So do you win the blondes and the puppy as well as the cash if you find a solution?

frant said...

F*** the puppy. Just take the cash.

...That's frowned upon in most countries these days.

It was interesting.

That topic has been so quiet for so long and yet the potential for disaster is common knowledge. Suddenly we have a Minister for Sustainable Population and he has a job and a half to get on top of it.

Dick Smith has been pretty effective at raising awareness.

Felt sorry for the Lib bloke trying to give credible well presented ideas (even if they differ from my ideas) with a fat ignorant pre-historic boat anchor like Elliot (rightly or wrongly -still being associated with the libs) dragging the whole panel into a farce.

Gotta admire Dick Smith. Don't always agree with him but he's a legend and takes criticism better than most.

I moved here based on the fact that the standard of living was better and I could live comfortably close to a big city and still have some space...

that said Australians really look like whingers when they start to say "we're full" because compared to pretty much every other country, Australia is practically empty.

But then that's bull****, compared to India, Australian's have a good standard of healthcare and compared to South Africa, Australia has a low level of violent crime... it's not to say that Australia should aim for more violent crime or worse healthcare because of some global average...

I suppose it comes down to your views on rights. If you believe that a country has the right to close its borders to other people, then it follows that it can control its population. Just because another country is growing fast, it doesn't oblige Australia to grow fast.

But it doesn't follow that high national population density is low standard of living, if log man wants to live in a high density city while he's in his twenties and I want to live in a ok sized house in the burbs and the boomers want to live in the country when they retire then that works fine... it just needs a bit of thinking and a lot of investment in transport.

I moved from tassie to Melbourne for the excitement and sophistication of the city

Excitement yes sophistication? With 2 shooting today, it puts holes in your argument!!!

How does high density living make a city or you more sophisticated?

I personally love the 1/4 acre block, if people wish to live high density that's fine there is the city for that, but don't force everyone into it.

My suburb is loosing it 1/4 blocks to town houses ect, benefits are McDonalds, KFC & the likes have all opened up, also i stand to make a small fortune if i choose to develop!! Down side lack of parking in street, noticeable rise in graffiti, hostilities between neighbors & groups loitering on W/E. (its not that bad but compared with 30 years ago it is bad)

log man said...

Yeah, a bit, no alot, underwhelming. It seemed to me that his basic premise that high density living is inferior to the 1/4 acre block lifestyle is just wrong. I moved from tassie to Melbourne for the excitement and sophistication of the city now I want to move to New York. Maybe in a few years 100 acres in the bush might seem attractive but right now the country is a bit dull. Dick may be a smart businessman but his view of AU seems simplistic and unsophisticated, like he wants to turn back the clock to a golden age that never really was

What do you mean a golden age that never really was? I felt that I have lived in that age, growing up in a relatively expansive suburban environment, that was pretty safe to get around.

Now, I think its unfair that those sort of environments are being bought out to develop them, apparently without opening up enough land to replace the typical suburban building blocks. If you really expect 36 million people, will you be able to support that sort of use of space in the future?

If the current Australian population, whoever it happens to be, is not able to provide the growth that is expected, then I would argue that its not meant to increase. I think there is a trade off a lot of people have between having kids, buy a house, and working a reasonable number of hours.

If you end up with people not having enough children to keep up the population growth because they have to pay a fortune for a house, then what is the obvious answer?

How is even more population growth and increased demand for a restricted supply of housing going to help that?

As Dick pointed out, he is wealthy already, and any increase in population is going to increase his wealth again, yet he sees that unsustainable population growth is just not a good idea.

Australia will never be as exciting as somewhere like New York, but then again, Australia does not have the same resources as the USA.

you'd have to hope the Elliot and his redneck cronies will pass on and let others get on with the job of fixing it up again

I have always found Dick Smith to be brilliant. He never shies away from a problem and has the intellect to realise that most of the problems we face are solved technically and rely on science, not opinions coloured by folk who have a greedy agenda.

Not in a million years says John, we know whose side you are on Elliot. People listen to him and are guided by so many influential folk of his ilk, like John Opinions for Sale Laws, and Alan in the Gents Jones.

In civilised galaxys intergalitic travels occur through time. These guys are land anchors to progress and toward civilisation.

In todays system the world population is very finite owing to our impact our foot print. If we trod softly and lived as we know is technically possible, the world is very capable of holding a vast number more than it is currently capable.

In Jaque Frescos model decision making is made by a central computer loaded with all of human empirical knowledge. While building the IT a world wide survey would be made of the worlds resources. From there on no more solutions made by politicians.

No more politicians!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine the creativity that could break loose in such a system. When universal intelligence overcomes universal stupidity.

Imagine being able to be on the water when ever you wanted to be!

Imagine if every person was so focused on a universal goal, the achievements that scientists could make to our whole planet if there was no limit to their creativity, particularly the influence of profit.

Our whole system is corrupt and until we take serious notice of what science tells us we are in serious trouble and it is getting worse by the day

saltiest1 said...

mate, my daughter is 9. she has a movie called "Barbie in Fairytopia".
Have you seen it?

as long as humans are in control, do you think things will improve or will greed, $$$, and ego get in the way?

good on dick for raising a great topic for debate.

No I can't say I have seen it. Fairytopia hey? Is it good? I tried to keep my daughter away from that type of stuff. Neither she or her brother have turned out to be typical "products of our society" for which I have to be eternally thankful.

Scientists wrote whole theses on why man could never fly and if you were to travel back in time, not very far back, and were to tell any one what today was like they would say not in a million years!

Who knows what the future will bring? What is certain is that the cupboard is filling up and changes will have to be made. My guess is that there is going to be some really bad **** goes down before that happens. I reckon it will probably involve nuclear weapons.

There is a lot of speculation that this will also involve the people taking up the most space catching a cold.

Sadly this is likely the only thing that is going to change the minds of the not in a million yearers!

When people finally wake up to the fact that our system is completely corrupt and change it for a better system we will come of age as a species and realise our true potential.

And, Saltiest, in that system there will be no Barbie in Fairytopia. Your average nine year old daughter will likely be studying calculus and playing a musical instrument in concerts when she is not with her family and friends. She will not be subject to the eternal mindless claptrap that is used to dumb our kids down and keep them on the wheel and as far away from possible to their true potential.

japie said...
When people finally wake up to the fact that our system is completely corrupt and change it for a better system we will come of age as a species and realise our true potential.

And, Saltiest, in that system there will be no Barbie in Fairytopia. Your average nine year old daughter will likely be studying calculus and playing a musical instrument in concerts when she is not with her family and friends. She will not be subject to the eternal mindless claptrap that is used to dumb our kids down and keep them on the wheel and as far away from possible to their true potential.

Very well said japie. The dumbing down of our children is I believe the most criminal thing happening in our society.

BTW Does anybody else on the forum besides japie and I know what the word "japie" (pronounced yaarpy) means. Maybe japie could explain.

petermac33 said...

this is one topic i have to disagree with Cisco + Japie on.

i reckon Dick Smith is a front guy for the corporate establishment, the one's pushing this nonesense that the earth cannot take an increase in population.

'they' are using their minnion, Dick Smith in this case to push this crap.

the sheep, believing this nonesense are more likely to accept a carbon tax!

multifaceted crap actually!

lost my respect for Dick Smith when he funded the attack on the Australian Vaccination Network,proof to me anyway, that he is one of 'them'.

p.s the AVN is against vaccination.

Very strange logic working there. Firstly big business is generally pro growth. More people has a number of effects, generally positive for business. Effects such as a larger pool of labour to draw upon, a larger market to sell goods and services are the two biggest reasons why the business sector is generally pro growth.

If you had watched the Q&A session after the show you would have seen most of the pro growth people were from the business sector.

Secondly a smaller population is less likely to need some sort of tax on carbon than a larger population. If Australia had a population of about 1 million, we could live almost however we liked and not emit as much carbon from our activities than an Australia with a population of say 50 million. So what Australia would be more likely to bring in a tax on carbon emissions? Any such tax would be more effective if there are more tax payers.

I do not believe Dick Smith is anyone's minion. He is independently wealthy and doesn't owe anyone anything. He made his wealth through his entrepreneurship and hard work. He is using the same skills to problems he sees facing Australia, not problems some shadowy group out there wants sorted out.

Criticism of the AVN is warranted. Any group that attacks the grieving parents of a baby who died from a disease that is out in the community because of lower vaccination rates, is an organisation that does not deserve the support of any right thinking person. The AVN are extremists, pushing their particular ideological barrow even when it results in disease and death.

Mobydisc said...

petermac33 said...

this is one topic i have to disagree with Cisco + Japie on.

i reckon Dick Smith is a front guy for the corporate establishment, the one's pushing this nonesense that the earth cannot take an increase in population.

'they' are using their minnion, Dick Smith in this case to push this crap.

the sheep, believing this nonesense are more likely to accept a carbon tax!

multifaceted crap actually!

lost my respect for Dick Smith when he funded the attack on the Australian Vaccination Network,proof to me anyway, that he is one of 'them'.

p.s the AVN is against vaccination.

Very strange logic working there. Firstly big business is generally pro growth. More people has a number of effects, generally positive for business. Effects such as a larger pool of labour to draw upon, a larger market to sell goods and services are the two biggest reasons why the business sector is generally pro growth.

If you had watched the Q&A session after the show you would have seen most of the pro growth people were from the business sector.

Secondly a smaller population is less likely to need some sort of tax on carbon than a larger population. If Australia had a population of about 1 million, we could live almost however we liked and not emit as much carbon from our activities than an Australia with a population of say 50 million. So what Australia would be more likely to bring in a tax on carbon emissions? Any such tax would be more effective if there are more tax payers.

I do not believe Dick Smith is anyone's minion. He is independently wealthy and doesn't owe anyone anything. He made his wealth through his entrepreneurship and hard work. He is using the same skills to problems he sees facing Australia, not problems some shadowy group out there wants sorted out.

Criticism of the AVN is warranted. Any group that attacks the grieving parents of a baby who died from a disease that is out in the community because of lower vaccination rates, is an organisation that does not deserve the support of any right thinking person. The AVN are extremists, pushing their particular ideological barrow even when it results in disease and death.

Well said Mobydisc but I think Petermac33 is joking(I hope!)

petermac33 said...

i reckon Dick Smith is a front guy for the corporate establishment, the one's pushing this nonesense that the earth cannot take an increase in population.

'they' are using their minnion, Dick Smith in this case to push this crap.

the sheep, believing this nonesense are more likely to accept a carbon tax!

multifaceted crap actually!

lost my respect for Dick Smith when he funded the attack on the Australian Vaccination Network,proof to me anyway, that he is one of 'them'.

p.s the AVN is against vaccination.

Yeah, dick smith wants a smaller population so that he can sell more TVs to the remaining small population and he wants to vaccinate people so they can't do sport so that they have to watch bigger TVs. He has been hypnotised with chemtrails to do this by the new world order, or the new order of new world orders that controls them or maybe even the recently established new order of new order of new world orders... I'm not touching the water..

log man said...

Formulanova: sure Australia of the 1950's and 1960s had wide open spaces and a great climate and a freedom to do things that maybe we miss decades later but I think we definatly look back with rose coloured glasses. I remember Tassie in the sixties and seventies not as a haven but as a place where intolerance reined and a frontier mentality meant small mindedness usually led to the exodus of anyone 18 and over . And to some extent most of Australia still suffers from the limitation of small populations. Big cities have layers of sophistication that drive culture and Dick Smiths premise for the whole doco is predicated on the theory that big cities are bad and 1'4 acre blocks are good . I don't buy it

Hey, I'm not that old! I was born in the seventies, and even then, 1/4 acre blocks were the norm and everyone had a yard to play in, if not in the middle of the street. I have a yard about that size now, but I can see that if there is no decent amount of land opened up, areas like this will be developed and I worry that you won't be able to have a decent size yard within commuting distance of the CBD.

Big cities become a bit impersonal and I think it creates its own problems.

Why not have an Australia where those that want to live in a city can, in high density or medium density housing? If we had decent transport systems, it would even allow people to retain a decent amount of yard space and work in the city if needed.

Maybe a bigger population could be acceptable, but the politicians want them all to be crammed into the existing cities as it involves less work on infrastructure.