Were the Aschen right?

[puddlejumperOZ]

I remember in the second episode dealing with the Aschen and when saked about the worlds population, Sam says 6 billion or so, and the Aschen relplied, "Isn't that unsustainable?" To which Sam said something about freedom of choice. The overcrowding of our cities has made me think, and with our resources rapidly dwindling, it made me realise maybe the Aschen were right. If we don't control our destiny now, what will be left. This article in a paper made me even more aware. My question is, in a Stargate world, how best would we manage our planet?

[puddlejumperOZ]

AUSTRALIA's population is set to explode, reaching at least 36 million by 2050, and probably a lot more. As it stands, our population is already growing at a faster percentage rate than any developed nation, and faster than countries like China, India and Indonesia.
Last year we added almost the equivalent of the state of Tasmania - 480,000 people - in a single year.

Think about all the roads, schools, parks, hospitals and homes in Tassie. That's about what we have to build just to maintain our standard of living and we need to do it every 12 months!

If we maintain anything like this rate of growth in the years to come, I believe it will be a disaster. The way of life we love in Australia will be forever changed as we are crowded into packed and dirty cities.

State governments are already struggling to keep up with the current growth, let alone dealing with many millions more.

Just look at the 30-year fiasco that is Sydney's mythical second airport. Brisbane can't decide what to do about dams, Melbourne can't implement a co-ordinated public transport system and we are building hugely expensive desalination plants just to have enough drinking water.

Does anyone really believe we are suddenly going to discover the secret of adding a city bigger than Canberra every year for the next 40 years?

As Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson has previously warned, we are sleep-walking towards disaster.

And speaking of Canberra, don't look there for leadership on this issue. Last October the Prime Minister declared he was "unapologetically in favour of a Big Australia". But by last month, sensing that many Australians were uneasy with uncontrolled population growth, he had changed his tune.

When asked about the forecast of a 60 per cent jump to 35 million, he said, "I don't have a view on that, it's simply the reality". It was as if the Government has no plan and no influence on the outcome.

Yet Rudd controls the main lever on population growth: immigration.

Our current immigration intake is at record levels, a trend begun under the Howard government. Yet we have never been asked if we think it's a wise idea.

Just what exactly are the benefits of a Big Australia? Treasurer Wayne Swan argues we must keep feeding more taxpayers into the system to prepare for when Baby Boomers start retiring.

Yet his own study, the Intergenerational Report, shows the number of seniors in the population will be less than previously predicted.

In fact Australia has one of the youngest population profiles of any advanced nation and Mr Swan's strategy ignores the reality that immigrants become old too one day.

It's like a giant Ponzi scheme, a short-term fix that will do nothing to provide for Australia's long-term security. But it would be unfair to just pick on the Government. In recent weeks the Opposition has been just as confused, both welcoming Australia's record level of immigration and threatening to slash it.

The result is that we do not have a population policy - no direction and no idea how many people our arid and fragile environment can sustain.

Are our politicians too frightened to offend the powerful business, religious and financial interests that support unrestrained growth?

This isn't about being a selfish nation that closes its eyes to a world heading towards nine billion people.

Developing nations need the food we export, but soon Australia will likely become a net importer of food, literally taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

Already our immigration system encourages the plundering of the best doctors, nurses and engineers from the nations that can least afford to lose them.

Once we were part of the Colombo Plan, training the brightest from elsewhere then sending them home to build their own nations. Now we are so desperate that we offer citizenship just to fill our own ever-expanding needs.

I've been criticised for calling for a reduction in our immigration levels, an increase in our humanitarian efforts and an end to schemes like the baby bonus.

I have even been accused of being racist and anti-family for even raising the population question.

I will let others judge me over many years of public life, but it is certain that if we continue to treat population as a taboo subject, then it will surely open the door to extremists to fill the void.

Population is the elephant in the room that we have ignored for too long. None of the issues we face - climate change, housing, energy, healthcare, our environment - gets easier if population grows out of control. I have never felt more strongly about an issue and I want future generations to enjoy this way of life.

[Pharaoh Atem]

Reveal the sg program and allow people to move into the galaxy. With the understanding that you follow the rules of that planet assuming it's populated

[DigiFluid]

In belief moreso than execution. Population growth on this planet appears to be unsustainable--most estimates put the world population above 9 billion by 2050.

On a more facetious note: you need a license for everything else in life, why not for having children too?

[puddlejumperOZ]

In belief moreso than execution. Population growth on this planet appears to be unsustainable--most estimates put the world population above 9 billion by 2050.

On a more facetious note: you need a license for everything else in life, why not for having children too?

That is actually a very good idea

[hedwig]

In belief moreso than execution. Population growth on this planet appears to be unsustainable--most estimates put the world population above 9 billion by 2050.

On a more facetious note: you need a license for everything else in life, why not for having children too?

It may be a facetious note, but not such a bad idea. Given the numbers of abandoned, unwanted, ignored, abused children in the world, as well as all the ones being raised by people who have no clue as to how to raise children, and more or less children having children these days, I don't think it's an unreasonable idea. And along with licenses, parenting classes should be required as well. I'm pretty sure that's a very unpopular opinion, but something like that might go a long ways toward reducing population explosions somewhat.

[Jack_Bauer]

In belief moreso than execution. Population growth on this planet appears to be unsustainable--most estimates put the world population above 9 billion by 2050.

On a more facetious note: you need a license for everything else in life, why not for having children too?

And what would be the criteria for receiving this license? What tests would be carried out on the potential parents?

[Tanie]

The population growth of the world as a whole is unsustainable. Stop IVF and assisted pregnancy is one choice, stop having s*x would be another choice (not viable I know ).

There are lots of unrealistic and unpopular opinions out there, but to axe them outright is not good either.

[DigiFluid]

And what would be the criteria for receiving this license? What tests would be carried out on the potential parents?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

[Jack_Bauer]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

Dude, I know what facetious means. Seriously though, let's discuss the option of a "baby license".

[nx01a]

You must have an IQ of 100 or over and pass the parenting SATs to begin attempting to reproduce.

I'll try and find the studies, but smart people have less kids because they know the consequences [read: they know better and can do better], and they also have usually more resources [read: money] so they don't need 12 kids to do farm labour or start a sports team or get child support checks.

Wow. I sound Republican. *shudder*

[DigiFluid]

You must have an IQ of 100 or over and pass the parenting SATs to begin attempting to reproduce.

I'll try and find the studies, but smart people have less kids because they know the consequences [read: they know better and can do better], and they also have usually more resources [read: money] so they don't need 12 kids to do farm labour or start a sports team.

I lol'd

[Mike.]

In the SG world this won't be a problem, not for a long, long, long while. (see The Last Question by Isaac Asimov) Thanks to the Stargate we could easily colonize other planets, and using the advanced technology we got from the other races we'd have no problem supporting huge cities and the even larger population. Naquadah and naquadria generators for a practically limitless supply of power, throw in a couple of ZPMs for good measure. In Unending, Carter perfected the replicator (mater-energy conversion) using the Asgard tech. Hello Star Trek utopia.

Real world overpopulation ? I'm not opening that can of worms.

[nx01a]

I lol'd

You're welcome. [I edited a bit.]

In the SG world this won't be a problem, not for a long, long, long while. (see The Last Question by Isaac Asimov) Thanks to the Stargate we could easily colonize other planets, and using the advanced technology we got from the other races we'd have no problem supporting huge cities and the even larger population. Naquadah and naquadria generators for a practically limitless supply of power, throw in a couple of ZPMs for good measure. In Unending, Carter perfected the replicator (mater-energy conversion) using the Asgard tech. Hello Star Trek utopia.
Real world overpopulation ? I'm not opening that can of worms.

And what a small can almost bursting with big worms it is!

[AVFan]

Personally, I think the population will start to level off a little. It probably won't completely flatline, but it's already been happening in America in the last 100 years. People used to have 10 kids almost regularly, but now 2 kids is pretty much all parents are going for in the present day. Obviously there are families that have a lot more than that still, but as the price of having kids goes up, and the amount of jobs and resources goes down, people will have fewer kids anyway.

That really only covers families in developed countries though. In 3rd world countries, the population will flatline simply because of lack of resources, unfortunately (i.e. lack of food, drinking water, medical supplies).

Also, in China, they have regulations preventing a 2nd child in each family.

Both theories 1 and 3 would be preferable to theory 2 and the Aschen option. And I think I should offer this disclaimer for this whole post: IMO.