Why?
Then what?
How many people can the world hold?
That is a ridiculous suggestion. Go live in India or China if you love people so much, and let one of them come here in your place!
No More "Big Australia" (?)
- Thread starter hobo-jo
- Start date
Why?
Then what?
How many people can the world hold?
That is a ridiculous suggestion. Go live in India or China if you love people so much, and let one of them come here in your place!
It would be great to develop more large cities around the coast (eg Geraldton & Esperance), and this would provide higher living standards than acommodating another ten million in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.
The areas considered the 'best' suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne were settled by WWII. You could build high amenity suburbs in regional cities. Or keep going as we are in expanding our capital city fringes.
The former regional development approach is probably 'best'. But it's more expensive than the latter due to the increased power, water, transport infrastructure, etc. Plus without a large economic base it is extremely difficult to promote development in other than the established capitals.
There have been many attempts by governments to encourage large-scale regional development and closer settlement in agricultural areas (which was predicated on reliable rainfall and land productivity that didn't exist).
In the 1880s railways were built to every small town supposedly to encourage development (but often to enrich land speculators). Instead they just improved communication with the big cities.
In the 1920s governments encouraged soldier and group settlement schemes to develop the countryside. Many walked off the land.
In the 1950s governments encouraged farmers to overclear land in marginal areas beyond Goyder's line (and its equivalent outside SA). Salinity and erosion were the result.
In the 1960s BA Santamaria advocated for an Australia full of virtuous peasant farmers from Europe on small holdings as this would be a counterweight to the moral decadence of the growing cities. Such farms were never viable and irrigation had its own problems.
In the 1970s Gough Whitlam and Tom Uren established DURD to grow Albury-Wodonga, Orange-Bathurst and Monarto (SA) as large inland cities. The latter did not happen, and the first two only ever took a few days of big city population growth per year.
In the 2000s immigration rules gave priority to settlers for smaller states and cities (to relieve pressure on Sydney). They didn't have much of an effect.
100 or more years ago immigrants often flocked to the country (Chinese after gold, Pacific island labourers in Qld). But now immigrants overwhelmingly flock to the major cities. As do Australians, especially those with degrees and professional qualifications eg doctors.
The Australian pattern of development around five big cities has endured for over 150 years and shows no sign of letting up, no matter how undesirable this might appear to be. Successful regional cities eg Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo are growing no faster than Melbourne.
And government rural development schemes or using immigration as a tool to encourage regional living doesn't seem to have had a successful record either.
Australia needs agricultural production, as it also needs our mineral and energy exports. It's not like we produce anything much else the world needs and we have to pay for imports with something. London? Dunno. But the Poms at least can grow half their food requirements and import the other half. So at 500 million Australia would import nearly 90% of our food. You'd be happy with that? I wouldn't. Even Ethiopia and every other African nation grows more than 10% of their food.
Your 500 million comment must go down in somersoft history as one of the weirdest ever made on here.
See ya's.
some very funny comments on this thread, entertaining to read.
its fascinating to read the different perceptions and opinions.
one thing that is concerning re some of the new arrivals, compared to say the post war migrants, is that the latter were hard working and productive but unfortunately many of the newcomers are welfare dependent?
some people will always need to be supported for long periods for many reasons but it is a cost to the community.
there needs to be a balance. the land in many areas of australia has very little water supply and that also limits where people can live at present.
its fascinating to read the different perceptions and opinions.
one thing that is concerning re some of the new arrivals, compared to say the post war migrants, is that the latter were hard working and productive but unfortunately many of the newcomers are welfare dependent?
some people will always need to be supported for long periods for many reasons but it is a cost to the community.
there needs to be a balance. the land in many areas of australia has very little water supply and that also limits where people can live at present.
Originally Posted by Ausprop View Post
this country should be able to hold a good 500 million spread across it
lol and if you love China or India so much, why don't you marry them !
this country should be able to hold a good 500 million spread across it
lol and if you love China or India so much, why don't you marry them !
Last edited:
I am CONSTANTLY amazed how people still believe ANYONE in government. Believe me labor as a party WANT big australia, they just reject it now because they realised that the sensible people have admonished them for it, understanding that the infrastructure can barely support those we have now, how is it going to support the kind of numbers they purport to support. They want to win the next election and they are aligning their "views" to those of the people until after they win.
The government (and labor especially) are a bunch of crooks and thieves...and they will still try and institute a carbon tax, which is nothing more than a tax...nothing else.
The government (and labor especially) are a bunch of crooks and thieves...and they will still try and institute a carbon tax, which is nothing more than a tax...nothing else.
Why dont you go LIVE in India if you love them that much ?!
- I will !
Good go !
- I'm going
Are you going to India ? Do you love India ? Are you gonna marry it ? oooh ! You and India sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g
Are you on drugs?
I don't want Australia to end up like India and China, that's been the point of my posts!
Are you on drugs?
I don't want Australia to end up like India and China, that's been the point of my posts!
Couldn't agree more.
Seems like there are quite a few posters on drugs or other things these days.
Are you on drugs?
I don't want Australia to end up like India and China, that's been the point of my posts!
I can't help it. Just thought it sounded funny the way you said it.
I just think eveyrone gets too emotional - someone says we can expand a city, the other says your gonna make something extinct - we've been expandig cities for more than a few years, we've done it before. We never reached a goal and stopped, everything is continual progress and change, we're no different than generations before us who were also at the forefront in their days, they too thought they had reahed the zenith etc. I have trouble envisging such a huge change anyway
I have no problem with necessary and natural growth and cities expanding a bit etc. But people who suggest we can take in millions and millions of people from all over the world to rescue them from their own countries, and destroy our country in the process, is what I have an issue with. There is absolutely no point in us becoming over crowded and over polluted just "because we can".
Since I'm a numbers kinda guy, thought I'd share some stats I found on the net.
Excluding Antarctica (and the ocean of course), the population density of the world is 50 people per square km.
The area of Australia is 7.6 million square km. If we had the same population density as the world as a whole, that'd put us at 380 million people.
Obviously they have to live somewhere, and have to eat stuff (Australia is fairly high ranked in terms of food exports which we wouldn't be able to continue if the country was covered with urban sprawl).
They also have to work somewhere and a fairly large source of employment is Australia's mining industry. This includes engineers, corporate staff, truckies, miners, miscellaneous stuff... AND the businesses that operate in the towns nearby which would not be in business if the mines weren't close-by, such if they were covered with urban sprawl.
So obviously 380mil is ridiculous. And so is half that. And so is quarter that. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere. A sustainable rate of population growth exists, but lets not start making stupid comments like "we can just throw X million in ABC town".
Excluding Antarctica (and the ocean of course), the population density of the world is 50 people per square km.
The area of Australia is 7.6 million square km. If we had the same population density as the world as a whole, that'd put us at 380 million people.
Obviously they have to live somewhere, and have to eat stuff (Australia is fairly high ranked in terms of food exports which we wouldn't be able to continue if the country was covered with urban sprawl).
They also have to work somewhere and a fairly large source of employment is Australia's mining industry. This includes engineers, corporate staff, truckies, miners, miscellaneous stuff... AND the businesses that operate in the towns nearby which would not be in business if the mines weren't close-by, such if they were covered with urban sprawl.
So obviously 380mil is ridiculous. And so is half that. And so is quarter that. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere. A sustainable rate of population growth exists, but lets not start making stupid comments like "we can just throw X million in ABC town".
Balance?
I know there has to be a balance that takes into account impact on the environment and available resources etc, but what on earth gives any of us the right to deny opportunities in Australia to people from anywhere in the world who are willing to work and contribute to our economy? If we don't have a large tax paying workforce in the future, who is going to support the masses of space wasting, generation after generation of freeloaders that will continue to grow because they reproduce +++. Educated people with a work ethic reproduce less and it is likely that we will be left with a minority of educated workers, who will without new immigrants, be overwhelmingly burdened by having to support this evergrowing mass of bludgers (as well as an aging population). If you think that we don't have capacity for newcomers, how about we look at an exchange program where we swap a true blue bludger for an overseas worker.
JASA
I know there has to be a balance that takes into account impact on the environment and available resources etc, but what on earth gives any of us the right to deny opportunities in Australia to people from anywhere in the world who are willing to work and contribute to our economy? If we don't have a large tax paying workforce in the future, who is going to support the masses of space wasting, generation after generation of freeloaders that will continue to grow because they reproduce +++. Educated people with a work ethic reproduce less and it is likely that we will be left with a minority of educated workers, who will without new immigrants, be overwhelmingly burdened by having to support this evergrowing mass of bludgers (as well as an aging population). If you think that we don't have capacity for newcomers, how about we look at an exchange program where we swap a true blue bludger for an overseas worker.
JASA
can we lock this godforsaken thread?
And I'm sure you'll be the first to volunteer to go live in outback WA, to make some room for the 500million you want, hey Ausprop. Or are you to comfortable in the city. For one, were is the water coming from to support 500mil?
that'd be fine - somewhere like phoenix or vegas, i love the heat. places like broome are awesome climates
