Simon wants your thoughts on environment protection

DrKoresh said :

… (most bizarre illogical ravings snipped)….The only way a government can effectively influence population control is by being an authoritarian regime in breach of pretty much every single treaty and charter proposed by the UN… (more illogical weirdness snipped)

The population of Australia began to shoot up when the Howard government ramped up family-based welfare, such as the Baby Bonus, and quadrupled the immigration program, bringing in up to 300,000 immigrants per year. That government very effectively influenced population size and growth.

EvanJames said :

People, especially large numbers of people, are the enemies of environmental preservation. It’s eternally puzzling why the Greens now studiously avoid any mention of population size, when human population is the cause of everything they purport to be worried about.

what kind of environment is the government on about here anyway? Bearded dragon beetles and earless spinifex grass, or things like the environment people live in, the built environment? That could sure do with some attention given the speedy growth of Canberra’s population, and the actions of developers to maximise the use of every bit of dirt they get their hands on. What about pollution, and noise? Or are they a bit too hard to grapple with.

If you read the paper it’s about a review of the Environment Protection Act, that’s about pollution, noise, air and such. Brown environment.

DrKoresh said :

EvanJames said :

People, especially large numbers of people, are the enemies of environmental preservation. It’s eternally puzzling why the Greens now studiously avoid any mention of population size, when human population is the cause of everything they purport to be worried about.

what kind of environment is the government on about here anyway? Bearded dragon beetles and earless spinifex grass, or things like the environment people live in, the built environment? That could sure do with some attention given the speedy growth of Canberra’s population, and the actions of developers to maximise the use of every bit of dirt they get their hands on. What about pollution, and noise? Or are they a bit too hard to grapple with.

Because there’s nothing to say about population control without it being construed as a eugenics program. What the hell do you want them to say? You want them to institute a 1 child policy, or mandatory euthanasia or what? Seriously, what do you think should be done about the size of the human population, especially in an area as small as the A.C.T?

We can reduce our population density by shipping people off to camps I suppose, but that would undoubtedly lead to causing damage to a larger area of the environment per square km.

The only way a government can effectively influence population control is by being an authoritarian regime in breach of pretty much every single treaty and charter proposed by the UN.

My final question, if human population growth is really this distressing to you and you’re not just coming in with a smug, holier-than-thou attitude to make yourself feel important, then why no do something about it? Self-terminate.

Now that you mention it eugenics has always been a favourite of mine although i think we need to consider combinations other than blonde hair and blue eyes.

EvanJames said :

People, especially large numbers of people, are the enemies of environmental preservation. It’s eternally puzzling why the Greens now studiously avoid any mention of population size, when human population is the cause of everything they purport to be worried about.

what kind of environment is the government on about here anyway? Bearded dragon beetles and earless spinifex grass, or things like the environment people live in, the built environment? That could sure do with some attention given the speedy growth of Canberra’s population, and the actions of developers to maximise the use of every bit of dirt they get their hands on. What about pollution, and noise? Or are they a bit too hard to grapple with.

Because there’s nothing to say about population control without it being construed as a eugenics program. What the hell do you want them to say? You want them to institute a 1 child policy, or mandatory euthanasia or what? Seriously, what do you think should be done about the size of the human population, especially in an area as small as the A.C.T? We can reduce our population density by shipping people off to camps I suppose, but that would undoubtedly lead to causing damage to a larger area of the environment per square km.

The only way a government can effectively influence population control is by being an authoritarian regime in breach of pretty much every single treaty and charter proposed by the UN.

My final question, if human population growth is really this distressing to you and you’re not just coming in with a smug, holier-than-thou attitude to make yourself feel important, then why no do something about it? Self-terminate.

People, especially large numbers of people, are the enemies of environmental preservation. It’s eternally puzzling why the Greens now studiously avoid any mention of population size, when human population is the cause of everything they purport to be worried about.

what kind of environment is the government on about here anyway? Bearded dragon beetles and earless spinifex grass, or things like the environment people live in, the built environment? That could sure do with some attention given the speedy growth of Canberra’s population, and the actions of developers to maximise the use of every bit of dirt they get their hands on. What about pollution, and noise? Or are they a bit too hard to grapple with.

Just look at Gungahlin with it’s tiny blocks and huge houses and no room for trees or animals, or the high density housing developments in the inner city and you’ll see what local government really thinks of the “environment”.

You want to save the environment? Don’t have kids, or better still kill yourself. Keeping one single human being alive results in more loss of natural environment than thousands of feral animals could ever achieve in ten lifetimes.

Anything else we do to “save” the environment is just window dressing.

Read the paper and put in a submission and see what happens. Is all I can say. You never know someone may just listen. It’s about protecting our environment after all.

How about protection from environmentalist lunatics like those criminals from green peace who destroyed the CSIRO crop.

johnboy said :

It’s true that if someone powerful wants something your input isn’t going to change it.

But submissions to these things, where there’s no vested interest engaged, can have some real positive impacts.

My perception is that apathy is streets ahead of activism given that those who prefer not to draw attention to themselves inwardly hope that others who share the same perspective will voice their opposition. Of course there are those who are either content with the status quo or simply couldn’t give a stuff.

Truthiness said :

I appreciate the value of your optimism, however It seems rather unwarranted given the governments history of ignoring community input. what about all those “consultations” about shutting down schools. there doesn’t need to be an industry representative present, the government happily fills that role itself.

I for one tune out as soon as I’m referred to as “a stakeholder” in the environment. Will they be consulting the frogs and catchment areas too? it’ll be good to see those “stakeholders engaged” in the “ongoing review process” “moving forward”

they pretend to listen and then do whatever they want.

I have to disagree. I think you’ve got some kind of emotional vendetta against the government that’s not wholly based on fact. For one thing, your example of school closures is inaccurate as there were many schools that were saved due to the reaction of the community. My alma mater, Dickson College for one, was going to be closed down the year before I was due to start there, but it was saved by community input.