Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

39Re: [PublicPopForum] FW: Melbourne suburbs are the best and the future's in the west

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    Jul 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      My figure of 10,000 is a partial rebuttal to this:
      Which may be incorrect because humans count as one species towards biodiversity, unless they threaten multiple other species, which they do.  Also there is a species of flea that is human dependent so I suppose then humans count for two species.  But technology absolutely is no excuse to justify more humans than gorillas, in fact just the opposite because technology enables humans to damage the environment more per capita than gorillas are able to do.  And it is ability to damage that is the determining factor, not ability to construct.
      Anyway, I got 10,000 because that seems to be around the number at which 150 pound omnivourous mammals get off of endangerd species lists, thus the number considered the minimum sustainable without humanist discrimination.
      So I narrowly decided not to join VHEMT and that is the reason.  I am on their public yahoogroup however:
      I repeat. the ideal human population is not even romotely close to the maximum sustainable human population.  It is far closer to the MINIMUM sustainable human population.
      -Alan
       
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
       

      Below is ridiculous and detracts from the credibility of people who promote a sustainable population.
      The humans that are 'native' to Africa are not like other animals, in many obvious ways.
      We are capable of sustaining much larger populations than a harp seal or a monkey, because we invented paper, plows, maths and computers, we have fire and MRI scanners and solar cells.
      So stop being ridiculous aditmore.
      Whatever the target, the point is there should be a target, and it should be lower than today.
      10,000 ?, why did you even bother writing that.


      aditmore@... wrote:

      What Population OZ "can sustain" is absolutely the wrong question.  The ideal population is a compromize between that which maximizes quality of life (perhaps one million globally to sustain industrial specialization) ) and that which maximizes biodiversity, which is probably zero, globally, or perhaps around 10,000 counting humans as an endangered species like harp seals.  So I get a compromize of 505,000 global of which fewer than 70,000 are likely to live in Oz.
      Reproducing the maximum sustainable population in any area would be totally sadistic and environmentally insane.
      -Al
       
      Probably no humans should live in OZ because humans are native to Africa and are therefore an invasive species everywhere else.  Thus all 505,000 humans should probably live in Africa and the rest of the world should be parkland where no humans should go.
       
       
      ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
       

      Hi Gregary,
       
      your question below makes make me wonder what is the best use of one's energy and time.  I thnk a debate with Bernard Salt would need to be more public to be worthwhile. Also need to keep it very civil. He said he enjoyed the exchange with you so perhaps he would enjoy a formal debate on this maybe in teams.. If this debate could be open and pubic then the audience could judge for itself as the arguments are rolled out no matter who is declared the ultimate winner.
       
      The glaring problem with what he says is that the onus is on you/"us" to prove that Oz cannot sustain a large population rather than on him to prove it can. This ins the face of environmental degradation that is in the news every day now. 
      Not sure what forum this would be. 
       
      Sheila Newman wrote an interesting essay on Australia's population in the future in The Final Energy Crisis 2nd ed 2008. and of course Tim Flannery has made estimates of future carrying capacity of Oz. I wonder if BS has read either.
       
      Jill
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 7:59 AM
      Subject: [PublicPopForum] FW: Melbourne suburbs are the best and the future's in the west

      Any of the rest of you prepared to challenge this economic f''wit.
       
      You now have his personal email address.
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Salt, Bernard [mailto:bsalt@ kpmg.com. au]
      Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2009 7:47 AM
      To: greg@gregsindigenou slandscapes. com.au
      Subject: RE: Melbourne suburbs are the best and the future's in the west

      A worthy (but futile) attempt at rebuttal Gregary.  I have enjoyed our joust but now it's time to put it to rest.  I appreciate your thoughts and comments.
      Kind regards
      Bernard


      From: Gregary Boyles [mailto:greg@ gregsindigenousl andscapes. com.au]
      Sent: Wednesday, 8 July 2009 6:36 PM
      To: Salt, Bernard
      Cc: Population Forum
      Subject: RE: Melbourne suburbs are the best and the future's in the west

      "You blithely say "agricultural production is falling""
      Obviously Bernard you spend so much time in your narrow economic world that you don't keep track of what is happening in places like Mildura that is one of Australia's major fruit production areas. QLD sure is getting a lot of rainfall, but unfortunately flooding is similarly wiping out crops just as drought is down south.
       
       
       
       
       
      "You haven't responded to my explanation why skilled migrants (through repatriation of funds) is good for Australia and for the host nation."
      I assume you are referring to the funds that immigrants send back to their families.... .
       
      Well you are giving with one hand and taking way with the other aren't you. Individuals get a additional income source but you are removing educated and skilled workers from the country.
       
      If you are so charitable then why don't you advocate increasing Australia's foreign aid to the countries in question and sending Australian education officials over there to build up the country's own education infrastructure rather than poaching their skilled workers?????
       
       
       
       
       
       
      "You cite the long-term carrying capacity of the Australian continent. "
      Unfortunately I do not have the resources available to me to credibly mount a study into what Australia's long term carrying capacity might be. I will refer your enquiry to the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists if you like. No doubt they will be able to give you a very credible answer to this particular query. They have even have such studies available to the public on their website, but I have not looked lately.
       
       
       
       
       
       
      "Isn't this just part of the grand cycle of nature?"
      Funny that you recognize the boom bust nature of Australia's ecology. Anyone with half a brain would realise that it is wise to gear your population level to what is sustainable long term during a bust phase of the cycle while recognizing that Australia's boom bust cycle is far from predictable.


      ____________________________________________________________
      You have a right to seek justice! Click here to find experienced lawyers across the USA.