Not me.


Quote:

Plans to massively boost Australia's population are a bad idea and must be stopped, entrepreneur Dick Smith says. The federal government favours a "big Australia" and wants to increase the country's headcount from 22 million to 35 million by 2050, largely by immigration. But Mr Smith said this was ridiculous. "We need to do something about this incredible increase," he told reporters at an Australian of the Year dinner in Parliament House on Sunday. "No one is allowed to talk about it ... I am." Mr Smith said Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. It was crazy that seawater was being desalinated for drinking water to supply a booming population. "I believe in 100 years time people in Australia will be starving to death." The intake of skilled migrants should be slashed and women should be discouraged from having more than two babies, Mr Smith said. He believes nine out of 10 Australians do not want a population boom. Mr Smith is working on a documentary on the issue. The government wants to increase the population because it means more young taxpayers to pay the rising health and pension costs of the ageing population. But a recent poll showed most people did not like that plan and some green groups have voiced concerns about the environmental costs.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/no-one-wants-big-australia-dick-smith-20100124-msmf.html

Im leaning towards a lower population I think. All the things I like most about Australia are a result of a low population. Foremost, there are fewer people. You can go out and catch a decent fish on the weekend, or shoot an enourmous pig. Land is cheap. The beaches aren't crowded. I think we are wealthy in a more genuine sense, as well as financially, because of the low population.

yes, I'ld go for a lower popn than we presently have.

pretty well ALL the infrastructure problems would be gone.
housing would be cheaper.

there are no benefits to doubling our popn.

I would definitely support a two-child policy and removal of the baby bonus. We would be much better off with a small population.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 24^th, 2010 at 9:18pm:

Not me. Quote: Plans to massively boost Australia's population are a bad idea and must be stopped, entrepreneur Dick Smith says. The federal government favours a "big Australia" and wants to increase the country's headcount from 22 million to 35 million by 2050, largely by immigration. But Mr Smith said this was ridiculous. "We need to do something about this incredible increase," he told reporters at an Australian of the Year dinner in Parliament House on Sunday. "No one is allowed to talk about it ... I am." Mr Smith said Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. It was crazy that seawater was being desalinated for drinking water to supply a booming population. "I believe in 100 years time people in Australia will be starving to death." The intake of skilled migrants should be slashed and women should be discouraged from having more than two babies, Mr Smith said. He believes nine out of 10 Australians do not want a population boom. Mr Smith is working on a documentary on the issue. The government wants to increase the population because it means more young taxpayers to pay the rising health and pension costs of the ageing population. But a recent poll showed most people did not like that plan and some green groups have voiced concerns about the environmental costs. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/no-one-wants-big-australia-dick-smith-20100124-msmf.html

Sprint, why you and Dick Smith so worried? You guys probably won't even exist by then.

Point 1: It's not that we have no water - it's that we use way too much, and don't have the right infrastructure.  This is a non-issue with a population debate.

Point 2: If Australians can afford to spend billions in food over christmas, and then discard billions in food the next day, then I don't see how they will be "starving" in 100 years, or how we don't have enough to sustain more people.

Point 3: I'm surprised you even published this garbage article - it has communist connotations of direct control on population (i.e 1 child policy).  Are you communist sprint? Or Nazi? I'm confused...

The fact is Australia can sustain a lot more people than it currently has.  It's about smart planning, and yes, about sacrifice.  For example, if Japan, a developed nation, can use recycled water to clean their clothes than it makes no sense that we can't.  Why do we always believe we are so blessed? It's Nazi Germany thinking.

My view is not of sustainable concerns in Australia, but more of what is happening in the world overall. It has been said in a few reports that the world is already beyond its limit in providing enough resources to humans and that it will only be a matter of time when the problems begin to arise in developed countries. Also, the PRC's one child policy (I'm assuming this is the one you are referring to) isn't a direct control of population. It's only a disincentive for those who have more than one child. Example: the parents of two children will not be able to receive discounted schooling and other benefits for the second child. Also, people in rural areas and people of ethnic minorities are exceptions to the policy, which makes the actual average number of children per family closer to 1.8 rather than 1.

Quote:

Sprint, why you and Dick Smith so worried? You guys probably won't even exist by then. Point 1: It's not that we have no water - it's that we use way too much, and don't have the right infrastructure.  This is a non-issue with a population debate. Point 2: If Australians can afford to spend billions in food over christmas, and then discard billions in food the next day, then I don't see how they will be "starving" in 100 years, or how we don't have enough to sustain more people. Point 3: I'm surprised you even published this garbage article - it has communist connotations of direct control on population (i.e 1 child policy).  Are you communist sprint? Or Nazi? I'm confused... The fact is Australia can sustain a lot more people than it currently has.  It's about smart planning, and yes, about sacrifice.  For example, if Japan, a developed nation, can use recycled water to clean their clothes than it makes no sense that we can't.  Why do we always believe we are so blessed? It's Nazi Germany thinking.

Why do you make no sense. Why is everything a non-issue to you?

Point 1.
Australia is the driest continent on earth and we are already moving to desalination to service the population that we already have. Using your leftwing method of strict control and access (we use way too much) will not solve any problem

Point 2.
This doesn't make sense. Please come back and try to formulate a reasonable reposnse

Point 3.
Questioning his right to publish said article is far more Nazi and Communist like. I am not surprised, coming from you.

Quote:

The fact is Australia can sustain a lot more people than it currently has.  It's about smart planning, and yes, about sacrifice.  For example, if Japan, a developed nation, can use recycled water to clean their clothes than it makes no sense that we can't.  Why do we always believe we are so blessed? It's Nazi Germany thinking.

Alevine, it has nothing to do with what we can do. We could support ten times as many people if we were prepared to adopt a third world lifestyle. The question is whether we want to.

Alewives does because it suit her ideology of a large population of low socio-economic voter base

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Quote: Sprint, why you and Dick Smith so worried? You guys probably won't even exist by then. Point 1: It's not that we have no water - it's that we use way too much, and don't have the right infrastructure.  This is a non-issue with a population debate. Point 2: If Australians can afford to spend billions in food over christmas, and then discard billions in food the next day, then I don't see how they will be "starving" in 100 years, or how we don't have enough to sustain more people. Point 3: I'm surprised you even published this garbage article - it has communist connotations of direct control on population (i.e 1 child policy).  Are you communist sprint? Or Nazi? I'm confused... The fact is Australia can sustain a lot more people than it currently has.  It's about smart planning, and yes, about sacrifice.  For example, if Japan, a developed nation, can use recycled water to clean their clothes than it makes no sense that we can't.  Why do we always believe we are so blessed? It's Nazi Germany thinking. Why do you make no sense. Why is everything a non-issue to you? Point 1. Australia is the driest continent on earth and we are already moving to desalination to service the population that we already have. Using your leftwing method of strict control and access (we use way too much) will not solve any problem Point 2. This doesn't make sense. Please come back and try to formulate a reasonable reposnse Point 3. Questioning his right to publish said article is far more Nazi and Communist like. I am not surprised, coming from you.

Point 1: The biggest issue in Victoria when it comes to water, is not that there is no rain.  Rather, it is that the dams are located in the wrong places - not catching enough of the rain we receive.  Fair enough we can't rebuild our dams, but we can look at how to capture and use the water we discard.  The rain we throw out as "waste" is 400 gigalitres per year.   This is more than enough to sustain ourselves, if we were to have good policies.  Furthermore, looking at how people across the world live, our "150 megalitres per month" quota in Melbourne is way over the top.  Seeing how you sit at home drinking beer all day droopy eye, I doubt you would understand this point - but it's okay.  

Point 2:
Read, or get someone to read to you: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/a-waste-of-good-food-and-so-many-other-resources-20100110-m0l3.html

If we can waste food, we can afford a bigger population.

Point 3: I wasn't arguing that he has no right to post this article. I was saying that because it has in it items he doesn't agree with, or shouldn't agree with based on his ideology, I was surprised he posted it.  

Try again droopy eye.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:00pm:

Quote: The fact is Australia can sustain a lot more people than it currently has.  It's about smart planning, and yes, about sacrifice.  For example, if Japan, a developed nation, can use recycled water to clean their clothes than it makes no sense that we can't.  Why do we always believe we are so blessed? It's Nazi Germany thinking. Alevine, it has nothing to do with what we can do. We could support ten times as many people if we were prepared to adopt a third world lifestyle. The question is whether we want to.

My point exactly freediver.  I'm not suggesting third world living; I'm suggesting that it is inevitable our population will grow. With it growing, we need to not whinge and cry but rather get prepared, and yes in some ways change our lifestyle..

*EDIT* My apologies freediver - I didn't completely read your post.  I agree with you 100%.  It is whether we want to.  For the sake of people around the world, not just Australia, I truly hope we do. I hope you do too.

Hlysnan wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 7:34pm:

My view is not of sustainable concerns in Australia, but more of what is happening in the world overall. It has been said in a few reports that the world is already beyond its limit in providing enough resources to humans and that it will only be a matter of time when the problems begin to arise in developed countries. Also, the PRC's one child policy (I'm assuming this is the one you are referring to) isn't a direct control of population. It's only a disincentive for those who have more than one child. Example: the parents of two children will not be able to receive discounted schooling and other benefits for the second child. Also, people in rural areas and people of ethnic minorities are exceptions to the policy, which makes the actual average number of children per family closer to 1.8 rather than 1.

Hi JaeMi,

Definitely I share your concerns about the sustainability of the world.  Hence why we, as Australians, need to look at our way of life and really consider how much we consume, and how we can reduce this to a sustainable level where everyone benefits.  

As for a "2 child" policy, to me it sounds too much like China's "one-child" policy.  I don't believe in a government being able to tell me, through policies, how many kids I can have.  It is not in their role description.  They can always "suggest" what is optimal, but putting together policies around this leads to social problems that I hope Australia would never see.

Hi Alewives


Quote:

Rather, it is that the dams are located in the wrong places

That would be the fault of the state Labor govts getting into bed with the Greens

Quote:

Furthermore, looking at how people across the world live, our "150 megalitres per month" quota in Melbourne is way over the top.

So you do advocate third world lifestyles. Good to know.

Quote:

Point 2: Read, or get someone to read to you...blah, blah blah

Are you unable to formulate your own argument?

Quote:

Point 3: I wasn't arguing that he has no right to post this article. I was saying that because it has in it items he doesn't agree with, or shouldn't agree with based on his ideology, I was surprised he posted it.

I know this will surprise you but the world is often shades of grey- not just the black and white progressive and repressive society you would wish upon all.

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:23pm:

Hi Alewives Quote: Rather, it is that the dams are located in the wrong places That would be the fault of the state Labor govts getting into bed with the Greens [quote]Furthermore, looking at how people across the world live, our "150 megalitres per month" quota in Melbourne is way over the top.

So you do advocate third world lifestyles. Good to know.

Quote:

Point 2: Read, or get someone to read to you...blah, blah blah

Are you unable to formulate your own argument?

Quote:

Point 3: I wasn't arguing that he has no right to post this article. I was saying that because it has in it items he doesn't agree with, or shouldn't agree with based on his ideology, I was surprised he posted it.

I know this will surprise you but the world is often shades of grey- not just the black and white progressive and repressive society you would wish upon all.
[/quote]

Dear Droopy,

This is my last response to you because you clearly do not read, or care in having a proper debate :)  

Firstly, can I say that if you are going to call me alewives, it should be alewife...unless you think I am 2 people?  

Secondly, please read the article, or have someone read it for you :)  

Thirdly, yes, the state Labor Government in Victoria has done a major screw up.  No doubt about it.  But the issue also is that the state liberal opposition has provided no alternative.  If they do during this election year, I will gladly vote for them.  

Lastly, yes there are shades of gray.  I can't believe that a person such as yourself, who is so badly brainwashed by propaganda, understands this.  Did you get this from a cut and paste?

Have a nice time replying to my posts. But please, provide some, just a tiny bit if possible, substance.

With much love,
alevine (alewife as you have so happily spent the past 4 hours coming up with, even if it was incorrect)

Quote:

My point exactly freediver.  I'm not suggesting third world living; I'm suggesting that it is inevitable our population will grow.

Not true. Most first world nations have a birth rate below the replacement level. It is only the stubborn refusal of old people to kick the bucket, and high immigration rates, that keeps the population rising.


Quote:

*EDIT* My apologies freediver - I didn't completely read your post.  I agree with you 100%.  It is whether we want to.  For the sake of people around the world, not just Australia, I truly hope we do. I hope you do too.

You hope I do what? I do not want a higher population. What is the point of that?

http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/newslett/94_19/icpd9419.eng/3briefs.html

http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/bkg/egypt.html

NEWS IN BRIEF



More than 300 lawmakers from 107 countries gathered at Cairo's Meridien

Hotel on 3 and 4 September for the International Conference of

Parliamentarians on Population and Development (ICPPD). After a series

of working group discussions, they adopted by consensus the Cairo

Declaration on Population and Development.



    The declaration stresses the importance of a successful outcome at

ICPD, and calls for placing family planning in the broader framework of

reproductive health and removing barriers to family planning

information and services. It also endorses the education goals of the

ICPD Programme of Action, emphasizes "the right of all people to have

access to primary health care by the end of the current decade", and

acknowledges abortion as a major public health concern.



    ICPPD was convened by the Asian Forum on Population and

Development, the Inter-American Parliamentary Group on Population and

Development, the International Medical Parliamentarians Organization,

the Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development,

and Parliamentarians for Global Action.



    Speaking at the 3 September inaugural ceremony were ICPD

Secretary-General Dr. Nafis Sadik; Dr. Mustafa Kamal Helmy, Speaker of

the Shoura Council of Egypt, the President of the conference; Mr. Shin

Sakurai, Member of the Japanese House of Representatives and Secretary-

General of the conference; and Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, Director-General

of the World Health Organization.



                                 *



In connection with ICPD, United Nations Radio has produced six 15-

minute programmes on population issues:



    "Population and Development" looks at the link between population

growth, sustainable development and consumption; "Reproductive Rights

and Health" examines the right to decide on family size and the

importance of counselling and access to counselling about both

sexuality and family planning services; "Gender Equality" analyses how

respect for women may be one of the best ways of stabilizing population

growth; "Focus on Adolescents" discusses the consequences of early

sexual activity and the importance of making available to teenagers

information and counselling about sexuality; "Male Responsibility"

looks at the importance of encouraging men to take responsibility for

their sexual and reproductive behaviour as well as for the children

they have; and "Migration" examines the growing phenomenon of people

leaving their places of origin to escape conflict or persecution or to

seek a better life.



    All six of the programmes are available in English, Spanish and

Swahili (four programmes are available in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese,

Dutch, French, French Creole, Hindi, Indonesian, Russian and Urdu) on

request from UN Radio, Room S-850F, United Nations, New York, NY 10017;

tel. 212-963-6977; fax 212-963-1307.



                                 *



To disseminate ICPD materials and facilitate world-wide involvement in

Conference-related activities, the Population Information Network

(POPIN) of the UN Population Division set up a communication and

reference centre at the Conference site. Staff members collected all

the statements given in the ICPD plenary and electronically placed the

texts in the POPIN gopher, a data facility accessible through the

Internet computer network and electronic mail.



    A large number of delegates, journalists and NGOs used the

centre's services to make copies of the statements and other population

information; thousands of others around the world electronically

accessed the information in the gopher. Technical support for the

centre was provided by the Information and Decision Support Centre of

the Egyptian Cabinet and the Association for Progressive Communication.

For more information, contact Population Division, Department for

Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, 2 United Nations

Plaza, New York, NY 10017; tel. 212-963-3179; fax 212-963-2147; e-mail

popin@undp.org.



                                 *



Four independent daily newspapers on ICPD were produced in Cairo for

distribution at the Conference. All four offered up-to-date reports on

activity in the plenary and Main Committee, as well as analyses of the

issues under negotiation, interviews with participants, and background

articles from around the world on a variety of population and

development topics.



    The papers are: "The Earth Times", published in English by the New

York-based Earth Times Foundation; "Terra Viva", published in English

by the Inter Press Service, a non-profit association of journalists

absolutely ridiculous notion.
i'd like to see most of the non anglos piss off now.
disappear for good.

i can't see any of the new population coming from Europe.
they've become too aware of the amount of 3rd worlders living here now.

the core problem is governmental control.
the ppl responsible, that are behind the gov't should be exposed and dealt with.

but no, no....
no  real aussie got the guts, and these new aussies won't rock the boat.

this place is really f^cked.
j.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:29pm:

Quote: My point exactly freediver.  I'm not suggesting third world living; I'm suggesting that it is inevitable our population will grow. Not true. Most first world nations have a birth rate below the replacement level. It is only the stubborn refusal of old people to kick the bucket, and high immigration rates, that keeps the population rising.

Australia's birth rate estimate in 2009 is 12.47 births/1,000 people.  The death rate estimate in 2009 is 6.74 deaths/1,000 people.  Hence, while yes most of Europe is experiencing a decline in population because of birth rates, even if we were to completely cut out skilled migrations (60% of our population growth), we would still have population growth.  So, it is inevitable in Australia at this time.

The article looks very interesting and I promise to read it when I get a chance, a bit later on :)

Quote:

So, it is inevitable in Australia at this time

Are you really this much of an ignoramus on statistics? Do you think that a one year sample is representative?

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:45pm:

Quote: So, it is inevitable in Australia at this time Are you really this much of an ignoramus on statistics? Do you think that a one year sample is representative?

LOL is all I have to say.  Care to do some research?  

Birth Rates:
2003: 12.55
2004: 12.26
2005: 12.26
2006: 12.14
2007: 12.02
2008: 12.55
2009: 12.47

Death rates:
2003: 7.31
2004: 7.44
2005: 7.44
2006: 7.51
2007: 7.56
2008: 6.68
2009: 6.74

Would you like this graphed?  

Would you like me to go back for 20 years?

Droopy eye, if you wish for their to be a decline in population growth I suggest you become part of the 2010 death rate statistic. :)  

Quote:

Would you like me to go back for 20 years?

Yep. Lets see the decline that could be extrapolated.

Nice the way Costello's baby bonus lifted the rate somewhat, isn't it.
;D

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 8:54pm:

Quote: Would you like me to go back for 20 years? Yep. Lets see the decline that could be extrapolated. Nice the way Costello's baby bonus lifted the rate somewhat, isn't it. ;D

Well, if you want a larger population then yes, it is fantastic :)  

*Sigh* You have maintained that we would have a larger population even ceasing all immigration. Stating that it is 'inevitable'

Your statement is wrong

---

Yes, then welcome the baby bonus.

Provide something a bit more relevant than 1997 if you can?

You made the statement- it is up to you to provide the proof that population growth "is inevitable" even without immigration.

Let's see it...or hitch up that skirt again sweetheart and get a move along  ;D

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

You made the statement- it is up to you to provide the proof that population growth "is inevitable" even without immigration. Let's see it...or hitch up that skirt again sweetheart and get a move along  ;D

*sigh*
Since the introduction of the baby bonus, fertility rate has risen to 1.93 in 2007.  While not at the WORLD replacement level of 2.1, with population momentum, and immigration, Australia continues to experience population growth.  Based on the birth rate/death rate figures I have provided, it shows again that our population will continue to grow, even WITHOUT immigration.

More for you:

Population estimate in Dec 2006: 20,848,760
Population estimate in Dec 2007: 21,180,632
Immigration intake in 2007:  158,630

So...now I know this is hard but...where did the other 173,242 come from?  The only thing I will correct is that I said 60% of our population growth is because of immigration.  Based on these figures I am wrong on that, it is less.  Sorry.

Quote:

While not at the WORLD replacement level of 2.1, with population momentum, and immigration, Australia continues to experience population growth.  Based on the birth rate/death rate figures I have provided, it shows again that our population will continue to grow, even WITHOUT immigration.

Based on the birth/death rates you have provided you are completely incorrect.

I wonder if you can work out how? I wouldn't think so seeing as you posted such simplistic figures to try and back your absurd assertions, but it seems you are all about absurdity

I'll wait in anticipation as you try and figure it out  ;D

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 9:28pm:

Quote: While not at the WORLD replacement level of 2.1, with population momentum, and immigration, Australia continues to experience population growth.  Based on the birth rate/death rate figures I have provided, it shows again that our population will continue to grow, even WITHOUT immigration. Based on the birth/death rates you have provided you are completely incorrect. I wonder if you can work out how? I wouldn't think so seeing as you posted such simplistic figures to try and back your absurd assertions, but it seems you are all about absurdity I'll wait in anticipation as you try and figure it out  ;D

No need droopy eye:)  You have the figures there.  Prove it otherwise. :)

Here you go sweetheart.

Now, don't go getting hysterical. Go ask hubby what you should do

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument


Quote:

This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 June 2009 and assumes growth since then of:    * one birth every 1 minute and 45 seconds,    * one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds,    * a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minute and 51 seconds leading to    * an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 11 seconds.

Now go ahead and remove the immigrant factor and let me know what you come up with.

Then factor in a decline in the birth rate over the next 10-20 years

::)
Why do you put forward statements that you know are wrong, Alewives?

Oh that's right, you're  a leftard. Lies and obfuscation is your modus operandi  ::)

Try the truth for once and see how enlightened you feel

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

Here you go sweetheart. Now, don't go getting hysterical. Go ask hubby what you should do http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument Quote: This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 June 2009 and assumes growth since then of:    * one birth every 1 minute and 45 seconds,    * one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds,    * a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minute and 51 seconds leading to    * an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 11 seconds. Now go ahead and remove the immigrant factor and let me know what you come up with. Then factor in a decline in the birth rate over the next 10-20 years ::) Why do you put forward statements that you know are wrong, Alewives? Oh that's right, you're  a leftard. Lies and obfuscation is your modus operandi  ::) Try the truth for once and see how enlightened you feel

2 mistakes:
1. Alewife, not alewives.
2. The net migrant intake going to 0 will not reduce the birth rate to be below or equal to the death rate. Hence, natural population growth still occurs.

1. No, Alewives is correct. Look it up  ;)

2. Perhaps when you open your other eye you might try reading it again
Here, I'll make it easy because you have comprehension difficulties

Quote:

Then factor in a decline in the birth rate over the next 10-20 years

You really are a smacking dickhead. You come in here with a smarmy smacking attitude and have been completely pw3nd.

I have thoroughly enjoyed handing you your arse on a platter. Eat up sunshine.  ;D

;D Sorry for the interlude, but I hope you guys stay around awhile. I haven't seen any real entertainment like this for ages.
Carry on ..please  :)

Only idiots who go around humming, "The world owes me a livin", would not be taking stock of the severe environmental pressures the massive global population expansion has created.

Australia could easily support a much larger population, but why on earth would we want to?

To provide a home for peoples' whose traditional existence has relied on having huge families to have enough survive to support them in their old age?
To bring them here and "respect" their cultural right to continue to breed like that, even though we do not leave old people to die unless they are related to us, here in australia.

To see massive increases in "muslim" australians, who would breed themselves into a position where they could democratically introduce whatever sick dogma that muslims may believe in a few more generations?

To see the dull and stupid, continue to bring in a succession of kids to different fathers,, and expect to never have to support themselves or the kids, by actually working?

You see, that is the only way we will reach a target of 35 million people in Oz, and none of those scenarios is the least bit appealing to me.

I would rather see us promoting resposible stewardship of our country, and using our current population to get it back into good shape by living more responsible lifestyles now, not just heaping more pressure on it and hoping that somehow everything will just magically work out for the best.

Some just see people as consumers, and they just want to increase their sales by increasing the number of consumers, and I do not like that philosophy at all.

Please leave out the insults. Alevine may be excused for not knowing, being a new member, but the rest of you should know better. I will have to clean up this place again if the trend continues. You are supposed to demonstrate the standard to new members, not undermine it.

Whatever the statistics say, this is still true and applies to Australia also:

Most first world nations have a birth rate below the replacement level. It is only the stubborn refusal of old people to kick the bucket, and high immigration rates, that keeps the population rising.

Those old people are not going to live forever.

Sunny_beach_babe wrote on Jan 25^th, 2010 at 10:36pm:

1. No, Alewives is correct. Look it up  ;) 2. Perhaps when you open your other eye you might try reading it again Here, I'll make it easy because you have comprehension difficulties Quote: Then factor in a decline in the birth rate over the next 10-20 years You really are a smacking dickhead. You come in here with a smarmy smacking attitude and have been completely pw3nd. I have thoroughly enjoyed handing you your arse on a platter. Eat up sunshine.  ;D

Haha - you come up with your own stats now?  Factor in a birth rate decline - where is this being suggested?  Koodos to you.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2010 at 7:49am:

Please leave out the insults. Alevine may be excused for not knowing, being a new member, but the rest of you should know better. I will have to clean up this place again if the trend continues. You are supposed to demonstrate the standard to new members, not undermine it. Whatever the statistics say, this is still true and applies to Australia also: Most first world nations have a birth rate below the replacement level. It is only the stubborn refusal of old people to kick the bucket, and high immigration rates, that keeps the population rising. Those old people are not going to live forever.

Sure freediver I'll keep it respected on my part :)  Apologise for getting carried away.

With your statement, the reason I have said that the population will continue to rise regardless of immigration is because of the ageing population.  

Yes, our replacement rate is below 2.1.  However, this is no longer 100% indicative because of the growing life expectancy. Because death rates are falling, the natural population increase is happening in Australia.  

Any case, might not be the most reliable source but I got it from wiki ;)

Quote:

Yes, our replacement rate is below 2.1.  However, this is no longer 100% indicative because of the growing life expectancy.

It is indiciative of the long term trend. Or do you expect life expectancy to go on increasing forever at a rate sufficient to cancel out the low birth rate? One day this will actually have the opposite effect. There will be a much higher death rate than birth rate, because for so many generations the birth rate was below 2 per woman, so there are more people in the older generations. In fact, that is the precise problem our government is prattling on about when the mention the ageing population. The 'big' generations are nearing retirement and will soon be a burden. Then they will be nearing death and will soon be impacting population statistics.

a few passionate comments here. could be a good topic


Quote:

BILLIONAIRE property developer Harry Triguboff believes Australia's population will soar to 55 million by 2050, but hopes it will reach 100 million. With a new person being added to the country's total population every minute of the day, Australia's population growth is faster than Britain, the US and the EU. "Our population growth is certainly twice that of China,'' University of Adelaide demographer Professor Graeme Hugo told ABC Television today. The growth is being driven by more babies and immigration. The Federal Government favours a "big Australia'', and wants to increase the country's headcount from 22 million to 35 million by 2050, largely by immigration. Mr Triguboff believes that figure is too conservative. "I don't think there will be 35 million but about 55 million,'' he said on The 7.30 Report. Without population growth, Mr Triguboff says the economy will stall. "I'd like to see 100 million, because I believe we will have many things to do here besides drilling holes and selling coal,'' he said. "Our agriculture has to be huge. "Our desalination must be fantastic. Our rivers must flow the right way. "It will all have to be developed.'' Entrepreneur Dick Smith disagrees. "We need to do something about this incredible increase,'' he said at an Australian of the Year dinner in Parliament House yesterday. Mr Smith said Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. It was crazy that seawater was being desalinated for drinking water to supply a booming population. "I believe in 100 years time people in Australia will be starving to death,'' he said. Responding to Mr Triguboff's comments on The 7.30 Report, Mr Smith said future generations needed to be taken into consideration. "I'd say to Harry, `Think of your grandchildren mate, because they are going to have the difficulties that we are creating'.'' The Government wants to increase the population because it means more young taxpayers to pay the rising health and pension costs of the ageing population. But a "big Australia'' might destroy the country's fragile and already stressed environment, former New South Wales premier Bob Carr says. "What's wrong with a bit of space? What's wrong with the possibility of being able to get to a beach and get onto the beach ... where the opportunity of going for a walk in a national park is less than an hour's drive from the centre of the city?'' he told The 7.30 Report. "What's wrong with these things? "What's wrong with having headlands still in a natural state? "What's wrong with having magnificent coastal national parks? "Why do we have to cram (a) coastal strip with tens of millions more people?'' Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison thinks boosting the population is a "positive thing'', but has concerns about border policy. "Anxiety levels are significantly reduced when a government is on top of its game when it comes to managing the immigration program and particularly when it comes to managing our borders, and in both of those cases, there are concerns with this Government,'' he told ABC Radio. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said today: "I think the greatest prize in the world is to be an Australian. "I think we can only take in a certain number of people and as long as that program is run firmly in Australia's national interest we can continue to be a great country of immigrants,'' he said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/developer-predicts-55m-aussies-wants-100m/story-fn3dxity-1225823435049

i, for one, do not want to see another asain or turk/leb in my life, other than the ones already here.
even then i have to restrain myself from throwing up everytime i step out the door here in Burwood, NSW.
it would be OK if these types socially intermingled with us anglos, but yet don't.
and the younger arabs are actually arrogant towards anglos.
next thing, these ppl are pretty dumb, and have fallen for the line "life's better in Australia." it might be for them, but not for other that have sit in silence a tolerate this scum.
it MIGHT be better for them, as they can only go UP.
not so for anglos, we suffer because of stupid laws now that were not necessary even 20yrs ago.
so, i'm going to sell my home to any one of the stupid f^cks for the highest price i can get so they can bask in all the glory of an over-rated, polluted , rip-off of a place called Burwood. and the rest of western Sydney is just as bad, because of these races.
yep 35million will do it for Australia, put it down the drain where i'm now thinking it belongs. why not 70million? boy, what a party that'll be. 140million? break out the fake champagne and distribute it to very starving child forced to be born into such a place. it's about the only food they'll have.
this will not be a popular move, but i'm about to front Burwood Council with all this.
and i know plenty anglos in the area who will back me up, even if i don't need their support.
jr.

If you want to be taken seriously, drop the race references.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2010 at 7:00pm:

If you want to be taken seriously, drop the race references.

freediver,

i don't know where YOU live, but, i CAN tell you this.
Burwood was, up until 20yrs ago, almost totally anglo/euro.
this last 20 has seem them all move, except for some that are too old.
the reason for the move out?
chinese moving in. i know this to be true.
i got the shock of my life when i unfortunately had to move back here, after living on the lower north shore for 30yrs.
at that time, 2000, there was no  new Westfield yet, and you could swing a cat in the main road.
as soon as Westfield was open, in came the Lebs.
these ppl caused heaps of trouble in the cafes here until the cops clamped down.
almost closed a few cafes that did.
now, all there is in Burwood Rd are Arab and Chinese run cafes, and none are doing THAT well. there are just too many. i've fronted the council, but they don't have an answer.
is this all these ppl can manage to earn a buck? creating dud cafes?
i find the Australian Immigration Policy to be unreasonable.
i find the notion of increasing the population here to 35million, to be totally insane.
and we're voting for these ppl?
a reforendum is needed.
i'm SICK of being gagged.
why don't we import Euro/Brits, etc?
we can, but they won't come here, because of the Chinese and Arabs.
i also know this to be true.
freediver, i hope this is clear enough.
Australia is getting very sucky.
jr.

Quote:

now, all there is in Burwood Rd are Arab and Chinese run cafes, and none are doing THAT well. there are just too many.

This is interesting. In Dubbo there were strips of Chinese restaurants in the center of town that were almost always completely empty. I had no idea how they managed to stay in business at all.


Quote:

it would be OK if these types socially intermingled with us anglos, but yet don't.

Of course they don't. People identify and feel most comfortable around people who are like themselves, a root factor in why multiracial, multicultural societies are such shitfests. You think Burwood is bad now but this is only the tip of the iceberg.


Quote:

why don't we import Euro/Brits, etc?

I thought we did; we're still overwhelmingly (especially in comparison to say, the United States) a majority white nation, and our largest born-overseas group consists of people from the British Isles. I think this has changed in recent times however, as those of swarthy/yellow persuasion have replaced Anglo-Saxons as our primary source of immigrants. Even despite our own inchoate minority pandemonium I would still venture that most British individuals still yearn for a life here rather than there. Let's face it; we don't have it half as bad as they do. The British Isles are being inundanted by minorities that are several times worse than ours; Windies, Bangladeshis and Muslims of every possible stripe. Combine this with less room and far more minorities and you've got a recipe for "get me the bugger out of here!"

As for the matter to which this topic pertains, I'm sure to many of you can already guess what I think without me even making my views clear :D Obviously, I want:

1) Immigration completely ceased as soon as possible. Immigration will recommence after our policies on the matter (and various others) have been redesigned based on a variety of principles;

- Gauging the elegibility of an immigrant on the basis of his race, nation of origin, etc. Some will receive a higher 'weight' than others, for instance candidates from Anglo-Saxon nations still loyal to the crown will receive the highest immediate score. Scores in this category will continue to slide from places such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada to Ireland and the United States, other European nations, Oriental Nations and finally African/Middle-Eastern nations at the bottom. Then do the same with racial origin, educational background, personal achievements etc. Of course, this section of the test is designed purposely in such a way that Europeans, specifically, British Europeans, will obtain much higher scores than anybody else. This will ultimately have the effect of decreasing non-white immigration to completely negligble/non-existent levels; exactly as planned.

- Satisfactory marks on a rigorous citizenship examination, that I could probably design myself. The test will be divided into two components, the first being culturally relevant knowledge. Questions within this category will pertain to the history of Western Civilization, British/Anglo-Saxon history, Australian history (of course), Australian-Anglo Saxon culture, Australian geography and Australian government. The second will be a test of one's understanding of the English language. This will primarily consist of multiple choice questions asking the test-taker to define various words; questions will be made more difficult not by employing more esoteric words but by requring the test-taker to make finer distinctions of meaning between answer choices. A small number of verbal analogies and reading comprehension questions will conclude this portion of the test, and the entire test. It should be noted that immigrants who cannot speak English at all will be immediately disqualified from taking the test at all, thus, the reason for this section is to provide an inexpensive approximation of the general intelligence of the participant. Combine this into a composite score with their educational background and the validity of this attempted measure will increase considerably.

2) Drastically decreasing the number of immigrants in total, from all sources. This point is what this thread is primarily about, so I should elaborate. I have not examined much information on the capacity of Australia, but I would speculate that it isn't very high. As Freediver was saying, a lower population is probably more ideal than a larger population for this country, though I can't say this with absolute certainty (having not investigated the facts with much thoroughness). If a smaller population is or becomes non-essential in the future, encouraging native whites to reproduce is preferable to importing whites (who themselves come from sources also 'drying out'). Baby bonuses are a good idea, but again, eligibility for such should be determined on several criterions, including general intelligence, family background, special skills (within the family), suspectibility to disease, etc. We should encourage our people, and yes, the highest quality Aboriginals (a eugenic boost in this particular area is desperately needed) as well, to breed again.

3) A small minority of our minorities already here should be forcibly sent home, no disputing.

We obviously have much to do, and as Muso frequently says, much work is required in order to make this nation more sustainable (without having to resort to decreasing population size).

fd  
Quote:

If you want to be taken seriously, drop the race references.

dddddduuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh - this is all ABOUT races

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 8:12am:

fd   Quote: If you want to be taken seriously, drop the race references. dddddduuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh - this is all ABOUT races

How could it not be? ;D

thank god for some sort of sanity.
anyway, i'm  NOT against immigration.
what i do not  like is the gov't TELLING us want /need.
they are the criminals here.
jr.
thanks for reading my text, i DO appreciate it, and in the end i just want  what is best for this country.
of course, that's a matter of opinion.
jr

Just some friendly advice. Take it or leave it. It's up to you.

another nail in kruddy political koffin


Quote:

NOW that Kevin Rudd has informed us that he favours a "big Australia" with a population reaching 35 million by 2050, will he also tell us what happens then? Do we continue to pursue policies that will further double our population by 2100, causing us to cease immigration altogether and then apply the Chinese solution: one child per family? And if the population is to increase to 35 million, what's the rush to get there so quickly? Thanks to the ABC, Kerry O'Brien and The 7.30 Report, which devoted most of last week to showcasing the question of population growth, it appears that at last we are going to have the public debate some of us have been seeking for years. I once asked in question time whether the prime minister was aware that immigration levels were causing concern because of the pressure they exert on "education, health and social services, housing and land prices and the consequent diminution in the quality of life that overcrowded cities have on our environment". I asked for a white paper on immigration to evaluate the costs and benefits of continued large-scale immigration. That was on June 10, 1970, and John Gorton's answer indicated he was none too pleased with my question. Neither was Labor's immigration spokesman Fred Daly. Having written and spoken about the issue for 40 years, I'm delighted a serious debate is about to begin. My view then was that Australia couldn't have an immigration policy without first having a population policy. It hasn't changed. What surprises me is that Rudd has decided to support a massive increase without the matter being debated in public, the parliament, the party or the press. I am not alone in my concern. What advocates of big Australia haven't yet done is spelt out clearly the benefits from such a huge population increase. In the early 1990s our annual growth rate, including immigration as well as births and deaths, dropped below 1 per cent. It is now, thanks to more babies and more people living longer, almost 2 per cent. With a population of 22 million, the deterioration in the quality of life in our cities is already obvious. Daily our media highlights the inadequacy of our schools, hospitals and transport system, housing and water shortages, and spiralling land prices. You don't need to be an urban planner, demographer or sociologist to see the problems. If the 35 million predicted by 2050 is correct, with Sydney and Melbourne rising to seven million each, we are courting disaster. Double the population and life in the cities will be intolerable. No, no, say the big Australians, we can take millions more. We can but who will benefit? It is up to the big Australians to show how this will improve the quality of life for present and future generations of Australians. The Prime Minister might also care to explain why the government is telling us we must reduce our carbon footprint while suggesting we should double the number of feet. We appear to be on two different planets. Some suggest that not to share our country with millions more immigrants is selfish and that we have the responsibility to help other countries to lighten their population load. Excuse me? What about helping them with population control? Why has it taken so long for this debate to take place? One reason is that the ethnic lobby brands anyone who questions immigration as racist. That won't work with the type of people who are now entering the debate. People of the calibre of Dick Smith, Bob Carr and, if I may say so, yours truly can't be so labelled. More and more Australians are speaking out on this issue and they will not be silenced out of fear of being blackguarded by those afraid to seriously debate the issue. The pundits suggest the federal election will be fought on the economy, climate change, health care and education. To that we can aadd population and immigration. It's the big sleeper. Rudd and Tony Abbott take note. It will be a debate not about who comes to this country but how many.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/populate-and-we-will-perish/story-e6frg6zo-1225825667779

Who our leaders are trying to please?

Why don't they fix all the shortages first?
(hospitals, roads, schools, homelessness, housing affordability)

I will not support overseas programs unless it is save the child from being born into famine and poverty.

You know, when you hear our politicians so enthusiastically pushing for such an outcome, you cnanot help but be filled with foreboding. I may be going out on a speculative limb here  (and this post should not be viewed as anything but such a venture), but really, men like Rudd scare the absolute poo out of me. Why is he so excited about this? Why is he advocating this patent folly with such keenness?

The guy is an absolute Sinophile. He seems to have spent more time around Chinese people and Asians more than his own people throughout his entire life, and I have heard him make statements before about how Australia cannot possibly move forward and become 'part of Asia' if it does not abandon its British symbolic heritages.

What does this guy want?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Just some friendly advice. Take it or leave it. It's up to you.

take or leave what?
jr.

the advice

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 4:52pm:

the advice

what advice, a how is it relevant?

aikmann4 wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 3:26pm:

You know, when you hear our politicians so enthusiastically pushing for such an outcome, you cnanot help but be filled with foreboding. I may be going out on a speculative limb here  (and this post should not be viewed as anything but such a venture), but really, men like Rudd scare the absolute poo out of me. Why is he so excited about this? Why is he advocating this patent folly with such keenness? The guy is an absolute Sinophile. He seems to have spent more time around Chinese people and Asians more than his own people throughout his entire life, and I have heard him make statements before about how Australia cannot possibly move forward and become 'part of Asia' if it does not abandon its British symbolic heritages. What does this guy want?

he wants Aussie to be a province of China.
according to the latest opinion polls, he's not liked because of these leanings and any lib with a bit of guts will do him this year.
do you want to become part of china? i certainly don't.
i, unfortunately live in a 90% chinese suburb, Burwood.
most are renting. i like to know who really owns/controls this area, it isn't these ppl,
they aren't rich enough or smart enough.
ask me how i know this?
because i've dealt with them over the years on both a commercial and educational
level.
there might be bright one amongst this lot, somewhere, but they are not living in this area.
and OK, to the guys that run this forum.
a little about me.
i'm a professional and a professor. i have four degrees in certain areas of the arts/sciences.
i have lectured at all the uni's, college's etc.
it's a fallacy to believe, asians are smart. they are aren't. no more than any euro.
and lebs/turks, etc?
there MIGHT be smart ones, but i haven't encountered any. to me, the one's i've met come off as opportunists/businessmen. take your pick.
Australia might need a few things to improve her.
letting more of the above races in here is certainly not one of those things.
jr.

Happy wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 2:37pm:

Who our leaders are trying to please? Why don't they fix all the shortages first? (hospitals, roads, schools, homelessness, housing affordability) I will not support overseas programs unless it is save the child from being born into famine and poverty.

I prefer this approach. The best way to achieve it is education, women's rights, universal suffrage, and free familty planning that lets women choose what to with their bodies - ie giving them information and opportunity, not judgement. Their is a strong link between wealth and low population, with a lot of positive feedback. Haiti is a good demonstration of that.