Australia's Population 'Dilemma '

[pauljh74]

I don't think we need a child limit policy, but we don't need to "encourage" people to have babies with baby bonuses and paid maternity leave. We don't need for (now past) government politicians telling us to have one for Dad, one for Mum and one for the country. If one couple doesn't want kids and another wants 4 - fine.

Immigration - Australia should limit immigration and bring in people for jobs we need people for. Pick and choose the people we want to bring in. Australians have restrictions just to get a work visa for even the UK - there is usually an age limit too. Yet certain people berate Australia for not opening the floodgates.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_au

Good point, I'll have to ask some of my Chinese friends about that, apparently it IS enforced over there, the price to have an extra child is quite large from what I've been told.

Yes enforced so much that there are many many female Chinese orphans.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Yes enforced so much that there are many many female Chinese orphans.

Or the female child is smuggled into North Korea so that the couple in China can try for a boy, great policy.

[FGII-XR6]

If we are looking at a purely local rather than a global response then the quickest and easiest is significantly reducing immigration. I know there will be calls of racism but remember we are looking to reduce local population growth reducing immigration will have an immediate and controllable result were reproductive controls will be difficult or impossible to enforce without serious human rights violations.
China has a 1 child policy but it is enforced by fear, forced abortions, imprisonment and in some cases execution. The only way a mandated population control will be enforceable would be by similar methods, is this where we want Australia to go?
Border control is easily enforced sure we will still have people overstay visas but they get caught and sent back. We would not need to close the borders completely but a reduction of 75% would significantly reduce population growth while still allowing worst case humanitarian and essential skills migration. The utilisation of border control would not breach human right unlike population control leaving a situation more people would accept ( you will never please everyone)

[FGII-XR6]

when part of the question is to limit immigration even someone with an IQ of 25 would expect part of the debate to be immigration. When there are only 2 options and the other one is population control ( think China here) the best choice is a no brainer.
The question asked was not should we limit immigration but which option would work the best. out of the 2 options presented immigration control has the lowest human rights impact
Remember this is a school assignment and the options were set by the teacher not by Fordman6. Funny thing is when I saw the question I was wondering how many posts would be required for a left wing, immigration at all costs, post to appear

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Amazing how the thread turns into a debate about immigration...... how predictable.

[SVR73]

Originally Posted by XWGT

I think everyone looks at the issue of population from the wrong angle.

Australia can sustain an enormous population..........if we are prepared to spend the $ to build the infrastructure required to support it. If we are not prepared to do that then logically it means our population will be limited in some form

very well said

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

when part of the question is to limit immigration even someone with an IQ of 25 would expect part of the debate to be immigration. When there are only 2 options and the other one is population control ( think China here) the best choice is a no brainer.
The question asked was not should we limit immigration but which option would work the best. out of the 2 options presented immigration control has the lowest human rights impact
Remember this is a school assignment and the options were set by the teacher not by Fordman6. Funny thing is when I saw the question I was wondering how many posts would be required for a left wing, immigration at all costs, post to appear

Did you bother to read the stats i put up from the bureau of statistics?\
And your pathetic left wing jibe is also predicable... once you realise the difference between right and wrong and the difference between left wing/ right wing then people are able to have a decent discussion.
And before you bother to go on and on and tell me im a left winger in my thinking, my parents migrated to this country.
This is a country made up of migrants....

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by fordman6

Today in Society and Culture at school we got talking about the proposed two-child policy brought about by the new 'Stop Population Growth Now' party that was formed back in April.

Here is a little article with a quick overview of the situation to get you up-to-date: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/n...-1225859631610

My question is, what are your thoughts? Hopefully I can get a decent response so I can use the data in an assignment due in a few weeks...

S&C is a great subject! I came fifth in NSW in 3 unit S&C back in 1996. LOL.

Slowing immigration is a good option. Unfortunately Australia is not the only part of the world that's expanding rapidly... the world's population is completely out of control and is going to get worse in the immediate future.

Looking at this long-term we need to educate women in lesser developed countries to slow the population growth over all. This will, in time, lessen the need for immigration as standards of living improve in lesser developed regions.

Locally, we are in the unfortunate situation where the economy has been stoked with population growth, caused by immigration. It's been a quick fix to hide the realities of Australia's economy for quite some time. The politicians are addicted to good balance sheets provided by the easy fix of skilled immigration.

The solution to population growth? Well, you could cut immigration dramatically... but then our economy would slow and we'd need to rely on our own development and education programs, which have been neglected for years. Ain't going to happen. No politician has the balls to do it.

Limited child policy? Don't even consider it! We currently pay teenage kids to have kids of their own, it would be a complete paradigm shift, both at a polotical level and at a cultural level. No one would wants their freedom of choice taken away.

The solution? That's easy. Limit access to cheap energy - oil. The world's population has grown dramatically, perfectly in line with the time that we learned how to harness fossil fuels... and then we discovered oil reserves. BOOM!

If you do some research into peak oil it's quite frightening what might happen. Medicines, plastics... everything relies on oil.

Take away cheap oil and you have a silver bullet for population growth.

What does that mean for the short tem in OZ? Not a hell of a lot... we're pretty much stuck with over-population until we make an investment in shirting populations away from Sydney and Melbourne. Only problem there is trying to figure out how to ensure water supply.

[Flaming Mo]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Oh and btw, 10,000 years? This population problem we have now has popped up only in the last 100 years. Up until the late 1800's the worlds human population was naturally governed at an entirely manageable and sustainable 1 million people, or thereabouts. In just over 100 years its exploded to over 7 billion.

Not to be picky, but I’m sure you meant to type that the world’s population in the late 1800’s was 1 BILLION people, (not MILLION). And by 1900 it was actually getting towards 2 BILLION, but yes I agree, population has certainly increased vastly over that time.

[vztrt]

http://www.theage.com.au/business/ou...224-196r6.html

Our population problem: not dead yet
December 24, 2010 - 7:48AM



For those worried about too many people in Australia, or at least the inability to find a car park right outside the shops on Saturday morning, there's an overlooked aspect to our alleged population problem: we're not dying.

Perhaps more accurately, we're not dying as much as we used to. Death is on a go-slow. Despite the Grim Reaper having 22 million, 342 thousand of us to chose from on June 30, he only took 140,629 over the course of the last financial year – a fall of 2.2 per cent on his 2008-09 work. Given the larger population, Mr Reaper's productivity is in serious decline.

With so much happening this week – NBNs, MRRTs, ASICs, GST avoidance undermining capitalism and Ken Henry going full-time with the wombats - the Australian Bureau of Statistics quarterly demographic release tended to slip by without much comment.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The main news was that our population growth rate continues to retreat from its 2009 peak of 2.2 per cent, down to 1.7 per cent in the year to June 30, still a healthy rate but the lowest it's been in three years.

The expected slow-down was well known but pointedly ignored during the grubby election campaign with its dog-whistle politics and boat people demonisation, but it turns out our population growth rate would be lower again if it wasn't for the new challenge facing the nation: too much living.

The ABS has a particular set of numbers that demonstrate what a slacker Death has become.

Death's key performance indicator for long and short-term bonus payments is the SDR - Standardised Death Rate, deaths per thousand standard population. Over the last financial year, it dropped to 5.63 – it was 6.17 five years ago and averaged a fraction over 6 for the previous four years.

No wonder Gen Y and X are antsy about housing prices – us boomers just aren't shuffling off as quickly as we used to, not providing enough deceased estate auctions. It's very inconsiderate of us. Euthanasia isn't a civil liberties issue, it's a question of housing affordability.

Death still knocks more in some states and territories than others. On a proportionate basis, there's a much better chance of attending a funeral in the Northern Territory (standardised date rate 8.04) than in the ACT (SDR 5.16 – but some might argue there's not much difference between being alive and dead in Canberra anyway).

Even in those examples of the best and worst places for dying, Death isn't trying as hard as he used to. The NT's SDR, while far and away the nation's highest, still had the sharpest fall, from 9.04 to 8.04. It was a whopping 9.43 in 2005-06.

The ACT's low 5.16 was down from 5.67 the year before. And in case you're wondering, the second deadliest state is Tasmania with 6.69 – comfortably ahead of South Australia on 5.77. Well, we all know about SA, but Tassy? What happened to the apple-a-day story?

In the grander scheme of things, births, deaths, migration and whatever state of existence is current in Canberra might not mean much. Another part of the ABS release looked at international population projections out to 2050. With our unwillingness to die, Australia's projected population in 40 years is just 34 million, but that means we would only drop one place on the world's population ladder, from our current 54th to 55th spot.

That's as good as steady, particularly when, on current trends, there are some quite noticeable changes in the rankings.

The Canadians are slated to drop from 36th today with 36 million lumberjacks to 45th place on 41 million, but Italy's diving from 23rd (58 million) to 35th (50 million) and Greece falls 20 places from 75th to 95th as the population falls from 11 million to 10 million – which is probably still more than they will be able to afford with German assistance.

The shrinking standout though is Japan, tipped to drop from 10th place (127 million) to 20th (94 million). And if you think adding 12 million people is a social challenge, losing 34 million is in another league of policy crisis altogether. Maybe Bob Brown would like to try government in Japan.

For all the little losers, there has to be a big winner: India. From second place with a population of 1173 million in 2010, it's projected to claim first place with 1657 million in 2050. Apparently Indians think size does count. China is expected to be relatively stable – 1330 million now, 1304 million then.

Of course, it might not happen: policies change, plagues break out, people devote themselves to updating their Facebook page instead of having a real life and making babies, all sorts of things.

For example, on current trends, the ABS reckons the population of Melbourne will overtake that of Sydney around 2040. (Sydney is expected to have 4,541,800 shallow souls in 2011 and 6,527,300 in 2041, while Melbourne should have 4,079,600 artistic aerial ping-pong fans next year and 6,573,100 in 2041.)

It won't necessarily happen – projections are just projections. It is a possibility that changes in government policy could make housing more affordable in Sydney than in Melbourne and people there will get sick of “reading books in tiny dark bars”. The Emerald City might rediscover its mojo and the prospect of another bleak winter surrounded by people who talk about nothing except a particularly insular football code could drive a wave of mental health refugees north. It's possible.

In any event, with the federal government having no less than three committees dithering around on population, each committee's chair displaying their existing prejudices, there's plenty of room for the population debate to evolve. So, in 2011, let's move that debate on to where the government really could make a difference: getting Death back to work.

Despite the political ravings and some economic qualms, we really don't have much choice on the immigration side as we need to import the skills and education we weren't smart enough to invest in ourselves. But encouraging more deaths, hey, lots of governments do it. The danger is, the Greens might take this seriously.

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor, who, despite the favourable policy outcomes of the alternative, wishes everyone a safe and happy Christmas.

[Franco Cozzo]

My little town could use a lot more people, maybe then we'd get something other than little art galleries which open and then close 6 months later. There is not really much here for the youngins to do apart from the skate park.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by vztrt

http://www.theage.com.au/business/ou...224-196r6.html

Typical shirkers, not enough Aussies doing their bit.