to see an Australian government actually work out a detailed plan.

Given the available resources and our environmental responsibilities, the current population statistics including age and reproductive rate etc, and the quality of life we’d like to be accessible to all of our people, what’s the best population size and how should we be achieving it?

As things stand, there is apparently no such plan.

and there has been no planning for yonks.
Where are we going to find the water to drink?

A higher population means we shall need more of everything. Water is probably one requirement we could sufficiently produce for main population centers.

Cape Town is the test case for what happens when a plumbed city of moderate population runs out of cheap water. I imagine being on the coast it’s going to be a quick desalination build though leaving it late.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

The politicians are doing this, but the people who must live in these overcrowded conditions are not impressed unless they have migrated from an even worse country.

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

Yes it is ALL economics, promoted by the top echelons and politicians who what it for their own benefit. Why do you think the people are having fewer children? It is just a very big con!

Nah. People not having a multitude of sprogs is not because they are attempting to stick it to ‘The Man’.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

and there has been no planning for yonks.
Where are we going to find the water to drink?

A higher population means we shall need more of everything. Water is probably one requirement we could sufficiently produce for main population centers.

Cape Town is the test case for what happens when a plumbed city of moderate population runs out of cheap water. I imagine being on the coast it’s going to be a quick desalination build though leaving it late.

And the people have been informed as to how the climate is changing and the expected changes are occurring yet the MIA and other irrigation areas along the MDB have been expanding with the money handed to them by the MDB which was intended to give water back to the river rather than be stolen for get rich quick schemes.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

Yes it is ALL economics, promoted by the top echelons and politicians who what it for their own benefit. Why do you think the people are having fewer children? It is just a very big con!

Nah. People not having a multitude of sprogs is not because they are attempting to stick it to ‘The Man’.

People are having less sprogs because they are better educated. Which cannot be said about politicians.

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Nah. I’m pretty sure that if you live in a country like Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Singapore etc, etc, you’ll realise that at the current fertility rates, and without significant immigration, the population of your country is going to collapse. Most people don’t think this is a good thing.

Yes it is ALL economics, promoted by the top echelons and politicians who what it for their own benefit. Why do you think the people are having fewer children? It is just a very big con!

Nah. People not having a multitude of sprogs is not because they are attempting to stick it to ‘The Man’.

No it is simply in their interest and to maintain their standard of living.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

The area fell out of regular contact with Europeans until 1652, when Jan van Riebeeck and other employees of the Dutch East India Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, or simply VOC) were sent to the Cape to establish a halfway station to provide fresh water, vegetables, and meat for passing ships travelling to and from Asia. Van Riebeeck’s party of three vessels landed at the cape on 6 April 1652. The Cape was under Dutch rule from 1652 to 1695 and again from 1803 to 1806. The group quickly erected shelters and laid out vegetable gardens and orchards, and are preserved in the Company Gardens. Water from the Fresh River, which descended from Table Mountain, was channelled into canals to provide irrigation. The settlers bartered with the native Khoisan for their sheep and cattle. Forests in Hout Bay and the southern and eastern flanks of Table Mountain provided timber for ships and houses. At this point, the VOC had a monopoly on trade and prohibited any private trade. The Dutch gave their own names to the native inhabitants that they encountered, calling the pastoralists “Hottentots”, those that lived on the coast and subsisted on shellfishing “Strandlopers”, and those who were hunter-gatherers were named “Bushmen”.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cape_Town

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

As a city yes. Better management is a requirement. However, it is a very real effect of climate change that is the real issue.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

As a city yes. Better management is a requirement. However, it is a very real effect of climate change that is the real issue.

https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/cape-town-timeline-1300-1997

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

Yes, it may have been emerald green lawns and sprinklers 24/7, bit like the Aussie suburbs. Maybe the population caught up with a slim resource, I dunno, but now individually calculations will be made about the practicality of living there. Money and self interest are good for measuring viability.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

As a city yes. Better management is a requirement. However, it is a very real effect of climate change that is the real issue.

I am unfamiliar with the South African climate but it could be that more rain falls more inconsistantly.

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

Yes, it may have been emerald green lawns and sprinklers 24/7, bit like the Aussie suburbs. Maybe the population caught up with a slim resource, I dunno, but now individually calculations will be made about the practicality of living there. Money and self interest are good for measuring viability.

The refugees moving all around the world are those who have had to look somewhere else for survival and it will exponetially increase as money fades from the view of all but the ridiculously wealthy.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

As a city yes. Better management is a requirement. However, it is a very real effect of climate change that is the real issue.

I am unfamiliar with the South African climate but it could be that more rain falls more inconsistantly.

The international body of climate scientists say that the wettest part of the world with the greatest biodiversity is the first place to suffer from the effects of climate change.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

The area known today as Cape Town has no written history before it was first mentioned by Portuguese explorer Bartholomeu Dias in 1488. The German anthropologist Theophilus Hahn recorded that the original name of the area was ‘||Hui !Gais’ – a toponym in the indigenous Khoe language meaning “where clouds gather.” All knowledge of the previous inhabitants of the region was derived from fossil evidence and from rock art in the area.

The thing is, it was a place that rained a lot and now that climate is changing, it doesn’t.

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

As a city yes. Better management is a requirement. However, it is a very real effect of climate change that is the real issue.

Don’t agree, it all comes back to our overpopulation. More people require more of everything and Climate Change is one of the offshoots of our demands. Fewer people would not require as the same level of resources and we could then live within the capacity of the environment. We have however gone way, way past this point.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

IIRC this Cape Town drought has only lasted 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if the dams are once again full in a few years. What they need is better management of the water they have.

As a city yes. Better management is a requirement. However, it is a very real effect of climate change that is the real issue.

Don’t agree, it all comes back to our overpopulation. More people require more of everything and Climate Change is one of the offshoots of our demands. Fewer people would not require as the same level of resources and we could then live within the capacity of the environment. We have however gone way, way past this point.

Overpopulation is what caused climate change. Nothing else. Nobody did the sums until 1972 when the UN had a conference entitled, The Limits To Growth. Things have been done and they have staved off the inevitable result for longer which ends up in only making ythe problem worse and more difficult to fix.

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

They tend to persist for long after their initial use has passed. Cape Town was an important stopping point with a safe anchorage for ships. Fresh food,fresh water, chance to repair rigging – all in a safe anchorage. These days most passengers fly, only very large ships sail around the Cape (like oil tankers) but they go non-stop.

The city persists because of all the infrastructure built up over time.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

Cities grow where they are due to economic reasons, access, industry, resources etc. I don’t know enough about Cape Town to say why it is there, and it may be that expensive water means as a city it is no longer viable.

They tend to persist for long after their initial use has passed. Cape Town was an important stopping point with a safe anchorage for ships. Fresh food,fresh water, chance to repair rigging – all in a safe anchorage. These days most passengers fly, only very large ships sail around the Cape (like oil tankers) but they go non-stop.

The city persists because of all the infrastructure built up over time.

Yeah, I guessed initially it was a watering or patrol station or even later a coaling station conveniently located.

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

sundrop

Stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

sundrop

Something like that. If we can build a score of them in a local area and create a bit of an industry with some scale to it, we could build a small modern city nearby, and have enough surplus water and electricity to sustain it.

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

sundrop

Please expand. I have no idea what this means.

Michael V said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

sundrop

Please expand. I have no idea what this means.

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Yeah I know, but sunlight is free.

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Just went across to look up the figure for anthalapy and get hit with the realisation that it’s spelt enthalpy, which is rather embarrassing as not only have I been spelling it incorrectly all these years I’ve also been pronouncing it incorrectly.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Michael V said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

sundrop

Please expand. I have no idea what this means.

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

They are really good tech leaders in that field. Saw a program about their set-up.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Just went across to look up the figure for anthalapy and get hit with the realisation that it’s spelt enthalpy, which is rather embarrassing as not only have I been spelling it incorrectly all these years I’ve also been pronouncing it incorrectly.

That’s ok, don’t sweat it.

party_pants said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

sundrop

Something like that. If we can build a score of them in a local area and create a bit of an industry with some scale to it, we could build a small modern city nearby, and have enough surplus water and electricity to sustain it.

We could improve the agricultural capacity of our land by pumping the salt from within it and desal that.

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

People are encouraged to grow trees and shrubberies that shouldn’t be here, lawns and washed cement.
They should be given credit for killing the lawns and ripping up the cement.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

sundrop

Something like that. If we can build a score of them in a local area and create a bit of an industry with some scale to it, we could build a small modern city nearby, and have enough surplus water and electricity to sustain it.

We could improve the agricultural capacity of our land by pumping the salt from within it and desal that.

Be cheaper to buy stuff from overseas. Desal is only about 10% efficient so you still have heaps of salty water to get rid of.

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

I don’t know why we don’t do solar thermal desal on a large scale in this country. Big array of those parabolic troughs that heat up some sort of fluid in the central pipe, heat exchanger with salty water, boil into steam, collect and condense into fresh water, Robert’s-your-mother’s-brother.

Would have thought renewables would be the perfect solution for desal. it doesn’t matter if the plant only produces water during the day or when the sun is shining, as long as you build up a bit of a reservoir. It would naturally produce more in summer and on hot days, but you could average that out over the year.

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Not if you use the big fire in the sky.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

sundrop

Something like that. If we can build a score of them in a local area and create a bit of an industry with some scale to it, we could build a small modern city nearby, and have enough surplus water and electricity to sustain it.

We could improve the agricultural capacity of our land by pumping the salt from within it and desal that.

That too.

But it is getting on the scale of needing large commercial/corporate financing and set-ups to get it up and running. Not the thing that could be done in small scale by Mum & Dad family farmers.

Bogsnorkler said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Michael V said:

Please expand. I have no idea what this means.

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

They are really good tech leaders in that field. Saw a program about their set-up.

It is where really good tech, needs to be.

Bogsnorkler said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Just went across to look up the figure for anthalapy and get hit with the realisation that it’s spelt enthalpy, which is rather embarrassing as not only have I been spelling it incorrectly all these years I’ve also been pronouncing it incorrectly.

That’s ok, don’t sweat it.

At least he knew when to use it in a sentence.

Bogsnorkler said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Something like that. If we can build a score of them in a local area and create a bit of an industry with some scale to it, we could build a small modern city nearby, and have enough surplus water and electricity to sustain it.

We could improve the agricultural capacity of our land by pumping the salt from within it and desal that.

Be cheaper to buy stuff from overseas. Desal is only about 10% efficient so you still have heaps of salty water to get rid of.

Ah but evaporating salty water with the sun can make electrickery.

Bogsnorkler said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Michael V said:

Please expand. I have no idea what this means.

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

They are really good tech leaders in that field. Saw a program about their set-up.

yeah, I got the grand tour, went through everything, had the job lined up then failed the medical

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Yeah I know, but sunlight is free.

Nah, it’s not.

To turn 1 litre of water to steam from a starting temp of 20 degrees will take about 2.6 MJ. Doesn’t matter if you’re using solar energy, there will be a cost and it’ll be quite substantial.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Yeah I know, but sunlight is free.

Nah, it’s not.

To turn 1 litre of water to steam from a starting temp of 20 degrees will take about 2.6 MJ. Doesn’t matter if you’re using solar energy, there will be a cost and it’ll be quite substantial.

No argument but it is less than having to burn fossil fuels.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Yeah I know, but sunlight is free.

Nah, it’s not.

To turn 1 litre of water to steam from a starting temp of 20 degrees will take about 2.6 MJ. Doesn’t matter if you’re using solar energy, there will be a cost and it’ll be quite substantial.

The sunlight is free. There is a cost in building and maintaining a collector.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

Yeah I know, but sunlight is free.

Nah, it’s not.

To turn 1 litre of water to steam from a starting temp of 20 degrees will take about 2.6 MJ. Doesn’t matter if you’re using solar energy, there will be a cost and it’ll be quite substantial.

The sunlight is free. There is a cost in building and maintaining a collector.

Yes, and it’ll be quite substantial.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Michael V said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

sundrop

Please expand. I have no idea what this means.

http://www.sundropfarms.com/

Thanks.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

People use more water on their gardens in summer and on hot days. So that bit’s good to go.

Desalination (either by distilling or reverse osmosis requires serious energy input. Like lots and lots and lots. I don’t know the numbers, nor how to calculate the energy use, but I reckon dv could. I suspect it doesn’t work out, otherwise some company would be doing it and making money.

To raise 1 gram 1 degree takes 1 calorie , so just over 4 joules. That’s a lot of energy to raise water to 100 degrees, but you then have the kicker – enthalapy, aka phase change. It takes a huge amount to change it from water to vapour.

Just went across to look up the figure for anthalapy and get hit with the realisation that it’s spelt enthalpy, which is rather embarrassing as not only have I been spelling it incorrectly all these years I’ve also been pronouncing it incorrectly.

:)

I knew what you meant. So you communicated enthalpy.