The lifestyle choices that will shape Canberra’s future

All of the major parties which form governments in Australia, including the two parties which are clearly the natural parties of government in the ACT, are supporters, in practice, of the concept of a Big Australia – which means rapid population growth through a very high rate of immigration (in all its guises) and natural increase.

Even though economic circumstances (particularly the ridiculous cost of housing) mean that some will have a smaller family, or no family at all, telling people that they should do so on environmental grounds, and talking about giving up “reproductive freedom”, without saying a word about the other major driver of population growth – and of Australia’s environmental footprint – is ignoring a very large elephant in the room.

We leave our second car at home during the week because it is faster to get from one side of the lake to the other in peak hour on a bicycle.
Something also needs to be done about the increasing rat running through the inner suburbs by drivers trying to avoid the main traffic choke points.

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

In what way is having smaller families going to decrease our carbon footprint?

Smaller families and a smaller population would harm Australia in the long run. More people means more people buying goods, a healthier economy and more jobs. You don’t have to be John Maynard Keynes to understand this fundamental economic argument. A falling population means stagnation, higher unemployment, more people on welfare, a higher foreign debt and a growing budget deficit.

Increased population is a Ponzi scheme. It can’t go on forever.

planeguy said :

dungfungus said :

In what way is having smaller families going to decrease our carbon footprint?

Smaller families, insomuch as it leads to smaller population will necessarily lead to a smaller carbon footprint – less people to feed, transport, house etc… means less consumption and hence less carbon.

Now, John Moulis below points out that there are economic impacts as well as environmental factors were we to decrease population growth. However just because your branch of politics thinks something will be economically good or bad, should not impact the science, that should be looking for observable, testable, repeatable cause and effect.

Posts like this and the story above provide the reason why environmentalism is currently on the nose and why people are turning away from The Greens. We are told to stop eating meat when Australia is a meat eating nation. In short, you cannot have a healthy life unless you eat meat. As for reducing our population, consuming less and having a smaller carbon footprint, how will that maintain our standard of living at a first world level? It won’t, we would just slip further down in the global figures.

Australia will not work properly as a sophisticated first world country until we have a population of at least 100 million. New cities should be built in northern Australia, new transport infrastructure can be put into place, more migrants brought in to populate those places and the subsequent boost in economic growth would mean more jobs and a higher standard of living for all.

We have to build up this country with more people and economic growth, and those people eating healthy, protein filled food like meat. We shouldn’t be hoodwinked by the simplistic and illogical arguments of the environmental movement and their unhealthy, xenophobic fantasies.

dungfungus said :

In what way is having smaller families going to decrease our carbon footprint?

Smaller families, insomuch as it leads to smaller population will necessarily lead to a smaller carbon footprint – less people to feed, transport, house etc… means less consumption and hence less carbon.

Now, John Moulis below points out that there are economic impacts as well as environmental factors were we to decrease population growth. However just because your branch of politics thinks something will be economically good or bad, should not impact the science, that should be looking for observable, testable, repeatable cause and effect.

dungfungus said :

Who is “Dr Karl”?

‘Dr Karl’ – Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, is the ex doctor, now dedicated science communicator who you might hear on various radio programs, including Triple J.

My statement above was a bit glib, but basically what the saying refers to, is that every substance in excess can be toxic. So just because water is good for us, it doesn’t mean that too much water won’t kill us.

Similarly, just because CO2 is required for plant growth, it does not mean that increasing it will have an overall positive on the environment.

dungfungus said :

In what way is having smaller families going to decrease our carbon footprint?

Smaller families and a smaller population would harm Australia in the long run. More people means more people buying goods, a healthier economy and more jobs. You don’t have to be John Maynard Keynes to understand this fundamental economic argument. A falling population means stagnation, higher unemployment, more people on welfare, a higher foreign debt and a growing budget deficit.

planeguy said :

dungfungus said :

Welcome back Samuel!

Well, with “opinions” like that, it will sure lead to lively conversation. I’ll just ask what a “healthy dose” of CO2 in the atmosphere is, SGS? For as Dr Karl likes to say, “everything is a poison, what matters is the dose.”

Who is “Dr Karl”?

dungfungus said :

Welcome back Samuel!

Well, with “opinions” like that, it will sure lead to lively conversation. I’ll just ask what a “healthy dose” of CO2 in the atmosphere is, SGS? For as Dr Karl likes to say, “everything is a poison, what matters is the dose.”

Samuel Gordon-Stewart said :

None of those things are necessary to safeguard our future. If people choose to do them, then that’s their choice to make, but it’s silly to pretend they have anything to do with safeguarding our future. If done to reduce one’s “carbon footprint” they may actually damage our future.

Man-made global warming is an egregious hoax. Carbon dioxide is important for our future as our plant life and ecosystem depends on healthy doses of it. People hoping to live on a plant-based diet would do well to increase their “carbon footprint” if they want those plants to grow up nice and healthy for the harvesting. Mind you, I think anyone who chooses to forego meat entirely needs their head read.

Becoming entirely reliant on others is a bad thing for your own safety and survival, especially in an emergency, thus going car-free only makes sense if you have your own alternative transport. A bicycle might work depending on the emergency, but public transport is unlikely to get you away from a raging bushfire in a hurry, and good luck getting that carshare when 50 other people want the same car. I don’t oppose going car-free if it works for you, but I encourage you to think about the consequences and how you would plan around them.

What really baffles me on that list is the notion that having smaller families requires “appropriate reproductive medical care” (read: abortions and contraceptives). No, the simplest and safest way to avoid having children is to avoid “doing the deed” which produces them. This is also much healthier as it avoids the risk of spreading certain nasty diseases.

As for bicycle grants. No. Just reduce taxes on everyone and everything. If people want bikes they will be able to afford them.

Welcome back Samuel!