Politics STABLE POPULATION PARTY - Australia's sustainable choice ???

[Seeds]

Capitlism requires growth.... sustainability is the enemy of Growth.
If every house hold was sustainable we wouldn't need to work like slaves to the Banks.

Umm, capitalism doesn't require growth, capitalism is what creates growth. Thats what is so great about it. Without it we would still be catching fish with our bare hands and eating berries in the forest with the rest of the animals.

How are people slaves to the banks, unless ofcourse the banks held people at gunpoint and forced you to borrow money from them .

 

[Scotland]

Gee, a party which wants to stabilise Australia's population, they must be racist.



A few posters around here complain about the low quality of political discourse in the country and then fall into the same tired rhetorical traps as those they criticise.

There is nothing racist or xenophobic whatsoever about the SPPA's policies. In fact, their general philosophy is arguably more egalitarian than any of the major parties, including the Greens.

This.

The notion that the population of Australia or the World for that matter can continue to increase ad infinitum is absurd. It's not about keeping out dem immigrants (sic) or reintroducing the White Australia policy, it's simply a case of population vs resources.

Australia's prosperity is based on our low population, low population density and ability to produce salable products on a large scale (ie resources and agriculture).

 

[Docker Clint]

This.

The notion that the population of Australia or the World for that matter can continue to increase ad infinitum is absurd. It's not about keeping out dem immigrants (sic) or reintroducing the White Australia policy, it's simply a case of population vs resources.

Australia's prosperity is based on our low population, low population density and ability to produce salable products on a large scale (ie resources and agriculture).

But but but we need to increase the population to support the aging population, it's fool proof!

Which is exactly the mentality that will make the future an ugly place to be. I had an argument with a bloke I used to work with who was adamant that Australia could have 150million people at least.. "look at the size of the country!", without taking into account the available arable land and fresh water. I read an article some time ago saying that we could have that many people in Australia, but we'd have to accept a Bangladesh style standard of living. Would the "grow grow grow the population" crowd agree to that?

People whine about how crowded our cities, roads and public transport are now. Try doubling or even tripling the population and see how it is, add into the fact that people still have the dream of living in a nice home on their own block and the declining availability of fossil fuels. We go to war over oil, how much fun is it going to be for your kids or grand kids when they have to shoot people to get clean water?

There's 7 billion people on the planet now and even if we stabilised that number, there's not enough resources for everyone to live an affluent lifestyle. Even China with its one child policy has been growing in population. We have the opportunity to solve the probliem with human ingenuity and some short term pain with an aging population, but with so many people saying that they want more children then sadly the planet may solve the problem for us in a not so nice way.

I fully agree with this party's philosophical stance but sadly they wont get too much mainstream support.

 

[fairdinkum]

Good post, DC.

I read an article some time ago saying that we could have that many people in Australia, but we'd have to accept a Bangladesh style standard of living. Would the "grow grow grow the population" crowd agree to that?

Problem is that the most powerful members of that crowd are the ones who stand to benefit most from burgeoning population growth: big business, big media, big (political) party.

Right now the average voter has little to no education on topics such as economics, politics or public policy. The political leaders claim that population growth is essential for economic prosperity, the newspapers who rely on commercial advertising do not seek to point out the flaws in this logic, and certain big business interest groups continue to rake in the money.

Dick Smith's Population Puzzle didn't get anywhere near the attention I had hoped it would. Wonder why.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Dick Smith's Population Puzzle didn't get anywhere near the attention I had hoped it would. Wonder why.

I thought Dick Smith's ideas were a bit of a mish-mash. I see it more as Sydney's problems projected onto the rest of Australia. The main problem being that Sydney has grown to larger than optimal size for a modern car-dependent city.

 

[Docker Clint]

Good post, DC.



Problem is that the most powerful members of that crowd are the ones who stand to benefit most from burgeoning population growth: big business, big media, big (political) party.

Right now the average voter has little to no education on topics such as economics, politics or public policy. The political leaders claim that population growth is essential for economic prosperity, the newspapers who rely on commercial advertising do not seek to point out the flaws in this logic, and certain big business interest groups continue to rake in the money.

Dick Smith's Population Puzzle didn't get anywhere near the attention I had hoped it would. Wonder why.

A very good point. Although the living conditions would plummet for the average person, one only has to look at the slums of India contrasted with Ferrari's parked in a few garages to know how it will all end up if the population keeps growing.

 

[Pie eyed]

It's obvious that we can sustain a greater population. You only have to look at other countries.

But......is it desirable to be physically crammed into a subway car every morning, to get to your 15 hour a day job, to pay off your 30m2 flat on the 45th floor?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It's obvious that we can sustain a greater population. You only have to look at other countries.

But......is it desirable to be physically crammed into a subway car every morning, to get to your 15 hour a day job, to pay off your 30m2 flat on the 45th floor?

Much prefer the subway than driving.

 

[cancat]

I had an argument with a bloke I used to work with who was adamant that Australia could have 150million people at least.. "look at the size of the country!", without taking into account the available arable land and fresh water. I read an article some time ago saying that we could have that many people in Australia, but we'd have to accept a Bangladesh style standard of living. Would the "grow grow grow the population" crowd agree to that?

People whine about how crowded our cities, roads and public transport are now. Try doubling or even tripling the population and see how it is, add into the fact that people still have the dream of living in a nice home on their own block and the declining availability of fossil fuels. We go to war over oil, how much fun is it going to be for your kids or grand kids when they have to shoot people to get clean water?

There's 7 billion people on the planet now and even if we stabilised that number, there's not enough resources for everyone to live an affluent lifestyle. Even China with its one child policy has been growing in population. We have the opportunity to solve the probliem with human ingenuity and some short term pain with an aging population, but with so many people saying that they want more children then sadly the planet may solve the problem for us in a not so nice way.

I fully agree with this party's philosophical stance but sadly they wont get too much mainstream support.

You made quite alot of assertions, it's a shame you didn't make a decent argument or provide evidence for any of them.

Rather than being evidence of overpopulation your picture illustrates that people like to crowd together. Or would it help if I posted a picture of an empty paddock as a rebuttal? Try driving from Adelaide to Brisbane via Melbourne and Sydney with a stop off in Tassie. There are vast expanses of not very much along the way, all of it habitable. Greater population in Australia can be comfortably accomodated by the construction of new infrastructure. Canberra is an example of a city of over 300,000 living where there was no significant population before.

It is not a limitation of resourses that dictates Australia's population growth but political will.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

You made quite alot of assertions, it's a shame you didn't make a decent argument or provide evidence for any of them.

Rather than being evidence of overpopulation your picture illustrates that people like to crowd together. Or would it help if I posted a picture of an empty paddock as a rebuttal? Try driving from Adelaide to Brisbane via Melbourne and Sydney with a stop off in Tassie. There are vast expanses of not very much along the way, all of it habitable. Greater population in Australia can be comfortably accomodated by the construction of new infrastructure. Canberra is an example of a city of over 300,000 living where there was no significant population before.

It is not a limitation of resourses that dictates Australia's population growth but political will.

I see water is an arguement run occasionally for why population growth should be limited but the fact remains there's a shit load of fresh water up north, people just don't want to live there. If the government were to incentivise business (and jobs) up there, people would move.

 

[HardenUp]

You made quite alot of assertions, it's a shame you didn't make a decent argument or provide evidence for any of them.

Rather than being evidence of overpopulation your picture illustrates that people like to crowd together. Or would it help if I posted a picture of an empty paddock as a rebuttal? Try driving from Adelaide to Brisbane via Melbourne and Sydney with a stop off in Tassie. There are vast expanses of not very much along the way, all of it habitable. Greater population in Australia can be comfortably accomodated by the construction of new infrastructure. Canberra is an example of a city of over 300,000 living where there was no significant population before.

It is not a limitation of resourses that dictates Australia's population growth but political will.

Cancat

Unfortunately for newcomers to the population and resource sustainability debate, the jury is in:

As outlined by the Australian Academy of Science in their 1994 symposium, 'Population 2040: Australia’s Choice' resources (arable land/soil, rainfall, minerals, etc) are EXACTLY what is limiting Australia's potential population size:

Here is the intro, focused on RESOURCES:
http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section1.pdf
The conclusion?:
In considering the RESOURCE needs of our cities, and Australia's supply of water, minerals and arable land it concluded: “In our view, the quality of all aspects of our children's lives will be maximised if the population of Australia by the mid-21st Century is kept to the low, stable end of the achievable range, i.e. to approximately 23 million."

But successive federal governments have ignored them due to the power of big business donations. Big business simply wants evermore customers and lazy profit growth.

And just in case you don't believe in science, here it is in pictures:
http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

Cheers

 

[HardenUp]

I see water is an arguement run occasionally for why population growth should be limited but the fact remains there's a shit load of fresh water up north, people just don't want to live there. If the government were to incentivise business (and jobs) up there, people would move.

LOL. You'd happily move to the tropical heat?

After 200+ years of Euro settlement, there is a very good reason why it is still sparsely populated. And the issue of water sits around the massive cost and environmental impact of water STORAGE. I've lived in tropical north Qld - it only rains (very heavily) for a short period of the year!!


And what are the infrastructure costs to all Australian taxpayers to set up your very unattractive northern habitats???

Next you'll be claiming the moon is underpopulated

 

[Pie eyed]

Much prefer the subway than driving.

Yeah! Now.

 

[cancat]

As outlined by the Australian Academy of Science in their 1994 symposium, 'Population 2040: Australia’s Choice' resources (arable land/soil, rainfall, minerals, etc) are EXACTLY what is limiting Australia's potential population size:

Here is the intro, focused on RESOURCES:
http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section1.pdf
The conclusion?:
In considering the RESOURCE needs of our cities, and Australia's supply of water, minerals and arable land it concluded: “In our view, the quality of all aspects of our children's lives will be maximised if the population of Australia by the mid-21st Century is kept to the low, stable end of the achievable range, i.e. to approximately 23 million."

The report is a wishy washy ideological policy document masquerading as science. One of the key contributors was Tim Flannery. This is the guy who repeatedly predicted Australia was in the grip of a permanent drought.

​

Nix estimates that Australia is currently capable of feeding around 50 million people. Much of this food is exported. Given current technology and investment, we can take this figure to be a carefully estimated, if perhaps a trifle optimistic, maximum population for Australia—unless we, currently one of the world's half dozen or so reliable food exporting regions, decide to start importing food.

But what of an optimum population? This is much harder to estimate, for much depends upon non-biological factors such as mineral resources and commodity prices. But from a purely biological perspective a few comments can be made. Given the desire of Australians to reserve some potentially arable land for purposes other than agriculture, particularly national parks and forests, and given the enormous challenge presented by soil degradation, a more realistic maximum population for Australia may be 20-30 million. A population of this size would also give Australians a chance to earn some money from food exports.

​

Professor Henry Nix of the Australian National University performs extensive research and concludes Australia an feed 50 million - and this was before the advent of GM food. For example CSIRO researchers have recently developed a salt tolerant durum wheat that yields 25 per cent more grain. When you talk about resources, this is an example of man's ingenuity being the ulitmate resource

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/CSIRO-develops-highest-yielding-salt-tolerant-wheat.aspx

Then Flannery sticks his finger in the air and comes up with 20-30 million.

The authors state that 37 million by 2040 is feasible. Sydney and Melbourne might double or triple in size, with enhancements in infrastructure. Alternatively, new cities of their present size and impact will have to be sited, built and serviced.

Then without much justification they conclude that 23 million would be best "for our children". This seems to be based on a view that Australia is unable to address infrastructure problems that other countries have already solved and a view that "the environent" is more important than people.

 

[fairdinkum]

Cancat, I can't speak for others but my reason for wanting our population to be stabilised in the short to medium term is because successive state and federal governments have shown a lack of ability and/or desire to invest in the infrastructure necessary to sustainably cater for increased population.

I don't doubt that Australia could support a population of 50m. I don't even doubt that we could do so without losing our liveability. What I do have serious doubts about, however, is the likelihood of our governments devising (let alone executing) the policies that would be required to allow for that to happen.

Our five largest states are all highly urbanised (centering on their respective major cities). Our five major cities are all highly centralised in terms of professional jobs, sports, arts, etc. The CBD is where the action takes place, but we are sprawling further and further out, with investment in infrastructure hideously failing to keep pace.

 

[cancat]

Yep, agree with the above. Like I said, it is not a limitation of resourses that dictates Australia's population growth but political will. I'm not saying I would like the population to increase. But it is a furphy to suggest that it can't be done.

 

[HardenUp]

The report is a wishy washy ideological policy document masquerading as science. One of the key contributors was Tim Flannery. This is the guy who repeatedly predicted Australia was in the grip of a permanent drought.




Professor Henry Nix of the Australian National University performs extensive research and concludes Australia an feed 50 million - and this was before the advent of GM food. For example CSIRO researchers have recently developed a salt tolerant durum wheat that yields 25 per cent more grain. When you talk about resources, this is an example of man's ingenuity being the ulitmate resource

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/CSIRO-develops-highest-yielding-salt-tolerant-wheat.aspx

Then Flannery sticks his finger in the air and comes up with 20-30 million.

The authors state that 37 million by 2040 is feasible. Sydney and Melbourne might double or triple in size, with enhancements in infrastructure. Alternatively, new cities of their present size and impact will have to be sited, built and serviced.

Then without much justification they conclude that 23 million would be best "for our children". This seems to be based on a view that Australia is unable to address infrastructure problems that other countries have already solved and a view that "the environent" is more important than people.

LOL. The caveat for this 50m report was that it would be at a much lower quality of life. Rack em and stack em hey?!!

Report rubbished and debunked here:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/03/1036308205867.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/06/1036308371464.html

Why risk our quality of life based on a strategy of hope?

Australia's oil runs out in 9 years and we have an annual import bill of $25b by 2015 with the CURRENT POPULATION. It's economic and environmental suicide/stupidity to grow the population!

 

[cancat]

LOL. The caveat for this 50m report was that it would be at a much lower quality of life.

'quality of life' is subjective. I know people whose quality of life would be improved by a faster internet connection and cheaper pizza

Why risk our quality of life based on a strategy of hope?

One thing in life is certain, things will change. But over the years the track record of people trying to predict the future is abysmal. The stable population party appears to basing its whole agenda on fortune telling.

 

[HardenUp]

'quality of life' is subjective. I know people whose quality of life would be improved by a faster internet connection and cheaper pizza



One thing in life is certain, things will change. But over the years the track record of people trying to predict the future is abysmal. The stable population party appears to basing its whole agenda on fortune telling.

I would have thought sensible evidence-based caution would be more accurate, rather than your strategy of hope

Good luck with the big business-backed major parties and their profit-seeking population growth mantra!

 

[Pie eyed]

One thing in life is certain, things will change. But over the years the track record of people trying to predict the future is abysmal. The stable population party appears to basing its whole agenda on fortune telling.

This comment applies more to the view that we can sustain a massive increase in population than the opposing view.

We have the evidence that we can sustain our current population as we are currently doing just that.

We have absolutely no evidence we can sustain a higher population.
The proposition is based entirely on speculation and fortune telling.

 

[cancat]

This comment applies more to the view that we can sustain a massive increase in population than the opposing view.

We have the evidence that we can sustain our current population as we are currently doing just that.

We have absolutely no evidence we can sustain a higher population.
The proposition is based entirely on speculation and fortune telling.

This is an argument for never making any changes. We had no evidence in 1990 that we could sustain a rise in population from 17 million to the current 22 million. Our average standard of living has continued to rise in that time.

 

[Pie eyed]

This is an argument for never making any changes. We had no evidence in 1990 that we could sustain a rise in population from 17 million to the current 22 million. Our average standard of living has continued to rise in that time.

You can use it as argument, I was pointing out that your statement that,

The stable population party appears to basing its whole agenda on fortune telling.

was an inappropriate and altogether inaccurate way to counterpoint each view.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Victoria grows by 100,000 per year

*Net immigration up to a four-year high.
*Australia's population increased by 400k in year to March, passing 23m.
*Victoria on track to pass 6m by 2016.
*Melbourne on track for 5m by 2020.
*Perth set to pass 2m this year.

Great news if you own lots of property, I guess.

 

[evo]

Victoria grows by 100,000 per year

*Net immigration up to a four-year high.
*Australia's population increased by 400k in year to March, passing 23m.
*Victoria on track to pass 6m by 2016.
*Melbourne on track for 5m by 2020.
*Perth set to pass 2m this year.

Great news if you own lots of property, I guess.

populaton clock

-Since this thread started the world has added ~ 150 million people.
- although 100,000 seems a lot Australia population is projected to grow by 44% between now and 2050 which makes us the 74th fastest growing
- Oceania only accounts for 0.6% of world population.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

With the greatest of respect, what point are you trying to make?