Thread: SHOULDN'T WE BE SERIOUSLY STOPPING OUR POPULATION GROWTH?

A lot of you have taken on the increase of population in Australia as a food consumption/production problem.

This will probably never be the case as primary producers react continuously to population demand.

What does occur though is a continuous demand for housing and the additional infrastructure associated with it. You know...roads , sewerage , power, supermarkets, recreational facilities ,etc etc

What this in turn creates is increased heat sink. This actually changes local weather patterns , because the concrete/bitumen/reflecting glass etc holds heat into domestic areas for longer periods each day. This changes anabatic/ katabatic winds and also onshore/offshore wind periods which affects inland moisture and temperature distribution.

This can already be seen if you look at BOM temperatures and weather as our population increases.....it is only happening as we rapidly increase our population.

Our current crop of politicians who preach increased migration to boost economy will not be here to see the outcome.

Everybody is totally free to believe what they want , but science will not be denied. There is no power to assist.

Originally Posted by bob10

You are awesome.

I wouldn't say he was "awesome" exactly,,, but we think he's pretty special

Who needs enemies with friends like that...

Supposedly the average westerner eats too much meat, meaning it is unhealthy for them and may reduce their lifestyle and longevity (that partly includes me right now).

There seem to be both positive and negative environmental consequences of humans eating too much meat.

Positives: kills people quicker reducing their environmental impact, meat production occupies space and consumes resources thus reducing possible human populations.

Negatives: meat production has direct negative environmental consequences.

If they can make tasty and nutritious burger patties from bugs things might change slowly (?).

We will know fish stocks are critical when the prices go up and up (?).

Originally Posted by Homestar

Thankyou - I know. 👍

Hmmm, might use that one as my signature. 😉

And I thought the AGA Khan was up himself.

Originally Posted by Hugh42732

The thing is with vegetation management in Queensland is that you knock it down as it gets to thick then 10 years later it is back and you do it again.

Don’t know why Queensland is different from southern states, maybe stocking density, as where we average around a beast to 7 acres I know people in Victoria that run 1 to 1 and bale twice a year.

The premier even admitted that while they claim extensive land clearing they do not know the percentage of land cleared that is regrowth but it would be minimal as even under the “relaxed” laws clearing of remnant vegetation was only allowed under permit.

Don’t believe everything the government/news papers tell you.

Sugar cane, a crop, not livestock farming.

Originally Posted by rammypluge

Positives: kills people quicker reducing their environmental impact, meat production occupies space and consumes resources thus reducing possible human populations.

Negatives: meat production has direct negative environmental consequences.
(?).

Based on what?

Originally Posted by bob10

And I thought the AGA Khan was up himself.

He's got nothing on me I can tell you but has a few more followers. 😆 FIGJAM.