One End Of Spectrum There's China; and At The Other, Australia

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whoha
Dino, his premise is that we should limit growth so that we can continue to have our high standard of living.

Samething.

[Japher]

I saw what you wrote, Japher.
Just wanted you to know. I saw.

What?! See, see!!! Security breach, someone hacked into my account!

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by JohnT
Hell, apparently he can't look at her w/o her getting knocked up. Didn't she just have another kid within the past year or so?

He's just doing his patriotic duty.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Dauphin
This has a recurring theme to it, the Australian government has been worried about underpopulation for a long time. It also has pseudo-racist undertones - we don't want immigrants to increase the population, we want Aussies.

Hmmm, no I don't think that's right - we have a non discriminatory immigration policy and the immigration intake is at near record levels at up to 116,000 per year plus a further 12,000 humanitarian places, giving a total intake of around 128,000. Next year the humaniatarian intake will go up to 13,000 and the total intake will be nudging 130,000 or more.

The government has said that ageing population and workforce shortages will only be solved by increased immigration - a baby born today will not enter the workforce for at least 15 years, and probably more like 20, whereas an adult immigrant arriving today can start work as soon as they find a job.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by General Ludd


It's amusing to see someone who makes 0 effort criticizing those who do make an effort for not being able to pull the whole load.




It certainly is. How long has the human population been 6 billion?



Like he says, at 59 minutes the test tube's still half full of food.




And also population. And don't pretend that the USA never went through an industrial revolution and just sprung immediately into modern era technology.

Or that half the crap china makes goes to the west for that matter.

As I said, growth rates across the developed world are already below replacement, and the world in general is expected to go below replacement rate in about 50 years. In order to get exponential growth all women have to be pregnant all the time pretty much.

its actually closer to 75-80% destined for export from China, but our economy is over 8 times larger then theirs, shouldn't our own market require so many more natural resources?

[Skanky Burns]

This will be great though. More low-income scum having babies so they can get money for alcohol and cigarettes (and perhaps bread if they have enough money left over) while their brats run around making noise and seeing just how much they can steal while people aren't looking. Hooray.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by General Ludd


6 billion is more than enough. What the hell would we want anymore for? It's not like it'll acomplish anything but overcrowding, resources depletion, famine and conflict.

Is your last name Malthus?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Whoha


First off, right now Humans inhabit very little of the earth's surface. Second, we have a planet,a solar system, a galaxy, and finally a universe full of resources, third, with that many more customers, all of our agriculture wouldn't need props, subsidies, and tariffs to survive. Finally, the silicoids are expanding like mad(they started next to us and we aren't uni/tol so we are pretty much ****ed), and if we don't expand even faster, the Earth will be theirs.

The Malthus curve does not apply to Humans.

I somewhat agree with your basic point..
I wouldnt say that Malthus doesnt apply.
That would mean all needed resources are in unlimited supply at all time, which is definetly not true.
The human population has not always had exponential growth, and does not at the moment, though that may change...

[Guest]

As many people pointed out, the rate of population increase worldwide is decreasing very rapidly, and using different estimates, the population should stop increasing at around 10-20 billions and start decreasing from there...
Major changes (Nuclear War, colonization of space etc..) could change this both ways, but without a major thing, this is the way were going....
Although I agree that there are a lot of humans, and that we are a problem, in the short to medium term, the solution to pollution and such are more about sensibilization, laws to promote clean industry etc. etc than actualy population reduction....

[Drake Tungsten]

This has a recurring theme to it, the Australian government has been worried about underpopulation for a long time. It also has pseudo-racist undertones - we don't want immigrants to increase the population, we want Aussies.

Awesome!

I'm white. Does that mean I can **** my way on to this government gravy train?

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by LulThyme
As many people pointed out, the rate of population increase worldwide is decreasing very rapidly, and using different estimates, the population should stop increasing at around 10-20 billions and start decreasing from there...

Is that so? Countries in Africa have birth rates of something like eight per woman. Eight.

All the countries you get news about have falling birth rates, and yet somehow the population keeps going up.

I'm rooting for AIDS. Or, failing that, a fourth Yersinia pestis pandemic.

[JohnT]

Mr. Pres, Ludd, I implore you both to go to the UN Population Division's homepage before you make further fools of yourselves.

For starters, there is only 1 African country that has a birthrate of 8.00 and that is Niger. Most of them have birthrates ~6.0 - 7.0... and those numbers are quickly falling.

Note the VERY strong correlation between birthrate, infant mortality, and life expectency - if you want birthrates to fall then don't "root" for AIDS, idiot. The aforementioned Niger has a current life expectance of 46.2 years, with over twelve percent of all infants dying before the age of 2. At least they're not Liberia, where fifteen percent of all infants die.

The worlds population is expected to top out at ~9,000,000,000 in 2050, with global birthrates dropping to mere replacement levels of 2.02 children per woman. By 2050, global population growth will decline from todays 1.35%/year to 0.33%/year. Yes, that is 1/3rd of 1 percent.

Look before you leap, kids. This information is readily available to anybody who can type "UN Population Division" in Google... do so before you come here and make complete, monsterous asses of yourselves.

[JohnT]

Oh, I forgot: Cite. It's a PDF document so you might just want to download it.

[JohnT]

Now, as for the country in question, Australia will have continued population growth, but it will all come through immigration, not natural (i.e., internal) growth. Even today they're below replacement levels, a situation that is not projected to improve much as they stay pretty stable from today's 1.70 children per woman to 2050's projected 1.85 children per woman.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
That is an industry problem, not a population problem.

Not entirely. People themselves also do a lot of damage to the environment, if just for the fact the more people use up more resources, and you need to get resources from somewhere. Then you have things like slash-and-burn agriculture practices in various places such as Brazil, health problems caused by people living in certain areas, and so forth.