Population Sustainability

Australia's ability to continue to grow indefiitely IS hampered by the same factors that allow us to thrive - up to a point of course. Everyone is looking to invest for their FUTURE, but how far into the future do we care about? This is especially relevant for those that love a big family, because presumably you do care about the welfare and well being of your progeny or else you wouldn't have bothered having children in the first place, right?

Most people know of Dick Smith and his mission to make population sustainability more of a discussion topic in politics and in the media, however, as his daughter put it, it is the elephant in the room. Everyone is talking about how science and technology will save us, if only we produce and consume more efficiently we will save the planet. Here is a link to his website:
http://dicksmithpopulation.com/

Here is Australia's population to the nearest 10 million (each 'I' represents 10 million people).

II......?

Where do we draw the line? Do we expect issues such as the ageing population of Australia, eventual depletion of resources, and other contentious issues such as the management of the Murray-Darling basin to become LESS contentious and problematic with MORE Australians?

A question I have been thinking of is "Can economics based on production and consumption (the only economics the western world values) continue WITHOUT population growth?"

 

The world population is due to peak in 2015 according to demographers, 'Demographic Winter' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA
Apart from the interesting evidence shown in the film the relationship between GDP and Population growth in Japan is of particular interest, no population growth - no increase in GDP. Considering the needs of parents bringing up children the link is logical.

 

Economic growth is dependent upon a growing number of consumers. Simple but not much different to a Ponzi Scheme.

 

While people still keep pushing for more more more there is going to be growth...

I sincerely hope that in generations to come the idea of continuous consumption becomes less pronounced. The 'consumer' economy is really just a modern construct and only truly came into its own post WW2. I dont think it is naive to hope that it begins to fade away, although some may think this couldnt possibly occur!

Even amongst myself and my circle of friends in the 20-30 year old age bracket I have seen a decline in rabid consumerism, so I havent lost hope. I am moving towards less consumption myself, simply because I have become sick of owning piles of useless 'stuff'. A minimalist lifestyle is my aim

ramble complete....

 

Have a look at "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Or a View of Its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an Inquiry Into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which It Occasions. This was written in 1798. So your problem is nothing new.


Malthus, the author, is basically saying that as the world's population doubles, food production is only increasing marginally.

Worth a read at http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/malthus/thomas/m26p/

 

Exactly.

Can economic growth per worker continue indefinitely?
Absolutely. Will it? Possibly not.

Can economic growth per person continue indefinitely?
Absolutely. Will it? Probably not.

 

Are you making that statement as a basis of pure fact, or are you just referring to how the system is running now?

 

This video (series) was already posted, but I think it fits here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D&index=1 The title sounds rather lurid ("The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See"), and the actual message may be summarized in a much shorter way, but IMHO it's nevertheless worth watching it.

 

On a side note.. I'm sick to death of the popular notion that humans are like a cancer on the Earth, humans are bad etc. I'm not like cancer, anyone who thinks i'm like cancer can go to hell.

 

Its the way we live which is the problem, not the number of people.

 

humans are not the cancer - it's their governments that are...

 

Damn straight!

 

You have already been out in the sun!

 

To mimic that skin cancer advertisement:

"Taxing is human cells in trauma"

But to be serious the anti-humans as I call them really get on my nerves. Always saying things like 'consume less' while neglecting to see that we as organisms need to consume to exist, like all life.

All the Agenda 21 stuff you hear about that wants to establish 'wilderness zones' where no human will be allowed to go, regardless of what private property exists on that land or how sustainable agriculture has been for dozens if not hundreds of years on that soil. It's appalling. Especially when you look at national parks in dry climates of Australia - full of weeds and feral animals with declining or dying native vegetation and no visitors besides fox/pig shooters. And areas allowed to return to 'wilderness' in the US remain thickets choked with too many small trees and no opportunity for mature trees to break free of the short canopy and thrive. Or like was seen in the Yellowstone National Park in the last decade where humans reinvigorated an entire ecology - active intervention in reintroducing wolves was required to thin the deer which allowed trees to grow thereby felled by all important beavers whose dams changed the land from a bare grassland inhabited just by deer to a mixed woodland/marshland environment that used to exist there. If it was entirely unpopulated 'wilderness' the ecology would never recover. Ironic.

This population sustainability thing began with The Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962. No matter how much it is discredited, the ideas in it have taken off and evolved into an anti-human almost religious fervour.

 

What do you mean?

 

What religion are you?

 

I'm not any one religion...where are you going with this?

 

pre-flood populations, counting just the giants were about 500,000 Giants
prior to reaching that number, those giants already eating each others.

now we have humans numbered to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ 7,100,000,000 counting

we can add 000,000 behind that number and there is no way for cannibalism yet
horses are not counted :lol:

 

So which religion?