Not me.

Quote:


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/no-one-wants-big-australia-dick-sm...

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.

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


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.

Quote:


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.

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

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


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.

Hi Alewives

Quote:

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

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

Are you unable to formulate your own argument?
Quote:

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:


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:


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

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


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

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


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.  

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


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

Yes, then welcome the baby bonus.

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

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


*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.

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


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

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


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.

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  

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.

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


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

a few passionate comments here. could be a good topic

Quote:



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/developer-predicts-55m-aussie...

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

Quote:


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:


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:


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 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).

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


How could it not be?

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

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.

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

take or leave what?
jr.

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

what advice, a how is it relevant?

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


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.