• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

Talking Politics

JoMamma

Tiger Cub
Oct 4, 2004
138
1
HR said:
I know who owns it Thirty3. 8-
I can't believe that you or any others think that the crap rolled out on news.com platform is biased towards The liberals.
Do you think Shorten won any of the debates?
Bolt, Panahi, Miranda Devine and that scumbag Chris Kenny are all News.com. If they were to lean any further to the right they'd fall over.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
easy said:
we all know what these blokes use overpopulation as a euphemism for.

They know it, we know it.
Again, ignoring nuance in a debate.

I acknowledge, absolutely there are people who use it in the way you are inferring. But does that mean we should ignore the issue of overpopulation, both locally and internationally as the single root cause to all environmental issues, just because a few rednecks use it for their own purpose?

To do so, I feel is cutting off your nose to spite your face. We cannot grow infinitely in a finite world. It's a logical fallacy to believe otherwise.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
Panthera Tigris said:
I covered global population as part of the overall post. You just chose to ignore that bit.
I read your post. And the link. The only way you covered global population is to say you didn't cover it.

Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue.

We are one of the most sparsely populated countries in the whole world. 3 people per square km!

If you want overpopulation to be a topic of any significance in climate discussions, you need to address any strategies we have to deal with it. Immigration is irrelevant (obviously). I'm all for greater sex Ed and access to prophylactics. That's one of the reasons the average person has had less kids every year for the last 50 years. Let's keep it up. And then address the actual global issues.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
Coburgtiger said:
I read your post. And the link. The only way you covered global population is to say you didn't cover it.

Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue.

We are one of the most sparsely populated countries in the whole world. 3 people per square km!

If you want overpopulation to be a topic of any significance in climate discussions, you need to address any strategies we have to deal with it. Immigration is irrelevant (obviously). I'm all for greater sex Ed and access to prophylactics. That's one of the reasons the average person has had less kids every year for the last 50 years. Let's keep it up. And then address the actual global issues.
If you want to keep concreting over hectares and hectares of native SE QLD forests, to house an ever growing population - and in the process, sending Koalas to extinction, be my guest. Afterall, "Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue."

I repeat, 200-240k per year is crazy numbers of immigration if we want our natural Australian environment and infrastructure to keep up. Bring it back to something more sustainable of 70-100k per year, which is our long term average.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
Panthera Tigris said:
If you want to keep concreting over hectares and hectares of native SE QLD forests and sending Koalas to extinction, be my guest. Afterall, "Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue."

I repeat, 200-240k per year is crazy numbers of immigration if we want our natural environment and infrastructure to keep up. Bring it back to something more sustainable of 70-100k per year, which is our long term average.
Or we could put them in the thousands of hectares of land that isn't forest. We could fit another couple of million between the CBD and Craigieburn.

If anything, Australia is underpopulated.

But again, this has nothing to do with access to resources (which are global). How do you address global population?
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
Panthera Tigris said:
If you want to keep concreting over hectares and hectares of native SE QLD forests, to house an ever growing population - and in the process, sending Koalas to extinction, be my guest.
this taken in isolation is very true.

Koala's are *smile*ed and Gold Coast is the leading killer.

However, The Nat's selling the Murray River to Pat Corrigan so he could kill it, and the Australian people voting for our Northern Developments Fund ($16b?) to be spent lining Palmers pocket and killing the reef,

will kill off a hell of a lot more species

and that's without even taking into account climate change, or brown people moving to Australian cities (nee overpopulation).
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
Coburgtiger said:
Or we could put them in the thousands of hectares of land that isn't forest. We could fit another couple of million between the CBD and Craigieburn.

If anything, Australia is underpopulated.

But again, this has nothing to do with access to resources (which are global). How do you address global population?
I'm not really in favour of a few rich property oligarchs cashing in (rich get richer), while the rest of the population is forced to live like battery hens, with a lower quality of life than their parents and grandparents generations enjoyed, in terms of their access to uncrowded outdoor spaces. This is the kind of cognitive dissonance I find baffling, that comes out of the Green movement. And their strange kind of accidental alliance with the "big Australia" neo-captialist types of the Liberal Party over this issue. I just don't get this obsession, that anything not built on, is a waste of space and must be concreted over (even more densely) to house ever more people (such as housing a couple of million more between the CBD and Cragieburn). What's wrong with cities, suburbs, regions desiring more open space as part of their built environment, to provide a better quality of life for residents and urban wildlife?

The other piece of cognitive dissonance. People who argue that we don't need to do anything on climate change as we contribute a negligible amount get chastised by the political Green movement. Well couldn't we make the same points on population?
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
easy said:
this taken in isolation is very true.

Koala's are *smile*ed and Gold Coast is the leading killer.

However, The Nat's selling the Murray River to Pat Corrigan so he could kill it, and the Australian people voting for our Northern Developments Fund ($16b?) to be spent lining Palmers pocket and killing the reef,

will kill off a hell of a lot more species

and that's without even taking into account climate change, or brown people moving to Australian cities (nee overpopulation).
Two sides of the same coin easy. I encourage you to read the SAP's policy platform I posted earlier. It covers both sides of this coin.

Sure, economic activities could be done better and smarter to preserve the environment, I'm not arguing against that.

But the undeniable reality is that population growth (placing extra demand and strain on resources and hence, the environment around us), no matter where it occurs, is the single root cause to every environmental degradation issue we have.

Infinitely growing in a finite world is an impossibility.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
Panthera Tigris said:
But the undeniable reality is that population growth (placing extra demand and strain on resources and hence, the environment around us), no matter where it occurs, is the single root cause to every environmental degradation issue we have.

Infinitely growing in a finate world is an impossibility.
absolutely no doubt that over population is, and will, kill off our planet.

my issue (not necessarily with you PT, in general) is

1. 'overpopulation' being used interchangeably with immigration to australia - credit to Dick Smith, unlike Latham et al, he owns it, and

2. People who voted LNP and who pretend or delude themselves that their nationalism, xenophobia and greed can coexist with an environmental ethic.

yeah I read sustainable Australia parts stuff. I don't buy their two-card trick.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
easy said:
absolutely no doubt that over population is, and will, kill off our planet.

my issue (not necessarily with you PT, in general) is

1. 'overpopulation' being used interchangeably with immigration to australia - credit to Dick Smith, unlike Latham et al, he owns it, and

2. People who voted LNP and who pretend or delude themselves that their nationalism, xenophobia and greed can coexist with an environmental ethic.

yeah I read sustainable Australia parts stuff. I don't buy their two-card trick.
Like I said in a previous post. I despair about how the ability to appreciate nuance is killing constructive conversation.

I acknowledge, absolutely there are people who use the immigration card in the way you are inferring. But for me, this does not mean we should ignore the issue of population growth, both locally and internationally as the single root cause to all environmental issues, just because a few rednecks use it for their own purpose. To do so, I feel is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Which is what the Greens seem to do.

What attracted me to the SAP was actually people like Dick Smith and Kelvin Thomson being involved, who I'd argue come at it from totally different angles to One Nation. Which is why, yes I do tend to buy into their platform.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Coburgtiger said:
Again, what are you suggesting to do about 'overpopulation'?
I asked first!

LeeToRainesToRoach said:
The big issue is overpopulation. Now, what are we going to do about that?
easy said:
we all know what these blokes use overpopulation as a euphemism for.

They know it, we know it.
No, I don't know. But you seem to be insistently implying that it means bumping off a few expendables.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
No, I don't know. But you seem to be insistently implying that it means bumping off a few expendables.
Nah, that wasn't the implication.

I was implying that plenty of 'overpopulation' opponents

would happily have a Braai with a white South African immigrant,

and then moan about the prevalence of brown people clogging up suburban trains

to be completely explicit,

I'm saying there are racists who hide behind environmental reasons to reduce immigration, under the broad banner of 'overpopulation'

I suspect Mark Latham is one of them, Peter Dutton is one of them, and Dick Smith probably isnt.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Coburgtiger said:
We are one of the most sparsely populated countries in the whole world. 3 people per square km!
There is a reason for that. We are already trying to grow crops in places they don't belong, now lets put people in places they don't belong?

If we don't address population growth there is little hope to redress global warming. You tell the growing middle class in India/China, that despite being able to afford it, having a steak and a milkshake is off the agenda. They can increase their financial wealth but enjoy none of the "pleasures" associated with it. Why should we be the only ones to get fat and unhealthy?
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
On overpopulation.

yes, the fact that we have 7 billion(?) humans on the planet is the root cause of all our problems. If there were no humans, we wouldn't have any problems :)

I believe that 7 billion is unsustainable long term. Agree with PT on this. What the figure is, and what the figure is for Australia I don't know.

What causes overpopulation? Largely, poverty. It's less to do with religion and culture than you might think. This is why developed countries have negative natural population growth (ie births vs deaths not including immigration) and developing countries have positive population growth. It's been shown also that there is a high correlation between better education (especially for girls) and declining birth rates.

But, environmental destruction/climate change is also a factor of consumption. Developed countries consume much more per capita than developing countriehs so to expect developing countries to limit consumption per capita while we don't is unrealistic.

On native land degradation/destruction this is less a factor of more population requiring more living space, but rather resource consumption - forestry, agriculture. In Indonesia where I'm living now forests are being cut down not so much for new cities, but for palm oil plantations, which are massive. This palm oil is used globally as a cheap oil/sugar source in most processed foods. Of course resource consumption is related to overall global population, but it's again more a factor of how much is consumed per capita.

Here's a catch-22 though - if wealth results in a declining birth rate, then developing countries will become wealthier, fewer births, but greater consumption. Unless we can find a way to be wealthier AND consume less.

Ultimately I agree with PT that growth whether through immigration/increased consumption is unsustainable and will **** the planet. But ultimately I think that capitalism will always treat environment as an externality and resources as infinite, so one day we will have to end capitalism, at least as we know it. But the answer is not communism or socialism - these are failed social experiments.

What is the answer - ****** if I know. But we need to move towards a zero-growth future.

From wikipedia:
Zero growth may refer to:

Degrowth, a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerist, and anti-capitalist ideas
Steady-state economy, an economy consisting of a constant stock of physical wealth (capital) and a constant population size
Zero population growth, a condition of demographic balance where the number of people in a specified population neither grows nor declines

It's probably a combination of all these things.

An ideal future for me is a more cooperative society, much less focussed on consumerism and competition. We will live simpler lives, travel less, be more community oriented, more environmentally focused, more philosophical. We will enjoy walking/cycling/playing sport/reading than riding jetskis and going to Bali every year. We will be happier, we will work less, and work on things we enjoy more. We won't be motivated by salary. This is a utopia of course, will we ever get there?

I'm not anti-technology - I work in tech. But our technology will be smarter, less environmentally destructive and we won't be motivated by getting the latest TV/Smartphone/car.

The most important thing that needs to change is the mindset of humanity. "Nature" is not something that God gave us to exploit - it's the system that sustains us and everything else - we are the "smartest" creatures on the planet and it's our responsibility to care for our environment and all the other living things that depend on us not to **** them over.

Rantman out.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
antman said:
An ideal future for me is a more cooperative society, much less focussed on consumerism and competition. We will live simpler lives, travel less, be more community oriented, more environmentally focused, more philosophical. We will enjoy walking/cycling/playing sport/reading than riding jetskis and going to Bali every year. We will be happier, we will work less, and work on things we enjoy more. We won't be motivated by salary. This is a utopia of course, will we ever get there?

I'm not anti-technology - I work in tech. But our technology will be smarter, less environmentally destructive and we won't be motivated by getting the latest TV/Smartphone/car.

The most important thing that needs to change is the mindset of humanity. "Nature" is not something that God gave us to exploit - it's the system that sustains us and everything else - we are the "smartest" creatures on the planet and it's our responsibility to care for our environment and all the other living things that depend on us not to *smile* them over.

Rantman out.
Easy to say when you are from a society that has "enjoyed" the pleasures of wealth. I agree that often people work their arse off, get wealthy and then go "is this all there is" and search for more fulfilling experiences or a life that isn't realiant on money/resources. But how do people in developing countries get to the same conclusion without having had the 50inch HDTV etc.?

Recycling abilities need to rapidly improve. Manufacturing techniques need to change. Sustainable resources need to be developed. I am confident it will happen, humans are pretty resourceful and smart. Unless mother nature just ***** us all.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
MD Jazz said:
Easy to say when you are from a society that has "enjoyed" the pleasures of wealth. I agree that often people work their arse off, get wealthy and then go "is this all there is" and search for more fulfilling experiences or a life that isn't realiant on money/resources. But how do people in developing countries get to the same conclusion without having had the 50inch HDTV etc.?

Recycling abilities need to rapidly improve. Manufacturing techniques need to change. Sustainable resources need to be developed. I am confident it will happen, humans are pretty resourceful and smart. Unless mother nature just *smile*s us all.
Agree MD. I never said it was easy though brother :)

Expecting wealthier countries to keep on at the same standard while other countries go without is not going to work. It's not an easy problem to solve. Technology can help (a bit) but I'm still convinced that ultimately smaller societies that consume less is the only way.
 

22nd Man

Tiger Champion
Aug 29, 2011
4,685
246
Essex Heights
tigertim said:
Yep, groups everywhere trying to influence voting. GetUp, unions. The CPSU (of which im a member) rang me 4 times to ensure i voted Labor (or at least put Libs last)
And the Victorian govt ran ads supporting guess who. Did this happen in other states?
 

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
6,493
95
22nd Man said:
And the Victorian govt ran ads supporting guess who. Did this happen in other states?
This really annoyed me as we were paying directly for these ads. Dan Andrews before he first got elected said he would do away with this type of advertising. As the Libs were out of control with it advertising the East West project in the lead up to an election.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
easy said:
Nah, that wasn't the implication.

I was implying that plenty of 'overpopulation' opponents

would happily have a Braai with a white South African immigrant,

and then moan about the prevalence of brown people clogging up suburban trains

to be completely explicit,

I'm saying there are racists who hide behind environmental reasons to reduce immigration, under the broad banner of 'overpopulation'

I suspect Mark Latham is one of them, Peter Dutton is one of them, and Dick Smith probably isnt.
Apologies, I'd gained the impression you and Coburg were cynically implying genocide.

Coburgtiger said:
We simply need to ... murder half the population.
easy said:
Approve Adani, and offset it by killing 100m Indians?
Coburgtiger said:
It's far easier to castrate or murder half the population than install some solar panels.
I raised overpopulation in a global context. Wasn't thinking of immigration.