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

[Scotland]

As far as I can tell most (definitely not all though) people only want population growth because its (mostly incorrectly) been made synonymous with economic growth, which has in turn been made (partly incorrectly) synonymous with what most people like in their lives - more jobs, more pay, fuller bank account, same for everyone around them and a lot of good news as a result.

This is spot on.

The global economic system is centered around consumption. There's a practical limit to how much each person can consume, so the major driving force is inevitably the number of people.

Population growth also balances out the effects of ingenuity/technology to a degree.

 

[Carmo]

Would always look at it. I am a fan of the European Model of the 1700s. Wait till the place gets over full then ship people off. To Mars. Or anywhere.

The impetus for man reaching out to the stars wont be exploration or discovery but mundane reasons like living room and economic hardships.

Cant ship people off planet. Another key issue, that increasing population also exacerbates, is the approaching shortage of cheap energy. It takes heaps of energy to get anything out of the pull of gravity. Use that energy up and it just brings forward the starvation date.

 

[Carmo]

This is spot on.

The global economic system is centered around consumption. There's a practical limit to how much each person can consume, so the major driving force is inevitably the number of people.

Population growth also balances out the effects of ingenuity/technology to a degree.

Cheers.

I agree with that last line

 

[iluvparis]

Cant ship people off planet. Another key issue, that increasing population also exacerbates, is the approaching shortage of cheap energy. It takes heaps of energy to get anything out of the pull of gravity. Use that energy up and it just brings forward the starvation date.

Yet

 

[GreyCrow]

Cant ship people off planet. Another key issue, that increasing population also exacerbates, is the approaching shortage of cheap energy. It takes heaps of energy to get anything out of the pull of gravity. Use that energy up and it just brings forward the starvation date.

As iluvparis noted , not yet. I'm not worried about how much energy it would take to escape the pull of gravity. Its the idea that the only impetus for us to colonise other planets will be living space. If not we will eventually starve anyway.

 

[kwikfix]

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/fina...ng-coffee-unless-lucy-turnbull-solution-city/
This morning Smith told SmartCompany that if Sydney continues to grow at its present rate, small businesses in the city will be doomed to sell nothing but coffee.“We’re all just going to be selling coffee to each other, because we have 10 million coffee shops,” Smith says.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...h/news-story/0b3d845be15a5c65a41534a6219c8a6c

Businessman Dick Smith has attacked Lucy Turnbull’s planning for the future of Sydney, accusing her of failing to address the city’s booming population increase and its link to the nation’s “high immigration rates”.

In a print advertisement campaign unveiled today in News Corp and Fairfax newspapers, Mr Smith takes aim at the Prime Minister’s wife who is the chief commissioner of the Greater Sydney Commission, which delivers strategic plans for the city to the NSW government.

Mr Smith has demanded Ms Turnbull “tell us the facts” and reveal her “real plan” to deal with the growing number of people living in Sydney instead of spruiking “perpetual population increase”.

“Lucy, as the chief planner for the City of Sydney, you are talking about a Sydney with a population of 8 million,” the advertisement reads. “What are you real plans after the 8 million?”

“Our growth primarily comes from extremely high immigration rates … Why don’t you ever mention this?”

Mr Smith told The Australian: “She’s intelligent and well educated but she is spruiking this growth idea instead of saying it’s impossible to have continual growth. It’s the same with the major political parties at the moment; they all preach, they talk about growth, but don’t say its perpetual growth. If they said perpetual growth, you’d say, that is suspect, that’s impossible.”

Mr Smith recently supported Pauline Hanson’s immigration policy, which would reduce numbers arriving from 200,000 people a year to 70,000. Mr Smith said he had “no intention of supporting” or donating to One Nation but he would use his public profile to warn the major parties not to be surprised if Ms Hanson continued to win popularity and seats in NSW. “If you walk down the street with me, people will stop me all the time and say, ‘Dick we agree with you about population’. I think its incredibly serious,” he said.

The Australian sought comment from Ms Turnbull, through the Greater Sydney Commission. Commission chief executive Sarah Hill responded that Sydney’s rate of population growth was the “hallmark of all successful cities around the world”, and the group based its planning on a middle range of growth forecast, prepared by the state’s demographers.

“More than half of this growth is through natural increase,” Ms Hill said. “Our responsibility is to plan for this to make our city more liveable, sustainable and productive, rather than to debate the facts.”

Mr Smith has called for a return to “free range kids” who are allowed a “backyard and a place for a cubby house” instead of allowing a situation where “freestanding houses are bulldozed and replaced with termite high rise”.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on email

edit: http://www.votesustainable.org.au/closing_the_sustainability_loop

 

[Power Raid]

I have always been pro growth as living in a sleepy boring town showed promise as the population increased.

As time has gone by and listening to youth in places like Europe, Asia and the US; bigger populations lead to anxiety and unnecessary competition.

I believe we still have room to grow but we should cap city populations and grow our smaller regional cities.

 

[igon value]

Yet

Will never happen.

 

[Frank Grimes]

I'd love to see Australia have 50 1-2.5m cities than 5 cities supporting most of Australia's population.......unless the growth were only to continue in Sydney and Melbourne (well away from me).

While 50 cities is too much, I do agree the sentiment that we need to become decentralised and have more cities. At the moment 40~50% of Australia's population is shared between two cities (Sydney and Melbourne).

 

[Scotland]

De-centralisation is a pipe dream.

Sydney and Melbourne are already cities of 4-5m and are still growing.

 

[Power Raid]

De-centralisation is a pipe dream.

Sydney and Melbourne are already cities of 4-5m and are still growing.

Yep, they are right offs but growing smaller cities may save the next three biggest

 

[Frank Grimes]

De-centralisation is a pipe dream.

I tend to agree there. Unfortunately the democratic system we have doesn't allow it to be possible. To do such a thing will require long term planning a commitment. The politicians are only thinking of the next election.

 

[igon value]

De-centralisation is a pipe dream.

Sydney and Melbourne are already cities of 4-5m and are still growing.

Wollongong is already in the early stages of becoming a satellite city to Sydney. It takes an hour by train to get to the CBD - which is quicker than getting from many of the suburbs of Sydney. And you get to live near the beach.

 

[Power Raid]

I tend to agree there. Unfortunately the democratic system we have doesn't allow it to be possible. To do such a thing will require long term planning a commitment. The politicians are only thinking of the next election.

I'm hoping the US realises during the Trump term that democracy and constitutions need reviewing. If it happens there, we will follow suit in 10 years.....as we always do.

Nation building was what made the US and Australia great. Unfortunately our politics has turned into a popularity contest of personalities rather than policy.

Banning politicians from engaging with the media, other than press releases, is the only way. This concept is the principles governments have enforced on companies raising money (prospectuses over press releases though) and it works. In the UK they have taken this further, for the better, by banning pictures and colour from prospectuses. It forces people to focus on facts.

The alternative is a downward spiral like every other empire before us.

 

[Scotland]

Wollongong is already in the early stages of becoming a satellite city to Sydney. It takes an hour by train to get to the CBD - which is quicker than getting from many of the suburbs of Sydney. And you get to live near the beach.

Which isn't de-centralisation, it's an extension of Sydney.

If NSW was de-centralised people would live in Wollongong and stay in Wollongong.

 

[igon value]

Which isn't de-centralisation, it's an extension of Sydney.

If NSW was de-centralised people would live in Wollongong and stay in Wollongong.

Not really - Wollongong has its own industries which are somewhat self-sustaining - port, steelworks, coal processing. Differs from Sydney and Melbourne suburbs (or exurbs) which only exist for the purpose of housing people that work in central locations of those cities.

 

[Scotland]

Not really - Wollongong has its own industries which are somewhat self-sustaining - port, steelworks, coal processing. Differs from Sydney and Melbourne suburbs (or exurbs) which only exist for the purpose of housing people that work in central locations of those cities.

Yes Wollongong is it's own city with (declining) industry, but people moving there to commute to Sydney isn't de-centralisation.

 

[igon value]

Yes Wollongong is it's own city with (declining) industry, but people moving there to commute to Sydney isn't de-centralisation.

Of course it is. They're moving to an established city, with established infrastructure and established industry (some of which is declining, not all).

What do you think decentralising means?

 

[Scotland]

Of course it is. They're moving to an established city, with established infrastructure and established industry (some of which is declining, not all).

What do you think decentralising means?

De-centralising means detachment and self-sufficiency. If you're moving to Wollongong to commute to Sydney you're effectively just moving to an outer suburb and increasing the urban sprawl. It's no different to moving to Penrith. The only thing currently preventing Sydney and Wollongong just blending into one is dirty great National Park in the way.

The whole point of de-centralisation in this example is to get people out of the mindset of needing to be attached to Sydney.

 

[Scotland]

Perth is no different. Twenty years ago Mandurah was a sleepy little coastal town favoured by holiday makers and old people.

It's nice enough in terms of climate, beaches etc. and land was cheap so the population boomed and more and more people started commuting the 70km to Perth. Consequently we extended the Freeway and put a rail line in, now every year there is less and less space between Mandurah and Perth that isn't covered with cookie cutter housing estates. Mandurah still has nothing it didn't have 20 years ago, though. A bit of tourism etc. and the only "industry" that has grown is retail in order to service more people living there.

Yanchep/Two Rocks (much smaller than Mandurah) is going the same way. Urban sprawl spanning over 100km North/South all centralised around Perth leading to a city of only 2 million that constantly feels congested. Zero foresight whatsoever.

 

[Power Raid]

Perth is no different. Twenty years ago Mandurah was a sleepy little coastal town favoured by holiday makers and old people.

It's nice enough in terms of climate, beaches etc. and land was cheap so the population boomed and more and more people started commuting the 70km to Perth. Consequently we extended the Freeway and put a rail line in, now every year there is less and less space between Mandurah and Perth that isn't covered with cookie cutter housing estates. Mandurah still has nothing it didn't have 20 years ago, though. A bit of tourism etc. and the only "industry" that has grown is retail in order to service more people living there.

Yanchep/Two Rocks (much smaller than Mandurah) is going the same way. Urban sprawl spanning over 100km North/South all centralised around Perth leading to a city of only 2 million that constantly feels congested. Zero foresight whatsoever.

We will need to follow SA's solution and build an elevated freeway on top of the existing freeway. Alternatively, and more sensibly, shift parliament and all government head offices to Joondalup, Rockingham, Armadale and Midland......and better still, to Bunbury.

 

[telsor]

We will need to follow SA's solution and build an elevated freeway on top of the existing freeway. Alternatively, and more sensibly, shift parliament and all government head offices to Joondalup, Rockingham, Armadale and Midland......and better still, to Bunbury.

Probably the most effective way to promote decentralisation is to push the public service out of the big cities, not least because it's something the government can actually control.

It's been tried in smaller scale moves (couple of hundred here or there), but once you start looking at moving the more senior public servants, a million 'reasons' why it can't happen come up.


I'd say no to moving them all to one place though (which is what would happen if Parliament was moved), because...Look at Canberra.

 

[Power Raid]

Probably the most effective way to promote decentralisation is to push the public service out of the big cities, not least because it's something the government can actually control.

It's been tried in smaller scale moves (couple of hundred here or there), but once you start looking at moving the more senior public servants, a million 'reasons' why it can't happen come up.


I'd say no to moving them all to one place though (which is what would happen if Parliament was moved), because...Look at Canberra.

yep

decentralise Canberre whilst we are at it. It probably made sense 100 years ago but it's a disaster today!

 

[telsor]

yep

decentralise Canberre whilst we are at it. It probably made sense 100 years ago but it's a disaster today!

Politically it was a good idea, economically/socially it's crap.

Mind you, if the national capital had been in Sydney or Melbourne the centralisation in those cities (well, that one especially) would have been far worse.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Probably the most effective way to promote decentralisation is to push the public service out of the big cities, not least because it's something the government can actually control.

It's been tried in smaller scale moves (couple of hundred here or there), but once you start looking at moving the more senior public servants, a million 'reasons' why it can't happen come up.


I'd say no to moving them all to one place though (which is what would happen if Parliament was moved), because...Look at Canberra.

I worked briefly for an agency that moved to a regional area. Big issue was that they had massive issues filling the skilled roles because those skilled/senior people would rather work in the city, so they left and went elsewhere and they couldn't get suitable candidates willing to move to the regional areas.