Were the Aschen right?

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

The government does, the people don't, they are in fact pushing there own agenda and that of the business world. More people, more taxes, more people more goods go out the shop doors. It might serve a purpose in the short term, but in the end a society collapses inwardly with over crowding.


That is something that should be mandatory, but here we have this multicultural policy, that only divides a community.


Though this is true, only about one third of Australia is really habital, and of this a vast portion is needed for farming, plus water is a major issue for us, Sydney's water supply is currently at about 50% percent capacity even though we've had record rain falls this season. The only reason for this is the increased demand by a rapidly growing population, Australia in fact has the fastest growth rate in the Western world atm.

So in a word, yes the Aschen were right, the world cannot sustain these numbers

Look I think you should find more facts on the matter, by impression you give, you'd think you were 'overrun'. I can't put much faith in your claims I always thought your country was very tough on immigration.

I agree with you agreeing

Hold on a minute, I only agree with SOME of your points. I agree with mighty 6 platoon, I find MOST of your comments offensive, ignorant and bordering on racist, especially this one.

They politely call them refugees, but in truth all they are, are leeches, who come to countries like Australia, bludge off welfare for as long as they can and offer nothing in return for us sheltering them.

I only made my comments because I''m sick of people making out theres not a problem with immigration in the UK, I think immigration is important to my country though. What can I say I'm a pragmatist.

[puddlejumperOZ]

Perhaps I should explain. I have no problem with refugees at large, genuine ones. But there is a seedy element that has crept in that can in no way be considered genuine. I did not believe I would have to explain myself in detail for I thought this was a understood problem globaly, but obviuosly I was wrong.

The people I am talking about, PAY to come here, they are not in any way refugees of any kind. They have links to communities already established here that help them come here, set up businesses in prostitution, racketeering, drugs, money laundering and sponsoring terrorism back in there homelands. They divide our society here by accusing us of being racist everytime the Police crack down on them and catch them dealing in crime, arrest them and so on. We have had occasion here where an entire street has come out and pelted the Police with rocks and missiles of any kind, as they were trying to arrest someone. These are the people I am referring to, and if they do not fall into the category of society leeches, I don't know what is. I would say the same if they were born here. It is this kind of problem that alienates other people against migration, because it is happening to frequently now to seperate the good from the bad. And lastly, our government used to be tough, that was before the last election.

[Dex Luther]

Frankly I don’t care if you want to discriminate against one group of refugees, problems with crimes and integrating migrant communities are common and the rest of us manage to get by fine. None of the problems you mention are exclusive to Australia and any country with migration has experienced them. Australia has, in the UK, a reputation for being racist and I’m afraid to say that you’ve done nothing but reinforce the stereotype. If you want to hold your abhorrent little world view, fine you do that, but I’m done talking with you and will have nothing further to do with you. I don’t even know why a thread concerning global population should even cross into the topic of refugees and migration, the question of whether the earth can sustain the population at its current rate of growth is a global issue and has little if anything to do with the topic of refugees and the migration of people across artifical borders.

I'm from Canada, we're known to love everyone, and most of us say the same thing. The governments we elect and the taxes we pay for for our benefit first. Make sure every citizen has a job, is fed, protected, etc, and then if there's room left over you can start thinking about letting people in. The low percentage of immigrants that get jobs are taking jobs away from people, who's families were born here generations ago. Jobs aren't infinite. Most immigrants have trouble adapting (or are just lazy about it) so they get on welfare. That's tax dollars that can be going to improve health care and education. Then they have 5-6 kids and they all get to go to school. Since there isn't enough money to improve education, the classes get packed with 40-50 kids to each grossly underpaid teacher. As a result the education of Canadian born citizen suffers, and suffer from their own social integration problems because of it, which means more people with problems working. It's a vicious cycle.

Every Country has problems. Instead of worrying about those of others, we should worry about getting things working for ourselves in our Countries. Once your own country's citizens all have jobs and are all taken care of, then you can think about going out and helping the world. It's no use trying to pull people out of the mud when you're stuck in it yourself. People are starving in our own countries. What will bringing starving people from other countries solve?

The fact is we are too many on this planet. Merely moving people around isn't going to work. You put 6 billion people on a 3-4 billion planet and the same thing will happen as putting 6 liters of water in a 3 liter bottle. We're just displacing the problem and creating new ones.

Nature tied to keep the balance subtly with decease and shorter life spans and even with fertility problems, but we 'fixed' those. We take medicines because we're sicker, but we're sick because we're packed together like cattle. Now nature has to resort to trying to shake us off with earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. I read somewhere that to continue like we are it would take the resources of at least 4 more Earths (without more of us on them of course) just to last until something like 2020! You can probably google that to confirm it if you want.

I think it's pretty ridiculous. In fact the moment they start looking for volunteers for colonies on Mars or the Moon I'll gladly be the first to sign on the dotted line. I don't care if the chances of death at 95%, there's no beer, or there's only two women in the whole colony. I'd gladly farm space carrots or risk getting bitten by Galactic Monkey Snakes (that's snakes that are monkeys and not monkeys that are snakes) and die of Beqit (that's a fake far away planet) cancer (and yes they still have cancer, but it's space cancer. It's worse, right?). Being that alone and actually having room to breathe would greatly outweigh any dangers. Sure I'd spend every day hoping today is the day the colony ship full of beer and women arrives, but at least I'd be happy and healthy! We have to reduce the Earth's population by at least half. No one wants to let nature take care of it and unfortunately our space program isn't at the space colony stage yet, so what do you think we should do?

To answer the op: The Aschen's were right. Their methods might not seem right to some, but what's more important? Your feelings or the survival of your entire species?

[puddlejumperOZ]

Spoiler:

I'm from Canada, we're known to love everyone, and most of us say the same thing. The governments we elect and the taxes we pay for for our benefit first. Make sure every citizen has a job, is fed, protected, etc, and then if there's room left over you can start thinking about letting people in. The low percentage of immigrants that get jobs are taking jobs away from people, who's families were born here generations ago. Jobs aren't infinite. Most immigrants have trouble adapting (or are just lazy about it) so they get on welfare. That's tax dollars that can be going to improve health care and education. Then they have 5-6 kids and they all get to go to school. Since there isn't enough money to improve education, the classes get packed with 40-50 kids to each grossly underpaid teacher. As a result the education of Canadian born citizen suffers, and suffer from their own social integration problems because of it, which means more people with problems working. It's a vicious cycle.

Every Country has problems. Instead of worrying about those of others, we should worry about getting things working for ourselves in our Countries. Once your own country's citizens all have jobs and are all taken care of, then you can think about going out and helping the world. It's no use trying to pull people out of the mud when you're stuck in it yourself. People are starving in our own countries. What will bringing starving people from other countries solve?

The fact is we are too many on this planet. Merely moving people around isn't going to work. You put 6 billion people on a 3-4 billion planet and the same thing will happen as putting 6 liters of water in a 3 liter bottle. We're just displacing the problem and creating new ones.

Nature tied to keep the balance subtly with decease and shorter life spans and even with fertility problems, but we 'fixed' those. We take medicines because we're sicker, but we're sick because we're packed together like cattle. Now nature has to resort to trying to shake us off with earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. I read somewhere that to continue like we are it would take the resources of at least 4 more Earths (without more of us on them of course) just to last until something like 2020! You can probably google that to confirm it if you want.

I think it's pretty ridiculous. In fact the moment they start looking for volunteers for colonies on Mars or the Moon I'll gladly be the first to sign on the dotted line. I don't care if the chances of death at 95%, there's no beer, or there's only two women in the whole colony. I'd gladly farm space carrots or get bitten by Galactic Monkey Snakes (that's snakes that are monkeys and not monkeys that are snakes) and die of Beqit (that's a fake far away planet) cancer (and yes they still have cancer, but it's space cancer. It's worse, right?). Being that alone and actually having room to breathe would greatly outweigh any dangers. Sure I'd spend every day hoping today is the day the colony ship full of beer and women arrives, but at least I'd be happy and healthy! We have to reduce the Earth's population by at least half. No one wants to let nature take care of it and unfortunately our space program isn't at the space colony stage yet, so what do you think we should do?

To answer the op: The Aschen's were right. Their methods might not seem right to some, but what's more important? Your feelings or the survival of your entire species?

The things you have expressed Dex, mirror what is happening here. Canada like Australia is vast, but only a small percentage of it's land mass is truly habital for urbanisation. But both countries governments keep pandering to the minority bleeding heart syndrome of bringing in more from less developed countries, adding signifigantly to our social welfare burden, as a lot of these poor folk, really don't get established until the next generation. The problem is we are running out of resources faster than technology can find a fix, and we cannot sit around and all end up starving waiting for that first Space colony to help ease the problem.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

I'm from Canada, we're known to love everyone, and most of us say the same thing. The governments we elect and the taxes we pay for for our benefit first. Make sure every citizen has a job, is fed, protected, etc, and then if there's room left over you can start thinking about letting people in. The low percentage of immigrants that get jobs are taking jobs away from people, who's families were born here generations ago. Jobs aren't infinite. Most immigrants have trouble adapting (or are just lazy about it) so they get on welfare. That's tax dollars that can be going to improve health care and education. Then they have 5-6 kids and they all get to go to school. Since there isn't enough money to improve education, the classes get packed with 40-50 kids to each grossly underpaid teacher. As a result the education of Canadian born citizen suffers, and suffer from their own social integration problems because of it, which means more people with problems working. It's a vicious cycle.

Every Country has problems. Instead of worrying about those of others, we should worry about getting things working for ourselves in our Countries. Once your own country's citizens all have jobs and are all taken care of, then you can think about going out and helping the world. It's no use trying to pull people out of the mud when you're stuck in it yourself. People are starving in our own countries. What will bringing starving people from other countries solve?

The fact is we are too many on this planet. Merely moving people around isn't going to work. You put 6 billion people on a 3-4 billion planet and the same thing will happen as putting 6 liters of water in a 3 liter bottle. We're just displacing the problem and creating new ones.

Nature tied to keep the balance subtly with decease and shorter life spans and even with fertility problems, but we 'fixed' those. We take medicines because we're sicker, but we're sick because we're packed together like cattle. Now nature has to resort to trying to shake us off with earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.* I read somewhere that to continue like we are it would take the resources of at least 4 more Earths** (without more of us on them of course) just to last until something like 2020! You can probably google that to confirm it if you want.

I think it's pretty ridiculous. In fact the moment they start looking for volunteers for colonies on Mars or the Moon I'll gladly be the first to sign on the dotted line. I don't care if the chances of death at 95%, there's no beer, or there's only two women in the whole colony. I'd gladly farm space carrots or risk getting bitten by Galactic Monkey Snakes (that's snakes that are monkeys and not monkeys that are snakes) and die of Beqit (that's a fake far away planet) cancer (and yes they still have cancer, but it's space cancer. It's worse, right?). Being that alone and actually having room to breathe would greatly outweigh any dangers. Sure I'd spend every day hoping today is the day the colony ship full of beer and women arrives, but at least I'd be happy and healthy! We have to reduce the Earth's population by at least half. No one wants to let nature take care of it and unfortunately our space program isn't at the space colony stage yet, so what do you think we should do?

To answer the op: The Aschen's were right. Their methods might not seem right to some, but what's more important? Your feelings or the survival of your entire species?***

* What? so we've been bad and the earths punishing us
** This is true, I know
*** OK, well better yet why don't we try Genocide, Hitler would be proud. God help us all

[puddlejumperOZ]

^^^ There comes a time when someone in power has the intestinal fortitude (guts) and not worry about the votes when eleection time comes, and "Say enough is enough. It's way past time to downsize."

This can be done in many ways, but the first thing the rich countries like here need to do, is stop paying people to have children and start taking away the incentive to multiply. The second thing and most importatntly is to encourage third world countries to breed less, as they are typically the worst offenders. You could do this by say, "We will help fix your economy and give you jobs, if you introduce a one child per family law."

[Dex Luther]

You could do this by say, "We will help fix your economy and give you jobs, if you introduce a one child per family law."

With a 'no job = no kid' amendum to that law.

I also think part of the problem is that people work TOO much. Their kids are basically raised by the TV and video games, so they don't realize how hard it actually is to raise kids. Their either busy with work or making more kids while the kids they already have are plopped down in front of the TV.

* What? so we've been bad and the earths punishing us
** This is true, I know
*** OK, well better yet why don't we try Genocide, Hitler would be proud. God help us all

Pretty much. Obviously, anthropomorphism, but the planet is very much alive. There's a balance and cycle to everything on the planet, which we are breaking. If we were less on the planet, do you really think people would be dieing in earthquakes and tornadoes? I doubt it because I don't think anyone would choose to go build a city on a fault line or 'tornado alley' unless they had to. If they did the city would probably be abandoned the moment it was realized that it might have not been such a great spot after all.

Had the world been less crammed, do you think the people in Haiti would be rebuilding their country knowing that another earthquake could happen at anytime? I doubt they would have even been there in the first place, but now they just have nowhere else to go. The Earth's 'no vacancy' sign is blinking.

I'm not saying to kill everyone either. We shouldn't have let it get to this point to begin with, but what's done is done. We have to take control or one day we might just have no other choice but to turn to drastic measures. Measures that may very well include some form of genocide. Surely any logical person will agree that anything is a better than letting the whole species go extinct. Knowing us we'd probably bring at least half the species on the planet to extinction with us.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

With a 'no job = no kid' amendum to that law.

I also think part of the problem is that people work TOO much. Their kids are basically raised by the TV and video games, so they don't realize how hard it actually is to raise kids. Their either busy with work or making more kids while the kids they already have are plopped down in front of the TV.

Pretty much. Obviously, anthropomorphism, but the planet is very much alive. There's a balance and cycle to everything on the planet, which we are breaking. If we were less on the planet, do you really think people would be dieing in earthquakes and tornadoes? I doubt it because I don't think anyone would choose to go build a city on a fault line or 'tornado alley' unless they had to. If they did the city would probably be abandoned the moment it was realized that it might have not been such a great spot after all.

Had the world been less crammed, do you think the people in Haiti would be rebuilding their country knowing that another earthquake could happen at anytime? I doubt they would have even been there in the first place, but now they just have nowhere else to go. The Earth's 'no vacancy' sign is blinking.

I'm not saying to kill everyone either. We shouldn't have let it get to this point to begin with, but what's done is done. We have to take control or one day we might just have no other choice but to turn to drastic measures. Measures that may very well include some form of genocide. Surely any logical person will agree that anything is a better than letting the whole species go extinct. Knowing us we'd probably bring at least half the species on the planet to extinction with us.

I don't get your logic, earthquakes have been around for a long time. My point is by the time people knew it was dangerous to live in these areas then it was too late and they didn't want to move, I doubt it was because there was no where else to go.

Just look at Istanbul they have loads of quakes and yet still has a large population but if the people want to go I'm sure there are plenty of places they could go to.

I know what your thinking, less people = less deaths but its just not that simple.

[s09119]

The Aschen were only right if there are no other habitable planets out there. A world used solely for agricultural reasons would make the overcrowding on Earth a nonissue, as we could free up all the farmland here for urbanization.

[puddlejumperOZ]

As of only a couple of weeks ago as Australia gears up for another Federal election sometime soon, we have seen the emergence of a new political party that as it's main focus will centre on Population reduction. They have recruited some heavyweights in politics and surprisingly, a lot of people are agreeing with them. They won't win an election, but if they get even one Senator in, they will grow. So the question on the initial aim of this thread remains...were the Aschen right, is our population unsustainable?

[Coela Bellatore]

As of only a couple of weeks ago as Australia gears up for another Federal election sometime soon, we have seen the emergence of a new political party that as it's main focus will centre on Population reduction. They have recruited some heavyweights in politics and surprisingly, a lot of people are agreeing with them. They won't win an election, but if they get even one Senator in, they will grow. So the question on the initial aim of this thread remains...were the Aschen right, is our population unsustainable?

Sure, but the solution is education, aid, and technology. As technology increases our ability to squeeze a couple more billion people onto this planet also increases. We actually reached a limit on human population at about 4 billion back in the late 60's but a scientist was able to come up with a genetically engineered wheat strain that could be mass grown in poor countries with bad soil. Education is also important as the average family size of Indian northern tribes went down about 2 kids when basic cable was introduced to women there. Aid is also important because you can't just let people die; forcing people out will also not help the problem. Using legislation and incentives for THEM to reduce their population is the way to go, not by forcing them to.

[puddlejumperOZ]

That is the only way our world can go now. The GM food crops have a limited life cycle, then eventually they too become subject to environmental change. There were in last 7 years, 25% less arible land tracts world wide for crop growing made redundant by drought, urbanisation and pressure from the bio fuel industry. So even that is not sustainable anymore. So it comes back to reducing the human footprint, with as Coela has said , legislation and laws to remove the incentive for poeple to have large families and aid for those countries most affected. One argument by some poorer agrian communities such as in Africa, is that they have large families to help with their income and take care of the parents when they age. With help from wealthier nations this cycle could become a non isuue for them. But another problem is communities who breed large numbers for religious reasons, they are and will be a threat to the world in so many ways.

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

That is the only way our world can go now. The GM food crops have a limited life cycle, then eventually they too become subject to environmental change. There were in last 7 years, 25% less arible land tracts world wide for crop growing made redundant by drought, urbanisation and pressure from the bio fuel industry. So even that is not sustainable anymore. So it comes back to reducing the human footprint, with as Coela has said , legislation and laws to remove the incentive for poeple to have large families and aid for those countries most affected. One argument by some poorer agrian communities such as in Africa, is that they have large families to help with their income and take care of the parents when they age. With help from wealthier nations this cycle could become a non isuue for them. But another problem is communities who breed large numbers for religious reasons, they are and will be a threat to the world in so many ways.

Yes, thats how to slove the problem and also with use of the magic that is CONTRACEPTION

[puddlejumperOZ]

Yes give all the poor WiFi's and TV's with Foxtel, works better than the old pill or rubber thingy Don't know about the religious fanatics though, but I think a good dose of fun is what they need

[jelgate]

Were the Aschen right?

Yes they were right in that the Earth's population of humans is past the carrying capacity but I don't exactly think sterelizing the human population is the way to go