One area of politics that has been left well alone too long ... sustainable human population.

Mostly because Greens, and the old parties, will not touch it. Maybe for fear of the backlash from some sectors of the community, maybe because no one has come up with any good ideas yet.

Greens differ from the old parties in that we are a grass roots party and so grass root members can forward change on policies from the ground up.

So people, Greens supporters and other's that would like Population on the political radar, what sort of policy would you like the grass roots of the Greens to forward for policy.

---

It's a sticky one hitting at the idea of sovereignity!

oops, I may not have spelled that right....  ;D ;D ::) ::) :'(

Come on people, we can do better than this.

How about what if we dump the baby bonus.

Do the opposite to the NSW conservative state government and support foster carers rather than slash the cash they get for caring for dumped children so decreasing the number of potential foster carers in the future.

Lets focus on better parenting via free classes and programs to teach aspects of parenting, so parents are not isolated and left on their own ... and then if they do make the occasional cock up, are not crucified by the media and or courts.

Lets shift to community child caring. Children no longer seen as someone's possession, seen more as an asset of humanity. Better quality children rather than just more.

Shift the economy away from the continual growth mentality, which is unsustainable towards other values. Since continual growth requires continual increase in the number of consumers. 

If we can not think of a silver bullet to sort population, then lets start by working around the edges.

Any more ideas off the top of your heads?

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 4:05am:

Come on people, we can do better than this. How about what if we dump the baby bonus. Do the opposite to the NSW conservative state government and support foster carers rather than slash the cash they get for caring for dumped children so decreasing the number of potential foster carers in the future. Lets focus on better parenting via free classes and programs to teach aspects of parenting, so parents are not isolated and left on their own ... and then if they do make the occasional cock up, are not crucified by the media and or courts. Lets shift to community child caring. Children no longer seen as someone's possession, seen more as an asset of humanity. Better quality children rather than just more. Shift the economy away from the continual growth mentality, which is unsustainable towards other values. Since continual growth requires continual increase in the number of consumers.  If we can not think of a silver bullet to sort population, then lets start by working around the edges. Any more ideas off the top of your heads?

I agree and the Baby Bonus should go, for starters, both from a strict Population sustainability base, but also from the point of restraining the Budget Deficits and lowering the overall Public Debt situation! 

Btw, it would seem likely that the sustainable Population issue will be addressed, even if some may say the opposite and I suspect that the Global & Local Populations may Decline by 30-50%, by the end of this century.

Agree, human population will crash, yet is starvation and war the best tools ... or do we start now so circumventing the worst case option?

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 8:34am:

Agree, human population will crash, yet is starvation and war the best tools ... or do we start now so circumventing the worst case option?

I suggest Population levels are set to decline by a good 30%, just by the natural processes, already in train.

If starvation and war enter the picture, on a Global scale, then the reduction may be substantially greater?

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

____ wrote on Dec 27th, 2011 at 8:34am: Agree, human population will crash, yet is starvation and war the best tools ... or do we start now so circumventing the worst case option? I suggest Population levels are set to decline by a good 30%, just by the natural processes, already in train. If starvation and war enter the picture, on a Global scale, then the reduction may be substantially greater?

any suggestive link I could educate myself with?

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 9:02am:

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 27th, 2011 at 8:51am: ____ wrote on Dec 27th, 2011 at 8:34am: Agree, human population will crash, yet is starvation and war the best tools ... or do we start now so circumventing the worst case option? I suggest Population levels are set to decline by a good 30%, just by the natural processes, already in train. If starvation and war enter the picture, on a Global scale, then the reduction may be substantially greater? any suggestive link I could educate myself with?

There's some here and a lot of reading, in between the lines.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276775027/all

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 4:05am:

Come on people, we can do better than this. How about what if we dump the baby bonus. Do the opposite to the NSW conservative state government and support foster carers rather than slash the cash they get for caring for dumped children so decreasing the number of potential foster carers in the future. Lets focus on better parenting via free classes and programs to teach aspects of parenting, so parents are not isolated and left on their own ... and then if they do make the occasional cock up, are not crucified by the media and or courts. Lets shift to community child caring. Children no longer seen as someone's possession, seen more as an asset of humanity. Better quality children rather than just more. Shift the economy away from the continual growth mentality, which is unsustainable towards other values. Since continual growth requires continual increase in the number of consumers.  If we can not think of a silver bullet to sort population, then lets start by working around the edges. Any more ideas off the top of your heads?

But how do you justify 'sustainable population' on the one hand, with the push to increase the number of refugees and immigrants on the other hand??

The two ideas are mutually exclusive...

It is more sustainable to recycle our unused items than to create new items.

Same with people, it is economically more sustainable to have a refugee join the workforce than have a baby, wait X amount of years before they start their working life.


Also, what is the point of Australia going it alone on sustainable population when a party like the Greens could form the best policy we can and then replicating it across Green Parties across the globe.

As are on so many issues, they merge into each other rather than be islands unto themselves.

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

It is more sustainable to recycle our unused items than to create new items. Same with people, it is economically more sustainable to have a refugee join the workforce than have a baby, wait X amount of years before they start their working life. Also, what is the point of Australia going it alone on sustainable population when a party like the Greens could form the best policy we can and then replicating it across Green Parties across the globe. As are on so many issues, they merge into each other rather than be islands unto themselves.

Now that works.....
However, what IS the 'sustainable population' of Australia????....no one ever seems to say it...(just curious)

Basically because, between breeding and 'importing' refugees, there has to be a balance......i.e bring in a 40 yr old, who can join the workforce NOW, doesn't deal with the problem of who replaces him/her, in 20 or 30 years time.....We still need babies to replace current workers....thinking of the future etc....

Could it be you are thinking along the lines of a greed base economy, where we must have continual growth to keep the monster from toppling?

If so, this greed base economy is part of the problem, and solution, concerning population.


If we base our economy differently, then maybe we will not require (so many) replacements down the track.

____ wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

Could it be you are thinking along the lines of a greed base economy, where we must have continual growth to keep the monster from toppling? If so, this greed base economy is part of the problem, and solution, concerning population. If we base our economy differently, then maybe we will not require (so many) replacements down the track.

Ummm no, I'm not...I'm thinking along the lines of a sustainable economy...which means having enough shop assistants, hairdressers, mechanics, doctors, nurses etc etc to keep the economy functioning into the future.....
We have an 'aging' population....so who's going to replace our workers when they retire......we can't really rely on imported workers forever.....we will need to breed and train replacements....whether their parents were born here or not doesn't matter, but people who move to new countries tend to have kids, so where do you draw the line on reproduction????

So...Fred Nurk got rabies from joining the Greens....
Guess that 'must' be true then....