Jump to content
smakme7757

"Big Australia" - Whats your view?

Recommended Posts

I actually just came across this while reading The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-...00626-zb1g.html

 

It focuses on an issue (Which I hadn't heard of before now) about how quickly Australia's population is growing and by 2050 we could be at around 40 million. The big question being if our country can sustain such a number when taking our infrastructure and resources into account. One of the bigger more sensitive numbers rearing its head in the article was that of immigration, which is said to be at around 300,000 as of last year.

 

According to the article 300,000 immigrants is:

 

about double the rate of natural increase accounted for by births and deaths

So what's Atomics view on "Big Australia": Is it a problem? Do we take in too many immigrants and asylum seekers? Do you think we will outgrow ourselves?

 

It's a touchy subject so lets try to keep it civil.

Edited by smakme7757

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the goverment has made sure that there is enough public transport, power, water and other essential services, then sure, why not have a larger population

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's already pretty cosmopolitan where I live - it doesn't particularly bother me, just as long as 'they' leave their old world ways back in the old world - this be a nice new place, don't fuck it, and all be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem is in continued centralisation, if das gubment put some effort and resources into using some more of the available land then we could fit heaps of people here without a problem, a bit harder to control the masses though if they're spread out....and kinda free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, the more the merrier!

No water, no power, over crowded public transport and roads...............there is no upside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, the more the merrier!

No water, no power, over crowded public transport and roads...............there is no upside.

 

so you DON'T want to live in Mad Max III: Beyond the Thunderdome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh, the more the merrier!

No water, no power, over crowded public transport and roads...............there is no upside.

 

You'll be dead in 2050.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question really is "do we have enough resources to feed ourselves at the higher population level?". If yes then it is a possibility and does bring some benefits of the improved population, less costly to make your own products as the demand increases rather than import everything.

 

Once you decide that the number isn't frightening, it then is where do you put the extra people? At the moment they all get crammed into the cities or around the edges, in the case of Sydney, this means much of the good arable land ends up being converted to housing or industrial estates reducing the amount of locally grown food and putting greater pressure on the less fertile parts of the country. You could stop this by legislating that farming ground remain farming ground but then you'd have a heap of people complaining that the Government had reduced the value of their land (the farmers) but that's probably because that's as much because they don't get the real value of the products that they grow (that gets taken by the middle man or the seller, Cole or Woolworths). If you end up using all the arable land you end up having to import all your food and where would that put us? Let's face it the main cities are where they are as much because it was they were the best areas to farm when the country was "discovered and developed" by the Poms.

 

An interesting dilemma and one that I don't think we have enough discussion of.

Edited by MandoTiM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeding the population is just about the least of our worries.

 

This country has a housing crisis, prices are utterly ridiculous. Land prices today are about what an entire block+house used to cost just a few years ago.

 

Practically every bastard that moves here stays in Sydney, Melbourne or one of the other capitals.

 

We need to reduce net immigration, just under 100,000 sounds good to me. And they should make it "skilled" people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually just came across this while reading The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-...00626-zb1g.html

 

It focuses on an issue (Which I hadn't heard of before now) about how quickly Australia's population is growing and by 2050 we could be at around 40 million. The big question being if our country can sustain such a number when taking our infrastructure and resources into account. One of the bigger more sensitive numbers rearing its head in the article was that of immigration, which is said to be at around 300,000 as of last year.

 

According to the article 300,000 immigrants is:

 

about double the rate of natural increase accounted for by births and deaths

So what's Atomics view on "Big Australia": Is it a problem? Do we take in too many immigrants and asylum seekers? Do you think we will outgrow ourselves?

 

It's a touchy subject so lets try to keep it civil.

 

We should introduce a 10 year moratorium on immigration, the country is over populated as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeding the population is just about the least of our worries.

But it won't be if we grow without thinking about it. Housing is a start to the food crisis. By converting good arable land to unproductive housing you make the ability of the country to accept higher population worse, and I'm not talking only immigration here. I would agree that we need to move people away from the main centres of population. Unfortunately that is difficult with the poor mass transport system we currently have and then we have the chicken-and-egg question of not having the population to support schemes like fast trains but then needing the trains to push people out into a more decentralised world. There are reasons why the European towns and villages have survived whereas ours haven't, the ground is more ammenable to arable farming due to climate but it has helped them grow to more subtantial sizes in terms of total population. Using up our only arable land for housing won't help in the long run.

 

We need to reduce net immigration, just under 100,000 sounds good to me. And they should make it "skilled" people.

I'm not sure that restricting the people to being "skilled" would help the housing shortage. It's them that can afford to buy in the main cities. The unskilled immigrants are the ones that have to move out into the country to find both jobs and affordable housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land isn't a problem either, on the face of it.

 

The problem is that there isn't much land available close to sufficient water sources. And much of that land is nowhere near the coast, and historically it's proven that people just don't want to live away from the coast here.

 

And the other problem with large inland populations is that suddenly you have a whole lot of sewage that has to be treated before being released into rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that there's any problem with Australia having a 40,000 population per se, it's more about the distribution of that population. Australia is currently one of the most urbanised countries in the world, and I think that a double in population will lead to a more than double in urban areas as a majority of the per capita increase will occur in the major cities. Sure, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin can probably grow a fair bit, but Melbourne is struggling and Sydney is in complete shambles (Sydney doesn't have the infrastructure to support a population of 2 million, let alone the current population of 4.5 or any further increase). Furthermore, increased urbanisation, apart from strain government infrastructure, is going to make it to expensive for any one to actually live in these areas.

 

The house I'm living in (a duplex in Kensington), was sold as a demolition property for $1.6million, that's 30 times the annual income and that's 7km from the city.

 

Currently the median house price to wage ration is upwards of 90%. That's compared to 25% in the 80's, not the 50's the 80's! Hell, it was still only 37% in the late 90's. In the past 12 years the ratio has increased by 150%, that means that the average high income earner (someone on $85-100k), can't actually afford the average house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that there's any problem with Australia having a 40,000 population per se, it's more about the distribution of that population.

There'd be a fuck-tonne less traffic on the roads, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land isn't a problem either, on the face of it.

 

The problem is that there isn't much land available close to sufficient water sources. And much of that land is nowhere near the coast, and historically it's proven that people just don't want to live away from the coast here.

 

And the other problem with large inland populations is that suddenly you have a whole lot of sewage that has to be treated before being released into rivers.

There is plenty of land close to water sources, it's called northern Australia. Go and have a look at google maps, where Australia is green there are loads of towns, with 2 exceptions

  • A small portion of Southern West Australia (East of Perth)
  • And the entire North of Australia

Everything North of Townsville in QLD, Daly Waters in NT and Broome in WA gets plenty of rain 5 months of the year. The total area is three times the size of Victoria, with far more equivalent coastal area, but it is fucking hot.

 

I grew up in Darwin, and it could easily sustain a population of 1million; hell if Darwin's population increased threefold in the next year, it would struggle but be otherwise sustainable - generally the problem would not be a lack of water (the Dam spends 2-3 months a year overflowing), roads or sewage system, but with the shitty electrical grid which hasn't been updated since the 70's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's Atomics view on "Big Australia": Is it a problem? Do we take in too many immigrants and asylum seekers? Do you think we will outgrow ourselves?

Immigrants? Maybe.

 

Asylum seekers? No.

 

Outgrow? Maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Actually go to Northern Australia. Some facts:

 

It has a wet and dry season. Wet season entails the odd cyclone, and generally large portions of land being flooded for weeks at a time.

The terrain is also inhospitable in many places.

 

And not to mention that many of these areas are a sensitive environment and some of it is heritage listed.

 

I see absolutely no point in a "bigger Australia". All it will do is create an underclass, and spread the wealth more thinly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter, according to a recent UN study our population has already reached a point where, at present living standards and with present technology, the earth cannot sustain us. The reality is that because a lot of people in the world don't drive cars, don't get enough food, and don't live in big comfy houses, the effects aren't as drastic as you would think, although we certainly are on the edge - just look at issues like peak oil. As early as the 19th century physiocrats theorized that because our population increases at an exponential rate and the earth is finite, it cannot support mankind indefinitely. So I say it doesn't matter what we do about immigrants, we're all fucked anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire planet needs population control.

 

Having 8 kids was all well and good in the pre-Victorian era but in the modern day isn't.

 

I see little to no positives in letting Austraila's population increase unnaturally. The baby bonus is more than enough - just encourage the people already here to reproduce and bring the average age down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Actually go to Northern Australia. Some facts:

 

It has a wet and dry season. Wet season entails the odd cyclone, and generally large portions of land being flooded for weeks at a time.

The terrain is also inhospitable in many places.

 

And not to mention that many of these areas are a sensitive environment and some of it is heritage listed.

 

I see absolutely no point in a "bigger Australia". All it will do is create an underclass, and spread the wealth more thinly.

I've lived in North Queensland and Darwin for almost 20 years, flooding is solved by simply having proper drainage systems - generally there isn't any valleys that flood, the land is pretty flat so it floods equally everywhere. Darwin would most certainly flood every year if it wasn't for the impressive drainage system - there is less water on the roads in Darwin during a cyclone then there is on Sydney roads during a light drizzle.

 

Mackay does flood, and in part due to the Pioneer river, but the majority of the flooding (particularly in North Mackay), occurs as a result of a complete lack of drainage

 

Any decent size dam will hold enough water to last the entirety of the dry season, and dams fill up in a matter of days (I believe that Darwin dam filled up from it's minimum level to 100% in one day last year - but that's what happens when you have 12 inches of rain fall in one day). To give you an idea of 'capacity', Darwin Dam minimum annual level is 42.5m, with a spillway of 44.5m - assuming conservatively that the bottom 10% is unusable, Darwin drains the dam to 5% below maximum capacity in the 8 months of the year that it doesn't rain. Did I mention that when Darwin received 12" of rain in didn't flood...

 

Relative to Southern Australia there is a lot of heritage land/national parks, but it is still only a small proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire planet needs population control.

 

Having 8 kids was all well and good in the pre-Victorian era but in the modern day isn't.

 

I see little to no positives in letting Austraila's population increase unnaturally. The baby bonus is more than enough - just encourage the people already here to reproduce and bring the average age down.

There's no problem with an aging population.

People just have to keep working and use more technology;ogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×