With the launch of a high-profile group promoting an increase in Australia's
population to 50 million by 2050, I can only assume that landclearing and
other environmental impacts of population and economic growth will continue.
Surely the population growth proponents are simply delaying the inevitable
crunch when the carrying capacity is reached (after the turning of the
entire world over to food production). If we need to solve the problem of
continued growth then, why can't we solve it now and enjoy a life enriched
with wilderness and wildlife (setting aside any moral arguments about the
rights of wilderness and wildlife)?
And we already have ample evidence that Aus's carrying capacity has already
been exceeded. It seems a very real possibility that not only will we be
unable to sustain lucrative food export industries (which generate much of
the wealth we are able to currently enjoy and which teases the
narrowly-educated to think that more people means more industry means more
wealth),but that we will be unable to feed ourselves and become instead
net-importers of food. And that is at current population levels let alone a
population 2-3 times greater.
Could it be that these 50 mill in 2050 bunch are only out to line their own
pockets (further than they are already lined)? Presumably any change from
continued growth will necessitate a change in economic conditions that will
affect the growth of their profits (though not necessarily the fact that
they make a profit, just that the profit stops getting bigger and bigger).
Surely there are other economic models that allow for prosperity of the
populace, than those built on population growth? From what I know, many
European countries have had stable populations for decades yet still seem to
prosper. Are there any economists out there who can shed light on this?
Sean Pywell.
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
