'Go Home and Do Your Patriotic Duty' Aussies Told (Go Breed)

[Khephra]

CANBERRA (Reuters) - It is the enduring postcard image of Australia -- young, fit, bronzed Aussies soaking up the endless sun on one of the country's many unspoilt beaches.

The reality however could be starkly different.

A truer picture soon could be of elderly, overweight Australians struggling through the sand with their walking frames as the nation's waistlines expand and forecasts show one quarter of the population will be aged over 65 by 2045.

It is a prediction that set alarm bells ringing after the government's Productivity Commission predicted a fiscal gap of A$2,200 billion ($1,654 billion) over the next four decades unless government policy began to address the nation's aging.

"If you can have children it's a good thing to do," Treasurer Peter Costello said this year when he released the budget, urging Australian couples to have "one for your husband, one for your wife and one for your country."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--rapperodb-autopsy1215dec15,0,1511036.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

[HCeline69]

1. Stone the flaming crows!

Just close your eyes...and think of Australia!

[donheld]

14. Wecome HCeline69

[HCeline69]

24. Thanks!

[DireStrike]

2. I guess overpopulation is a 'myth' now...

Along with global warming and the concept of finite resources.

"Really, we don't care how hard your kids or grandkids will have to fight for their bread and water... just squeeze 'em out and do it quick! Our nation is the best so it won't cause any problems here!"

[Gregorian]

4. Why isn't there a population forum on DU?

I figured I had to post this somewhere.

And thanks for your post. It always makes me feel less alone when I see someone else with a brain.
I think I'll start posting the exponential curve. Although unless someone can understand it's significance, it isn't as frightful as it should be.


PS-I'm really upset about the fact that we don't know when to stop. There are limits. The planet cannot take any more abuse. Cars, deforestation, pollution...

[David__77]

5. I strongly disagree with the underlying assumptions.

I do not believe there is a population problem. There IS a resource problem, but it is one of distribution, not quantity. I fear that "population control" regimes are pretexts for colonial-style bullying of oppressed nations. A nation's greatest resource is its people. Reasonable family planning measures are fine, breaking down taboos about sex and so forth. But many abuses--forced sterilization and so on, and have been carried out in the name of anti-population measures.

[DireStrike]

7. Everything can be abused

Because population control has been used irresponsibly in some cases in no way should be considered to impact its truthfulness or usefulness as a paradigm.

Should we give up Democracy because of the way Bush spreads it?

Wherever the limit is, we are going to hit it. It may be tomorrow, or it may be 2099. Hell, it may be 1980. The human population is going to expand beyond the planet's ability to support it - or it already has. Standard of life will decline and people will seek to exploit whatever few resources and virgin lands still remain.

And people will still keep having kids. They'll probably have even more kids. It will be a stealth war of resources, and in some ways it has already begun through the efforts of agencies like the IMF. Every child born is another bullet fired against the other side, that somewhere someone will have to die for. Maybe you can keep yourself and your family away from the grinding jaws of combat, if you're lucky.

The ultimate result will be that difference and diversity are crushed worldwide. Human encroachment into animal habitats will eventually kill them. Good old-fashioned war for dominion and resources will break out. Anybody "different" will be ostracized and killed, or out-bred, and out-eaten. And when all the people with different skin or different religion or different noses are gone, we will go after the people with different eye color and the people with thicker hair and the people that look at us funny. Because someone will have to die, and it will not be someone "like me".

[Gregorian]

9. I'm sorry, but I don't have the patience for people like you.

Maybe it's jealousy that you live your happy little life without seeing the horror that I do. I wish you'd tell me your secret. There is no resource problem. The earth is finite. There is a problem in that people don't want to accept limits. The earth is FINITE. And six billion, no matter which way you spin it, is many times too many. No matter how you convert your energy, you still need water, food, etc. There is no argument. And as we try to make room for more, the poles are melting. It's not worth my time to convert people. I am of the opinion that at this point in time, we don't have room for political correctness. We either stop breeding, or we all die together. When I say "we", I don't mean you and I. Breeding is a hit and run affair. I speak for your children. My life is good, except for the fact that I care. Hell, I'm single, rich, and live on a ranch in Northern California where I can do whatever the hell I want. I'm just pissed off that people could care less about the future generations. It's the same with politics- George Bush is good for my wallet, but I hate him. I hate him for killing and injuring Iraqis. I could just go drive my Porsche around and not care. But I'm upset. Where are the resources going to come from when the Chinese want their cars? If you think traffic is bad in America, the six billion live outside our borders. The problem is not even the six billion, but the fact that where we are on that exponential curve means that the rate of increase of population is so great that several things are imminent. Huge population increases that cannot be supported mean disease, famine, war, pollution. If you don't see that, then you need glasses, or something. I envy you.

[el_gato]

10. Let's Have A War!

Clean out this place

[Gregorian]

11. You can start in New Jersey!

I LOVE Lee Ving.

[Massachusetts]

16. like the insect and animal kingdoms, its the

little itty - bitty bacteria that will ultimately CONTROL us all. :nuke:

[David__77]

13. It's not about me, or being "happy."

It's about the right of sovereign peoples to control their destinies. I do care and I'm fully prepared to fight justice. It is not by chance that the centers of depopulationist thought are among the privileged "deep ecologists" who care more for "wilderness for its own sake" than for people.

The earth is for people first, to serve our needs and interests. A good environment is a good thing, not for its own sake, but because it serves humanity. We must think on the frontier. Ultimately, yes, the earth is finite. But as human beings, are capabilities are not so constrained. Who would imagine the miracles wrought by industrialization? Modern medicine? Science in general is a uniquely human exercise. And with science we will change the limits as it serves our needs. Genetic medicine, new nuclear power sources that are safer and more energy-dense--we will continue to make advances.

I think it is wise not to underestimate the power of Promethean humanity. If the earth cannot meet human needs, we can seek resources elsewhere. We are not wild animals--we are conscious beings fully capable of seizing destiny and molding reality to our wishes.

[Gregorian]

15. That doesn't solve some of the main problems.

I'm not served. And I count. And I'm not alone. Many people are already ruined over the quality of living on the planet today. In fact, I'd argue that more suffering has occured in the name of overpopulation than would ever occur if we limited breeding. Just one example is the war in Iraq. It's not the lack of oil, but the amount of oil being used. That is because the oil is limited, but the population is not limited. Those people are suffering because of an indirect result of overpopulation. Water is next. It's already being privatized. Same argument for getting resources elsewhere- some of us, in fact all of us, have a need for privacy, and beauty, and a quality of life that has all but disappeared. There is more to life than just bread, you know. So what would you suggest- that we just find more resources so that we can stack ourselves on top of each other here? And what about when those resources aren't enough? Find yet more, so we can all live on top of each other. Remember the rats in a maze experiment? Let me ask you this- do you enjoy being stuck in a traffic jam? Or seeing bare land where there were once trees? Maybe you don't get that last one until you live in the country like I do. Well, it's sick. And unless one lives to be 2000 years old, one will not see those forests like they were. Do you deny that a part of being human is beyond existence, and is something more special than simply breathing? I'm not happy about what I see. I find myself moving and moving to get away from the ugliness that is growing. What about people like us? The breeders don't want to lose their special right, but at the cost of OUR lives. Do we not count too? This whole argument ignores US, the ones who want to preserve a world with animals and forests, and beauty. Someone has to give, and I think the breeders already had their go.

[el_gato]

20. I find this statement rather insane

"The earth is for people first, to serve our needs and interests."


As well, I find the rest of your diatribe to be delusional and unfounded. Technology will lead to the dehumanizing of humanity if
not the outright destruction of life on this planet. The mind is not
a computer made of meat.

The "miracles wrought by industrialization" are war, destruction of community, and alienation. The trajectory we are headed on is one of a society enslaved by our own devices.

[bhikkhu]

33. You're not the only one

The statement belongs to a type where I just shake my head and walk away. How could a person capable of writing in complete and grammatical sentences yet appear so clearly lacking in sense and sanity? It is a sorrowful thing to see - no sarcasm whatsoever intended.

[LeftyMom]

25. How the hell is the earth for people first

when for most of the earth's history there weren't any people?

[theHandpuppet]

22. Good post -- and I ditto those sentiments

Overpopulation is the proverbial elephant in the living room that not even many DUers are willing to discuss.

[bhikkhu]

32. Have you considered peak oil, water resources, etc?

There are strong arguments that the "resource problem" is in the long term entirely one of quantity, and therefore population is entirely the problem. If you consider the simplest take on the peak oil problem, the population spike that cheap oil energy has fueled over the last two hundred years or so must either find another source of fuel (any suggestions?) or collapse. Collapse is one word, the playing out of which I cannot myself imagine.

Fresh water is another pertinent problem - there simply isn't enough. We might say that distribution is the issue: if only we could ship that sea ice to central africa and other water-poor regions things would be fine. We might also say that new energy sources could power water refineries, and the Sea would be the limit. But then again, if we haven't the energy resources to replace oil, how will we boost energy supply sufficiently to add massive water refining to the demand-list?

Perhaps you have a different perspective on these problems, I am curious.

[mcscajun]

6. George Carlin said it best...

"The planet isn't going anywhere...We Are!"

[DireStrike]

8. I think the Peak Oil forum and Economic Activism forums are that.

There's already a lot of inactive forums... peak oil isn't very active. Maybe we can take it over? =p

[democracy eh]

19. agreed, a Pop discussion group could be interesting

I saw this presentation a few weeks ago. The coming shifts in demographics (not necessarily numbers) are going to be staggering.

http://www.7revs.org/Population/pop3.htm#

CONSIDER THIS: About 8,700 people every hour, 146 people every minute, and 2.5 people every second are being added to the global population…

The key theme in population growth is stratification. In effect, many of the populations of developed countries will actually be smaller in 2025 than they are today. Over the same period, the developing world will experience an enormous youth bulge. Reconciling these two demographic movements is the primary challenge of the revolution in population.

The World Population: Currently at 6.30 billion, the total world population will grow by almost two billion by 2025. Eighty percent of the world's population will be in countries least capable of supporting further population growth.

Rate of Population Growth: The rate of population growth (i.e., the ratio of total increase in population each year to the mean population) has decreased drastically since the 1960s. It will continue to fall. By 2025, the world population will likely be growing less than 1% annually. According to the latest estimates from the United Nations, the global population could stabilize in the year 2100 at about 11 billion people.

Global Generation Gap: The population of the developed world is contracting. At least 33 countries across the world are expected to be substantially smaller than they are today. Populations in these developed countries are also getting old--and in the case of Germany and Japan and a few others, very old. In stark contrast, a number of developing countries will have very young populations that their economies may not be able to support.

Hyper-Urbanization: Another huge problem facing us is "hyper-urbanization." By 2025, the portion of the world's population living in urban areas will constitute nearly 60% of the total world population. Already, up to one-half of the populations in the largest cities in the developing world is living in unplanned and illegal squatter colonies that are highly vulnerable to disease and natural disasters.

[KingChicken]

3. I'll move to Australia, I can unleash some productivity...

Sydney is a cool place, I would love to check it out.

[soaky]

26. Good luck with Sydney

Sydney and Perth's water resources are already in such a bad state it's predicted they'll run out of fresh drinking water in the next 50 years.

Sydney's main dam is the lowest it's ever been, because we're just coming out (maybe) of a long drought. Current solution being proposed: build a giant desalination plant to produce more fresh water, never mmind that it'll increase even more our already huge greenhouse emissions for very little return.

We're a dry continent, we have brilliant water quality, yet we use drinking water to flush our toilets. It makes me sick.

[Matilda]

28. Sydney's infrastructure hasn't caught up with its population.

Most newcomers prefer to settle on the east coast, mainly in Sydney,
and the strain is showing.

Unfortunately, we're a living example of how not to respond to a
growing population - Costello is talking through his hat. Our water
supply is dangerously low and changing weather patterns make it
likely that the situation will get worse, not better. Our rail
system is in chaos, our hospitals under-funded and ditto our state
schools.

Premier Bob Carr (Labor, but I've always thought he's in the wrong
party) is famous for announcing wonderful schemes to increase the
water supply, improve the rail service, build up our hospitals, and
increase school resources at the same time as preserving trees and
protecting vulnerable wilderness areas. But all he does is make
announcements without follow-through, then when the shit hits the
fan again he makes another announcement. In reality, he's as much
the friend of corporate Australia as John Howard is. The only thing
he's ever really done is allow legal gambling to become a major
source of government revenue, to the cost of a large part of our
culture.

Costello is probably pushing the secret Howard agenda to get women
out of the workforce and back into the house where he thinks they
belong.

[djack23]

12. What is their immigration policy?

Maybe some unhappy democrats can move there?

Hmm.

[rooboy]

34. Howard's policy - If you're white, you're welcome. n/t

[democracy eh]

17. will breed for $$$

show me the money

[anakie]

18. $3000 is the going rate

the government pays each family $3000 for each baby born after 1 july this year and will go up to $5,000 next year or the year after.

[democracy eh]

21. the Roman Empire employed the same policy in its twighlight years

(btw Canada is in the same boat as Aus)

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. Oh go suck a rotten egg, Howard!!!

I cannot have children for my country because you won't allow me to adopt, because my partner happens to be another woman. I cannot conceive because I do not ovulate. So don't tell me to begin living a "normal" life, because that won't work either. And don't tell me, how I could adopt if I began living a "normal" life, because I am not about to give up happiness for you, you old stick in the mud.

If you want us to have more kids, then you had best losen up your bigoted laws.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. "...one for your husband, one for your wife,

and one for your country"???

:wtf:

Are they planning on taking the third one away?

But seriously, do they not understand what it takes to raise just TWO children in today's world?

[Matilda]

30. They're pollies, remember.

Sheltered from the realities of life by their huge salaries and
perks.

They wouldn't have a clue.

[Cronus Protagonist]

29. Maybe they should adopt some of the unwanted female Chinese babies

So they don't have to be left abandoned to die in China.




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[Esra Star]

31. The link??

What was it supposed to link to?

[Khephra]

35. Oh man, I can't believe I did that...here's the correct link

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=7103390

What's even more troubling is that you're the first person to catch it after all those posts.

I guess people just don't follow up on reading the rest of links.

:shrug: