Sustainable Population versus Big Australia

Think the debate about sustainable population versus big Australia is new? Think that it takes a 'young Australian' to chart a new national path? In the 1920s geographer Griffith Taylor was at the centre of a bitter national debate, in which anyone who questioned the ambitions of 'Australia Unlimited' was painted as unpatriotic. This video recreates the sorts of lectures that landed him in trouble. It is written by Carolyn Strange and produced by the National Library of Austalia. For further information on Taylor see Carolyn Strange and Alison Bashford, Griffith Taylor: Visionary, Environmentalist, Explorer (National Library of Australia and University of Toronto Press, 2008).

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 'Dick
• Smith'
• 'Population
• Puzzle'
• 'sustainable
• population'
• 'big
• Australia'
• 'environmental
• prediction'
• 'Griffith
• Taylor'

[Pedrofrombrazil]

Australia is so big and so beautiful. Australians have really to take care of their own country, because there's no much water. If Australia becomes overpopulated, how do you get fresh water to a huge population, to produce food, to make goods, to keep businesses and companies functioning, to keep cleanness? How do you get huge amount of fertile soil to produce food for everybody? Well, that's just my point, no offenses intended. Peace.

[TimeForParadigmShift]

We need to stabilize the population at about 15million!...MAX!

[Ragnar6000]

bring on the people australia can hold 100 mill

[mphello]

@Manchester1314 Why is unemployment a problem?

Why do you feel the need to make people do either useless or unnecessary or downright destructive work

in order for them to earn housing, water, electricity? You just GIVE it to them.

I have ZERO pity for unemployed coal workers, because THEY force unemployment on me and my friends who would want to work putting up solar and wind farms.

No excuse not to shut them down immediately.

If people want a job, they can work growing food.

[Manchester1314]

@mphello Technology and how we live would highly affect the optimal population. It's no point that to have a fixed number of optimal population. However, what we should focus are how to use our resources wisely and achieve a sustainable population.

P.S. I agree that we should close all our coal plant, but how to solved the associated problems, such as unemployment? Maybe we can phase out the coal plant gradually.

[mphello]

I don't agree with a lot of bullshit like gaia theory, and most environmentalists have not given a clear definition of what an optimal population of each species (incl humans) should be. Nevertheless, the fact is: anti-environmentalists and pro-corporate extremists hate humans, want humans to suffers as slaves, so they can take all the riches and resources for themselves.

When is Australia going to shut down its coal plants and stop causing global warming?

Nuke Australia.

[esther19741974]

During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, biologist Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

[esther19741974]

Environmentalists are promoting a new historical hero in the fight against global warming, none other than Mongol warlord Genghis Khan, with the Carnegie Institution touting the emperor’s green credentials because his empire slaughtered no less than 40 million people – an act that helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool. GEORGIAN GUIDSTONES at it's best! iam sick of these gia worshiping human hating eugenic scum

[davfritz]

hear hear

[SPAnsw]

A point well made about Australia and the limits to growth. True enough back then- even truer now.