Little Australia comes to Sydney
|
For Labor, the population debate is no political parlour game about whether Kevin Rudd was verballed when he spoke about a population of 36 million. The ALP are playing for keeps on the issue. This flyer was distributed in the outer-Sydney/Blue Mountains electorate of Macquarie where Labor’s Susan Templeman, replacing Bob Debus, is taking on Louise Markus, who has shifted from Greenway. Part of this electorate includes the outer-suburban fringes of Sydney, exactly the areas Julia Gillard has targeted with her message that some areas can’t cope with continued population growth. The flyer was a thick, glossy, personally addressed mailout — expensive to print and dispatch.
It achieves the rare feat for political advertising of attacking the party itself, or at least the party under that crazy man Kevin Rudd, he of “big Australia” and “arbitrary targets” (despite Rudd repeatedly insisting there was no target, merely a projection based on historic levels of immigration). Indeed, Rudd gets name checked in the document for explicit rejection. It’s now usual for NSW Labor to casually dispose of leaders, but it’s relatively novel that they should then campaign against them once they’ve been removed. Like the language selected for use? “Stop and take a breath”. “Sustainable nation”. “Don’t hurtle towards a big Australia”, alongside the pleasantly smiling features of the new PM. Oh, and the “36 million” number that Gillard generously rounded up to 40 million has been left uncorrected. If a leaflet bearing a similar message from John Howard had been dispatched in years past, he would have been savaged for dog-whistling — an act apparently beyond a Labor government even when it shifts to the Right on population and immigration issues. The race to see who can be the party of Little Australia is on. |
|
|
|
Historically Hung Over: The Crikey Guide To The 2010 Federal Election
54 Comments
It is pleasing that the message from the cities of Australia finally seems to have reached Canberra. It has taken some time to get there. Now, when and by how much will the ALP reduce the immigration intake?
Troy C, I believe the population target will be reduced by campaiging to reduce the birth rate by making birth control products free of charge under the PBS. Still like it?
Or how about: all immigration from Europe and North America will be banned. Still like it?
How about we kill off skilled migration instead of humanitarian visas? Still like it?
Why does a smaller population have to be made smaller by targeting immigration from countries of people with dark skin? In other words, that’s the point that proves the dog whistle.
Yes, it is notable to see such a public acknowledgement of policy change.
However wanting our population size to match our ability to provide education, transportation, medication, food, water and housing is not bigotry. It’s common sense.
Think about that next time you’re sitting in traffic, paying your exorbitant rent / mortgage, mourning the loss of another native specie, waiting in an emergency room or listing your child’s name on a waiting list for a therapist.
Brett de Hoedt, Melbourne.
Back in 1960, Australia had just over 10 million people. Now we have just over 20 million. We’ve coped fine with that increase and we’ll cope find with a further increase to 40 million - as long as we plan for it, which is what Kevin Rudd tried to do. For example, better public transport in our cities.
With the greying of the population, we need to import more young people to keep this nation going. And skilled migration is a great way to import the sort of good people that every economy needs to grow.
Scot: They can please themselves. I won’t lose any sleep over how it’s done, so long as it gets done.
kittykater: Importing another 20 million “young” people because the rest are greying is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme. For what happens when those young people turn grey? Do you bring in 40 million? When they grey? 80 million more? For how long do you think this game can be kept going?
Is there any chance we can convince the furriners in our parliament to go home, Gillard first?
And she is dogwhistling only Michelle Grattan called it a big, loud wolf whistle.
@Scott McPhee - Very nicely and clearly put. It’s a condition you know, it begins with ‘R’ and ends in ‘a ism’.
@Troy C - If you consider ……… Oh I really can’t be bothered, refer above.
Tom: As I said before, I don’t care how it’s done — so long as it gets done.
Troy C, I take it you’d have no objection to a future Australian government adopting the population-reduction methods which the Khmer Rouge employed 35 years ago, then?
I watched the interview in which Rudd staked his support for a big Australia and there was no mistake about his message. What I find amusing is that the coalition is trying to use this as a political tactic. It was under them that immigration steadily increased in both permanent and non permanent people. They opened up the student visa rorts that had hairdressers and the like gaining permanent status plus the influx of workers on contract work. Those non permanent workers might only stay for one or two years but still require housing and transport.
Both parties supported a bigger population because thats what big business told them it was required to cover manpower shortage. How the student visa rort became such a mess under Howard one can only guess. Maybe the ghost of the bottom of the Harbour scheme ? I cannot see that a population debate should be coupled with asylum seekers because overall immigration is not affected in any significant way by the small amount of boat people.
Bernard may infer Rudd was verballed but it was Rudd who said he made no apology for his position on a big Australia. If there was any mistake it was in Rudds presentation of where he stood or his failure to set out the full picture regarding a future population. Instead of saying it was a natural progression he gave the impression of pushing that figure. Neither party will curtail immigration to any great degree but they also dont want the public to think they are pushing for a bigger Australia. Gillards statement and renaming the job as sustainable immigration/population makes sense. Its like saying Pacific solution when its not a solution at all but merely the appearance of one.
This issue invokes a lot of emotion in a lot of people. I have advocated population control for years and have then been accused of being racist. All I want is a sustainable population for Australia. Obviously the first source of population control should be placed upon migrants.
I don’t mind overly if they are European or Martian. I also advocate a two child per person policy. And before anyone here gets uppity I have imposed this very regulation upon myself. Too many people are killing our planet and too many people are degrading the quality of life for Australians. And before you go accusing me of hypocrisy I am aboriginal.
If I lived in an outer western Sydney suburb I would feel patronised by this material. It is dog whistling to the lowest fears in middle class communites about population growth and asylum seekers. And this material is premature. Gillard put population policy on the agenda for discussion, and appointed Tony Burke Minister for Sustainable Population. This leaflet seems to assume that Tony Burke has finished his work, and now we are on the path to a Little Australia.
It is particularly cynical in that it plays to the concerns of people in the outer west about lack of infrastructure, which is the result of 50 years of poor planning, lesser to do with population growth and refugees. Go back to the Whitlam Government and the Department of Urban and Regional Development and what they tried to achieve among the howls of derision from the Liberal National Coalition, who themselves in government failed to address the infrastructure needs of the western suburbs. Then economic rationalism and user pays took over the budgetary policies of government, and middle class people in the west and everywhere were now expected to fund their own transport, education and health costs. No wonder people in the western suburbs feel neglected by government Federal and State, but scapegoating new arrivals is not going to solve any problems they have.
Putting sustainability at the heart of population policy is the right thing to do, IMO. It should be at the heart of many policies: economic, agricultural, energy, transport etc.
Apart from the rounding up to 40, I can’t see much offensive in the ALP leaflet. Nothing, to be blunt. Rudd might - but if so, I think he’s wrong. Sustainability - not arbitrary extrapolation of current trends - is a better way of defining optimal future population.
My problem is I have difficulty believing that whoever makes ALP policy has come any futher on the topic of sustainability than the policy wonks in PM&C way back in Hawke’s day, when papers on Sustainable Development were commissioned following the Bruntland Report.
The Australian key documents, when finally published, were full of sophistry and sneaky ways of subverting the notion of sustainability. Over-complication and loading up its meaning with arbitrary add-ons were two tricks used to warp the related notions of sustainability and sustainable development. These distortions flowed on into the Ecologically Sustainable Development process of the Keating era - and into Federal and State environmental legislation of the 90s and this latest decade. Of course, under Howard, any serious attempt at Commonwealth level to strive for even the simulacrum of sustainbability was abandoned.
Sustainability is what we need to achieve - but it needs to be the real thing, not a fake. Maybe this time it will be?
There are some grounds for hope. The Federal ALPs latest big attempt to get away with environmental smoke and mirrors has publicly foundered. It simply wasn’t possible to pull a swiftie on the closely and internationally peer-reviewed subject of climate change policy.
If Gillard shows she’s serious about making real sustainability the goal then she certainly has my support for that. All power to the first modern Australian government that gets real about the mid to long-term future.
Well, almost all power. Civil liberties too, please
Troy C: “As I said before, I don’t care how it’s done — so long as it gets done.”
Here is how it gets done so that it actually works. Australia withdraws from the UN convention, re-introduces the White Australia Policy, outsources the “handling” of boats to a military that does not mind shooting unarmed civilians (must be someone in SouthEastAsia that qualifies). Then enacts legislation that outlaws all Moslem practices that are cultural and not religious. And just to tidy up the loose ends, recheck all statements made by refugees requesting asylum and repatriate any that made a statement less than 100% true.
I have assumed that you will not accept make-believe solutions.
Concern about population increase is not necessarily ‘dog whistling’. Migrant population are not distributed in an even manner right now, and the crowding out of existing population have a huge negative social impact. There is a tradeoff between population density and quality of life.
Terms such as a “big Australia” don’t mean anything unless one is prepared to talk specific numbers and how those numbers might be achieved. A relatively small proportion of Australia’s annual population increase is subject to manipulation by the government, at least if it remains nominally democratic. For example, about half of last year’s increase in the population was due to the difference between births and deaths. The number of births has increased significantly in recent years for a variety of reasons, including older (i.e.>30 years) having their first births, a rise in the average number of births per woman (the total fertility rate) and possibly government policies such as the baby bonus. How exactly do the opponents of a ‘big Australia’ propose to modify that component?
The balance of annual growth comes from the difference between long term arrivals and long term departures. By far the greatest proportion of both departures and arrivals are persons entitled to be here: citizens, spouses and children of citizens, New Zealanders etc. How do the opponents of a “big Australia” plan to regulate these flows?
All of the attention has in fact been on undocumented arrivals, mostly people fleeing situations that we helped create, eg Afghanistan and Iraq. In respect of those people Australia has obligations under international conventions to which we are a party. At their current rate of arrivals, as Julian Burnside recently pointed out, in 20 years they will have filled the MCG.
In short, most of the current “debate” is BS with a race to the bottom between the politicians who feed off the racism and the ignoramuses who live in an apparent bubble.
terangeree: Whilst it’s not a bad thing to have someone with a sense of humor around, that wasn’t an option being canvassed.
Tamo: Aren’t you being a touch flippant there? I’d argue that as far as cuts to immigration are concerned, we can afford to make them across the board.
This issue invokes a lot of emotion in a lot of people. I have advocated population control for years and have then been accused of being racist. All I want is a sustainable population for Australia. Obviously the first source of population control should be placed upon migrants.
I don’t mind overly if they are European or Martian. I also advocate a two child per person policy. And before anyone here gets uppity I have imposed this very regulation upon myself. Too many people are killing our planet and too many people are degrading the quality of life for Australians. And before you go accusing me of hypocrisy I am aboriginal.
But it is a big Australia and trying to shrink it is absurd.
Sustainable is only another dogwhistle word for “we are full”.
Hey Troy. Here’s a great idea. I suggest we kick out all the immigrant aboriginals who came to our country. No valid visas on them at all. I suggest we send them back to where they came from. They don’t even look Australian, let alone care about Australian values.
Could you start the program going? I’m a bit busy this month….
We can easily control our population intake by stopping sex slave smugglers bringing in illegal entrants… legally.
I was listening to Joe Hockey this morning and I nearly collapsed: he thinks that at least people coming through the airports can be identified so we know who they are.
Do the politicians take any responsibility for what they say or is it just a hoodwinking politics?
The whole population (election campaign) issue is time consuming and basically fruitless. Just to keep people busy with non issues.
How about teaching maths in our schools so the politicians can get their debt/deficit/surplus right?
Can foreign aid become an election issue?
Tamo
… an interesting list
in addition introduce compulsory euthanasia for anyone over 75 rated as being a 50-50 chance of making 90, anyone likely to need chronic care, them too, voluntary for everyone else.
Oh and serious taxes on second children, even more serious on third children …
All Australian cities were built under non elected good monarchs of England .
It seems a colony has a better chance to develop and flourish..
TROY and others: this is an emotional subject for many people. Some use abuse to argue their case, some use statistics, some use generalised political beliefs, and some try humour. “…flippant…”. “…sarcasm…”
I tried humour and you can criticise me if that failed to make the point – but does anyone have a plan that would actually deliver what appears to be the required results.
“develop policies… for a sustainable nation”
Apparently this means no carbon price or viable climate change policy. Is it my imagination or is PM Gillard channeling Andrew Bolt?
OK, here’s a serious proposition. We have an indigenous poster here on Crikey.
I suggest we ask them first. THEN create our policy.
He says limit the migrants. I notice they’ve been saying that for about 220 years.
Personally I don’t mind the migrants coming here, so long as they respect the land, each other and what has gone on here before. And very few people seem to be able to do that.
(hypothetical) I assume would assume that a lot of white people would be gone from this country if indigenous people had their way. Am I correct?
If it’s true, then we’ve got to wear it.
Yes, I would go. Since I was born in the the US, I’d have to base there for a while, then probably apply to live here. (/hypothetical)
And more seriously, has anyone bothered to wonder
a) what a non-big Australia would look like in practice?
AND
b) how we could achieve it.
If Gillard is right then we are already “a big Australia” and probably have been since we passed about 10 million.
Ten points to anyone who shows how we could reverse population numbers here without going all Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot was a brutal psychopath, but he did deal with the traffic problems of Democratic Kampuchea. He also got rid of a lot of useless intellectuals and you can’t get much more anti-globalisation than he was.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say most people here would take umbrage if someone tried that here.
What does Thomas Malthus have to say about this issue?
Perusing the comments here I am struck by how those of the left are as fanatically rabid as those from the right. Troy c is attacked as a racist for wanting to limit immigrants into Australia. What race is he prejudiced against?
And Shepard Marilyn contests that we have a big country! Yes Marilyn have you seen much of it? Have you lived west of the great divide? We have an infertile landmass that has been plundered. Are you aware of how our farmland is being acidified or of the fact that soon we will become a net importer of food? And what of climate change? Do you realise that as the conditions suitable for broad acre agriculture moves south we run out of acres to move into? How about naming one river that is unpolluted? Can you do that? The area is big yes but the useable part is not. I for one don’t want my children to live as ants or not be able to afford to eat properly. And I am not bothered if you label me racist. I am not against any race nor am I overly bothered by settling refugees here. Provided we don’t have to degrade our quality of life to do it. That is what I want sustained and I am wondering just how far we should drop our standards of living to embrace overpopulation. I don’t know one single person who is prepared to let their own children have less so that someone else can take up their slack
TAMO
Are you suggesting that we are already overpopulated?
3 million people a year get their visas on the internet. Joe Hockey can identify them can he?
It gets better. Joe Hockey wants a Treasury portfolio. God have mercy on us.
Do you believe that species other than humans have the right to exist? Do you think our unique wildlife, bush and waterways deserve to be given a chance?
The facts:
1. Last year our population grew by 433,000 people (278,000 net migration and 155,000 natural increase). This is the environmental impact of adding one and a half Canberra cities per year.
2. Net migration = total long term arrivals (508,000) less total long term departures (230,000).
3. To have any chance of stabilising Australia’s population we need zero net migration - which would still allow over 200,000 long term arrivals.
Recruiting skilled professionals like doctors and nurses from developing countries is beyond racist - its genocidal.
Zero to hysterical in one population announcement.
Many methods have been proposed for stabilising Australia’s population over the long term without imploding the economy or abandoning the aging Baby Boomers, but that’s far too difficult to explore and analyse, so let’s cut straight to “OMG! Brutal one-child policies by 2012! Genocide! Pol Pot! Eugenics! White Australia resurrected! Hitler! WARGARBL!”
Well said Sancho.
We don’t even need to do anything substantial to achieve Zero Net population Change. The native-born fertility rate is already below replacement levels. Asylum Seekers don’t make even a small dent in Population, so can be ignored for the purpose of the population argument. The Planned Immigration Intake can be run on a 5-year rolling average, taking into account natural population changes and people leaving permanently.
While older people aren’t the key source of the problem (retirees are hardly going to be directly increasing population levels), the legal and social impediments to ‘checking out’ are high. We put animals out of their misery, but not people (and allegedly, people have souls while animals don’t. Which is the greater death?). Euthenasia (with checks and balances) should be legalised, instead of the ‘black market’ of dubious legality that it is now.
There is a couple in QLD about to be placed on trial for procuring an abortion. Abortions up to 12 weeks should be freely available. Tubal Ligations and Vascectomies should be on the public purse (heck, being sterile could ven be a few points in someones favour when they apply to immigrate).
Society is still set up to see women as baby factories. Tony Abbot may have made a pitch for womens Hymens, but Rudd made a similar pitch for their wombs. Women who have a single child are told to have another as soon as possible. Childless women (like my Partner) are considered borderline freaks.
If you have children, you are given tax breaks and Taxpayer support, but if you don’t have children, and therefore don’t place added pressure on services, you get nothing.
Well said both Sancho and Bellistner
Bellistner responded to this from me:
as follows:
Fail. I asked how we could reverse population so as to achieve a non-big Australia. Most of those whining about asylum seekers and migrants in general already think we are too big. Gillard nodded at that.
You want non-big? Show how we can get back to about 10 million.
Sidebar: What do people who are against immigration think will happen to the Lindsay mortgage belt crowd when they realise that stagnating or declining population threatens the value of their mortgage far more seriously than interest rate rises?
Fran B.
In relation to your question of what will happen to the idiots who overextended themselves in their mortgages … the answer is we will laugh at them, long and loud.
We will at the same time be gratefully cheering the fact that the completely ridiculous and unsustainable rises in the cost of housing prices has stopped and we well might breath a sigh of relief and revisit the possibility that our children might one day enjoy home ownership themselves (as opposed to those purchasing today who really only enjoy the ownership of excessive debt!)
No taxpayer support for a second child, additional taxes for further children. No tax writeoffs for dependent children after the first one. Taxpayer-funded voluntary sterilisation: $1000/man and $10,000/woman. Taxpayer-funded (or at least partially subsidised) Abortions up to 12 weeks gestation.
Frankly, I’d vote for that.
Also Fran, you misinterpreted my response: if we need to do bugger-all to achieve Zero Net population Change, then a small nudge will lead to Population Reduction.
And, what timeframe do you envisage?
We don’t need to go back to ten million. We need to cap the population around where it is now, and allow the supply of infrastructure to catch up.
Bellistner proposed:
The policy would be a lot less popular than anything on boat people. Nobody with a chance of being elected would propose that suite. Also, it would be very regressive, since the bulk of child support benefits children from low income households. I don’t see a lot of people taking up sterilisation, but I’d be OK with that. I support free abortion on demand to 20 weeks.
I doubt in practice though that these policies would make a lot of difference. Lots of symbolism there but state support probably doesn’t prompt many decisions to have children.
Five years after such policies were introduced, I doubt we would see a change of any significance in fertility.
Well if it is going to be meaningful you have to have it occur within about 10-15 years otherwise the people bothered now don’t get any benefit out of it. Telling them that by 2100 the population will be only 18 million makes no difference to anyone now. Consider also that the changing demographics implied even in keeping population stable will absolutely mean a radical extension in the retirement age and in the interim a large increase in the burden imposed on those in work for supporting existing and future infrastructure and the needs of ageing persons, and that your policies on youth would probably result in a growth in child neglect and their contact with the justice system and really, the future doesn’t look all that promising.
Really, the whole debate is misconceived. With adequate planning and provision, Australia can comfortably accommodate 40 or 50 million people in a way that we’d all find acceptable. We have abundant supplies of land and energy, and with a larger domestic market we might be able to start buying food at prices comparable to those in the UK. There are all manner of engineering, manufacturing and service businesses that would be viable here if the domestic market were twice the size it is now. We are planning over the next few years to run fibre to the home and to build high-speed rail links and to retool our energy system. Would we rather spread these capital costs over 22 or 36 million people?
It is widely supposed that by 2050, the world will have 9 billion people, and this will be so whatever Australia does on population. It is also likely that a significantly increased proportion of those 9 billion will be displaced by climate change, and it is fit and proper that we take our share. Proportionately, there’s your 36 million right there. We can look after them far better in advanced economies than in amidst poor and failed states.
TwoBob said of mortgage holders:
Well you and I might, but your average state and Federal politician won’t dare. They will want to subsidise them — that is what they did here as soon as the GFC hit. Not the least thing that brought down the British Labor Party was the collapse in home values. No party will tolerate that, I’m sorry to say. Compared to that, people on boats is nothing.
No argument there, which is why we need non-politicians, or candidates willing to stand for election knowing they won’t get elected, to float the ideas. A few years ago, nobody though we’d happilly accept water restrictions either, so there’s a little it of hope.
The very same households who would benefit - financially - from not having children (full disclosure; I am on a below-average wage, no kids). I’d expect the majority of children born aren’t planned, nor necessarilly… ‘wanted’, for want of a better term, but the parents keep them (either bringing them to Term or not putting them up for adoption) because society expects them to. Unwed mothers are no longer hidden away by the family because of ‘shame’, but we still expect the mother to want to keep the child.
So would I, but can you imagine the faux outrage?
Heck, the use of Abortificants (herbs etc) was apparently a widely accepted practice in older societies up to ~120 days Gestation.
Perhaps free abortions up to 12 weeks, and legal-but-pay-your-own-way up to 20 weeks?
I personally doubt it. Limitations such as water storage, crop nutrients, and energy suppliers are liekly to throw a noose around the neck of any idea to support such a population (currently, almost all our fertilizer is mined, and almost all our Pesticides are made from Oil and Gas. We can make plenty of Green Electricity, if we feel like building a HVDC grid and distributed CSP. Oil supplies - at least at levels to support anything like current use - are a gonna within the next few years).
No we’re not. Labor and the Coalition voted down a Greens proposal for a 1-year, $10m study. Even the US, that bastion of car culture, is considering semi-high-speed rail, Europe is covered in it, and China is going gangbusters with it. Our pollies, however, are still smitten with highways.
Fortunately for the environment, most of these people have very little impact, per head, on the environment. It’s the 1 billion ‘rich’ (that’s us) that are the resources problem. Feeding them all becomes a problem, for the reasons outlined above.
Bellistner cotninued as follows:
If you’re correct though, the withdrawal of the money would scarcely matter. The only difference would be that they were worse off, and in the long run so would the entire community around them because social disadvantage affects most of us, in the long run. It shows up in less effective education, poor skills development, lower productivity, more contact with the justice system, higher health system costs and so forth.
A pointless distinction. Anyone wanting to abort at 12 weeks and 1 day is not different from those at 12 weeks. Most abortions take place in this window.
This is fundamentally an energy question and we have an ample supply. Water is not in short supply — it’s just in the wrong places and form. With enough energy, we can alter that. We have enough. Ditto with crop nutrients and pesticides.
This is a euphemism for saying that the bulk of them live in various states of absolute or relative poverty. We ought to be looking to change that, not merely because that is the obligation falling upon everyone who believes in human ethical equality and dignity, but because amongst the impacts of poverty are counted falling biodiversity, large population growth, civil conflict, an impulse on the part of developed states to stay militarised, displacement of persons etc …
Fran B said
Well you and I might, but your average state and Federal politician won’t dare ….
Effectively what your argument boils down to is that the lowering of home prices associated with a lowering of population will be unpopular and therefore cannot be.
Forget that it will be good for the populace in the long term, forget that along with more affordable housing will be more access to necessities like doctors hospitals ect. Forget the benefits to people no longer trapped in gridlock or endless ques.
Is your idea of successfully managing for our countries future based entirely upon what is popular?
What about governing for what is more responsible over a long term?
I’m not following you here…?
Kids cost money, and the parent/s get taxpayer help, no kids obviously costs less money, and the ‘non-parents get no taxpayer help, soooo… society is worse off with less kids?
The money from the Government doesn’t cover the full costs of raising children (Mum was a single-parent). Not having kids, and losing the potential Government subsidies, is a net win for the adults concerned.
*shrug* Gotta draw the line somewhere (some older societies drew that line at 48 hours/two nights on a hilltop after birth).
Sure. With enough energy, you can do almost anything. But there are limits to just how much of the planet we can cover with high-altitude kites, CSP and PV fields, wind turbines, wave and tidal barriers, coal mines, and Fusion test plants. Ultimately, our energy resourse is the amount of sunlight falling on the planets surface each day (allowing for temporary storage)
Quality soil is more than just tossing some Ammonia on it twice a year. Even if we somehow discovered unlimited Zero-Point Energy, we still need good soils to grow our food in.
Trapping waste streams and returning it to the soil instead of flushing it out to sea would be a good start, but it’s a massive engineering headache. We can put that up there with all the other things our pollies won’t do.
While I’m sympathetic to their plight (not their fault where they were born, etc), I think we should get our own s*it together (ie, less throwaway society, cleaner power, reduced population, more energy-efficient, etc) before we start deliberately ‘raising up’ vast numbers of others to a resource-intensive way-of-life (China is busy doing this, and is turning large parts of their country into moonscapes).
Access to birth control would be good, too.
In those countries, educating Women is a key plank in reducing poverty (since women usually bear the brunt of it), population growth, conflict, etc, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. I can’t remember the country (it’s in east Africa somewhere), women are busy planting trees to stabilise the soils and the men are busy herding their goats in to graze on the new trees. Madness. One group in the States is busy sending Solar Ovens to Africa. By reducing the workload on the Women (no more need to search for firewood for hours a day), they are directly reducing habitat loss and giving the women a little bit of dignity. That’s the sort of thing I approve of!
Ahhh, so difficult to get nuance across in text.
twobob said:
It’s an observation. The system as it is currently configured rewards patronage of sectional interests perceived to have sufficient coherence to affect the outcome of elections. A sufficient number of people in this country identify their sense of self with equity in real property. This was Menzies’ exlicit political bulwark against leftist policy deviation. Howard made sure he patronised this group by seeking to underpin real growth in property prices because he knew that this would underpin his regime and the spivs that stgood behind it. That is now a bulwak that even the ALP must respect, because the collateral in residential housing now underpins many small businesses, and the retail sector more generally. A crash in the value of that secotr would cause unmanageable volatility throughout the economy as a whole and the incumbent government would suffer.
Is that a good way to run policy? Of course not. But it is as firm a political reality as any, and nobody can unwind it at speed without being ejected from office — so few will try, and those who do will not be entertained.
The point you fail to see is that while everyone pays lipservice to the longterm, very few prefer it in their decision-making to the needs of the moment. If people felt right now that the big cioties weren’t over-crowded few would be bothered with what Australia’s population would be in 2050.
Every politician says they want to lay the foundations for the future, but wherever that conflicts with the foundations for the next 3 years, they go to water.
So the question for those proposing a serious policy is how to devise a policy that people will accept in the here and now that can be maintained in the medium term that will be sustainable in the long term. That’s much trickier, but I would argue that the first thing we need to get into people’s heads is that there is nothing to fear from population increase. What we must insist upon are levels of human service approrirate to the needs of the popualtion that can be reconsiled with the resources we have or can fashion.
I actually have some ideas about how we can slowly disengage from the mad property bubble spiral, but they will certianly dake more than a decade to start working and they have nothing to do with artifical limits on population.
Bellistner said:
The kids will arrive regardless of the money. This is almost as true here as it is in the developing world. So the choice is between raising kids without assistance or raising them with assistance. Actually, better targeted assistance could break the cycle of poverty in which socially disadvantaged people end up having more children “accidentally”.
Absolutely, but at the risk of a thread of doom, I favour nuclear power. This resource is, for our purposes, unlimited on any meaningful timeline to us. We can do flash desal and supply as much power as needed to create the factors we need for agriculture. Much of the demand of course is for crops, water and land to raise ruminants, so a move away from this would free up a lot of agricultural production.
Wake up and smell the coffee gen x/y’s. Nuclear is so yesterday. I read only last week about the solar power plant in Spain, the biggest in the world, which produces as much energy on a daily basis as a nuclear power plant. Speaking of solar the beyond zero emissions people say that Australia’s solar energy budget could light up the entire world.