Why fear a debate on population targets for the Nation?

Dick Smith is in the news, not the main news but getting some air time. He's talking about the population numbers in Australia. Its heartening to see more people willing to talk on climate change, bullying, bullying in Parliament, female representation in Parliament and the effect of many other previously 2nd, 3rd or lower tier issues.

There is with all these issues pressure to shut people down of an opposing view or to rail against them personally in order to shut them down. Another ugly facet of the Identity Politics weaponry. It's very counter productive, its very adversarial centred and its intellectually bankrupt...and just plain wrong.

Forget the person presenting a view, stick to facts not feelings.

Here's the thing, in most things economical, there's pendulum swings & cycles but more often there's J curves. Clear & present growth with beneficial return until a point when things plateau or decline.

In the case of population numbers, after World War 2 and for a generation or two the nations that had high immigration ended up with strong growth in their economy. Jobs were plentiful and many people sought jobs eagerly and were less than fussy than perhaps some are today.

Today though we're not in a post war position. If anything we may be in a pre War economic expansion perhaps consolidation phase perhaps approaching the plateau of the J curve before the fall. Added into that mix is the increasing amount of automation. Even in Agriculture labour saving systems are rapidly becoming the norm which will reduce jobs in the regions. Internet is making it easier for people to do business with & from the bush but most of the new jobs won't be in the regions. People need health services and they certainly are better in the cities and large regional centres, but try coaxing med students to think about a career in central Queensland or central WA.

We are seeing now a growth in over the internet medical consultations on some things.
We are seeing a lot more natural centralisation. We're seeing more automation in cropping, we're seeing some farming systems going away from employed staff. One person with one modern header can do a lot more than 2 or 3 people with 3 average harvesters 30 years ago. Road trains are more common than the 1970s & 80s when there were very few farm owned prime mover/semi trailer grain haulers. Those bigger operators would now be road trains or contract road trains. Even the contractors have greater tonnages per driver. less jobs.

So there's not a huge work force required in the bush. Jobs growth there is still there but it'll specific and small in scope.

In the cities, there are many jobs of today that won't be there in great numbers in 20 years let alone 100. Many will disappear completely. Added to this is the vast number of people studying in social science degrees that really have little or no job prospects at the end.

We're training people to end up unemployed or at least leading them to job desperation.

In any economic pursuit there is sustainability, there are J Curves and there are points on the J Curve where re-invention or re-direction of resources is needed as the life span of a economic pursuit diminishes.

Population has to be looked at. Can we sustain 100 Million citizens in Australia in 100 years time?
All very well to say technology will answer many of the problems that haven't even arisen yet.
Its a great thing to have hope. In economics and national stability we see & know what a steady as she goes, she'll be right approach can bring.

It's not all gloom & doom, its not a doomsday scenario that's necessarily playing out but it will be if we don't discuss what population targets we aim for. Climate change your chosen battle to get triggered on? Can't go there without a sustainable population goal to aim for & to keep.

What about food security? Can't be triggered & signalling on that without making a discerning judgement on a sustainable population goal.

Economic outlook, national security, foreign trade, balance of trade...really need to look at a sustainable population goal.

Its a fear of the leftist that it means closed borders because there are many of the left who want fully open borders. Borders have worked for society throughout the ages for many sound reasons. Good fences mean good neighbours. It also means economic stability without full state control.

If we're to really future proof our nation and our planet with finite resources at some point we do have to set population goals. Can you imagine how China would be going today if they'd set an 6 child policy for families for 50 years?
Their one child policy was chock full of heart ache and serious damage to married couples. It wasn't the answer or it was an ugly response to a problem but had everyone been told to have as many kids as possible and their population been allowed to explode...

Right now China is buying lots of land in SE Asia to grow rice & other commodities. Jungle communities are disappearing and land clearing is going full steam. Timber is being exported and the rice is then exported back to China at very low cost.

Oh did you think there was going to be a huge market for Australian rice & other grains from China? There will be. But where ever possible they will go for the cheapest grain. If China is playing at the margins to pick up grain properties in WA its time to wake up. It will be state assisted business people who grow grain, export it like their own luggage and THEN sell it in market places will no tax can be gathered by the Australian Tax Office.

Its a complex matter but how China operates now is a result of how they're responding to their out of control population numbers which are not sustainable. When population gets out of control the other problem is life itself seems to become less sacred. Life is cheap.

Yes a discussion on sustainable population goals is not just wise, it's imperative despite the oddly emotional triggering it will cause some people. Getting it worked out properly will not be politically left nor right, getting it right will be conservative by nature. Keeping the political left & the political right out of it will be a huge task.

But our population J Curve is moving and the current rate of growth is not sustainable over the next 100 years.

We have to make it a political priority if we are indeed to leave our heirs & descendants a viable chance.

Future proofing is central to survival and survival is completely dependant on a sustainable population.

But gee it gets some people loud angry and willing to play the Identity Politics tricks to shut down debate.

Why we shouldn't ban hate speech...or should we?

Most of the so called hate speech is rantings from idiots or bigots but should we ban them?

I hate Broccoli - expresses a hate, is it hate speech?

No I was told, its an opinion, its not inciting hate.

I hate Broccoli and you should too - I just incited hate, is it hate speech.

No I was told, its a vegetable not a person.

I hate broccoli and you should too as well as hate those who grow it, sell it & profit from it, they should be stopped - Is it hate speech yet?

No I was told that although I'm trying to tick all the boxes its a bizarre opinion worthy of discussion only to derail & dismantle it for the ridicule it deserves.

Why can we not as a society discuss anti Semitic hate speech then so we can dismantle it and show it for the horrid evil it is?

FWIW I neither love nor hate broccoli, it conjures up feelings of staggering indifference. Served on a plate I'll eat it neither loving it nor hating it, its nutritious fuel. I encourage people to eat it...because its good for you.

Should we ban Nazi speakers from overseas though? If they're likely to incite violence or recruit followers we should deny them visas, more so if they have a serious criminal record. The convicted US Traitor Chelsea Manning was convicted to 35 years jail for breaking the law. This person's views are not important but if this person wants to come to Australia for a speaking tour then no, entry should be denied. Let Chelsea Manning in we have to then let in a convicted criminal with a history of violence who wants to speak on killing Jews and/or other minorities.

On the matter of hate speech, if we ban it we risk sending it underground where it can then resonate with the dispossessed, those who feel betrayed, disenfranchised or for some reason push outside the fringes & margins of society. Then it picks up followers whether they understand the dogma of hate or not, most likely the subversive nature of the hate against society is a huge attraction.

It serves no purpose letting a hate group build numbers whilst mainstream society goes about life unaware of the growth of some forms of extremism.

I have never had the inclination of reading Mein Kempf or Mao's Little Red Book, but I think if they're banned they will gain some attraction. I think we should challenge hate speech and its sad that ABC Programmes like Q&A don't do the usual topical issues & run them through a panel but also grab some nuts and bolts hate speech issues and test them under fire on the belly to see what falls out.

We are in an age where the subversive is very popular amongst young people, its attractive...even when its counter productive to all involved.

Che Guevara is a pop art image nowadays. He's on shirts & posters when he was a mercenary, most likely a psychopath and wanted to bring in full socialist state rule. He was prepared not to argue for it, he was only ever going to get his vision by killing to get it.

Ned Kelly has become a brand too, but fact is, he was a killer. Had the train not been warned he would have killed an awful lot more. It would have been an outright massacre. Yet we only recall his stand against oppression, he's an iconic hero to many. He was a thief and an unapologetic cop killer.

No we shouldn't ban hate speech. We should ignore it and when it rises up society should sit down and dismantle it, inspect it & explain to the world what the hate speech really is.

Broccoli is ok. Killing minority groups is not. Revising murderous thugs as being bandits for freedom is wrong on every level.

The perfect answer isn't here yet. Banning hate speech may actually cause more problems and give indefensible ideas more followers.