Green group calls for one child policy

[[R_H]]

news.com.au

AUSTRALIA should consider having a one-child policy to protect the planet, an environmental lobby group says.

Sustainable Population Australia says slashing the world's population is the only way to avoid "environmental suicide''.

National president Sandra Kanck wants Australia's population of almost 22 million reduced to seven million to tackle climate change.

Restricting each couple to one baby, as China does, is "one way of assisting to reduce the population''.

"It's something we need to throw into the mix,'' the former Democrats parliamentarian said.

More people means more coal-fired electricity, cars, houses, water use and food production, all of which increase greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

Ms Kanck, who has one child herself, expects her campaign will receive a hostile reaction.

"The Catholic church is going to be in like Flynn on an argument like this.''

Sustainable Population Australia, which has about 1300 members, is so worried about climate change it is preparing a formal submission to the UN. It has also applied to attend high-profile world climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

Australia's population has been increasing steadily and the Federal Government plans to continue the trend, largely through immigration.

The world's population stands at 6.7 billion, according to the US Census Bureau.

"Increasing the population is basically suicide, it's environmental suicide, it's utterly irresponsible,'' Ms Kanck said.

"We are eating away at the planet, we are eating into all the resources, be it petrol, be it superphosphate, be it clear air.''

Ms Kanck also suggested Australia scrap the baby bonus, and restrict paid maternity leave and IVF to the first baby only, to discourage large families.

She did not suggest restrictions to immigration, saying Australia should take responsibility for cutting its own population instead of barring entry to others.

China introduced its one-child policy in 1979.

A Chinese academic visiting Canberra last week said the policy had avoided 300 million births and had therefore made a major contribution to the fight against climate change.

[Drooling Iguana]

Does Australia even have positive population growth as it is?

[Ryan Thunder]

That's retarded. I see the value of such a policy, but in Australia?

[Guardsman Bass]

It's one way to keep the population down, although simply getting the world down to something like 1.5 to 2 children as a fertility rate would do that as well.

If I recall correctly, though, the problem with the One-Child Policy is that it means there is going to be a really sudden rise in the average age of the population in China, which has been using it, in the next few decades, due to the drop-off in new births.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It's one way to keep the population down, although simply getting the world down to something like 1.5 to 2 children as a fertility rate would do that as well.

If I recall correctly, though, the problem with the One-Child Policy is that it means there is going to be a really sudden rise in the average age of the population in China, which has been using it, in the next few decades, due to the drop-off in new births.

The One-Child Policy is far more complicated than you think. The real problem was that the culture was generally patriarchal, and males were favoured over females, resulting in a large imbalance in the gender distribution.

Try doing that sort of thing in India and God help us if lots of female babies start washing up on the Ganges river.

[Count Chocula]

Methinks Australia is too close to China. I'm guessing, though, that this is a fringe group that will quickly be laughed into irrelevancy. The political (meaning the ability to kill citizens' children with impunity) power to actually make this a reality doesn't exist in Australia, anyway.

[Darth Wong]

It's easy to point and laugh, but nobody wants to deal with the fact that population control is one of the world's most pressing problems, if not the single most pressing problem.

[Kane Starkiller]

Australia, along with nearly all developed countries as well as entire Eastern Europe, already has a below replacement fertility. What keeps it's population growing is inertia and immigration.
Population of Eastern Europe is already dwindling and Germany and Japan are also slowly entering into negative growth area although they are loosing people at a much slower rate.
I suspect that in the following decades the talk will shift quickly from "how to curb population growth" to "how can we attract enough immigrants to keep our populations from plummeting" as far as more advanced countries are concerned.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's easy to point and laugh, but nobody wants to deal with the fact that population control is one of the world's most pressing problems, if not the single most pressing problem.

Which doesn't mean that population control by one child policy, and in Australia of all places, is a good or even feasible idea.

[Ryan Thunder]

It's easy to point and laugh, but nobody wants to deal with the fact that population control is one of the world's most pressing problems, if not the single most pressing problem.

I agree. But is it really such a pressing problem for Australia of all places? They're less dense than Canada for crying out loud.

I'd be more worried about places like China and India, and the United States.

[Aaron]

I'd be more worried about places like China and India, and the United States.

The US? They have a large amount of land that they could expand into before population becomes a problem, the so called "flyover states".

[Ryan Thunder]

I'd be more worried about places like China and India, and the United States.

The US? They have a large amount of land that they could expand into before population becomes a problem, the so called "flyover states".

Yeah, I guess I forgot about them. I thought they were largely uninhabitable, though, due to desertification.

But still, they seem to have a high birth-rate for a First World country.

[Aaron]

Yeah, I guess I forgot about them. I thought they were largely uninhabitable, though, due to desertification.

Those that are could be made habitable with effort, same as our North warming up may eventually make areas of the Territories more habitable.

But still, they seem to have a high birth-rate for a First World country.

Couldn't say, though as the country gets more liberal the birth rate will likely drop. Like you said earlier, I'd more more concerned with India and China.

[Kane Starkiller]

Even excluding Alaska US would have to have a population of over 860 million to have the same population as EU for example. Or 450 million to have the same amount of arable land per capita as France or 1.1 billion to have the same amount as Germany. As for the usability of land US certainly is better off than Canada most of which is frozen with a very short growing season or Australia most of which is desert.
Fertility rate of US is about 2 that is at a replacement level. It's the immigration that drives the population upwards.

[Ryan Thunder]

But I doubt we'll see the environmentalists advocate nukes.

That's because the vast majority of environmentalists are not true environmentalists, but rather mere shit-disturbers who have latched on to an environmental agenda.

And retards, but that goes without saying for nearly any organization...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I agree. But is it really such a pressing problem for Australia of all places? They're less dense than Canada for crying out loud.

They also live in a much less productive piece of land, and it's getting worse as time goes on. Much of their farmland has been salinated through poor irrigation methods and, if I recall correctly, the Murray-Darling river system has been damaged so much it will never recover to previous levels. Just because the country's population density is low doesn't mean it doesn't have to worry about overpopulation. As another comparison, the US Southwest is much less densely-populated than the Great Lakes region, but no one should honestly say that the former should have more growth than the latter. The Great Lakes area is still one of the most productive areas in the world, but the Southwest is basically only hanging on due to the Colorado river and lots of imports.

[Samuel]

I'd be more worried about places like China and India, and the United States.

The US? They have a large amount of land that they could expand into before population becomes a problem, the so called "flyover states".

Yeah, I guess I forgot about them. I thought they were largely uninhabitable, though, due to desertification.

But still, they seem to have a high birth-rate for a First World country.

I think a large part of that is due to immigrants- the native population is not having as many kids. You can see it really obviously in ethnicity proportions- California no longer has a majority group anymore

They also live in a much less productive piece of land, and it's getting worse as time goes on. Much of their farmland has been salinated through poor irrigation methods and, if I recall correctly, the Murray-Darling river system has been damaged so much it will never recover to previous levels. Just because the country's population density is low doesn't mean it doesn't have to worry about overpopulation.

They also have the problem that it is naturally unproductive. Australia is some of the oldest land on Earth and it failed to get the fertility boost from volcanoes or glaciers pulverizing rocks during an ice age.The fact it is mostly desert doesn't help either.

[Broomstick]

It's easy to point and laugh, but nobody wants to deal with the fact that population control is one of the world's most pressing problems, if not the single most pressing problem.

I agree. But is it really such a pressing problem for Australia of all places? They're less dense than Canada for crying out loud.

The Australian land mass also has far less carrying capacity than most other parts of the world - that's one reason the population is so concentrated along the coasts and the few regions that get enough rainfall not to be true desert. In fact, Australia's current population probably far exceeds the long-term capacity of Australia to feed its population from local resources.

I'd be more worried about places like China and India, and the United States.

The US? They have a large amount of land that they could expand into before population becomes a problem, the so called "flyover states".

Yeah, I guess I forgot about them. I thought they were largely uninhabitable, though, due to desertification.

Say what?

Although a place being a desert hasn't ever stopped the US from building a population there - look at Las Vegas. Not to mention the Phoenix, Arizona region has substantial agriculture, but that pre-dates the European invasion as the Pimas had irrigation canals a long, long time ago.

Regardless - a state like Indiana or Illinois (despite the Chicago metropolis) has a very low population density. The Great Plains still churn out a significant amount of the world's food supply while having plenty of room to stash more people.

But still, they seem to have a high birth-rate for a First World country.

Not really - we just import relatively large numbers of people.

The US does have an advantage in being culturally receptive to bringing people in from other countries and making them full citizens. While there are other countries that also do this, contrast it with someplace like Japan. If we need young people and aren't producing enough on our own we are far more receptive to recruiting from other parts of the world than some other cultures. This will mitigate some of the problems brought on by our low birthrate.

In any case, the below-replacement birthrates of Europe, Japan, and the US demonstrate that it is possible to control population and even reduce it without draconian measures (China, being so densely populated, may have felt more urgency to bring reproduction under control than other nations).

[Terralthra]

I was listening to Dr. Paul Ehrlich (wiki page) on the Commonwealth Club of California last night, and he made it quite clear the population control was a large part of the problem of environmental sustainability. If we want to have everyone with a standard of living even approaching the US/European poverty line, we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth with present agricultural technology. He emphasized humane population control, ie reducing birth rate.

The comment he left with was something along the lines of "Remember, if we ever have too few people, they can be rapidly made by unskilled laborers who love their work."

[weemadando]

Australia's population, given the current land usage, water usage and general mismanagement is way above any sustainable level. Until we either reduce our population to a level where current practices become sustainable again or have a gov't which is willing to develop desal, water recycling and tell farmers to get fucked and grow crops which don't require so much water as to create swampland in desert areas and thus create desert areas out of once prime rivers, as well as massively upgrading our urban infrastructures to allow for the population density to be increased and kill the sprawl which is destroying massive areas of prime agricultural land, amongst many many other items then Australia is slowly strangling ourselves to death.

Of course, for a gov't to change any of that, you'd have to convince millions upon millions of closed-minded retards that recycled water is not in fact "poo water", but is actually far better quality than what they currently drink.

Which will never happen, because it's easier for gov'ts to get elected when people are so fucking stupid.

[Rogue 9]

I'd be more worried about places like China and India, and the United States.

The US? They have a large amount of land that they could expand into before population becomes a problem, the so called "flyover states".

Yeah, I guess I forgot about them. I thought they were largely uninhabitable, though, due to desertification.

*Looks outside*

Gee, that doesn't look anything like a desert to me. In fact, it's been pouring down rain for a large part of the past three days, and will continue to do so for the next two. Perhaps you should review basic geography.

[tim31]

Until we either reduce our population to a level where current practices become sustainable again or have a gov't which is willing to develop desal, water recycling and tell farmers to get fucked and grow crops which don't require so much water as to create swampland in desert areas and thus create desert areas out of once prime rivers...

Just so I know what to say when I pitch this to my local member, what are some possibilities to replace the cotton and rice growing industries so as to maintain that slice of the economy they represent?

I'm not in disagreement with you; I think it's a fucking shambles that the M-D basin has been allowed to drain to prop this shit up, while my brother-in-law waits patiently for rain in order to put food on his(and everyone else in the country that likes wheat-based produce) table.

[bobalot]

Australia's birth rate is around 1.7 or 1.8 if I remember correctly. We need to lift our birth rate to keep our population stable. While I can see the value of the one child policy, Australia doesn't have a population issue.

[Dark Flame]

*Looks outside*

Gee, that doesn't look anything like a desert to me. In fact, it's been pouring down rain for a large part of the past three days, and will continue to do so for the next two. Perhaps you should review basic geography.

Since when did local conditions in one place indicate the climate of a whole region?

[Rogue 9]

*Looks outside*

Gee, that doesn't look anything like a desert to me. In fact, it's been pouring down rain for a large part of the past three days, and will continue to do so for the next two. Perhaps you should review basic geography.

Since when did local conditions in one place indicate the climate of a whole region?

Since when is everything between the eastern and western seaboards a fucking desert? It isn't. In fact, the vast majority of the land in question is nowhere close.