Who will you vote for? Australian political parties (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

And why will it plateua? People are going to stop having children? Australia is going to become yucky so it won't be such a popular migrant destination? We going to line the shores with dingo's and bogans to scare off the migrants? I know it would be best if Australia had less or more people from a sustaining natural resources perspective but how does that fit in as practical with the rest of the worlds population growth?

Um, when nations reach a post-industrial stage, as most of the West is now in, birthrates decline drastically. This is why almost all Western nations have an ageing population.

Nations like Japan, others I can't recall atm, are actually facing a declining population.

Without immigration, Australia's population would be declining too, birthrates have dropped that much. Birthrates are below population renewal levels, less than 2.0 children per couple.

Even with 100'000 people immigrating to Australia per year, population growth is only 0.05%.

So plateauing is very much on the cards for much of Europe, Japan, others.

Looking at it philosophically, global population has to plateau or decline at some point. You can't have exponential global population growth for an infinite timeframe. Even with the best technology and management, you reach a maximum carrying capacity of the land, something the best estimates say we've already drastically exceeded in Australia.

You haven't specified for what purpose exactly Australia's population should be grown, other than some vague notion of being a world power, which begs the question, why be a world power? You've admitted that our individual quality of life would drop, so why do it? We don't owe the rest of the worlds population access to a share of our quality of life.

 

[Graney]

He is right though. These things will go. Food is so readily availiable now that people are able to become obese. When this is not the case due to overpopulation, there will be no massive tracts of fertile land to grow tobacco and coffee as it will be unprofitable compared to corn, rice and wheat for example.

You can't grow food crops everywhere, I'm no expert on individuals crops needs, but presumably some of those luxuries grow on land that couldn't sustain staple crops.

Also, food being readily available, even in the present world, is an illusion presented to Western consumers.

 

[Lentern]

Um, when nations reach a post-industrial stage, as most of the West is now in, birthrates decline drastically. This is why almost all Western nations have an ageing population.

Nations like Japan, others I can't recall atm, are actually facing a declining population.

Without immigration, Australia's population would be declining too, birthrates have dropped that much. Birthrates are below population renewal levels, less than 2.0 children per couple.

Even with 100'000 people immigrating to Australia per year, population growth is only 0.05%.

So plateauing is very much on the cards for much of Europe, Japan, others.

Looking at it philosophically, global population has to plateau or decline at some point. You can't have exponential global population growth for an infinite timeframe. Even with the best technology and management, you reach a maximum carrying capacity of the land, something the best estimates say we've already drastically exceeded in Australia.

You haven't specified for what purpose exactly Australia's population should be grown, other than some vague notion of being a world power, which begs the question, why be a world power? You've admitted that our individual quality of life would drop, so why do it? We don't owe the rest of the worlds population access to a share of our quality of life.

A few random jottings.
-Japan is literally overcrowded, Australia's urban centres are still quite spacious.
-I suspect birthrates are in a lull and will pick up again.
-Damned if I know how we'll cope but the world population$ will not plateau, we'll send up space domes on Mars or something when that time comes but you are not going to convince people to stop reproducing.
-Globilisation will let us make much more of the land, perhaps the barron suburnt country is good for very little but whatever it is good for and I'm thinking that's generating electricity we trade for food in the more fertile countries or what not. No it's not that simple but that is the principle which will allow for the expansion.
-In addition to the desire of every politician except the odd Barnaby Joyce to command a superpower population will grow without any real intent, people will just want to live here and have children here. And I find the last statement a little offensive, it seems to be implying we have some divine right to enjoy luxuries that people who are born, through no fault of their own, in poorer countries do not.

 

[Lentern]

I just read the wikipedia page about overpopulation. Since 1960, food production has increased faster than population has. So we have a fairly large buffer. The amount of overweight people is now larger than the amount of underweight people too. But that doesn't matter, as people will want to maintain their lifestyle. As food becomes more scarce, prices will increase for things like wheat and meats etc so this will drive the market up for them and decrease the market for vanilla beans etc. Also it said that population is ultimatelty controlled by food availibility. The only reason humans have been able to become as populous as they have is because of agriculture. When we reach the limits of food production, then population will plateou. Also there is nothing saying that our population wont decrease, russias has been decreasing for years.

Sorry, i overlooked this one.

The major qualms I have with this logic which does seem ok in many respects is that the birthrate increases happpened primarilly in places like Africa and the subcontinent, hardly places with an abundance of food so it seems funny that food availability could be causing the population growth.

The other is if you look at the way humans have tried to get around climate change, eg carbon trading instead of reducing emmisions, it seems likely people will look for a way around the food crisis rather than tighten their belts, and that is where I think GM will come into its own.

 

[Lentern]

You can't grow food crops everywhere, I'm no expert on individuals crops needs, but presumably some of those luxuries grow on land that couldn't sustain staple crops.

Also, food being readily available, even in the present world, is an illusion presented to Western consumers.

Yes but for example a few pretty dodgy carrotts will feed more people than a perfect crop or Tobacco, although the Tabacco would curb appetities and populations if you want to look at it like that.

 

[Graney]

A few random jottings.
-Japan is literally overcrowded, Australia's urban centres are still quite spacious.

Space has nothing to do with capacity to support population. Indonesia is a lot smaller in land mass than Australia, but it's capacity to support population is much greater.

Australia's land mass has little to do with how many people it can or should support.

-I suspect birthrates are in a lull and will pick up again.

Why would it? It's not an isolated temporary incident, all post-industrial nations are going through the same thing, and show no sign of abating. Birth rate decline following industrialisation is a fact.

-Damned if I know how we'll cope but the world population$ will not plateau, we'll send up space domes on Mars or something when that time comes but you are not going to convince people to stop reproducing.

You don't need to convince people to stop reproducing for population to plateau. When carrying capacity is reached, mortality rates will rise to meet the gap.

In the process of growing the population exponentially we will trash the earth and reduce it's future carrying capacity- for all species, not just humans.

And I find the last statement a little offensive, it seems to be implying we have some divine right to enjoy luxuries that people who are born, through no fault of their own, in poorer countries do not.

I agree we should encourage global equality, but that doesn't mean borders should be dissolved.

 

[Lentern]

Space has nothing to do with capacity to support population. Indonesia is a lot smaller in land mass than Australia, but it's capacity to support population is much greater.

Australia's land mass has little to do with how many people it can or should support.



Why would it? It's not an isolated temporary incident, all post-industrial nations are going through the same thing, and show no sign of abating. Birth rate decline following industrialisation is a fact.



You don't need to convince people to stop reproducing for population to plateau. When carrying capacity is reached, mortality rates will rise to meet the gap.

In the process of growing the population exponentially we will trash the earth and reduce it's future carrying capacity- for all species, not just humans.



I agree we should encourage global equality, but that doesn't mean borders should be dissolved.

- I don't swallow that, in a world where trade is so easy and getting easier might I add I think areas once considered barren will be perfectly suitable for doing office jobs and running energy plants and the like. We are all going to become less autonomous and more communal opening up all sorts of options. So, in short I see being so spacious but without fertility becoming a country of cities.

-Because people like children and it just seems so darn probable that we'll go through a phase where every little girls dream is to be able to have three adorable children, a handsome husband and a white picket fence.

-I'm going to hazard a guess and say Australia has gone to unusual lengths to make it feasible to raise children in a western economy, baby bonus, medicare, centrelink etc, so it's unlikely that raising a child or three will become so undesirable a thing in Australia. At any rate I don't see the subcontinent or Africa getting anywhere near that stage of development fast enough that they will stop reproducing which I suspect will cause migration will keep ticking over.

-Whose talking dissolution? When in Australia they are still bound by Australian law and enjoy the rights of Australians, and when they leave they are not.

 

[black_kat_meow]

- I don't swallow that, in a world where trade is so easy and getting easier might I add I think areas once considered barren will be perfectly suitable for doing office jobs and running energy plants and the like. We are all going to become less autonomous and more communal opening up all sorts of options. So, in short I see being so spacious but without fertility becoming a country of cities.

-Because people like children and it just seems so darn probable that we'll go through a phase where every little girls dream is to be able to have three adorable children, a handsome husband and a white picket fence.

-I'm going to hazard a guess and say Australia has gone to unusual lengths to make it feasible to raise children in a western economy, baby bonus, medicare, centrelink etc, so it's unlikely that raising a child or three will become so undesirable a thing in Australia. At any rate I don't see the subcontinent or Africa getting anywhere near that stage of development fast enough that they will stop reproducing which I suspect will cause migration will keep ticking over.

-Whose talking dissolution? When in Australia they are still bound by Australian law and enjoy the rights of Australians, and when they leave they are not.

Um, what the fuck? For one thing, children impact upon lifestyle, hence the falling birth rate (only picking up in less favourable social groups due to financial incentives). And why is that probable? Plus, if the population increases as dramatically as you want it to, there'll be no white picket fences, we'll all be living in high rises, lol.

If you believe that, you obviously don't know many (at least outside the Western suburbs) females.

 

[Graney]

- I don't swallow that, in a world where trade is so easy and getting easier might I add I think areas once considered barren will be perfectly suitable for doing office jobs and running energy plants and the like. We are all going to become less autonomous and more communal opening up all sorts of options. So, in short I see being so spacious but without fertility becoming a country of cities.

Australia has limits such as national supply of water/food as mentioned.

-Because people like children and it just seems so darn probable that we'll go through a phase where every little girls dream is to be able to have three adorable children, a handsome husband and a white picket fence.

Why aren't they having kids now then? That's an emotive anecdote, not a reasonable evidence based argument you're presenting.

People like having money, freedom and independence more than 3 kids.

-I'm going to hazard a guess and say Australia has gone to unusual lengths to make it feasible to raise children in a western economy, baby bonus, medicare, centrelink etc, so it's unlikely that raising a child or three will become so undesirable a thing in Australia.

Yet despite these incentives, people have 1.5~ kids, so it's obviously not so attractive compared to alternative lifestyle choices,

At any rate I don't see the subcontinent or Africa getting anywhere near that stage of development fast enough that they will stop reproducing which I suspect will cause migration will keep ticking over.

Yeah, they might not stop reproducing, but you didn't address that thing I said:

You don't need to convince people to stop reproducing for population to plateau. When carrying capacity is reached, mortality rates will rise to meet the gap.

You might like to read this article, particularly the bit about how "the decline in world agricultural capability (and hence carrying capacity) which began in the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity"

-Whose talking dissolution? When in Australia they are still bound by Australian law and enjoy the rights of Australians, and when they leave they are not.

I didn't say anything about law and rights, I was talking about migration borders. We can encourage equality while upholding the exclusivity and integrity of our borders.

 

[Lentern]

Um, what the fuck? For one thing, children impact upon lifestyle, hence the falling birth rate (only picking up in less favourable social groups due to financial incentives). And why is that probable? Plus, if the population increases as dramatically as you want it to, there'll be no white picket fences, we'll all be living in high rises, lol.

If you believe that, you obviously don't know many (at least outside the Western suburbs) females.

I didn't say they want to today silly. I think you ask most people whether they are happy or unhappy that they have had children they'd say they are happy.

 

[Graney]

I didn't say they want to today silly. I think you ask most people whether they are happy or unhappy that they have had children they'd say they are happy.

But they rarely want more than two kids. They see no need to be tied down to that extent.

 

[katie tully]

Side note about the aging population though ..
Current technologies are allowing us to live longer and longer (and although we're going to be the first generation to die before our parents due to obesity related problems), mortality rates for cancer and other diseases have remained stable, in some instances dropping (despite the incidence increasing).

So we keep talking about an aging population, but in reality, it's taking us longer to age and die?

 

[black_kat_meow]

I didn't say they want to today silly. I think you ask most people whether they are happy or unhappy that they have had children they'd say they are happy.

And then what do you base the idea that they will want more in the future on?

That also has nothing to do with people wanting more children, just because they're happy they had children, doesn't mean the more they have, the happier they are.

 

[Lentern]

Australia has limits such as national supply of water/food as mentioned.



Why aren't they having kids now then? That's an emotive anecdote, not a reasonable evidence based argument you're presenting.

People like having money, freedom and independence more than 3 kids.



Yet despite these incentives, people have 1.5~ kids, so it's obviously not so attractive compared to alternative lifestyle choices,



Yeah, they might not stop reproducing, but you didn't address that thing I said:

You don't need to convince people to stop reproducing for population to plateau. When carrying capacity is reached, mortality rates will rise to meet the gap.

You might like to read this article, particularly the bit about how "the decline in world agricultural capability (and hence carrying capacity) which began in the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity"



I didn't say anything about law and rights, I was talking about migration borders. We can encourage equality while upholding the exclusivity and integrity of our borders.

-Yes and we will get around those limits through importing and exporting what we seem not to have a finite source of.

-You can't separate the emotions from the child production issue. Emotion plays an incredible part.

Ask any mother of three children what matters.
-Like I said I believe it's a lull and in thirty years big families will again become the norm.

-I don't subscribe to that, if it's about capacity then why are the highest birthrates in the placest with the least amount of food and water? Surely it would work the other way.

-Ok maybe I am in favour of disolving national borders.

 

[Graney]

Side note about the aging population though ..
Current technologies are allowing us to live longer and longer (and although we're going to be the first generation to die before our parents due to obesity related problems), mortality rates for cancer and other diseases have remained stable, in some instances dropping (despite the incidence increasing).

So we keep talking about an aging population, but in reality, it's taking us longer to age and die?

In addition to long term decling in birth rates to below replacement levels...

 

[Lentern]

And then what do you base the idea that they will want more in the future on?

That also has nothing to do with people wanting more children, just because they're happy they had children, doesn't mean the more they have, the happier they are.

The same idea that says my fully sick jeans today will be daggy in ten years time and my dad's horrible old suit will one day be what all the studs are wearing.

 

[black_kat_meow]

-Yes and we will get around those limits through importing and exporting what we seem not to have a finite source of.

-You can't separate the emotions from the child production issue. Emotion plays an incredible part.

Ask any mother of three children what matters.
-Like I said I believe it's a lull and in thirty years big families will again become the norm.

-I don't subscribe to that, if it's about capacity then why are the highest birthrates in the placest with the least amount of food and water? Surely it would work the other way.

-Ok maybe I am in favour of disolving national borders.

Sounds bitchy, but it's true- women with more children tend to have lower levels of education. So as more women pursue higher education, I believe the birth rate will further decline.

 

[Lentern]

Sounds bitchy, but it's true- women with more children tend to have lower levels of education. So as more women pursue higher education, I believe the birth rate will further decline.

Very few parents are ever going to say that the lifestyle is more important to them then their children.

 

[katie tully]

-Yes and we will get around those limits through importing and exporting what we seem not to have a finite source of.

-You can't separate the emotions from the child production issue. Emotion plays an incredible part.

Ask any mother of three children what matters.
-Like I said I believe it's a lull and in thirty years big families will again become the norm.

-I don't subscribe to that, if it's about capacity then why are the highest birthrates in the placest with the least amount of food and water? Surely it would work the other way.

-Ok maybe I am in favour of disolving national borders.

- From where? Which countries are we going to import from? If the rate of population grows exponentially in all other countries, places like China and India won't be reliable for agriculture and water ... Aren't we better off trying to sustain ourselves as much as possible? Even if that means growing/producing more to export as a means of income?

- I think you can. The average age of women bearing children has grown to ~30 years. People aren't getting married, on average until 27. This is drastically different to even 40 years ago. Do you think emotion plays a big part of it, or are these people wanting children but acknowledging that financial stability is paramount over bringing children into the world?

- The highest birthrates are in third world countries, not because of desire, but because of lack of education.

 

[katie tully]

Very few parents are ever going to say that the lifestyle is more important to them then their children.

I challenge you to ask any Gen Y person whether lifestyle is more important than having children.