| Author | Message |
|---|
MontysDouble
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 24 Jan 2010, 17:22 · [Salvaged from Archive]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800081.htm
Future Australians could face starvation: Dick Smith
High-profile businessman Dick Smith has used the run-in to Australia Day to argue that Australia must curb its population growth, saying the country could run out of food if it has too many mouths to feed.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said that he supports a "big Australia" and there are forecasts the population will reach 36 million people by 2050.
But Mr Smith says there is not enough food and water to go around.
He says Australia should cut its skilled migrant intake and encourage people to have fewer children.
"Our politicians are completely letting the Australian public down," he said.
"Nine out of 10 Aussies don't want 40 million people here, but there's no discussion, there's no debate.
"There has to be. Because what's the use of bringing kids in this world, who even in a modern Western country could starve to death? And that's what could happen."The best comment to this article that I found:
Dimitri:
25 Jan 2010 10:00:44am
It's interesting, I agree with what you say and Dick Smith's sentiment (which I never thought would ever happen), but not for the reasons stated, at least about Australia, which I believe are inaccurate:
- We are a net exporter of food by a large margin (unless of course the NSW government lets BHP dig up the Liverpool Plains for coal).
- There is water available, but necessarily in traditional population areas. Further, no Australian city has water recycling infrastructure. Just about any modern city anywhere else has this.
Therefore, I think that Australia could sustain a larger population. The argument is better applied to overpopulated nations which need (or will soon) to import a proportion of all their primary needs, particularly food. For example: Japan, England, China.
However, the problem I see is (on which we agree):
- global human population is growing out of control.
- people in the first world are a particular problem, for we consume greater quantities of resources and produce far larger amounts of waste, particularly damaging or refractory wastes.
By allowing Australia's population to increase will only exacerbate global environmental problems, as we are a particularly large consumer per capita. Each Australian leaves a disproportionately large mark on the environment.
As is typical of government: their policies are incoherent. I would expect this of government departments; but we elect these buffoons to unite the disparate interests of beauracracy and to direct these in a common direction. Instead, we get Catholic Church dogma and 20th Century economic reasoning. Both of which need to be: not re-used, not reduced, not recycled, but chucked. |
JooX
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 24 Jan 2010, 17:27 · [Salvaged from Archive]
More people = more tax $ |
mousewallrat
Salvaged from Archive | Posted: 24 Jan 2010, 18:30 · [Salvaged from Archive]
It reminds me of the propaganda of the '80's here in America. Funny that there's always a New Catastrophe waiting in the wings. Then, we had the 'Population Bomb' in all the mags, and all over the facking place. The only population exploding is the minority one. Thirty years later, we still have room in the US for another hundred million or so. Same for Australia, if they can generate the food/energy/water for them. Of course, New Guinea and New Zealand are close if you need more Liebensraum. |
