Aust's population to pass 23m


AUSTRALIA'S population is set to pass 23 million on Tuesday.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) population clock is expected to reach the milestone on Tuesday evening (AEST).

The world's population is more than seven billion, so Australia represents 0.3 per cent of humans on the planet.

It added its latest million people between September 2009 and April 2013 at an annual growth rate of 1.25 per cent, and in terms of the world's most populous nations, is ranked in the mid-50s.

It is the sixth-largest nation in land area.

According to the ABS, the nation's population passed five million in 1919, 10 million in 1960, 15 million in 1983 and 20 million in the December quarter of 2003.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/austs-population-to-pass-23m/story-fn3dxiwe-1226626711534


Perpetual growth of population = a major collapse coming. Should we avoid this collapse by setting a realistic population policy (alongside a sustainable economic system).

____ wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 6:13am:

Aust's population to pass 23m AUSTRALIA'S population is set to pass 23 million on Tuesday. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) population clock is expected to reach the milestone on Tuesday evening (AEST). The world's population is more than seven billion, so Australia represents 0.3 per cent of humans on the planet. It added its latest million people between September 2009 and April 2013 at an annual growth rate of 1.25 per cent, and in terms of the world's most populous nations, is ranked in the mid-50s. It is the sixth-largest nation in land area. According to the ABS, the nation's population passed five million in 1919, 10 million in 1960, 15 million in 1983 and 20 million in the December quarter of 2003. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/austs-population-to-pass-23m/story-fn3dxiwe-1226626711534 Perpetual growth of population = a major collapse coming. Should we avoid this collapse by setting a realistic population policy (alongside a sustainable economic system).

Absolutely.

There are far too many countries trying to sustain populations that neither their economy nor environment can handle.

China and India will be environmental nightmares in a few decades.

so how would the greens fit in our boat people

in their realistic population growth policy??????


maybe we start paying people NOT to have babies...........well its just a thought!

cods wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 9:58am:

so how would the greens fit in our boat people in their realistic population growth policy?????? maybe we start paying people NOT to have babies...........well its just a thought!

You wont have to pay buzzy or greens win   ;) ;)

woody2014 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:02am:

cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:58am: so how would the greens fit in our boat people in their realistic population growth policy?????? maybe we start paying people NOT to have babies...........well its just a thought! You wont have to pay buzzy or greens win   ;) ;)

they might put their hands up though...adopt an asylum seeker...instead..LOL..

The USA makes up about 5% of the global population and yet it consumes about 1/3 of the world's resources and emits about 30% of the worlds waste and pollution

So the world would be at the same state of affairs if there were 900 million Americans living on it OR if there were say 17 billion Indians living on it.

It sounds as if there are far too many US citizens on the planet. A simple distribution problem rather than a total global population issue

oxygen stealers like Greens voters should be towed to Malaysia

Makka wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

oxygen stealers like Greens voters should be towed to Malaysia

We're all oxygen stealers.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Makka wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 2:29pm: oxygen stealers like Greens voters should be towed to Malaysia We're all oxygen stealers.

But the Greens are useless

Change the economic model so job/economic growth doesn't depend on babies being born. Until we do this, we will not stop rushing towards collapse.

____ wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 5:43pm:

Change the economic model so job/economic growth doesn't depend on babies being born. Until we do this, we will not stop rushing towards collapse.

No, we need babies.

Human Population Policy = eugenics

forgiven for repeating propaganda

and self dupery

namaste

- : )

Population growth is the least of our problems, and is pretty much taking care of itself.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

yes hitler was a big fan of eugenics

have you beings not learnt this yet?

or forgotten destined to repeat the same lessons

through atrocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Nazi eugenics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's racially based social policies that placed the improvement of the Aryan race through eugenics at the center of Nazis ideology. Those humans were targeted who were identified as "life unworthy of life" (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a "euthanasia" program.[1][2]

____ wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 6:13am:

Perpetual growth of population = a major collapse coming. Should we avoid this collapse by setting a realistic population policy (alongside a sustainable economic system).

We could have 40 million people living in Australia without a collapse of living standards. The only issue is with people who retire from work, live an active retirement at taxpayers expense, and then die 30 years after they retire.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 11:47am:

The USA makes up about 5% of the global population and yet it consumes about 1/3 of the world's resources and emits about 30% of the worlds waste and pollution So the world would be at the same state of affairs if there were 900 million Americans living on it OR if there were say 17 billion Indians living on it. It sounds as if there are far too many US citizens on the planet. A simple distribution problem rather than a total global population issue

Somehow, I doubt that the world would be better off without US citizens but with 17 billion Indians.