Green group calls for one child policy

[Starglider]

Surely it would be more sensible to start with a two-child policy. According to the latest data I could find (from the 1996 census), Australian family size breaks down like this;

No children : 12.8%
1 children : 11.3%
2 children : 38.2%
3 children : 24.6%
4+ children : 13.2%

Given that the population growth rate is already fairly low, eliminating most of the 3+ child families should be quite sufficient to produce population decline. This is also more politically feasible, as clearly a lot of parents would like to have two children.

[Broomstick]

It's all about altering crops - not growing water intensive crops where they can't possibly be supported. I'm not sure what replacements we can look at for the Murray Darling, but I'm sure that there are plenty of native or arid region crops from around the world that we can adapt for usage.

As far as I know, there are no native Australian food crops. There are certainly wild edibles (the aborigines survived on more than just lizards and kangaroo) but none of them have been domesticated.

In reality though, we could make life a lot easier if we used desal/recyc for urban water, allowing the rural water tables to be unaffected by urban demand. It's not entirely fixing the problem but it would alleviate it greatly.

The only hitch with that are the energy requirements.

But in terms of grazing there's a lot that can be done. Alter our eating habits to have kangaroo and wallaby instead of beef where possible. You can have a far greater numbers per acre, less impact on the environment and they require substantially less water per head. Sheep replacement is difficult, but I'm sure that there's probably some goat or llama/alpaca species that may thrive and be less destructive, but still provide the meat/fleece requirement.

Goats are usually MORE destructive than sheep, not less. No, there is no fleece "requirement". Meat could be replaced (at least in theory) by native species like kangaroo, but sustainable fleece production would be much smaller in scale than at present.

lol I hear you guys have a giant geology bomb sitting underneath the middle of your country that revitalizes the soil every half a million years

"Geology bomb" - great phrase. Yep, we do.

[Broomstick]

On Broomstick's claim that Australia can't feed itself, Australia accounts for 8-15% of the world's grain trade and is in the top four wheat exporters, along with the US, Canada and the EU.

Australian wheat production over the last 20 years has varied from 9-25 million tonnes of wheat, with the average being 16 million tonnes. Domestic consumption has been stable at about 5.5 million tonnes. The average wheat exports over the last five years have been 17 million tonnes.

Yes, you can feed yourself NOW - but your entire country is having water supply issues that North America only sees in the desert southwest. Your soils are becoming salted by your irrigation techniques. You don't see the problem because you're so accustomed to it.

In my part of North America farmers don't use irrigation, because we don't need it. A few specialty crops require it, but the vast majority of farms between the Appalachians and the Mississippi can rely entirely on rainfall for all the water they need. No diversion of rivers needed. While there are a few regions of Australia that are lush rain forest there's no denying the vast majority is desert. The US Midwest does have a problem with losing topsoil (and we need to stop that), but the thinnest topsoil on the Great Plains is thicker than anything you have in Australia, your soil far more likely to be permanently damaged by mismanagement, and your environment's capacity to regenerate soil fertility lags behind just about anywhere outside else short of a major desert region like the Sahara.

Saying you're fine because you export food is like Las Vegas saying they don't have to worry about water because everyone has tap water and flush toilets. Technology is hiding the problem that you don't have enough of something locally. You re-arrange the river systems and import fertilizers and think all is well. For today it is, but at some point it won't be. Australia has the lowest carrying capacity of people of any continent. Sure, you can import what you need, but given the length of your supply chains (because you're far away from anywhere else) that's far from ideal.

And yes, it is correct that an island nation like the UK likewise can't grow enough to feed its own. That's a problem. Ideally, they, too, should lower their population to sustainable levels. Saying "but the UK has the same problem!" doesn't change the fact that you do have a problem - and while the UK couldn't feed itself on its own agriculture, they do have enough water for people to drink. If Australia is talking about desalinization of ocean water no, you don't have enough. That leaves you with either a technological fix (which requires energy in a world with energy supply problems) or a biological one (reduce population to more sustainable levels).

Deserts can't carry as many people per square unit of land as areas with more water. Australia IS mostly desert. It's big and mostly empty because it has never been able to support the population density seen elsewhere.

[weemadando]

It's all about altering crops - not growing water intensive crops where they can't possibly be supported. I'm not sure what replacements we can look at for the Murray Darling, but I'm sure that there are plenty of native or arid region crops from around the world that we can adapt for usage.

As far as I know, there are no native Australian food crops. There are certainly wild edibles (the aborigines survived on more than just lizards and kangaroo) but none of them have been domesticated.

In reality though, we could make life a lot easier if we used desal/recyc for urban water, allowing the rural water tables to be unaffected by urban demand. It's not entirely fixing the problem but it would alleviate it greatly.

The only hitch with that are the energy requirements.

We have what could be the worlds biggest supply of nuclear materials and a massive geologically stable area in which to hold waste until processing options can get invented. Preferably though, I'd like to think that we can just accept massive domestic generation through technologies like the printable solar panels, wind and others. But nuclear is always an option, sadly with all of these it's still VERY hard to convince idiots that it's worthwhile, because after all - isn't electricity cheap now and there's heaps of coal left right?

But in terms of grazing there's a lot that can be done. Alter our eating habits to have kangaroo and wallaby instead of beef where possible. You can have a far greater numbers per acre, less impact on the environment and they require substantially less water per head. Sheep replacement is difficult, but I'm sure that there's probably some goat or llama/alpaca species that may thrive and be less destructive, but still provide the meat/fleece requirement.

Goats are usually MORE destructive than sheep, not less. No, there is no fleece "requirement". Meat could be replaced (at least in theory) by native species like kangaroo, but sustainable fleece production would be much smaller in scale than at present.

Goats I mentioned because some breeds are going to be much hardier in a desertified/arid environment than sheep. The destructive grazing is still an issue, but again the water use per head would hopefully drop. And yes, there is a fleece requirement, have you ever encountered the Australian wool lobby? Think the kind of power that shithead rightwing bigots hold over politics in the US and you've got an idea.

[Lusankya]

Broomstick, the area in SA that I was talking about - that provides enough wheat for our domestic consumption and industrial needs does not irrigate. Had you bothered to read the article I linked to in the third paragraph of my post, you would have found out that Goyder's line is a demarcation in South Australia related to rainfall. Everything south of the line gets enough rainfall for reliable grain harvests, and everything north doesn't. This was determined in the 1860s (through botanical surveys, and not meteorological data, if you must know - Goyder actually showed his results during a bumper year, and people laughed at him until they went broke).

Yes, there are unsustainable practices being carried out, mainly in the eastern states, but that does not mean that Australia is incapable of supporting its current population indefinitely provided proper techniques are used.

And since you know so much about Australian agriculture, can you explain to me how "rely on irrigation" when we produce (on average) 3x the amount of food that we need, yet only have 30% of our total food production from irrigation (CSIRO PDF)? Because maybe my maths isn't as good as yours, because I know that I'm not super old and experienced like you or anything, but it would seem to me that that means that we produce twice our national ifood requirements without using irrigation.

[tim31]

Two words: National Party. The Libs, for all their BS, have taken a lot of heat on account of the Nats over the last decade plus. But hey, it's their funeral coalition.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Australia DOES have enough water for everyone to drink it's just decades of cripplingly poor infrastructure management have resulted in insufficient collection rates. You could probably support another major [million+ population] city and its associated farmland on the virtually unused Ord River alone. The Ord has an average discharge of fucking 38 Terra-liters per anumn vs the Colorado's mere 19 TL [assuming my calculations are correct].

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, the area in SA that I was talking about - that provides enough wheat for our domestic consumption and industrial needs does not irrigate.

Humans do not live by wheat alone, and wheat survives on less water than many fruit and vegetable crops. That's why in the US wheat is grown further west without irrigation on the Great Plains than corn or vegetables

Yes, there are unsustainable practices being carried out, mainly in the eastern states, but that does not mean that Australia is incapable of supporting its current population indefinitely provided proper techniques are used.

Given Australian history, I find it doubtful "proper techniques" will truly be used long term on a widespread basis, although I would be very happy to be wrong on that subject.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with trading a surplus in one commodity (wheat, fleece, whatever) for what you need otherwise, people have done since before we invented writing.

And since you know so much about Australian agriculture, can you explain to me how "rely on irrigation" when we produce (on average) 3x the amount of food that we need, yet only have 30% of our total food production from irrigation (CSIRO PDF)? Because maybe my maths isn't as good as yours, because I know that I'm not super old and experienced like you or anything, but it would seem to me that that means that we produce twice our national ifood requirements without using irrigation.

It's because you use unsustainable technological farming practices. Truthfully, we do here in North America as well. If the supply of artificial fertilizers is ever cut off crop production world wide will plunge through the floor. If the fuel for mechanized farm equipment is ever cut off crop production will plunge again. If the water runs out... you get the idea. Current agricultural production is an artificially created and supported spike dependent on the tripod of fuel, fertilizer, and water. Knock even one leg out from under that and we are ALL in trouble.

North America is not overpopulated... but we wind up exporting a huge chunk of what we produce to keep overpopulated areas from starving. That doesn't even mean third-world shitholes - the UK, for example, being unable to support itself on local food stocks. Australia's agriculture is propped up artificially. That doesn't mean Australians are bad or evil or whatever, and largely you (and everyone else) got to that point through good intentions. Fact is, though, if you all got cut off from the rest of the world you'd shortly be in a world of hurt. That's true of most other regions, too. If the world had 1/4 of it's current population there'd be a hell of a lot less stress on the ecosystem. If Australia had 1/4, or even 1/2, of its current population there'd be a lot more water and food to go around. That is, in no way, advocating going around and shooting half or 3/4 of the population, that would be completely unacceptable, but Australia would be better off with fewer people. So would almost anywhere else in the world. Seriously, assuming the population drop wasn't catastrophic or traumatic, do you really need 20 million Australians as opposed to 10 million or 5 million? Was Australia somehow less viable as a nation when it had "only" 10 million people in 1960?

I could certainly argue the US would be better off with half its current population (about what we had in 1950 when we were very much an international powerhouse).

You have the driest nation on earth. Your soil quality, with a few exceptions, is poorer than elsewhere. Although you have some major urban areas and at least one world-class city your overall population density is something like 2 people per square mile - in the US, that's generally considered wilderness. (The US is a relatively low-density nation on average, but we're up around 7-8 people per square mile, or four times the population density of Australia)

Fine, you produce 3 times what you need to eat (for now) but the fact is that if you jumped to the average population density of the US (never mind Europe or many parts of Asia) you'd fall short of feeding yourselves. I am willing to concede that my estimates of your agricultural abilities were more pessimistic than reality but even using your figures your nation clearly can not sustain the population density of other nations. So why are you trying to grow more people? Better to have a lower population and a better quality of life than to simply pack more human beings onto marginal land.

[Beowulf]

It's all about altering crops - not growing water intensive crops where they can't possibly be supported. I'm not sure what replacements we can look at for the Murray Darling, but I'm sure that there are plenty of native or arid region crops from around the world that we can adapt for usage.

As far as I know, there are no native Australian food crops. There are certainly wild edibles (the aborigines survived on more than just lizards and kangaroo) but none of them have been domesticated.

In reality though, we could make life a lot easier if we used desal/recyc for urban water, allowing the rural water tables to be unaffected by urban demand. It's not entirely fixing the problem but it would alleviate it greatly.

The only hitch with that are the energy requirements.

We have what could be the worlds biggest supply of nuclear materials and a massive geologically stable area in which to hold waste until processing options can get invented. Preferably though, I'd like to think that we can just accept massive domestic generation through technologies like the printable solar panels, wind and others. But nuclear is always an option, sadly with all of these it's still VERY hard to convince idiots that it's worthwhile, because after all - isn't electricity cheap now and there's heaps of coal left right?

You don't need to wait until processing options get invented. They already exist. It's just that in the US, there's no political will for it. It's all about "Oh, noes! Bombs!" when it gets brought up.

[mr friendly guy]

And yes, it is correct that an island nation like the UK likewise can't grow enough to feed its own. That's a problem. Ideally, they, too, should lower their population to sustainable levels. Saying "but the UK has the same problem!" doesn't change the fact that you do have a problem - and while the UK couldn't feed itself on its own agriculture, they do have enough water for people to drink. If Australia is talking about desalinization of ocean water no, you don't have enough. That leaves you with either a technological fix (which requires energy in a world with energy supply problems) or a biological one (reduce population to more sustainable levels).

To be honest that seems like nitpicking to me. Technological fixes have helped population growth and I don't see why having to use it counts as not having enough of something. Take the desalinization example. Since a nation's maritime border extends several kilometres around its land mass by international law we should be able to count that ocean water as ours. So we do have enough water even if we have to use technology to extract it. As for the energy supply problem, I have been a fan of nuclear power for the past few years. We have a large supply of uranium so we could theoretically draw on it if there is the political will.

You have the driest nation on earth. Your soil quality, with a few exceptions, is poorer than elsewhere. Although you have some major urban areas and at least one world-class city your overall population density is something like 2 people per square mile - in the US, that's generally considered wilderness. (The US is a relatively low-density nation on average, but we're up around 7-8 people per square mile, or four times the population density of Australia)

Fine, you produce 3 times what you need to eat (for now) but the fact is that if you jumped to the average population density of the US (never mind Europe or many parts of Asia) you'd fall short of feeding yourselves. I am willing to concede that my estimates of your agricultural abilities were more pessimistic than reality but even using your figures your nation clearly can not sustain the population density of other nations. So why are you trying to grow more people? Better to have a lower population and a better quality of life than to simply pack more human beings onto marginal land.

Oh I agree that we (and the world) would most likely be better off with fewer people, with natural "attrition" the best way of achieving that. However Bobalot's original point was that we don't have a population problem, and he is correct for the reasons stated.
a) we can feed ourselves at current numbers (and more as shown by other posters), thus if we wanted to maintain our population we could. The main limitation at present as mention is water, however technological methods are available to help as long as there is the political will. Heck even simple things like rationing water (used in WA, ie you water your gardens only on certain days) works.
b) the population will drop anyway because of a low birth rate (as stated in Bobalot's original comment).

South Australians hate Victorians so much.

Heh heh heh, damn Victorians. I have observed West Australians also dislike the Vics.
As much as I am antagonistic towards Victorians from a sporting perspective, I have to admit, they seem less backward then WA where I live. But then I am a Croweater, so I can say that with impugnity.

[Broomstick]

You don't need to wait until processing options get invented. They already exist. It's just that in the US, there's no political will for it. It's all about "Oh, noes! Bombs!" when it gets brought up.

I can't help but think the government wants all the "spent" nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain so when the political winds change they'll have a nice, big pile of readily accessible stuff for reprocessing.

[Broomstick]

And yes, it is correct that an island nation like the UK likewise can't grow enough to feed its own. That's a problem. Ideally, they, too, should lower their population to sustainable levels. Saying "but the UK has the same problem!" doesn't change the fact that you do have a problem - and while the UK couldn't feed itself on its own agriculture, they do have enough water for people to drink. If Australia is talking about desalinization of ocean water no, you don't have enough. That leaves you with either a technological fix (which requires energy in a world with energy supply problems) or a biological one (reduce population to more sustainable levels).

To be honest that seems like nitpicking to me. Technological fixes have helped population growth and I don't see why having to use it counts as not having enough of something.

Well, if it seems to be nitpicking to you I'm not going to tell you it isn't, but the more you rely on technology the more problem you have if you run into technological problems. It's OK for Las Vegas to import nearly all its water - until either the rivers run dry (which is starting to happen - the Colorado no longer reaches the sea, we use it all up, every drop, before it gets there) or the pumps stop working.

Take the desalinization example. Since a nation's maritime border extends several kilometres around its land mass by international law we should be able to count that ocean water as ours. So we do have enough water even if we have to use technology to extract it. As for the energy supply problem, I have been a fan of nuclear power for the past few years. We have a large supply of uranium so we could theoretically draw on it if there is the political will.

Except right now you don't have the nuke power to desal (that I'm aware of) - so any desal you do is consuming finite resources that are rapidly running out. This is not a good long-term situation.

[tim31]

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, people in this country see those giant open cut coal mines in the Hunter Valley et al. and have the same mentality as oil: they've been told it's finite, but hey, it's still coming out of the ground. It's not like the forestry industry where you can see the swaths of land cleared and animals displaced.

I have observed West Australians also dislike the Vics.
As much as I am antagonistic towards Victorians from a sporting perspective, I have to admit, they seem less backward then WA where I live. But then I am a Croweater, so I can say that with impugnity.

Everyone hates Victorians except Tasmanians, and that's only because Melbourne is 'the big city'.