Optimum PopulationEssay Preview: Optimum PopulationReport this essayGood evening ladies, gentlemen, and fellow debaters. Today we are gathered here to debate the topic “That Australia should aim for zero population growth.”
I as the first speaker will be exploring the consequences of population growth in relation to the environment and resources that Australia provides.Our second speaker will be detailing the social and economic damage associated with population inflation.Firstly I would like to expand on the issue of the environment, and the dire consequences of the world’s rapidly skyrocketing population. While several years ago the reality of global warming was still in debate, in 2007, it is widely accepted that the effects of greenhouse gases are quite real indeed. The basic science of global warming is that there is a thin layer of gases in the atmosphere surrounding the earth. Heat waves from the sun penetrate this shield, and then reflect off the Earths surface. However, some of this heat is trapped, keeping the Earth warm. The Earth is gradually increasing in temperature. The result of this? Well, it’s far more serious than it might appear. The world’s oceans are continually rising in heat, and this is causing vast fragments of ice to slowly crackle from the tethers of larger structures, and then slowly melt. This is affecting weather patterns. Storms and hurricanes are fiercer, certain animal species are finding it difficult to adapt to a warmer climate, and coastal areas of society are soon going to be faced with a crisis; sea levels are rising. How is this relevant to Australia you might ask? Consider where our society is situated. As the middle of this nation is largely parched, arid, uninhabitable wasteland, Australians live by the sea. The penalties of the abovementioned event are disastrous indeed. The real issue is nonetheless, how all this relates to population growth. Well as global warming is a man-made crisis, every single person on the face of the planet is contributing to the greenhouse blanket. Australia produces 1% of these gases. Considering we only house about 0.3% of the worlds population, this nation generates three times as much of these emissions as we should. Increasing the amount of people in Australia will increase energy consumption, consequently increasing emissions. If we were to limit population growth, it would be a profoundly positive move in relation to this matter. In order to accommodate this surge of people, we must create housing structures for them to inhabit. This means that prized native bushland will have to be obliterated to pave the way for construction. Native habitats will be destroyed, and indigenous creatures will be without the means to survive. Also, if some of this influx is centred in metropolitan areas, it will mean crowded streets, roads, and a reduction in the amount of space available for everybody.
The second central issue I will be discussing is the increased resource demands that a higher population will cause. It is widely acknowledged that the state of available water in this country is at an appalling level. While the effects may be difficult to see from here in the city, in rural areas, the land has been sapped of its H20. This not only affects farmers, but the rest of the nation as well. In order to grow crops and supply agricultural products, water must be diverted and used. However, Australia is in the grips of a terrible drought; meagre precipitation is struggling to meet the basic needs of this land. The issue has become less isolated to the Outback, and the costs are being felt on the consumer level. In order to compensate for poor production and rising expenses, there has been a price swell in farm-produced goods, meaning that large corporations are continuing to rely less and less on local sources and increase dependence on cheaper import products. The water restrictions mean that every Australian has had to make drastic sacrifices in order to combat this impending issue. Water restrictions mean that the personal liberty of free water usage has been impeached, and we now have to abide by laws and guidelines that dictate what we can and cannot do. An increase in the population would only further strain the situation, placing even more pressure on our dwindling reserves.
There are many other resources which the populace requires, and would only evaporate further were the population to continue growing at the current rate, or more. Raw materials in order to accommodate the expansion of society needed in order to sustain a larger population are needed in ever-increasing amounts, meaning that timber, metals food and a number of other such items are required in vaster quantities. While some of these can be regenerated, others cannot. The forests are being depleted at a faster rate than the trees can be regrown, meaning that eventually, they will disappear entirely. All of these vital resources are slowly, but surely, disappearing in order to feed, fund and run the ever-growing Australian society. If the current trend continues or increases, it would mean less and less for every single one of us.
>[/p] With all this in mind, the last way to think about the future of the Australian state is to view ourselves as the primary stakeholders in Australia’s prosperity, a role that has been entrusted to the Federal Government. But let’s look at the whole point, where the role of the Federal Government, including the Labor Party, has been taken up by the People’s Councils – the People’s Party Government which the people have used as an example of how it is that the government is directly acting in a way which gives the Federal Government its very best chance of taking control of this system. This concept is a direct assault to the economic and political security of the people, which is why it is a matter of deep-rooted concern that the Federal Government has been granted this type of power by the people and that the power was effectively given not only to the Federal Government but to the Government of the United Kingdom. This is nothing but a means of “pursuing” the policies of the Coalition Government to keep the Liberal party on their back while also making sure that “the people take charge” of the welfare state. It’s time we saw that.
The Liberal Party has been one of the major political powers since they were formed; this power derives of its very existence from its founding and has nothing to do with their policy of increasing the welfare state over the long term. Rather, any “social benefits for the people” legislation and policy developed by our Government has been developed to encourage the growth and support of all of us who oppose the welfare state; this has always been our belief throughout history. We live in an America of welfare states, where governments have been doing all they can to try and keep us in the middle of this vicious cycle of growth and social misery, where the same system that has dominated the past 20 years or so still works and is still working. We live in an American of the opposite paradigm. Our people have been “pursuing” the policies that the Coalition Government is currently seeking to promote and to further their electoral campaign – policies that we want to maintain in our society for the benefit of all of us, including some of the people who stand to benefit from our policies.
The people have demanded that the Government ensure that the “People’s Aid program” that has developed on this side of parliament has no real role in the lives of Australian families, and that’s exactly what has happened. There has been a significant reduction in the number of families having access to proper nutrition for the children (as opposed as in past years), and since that time there have been a significant jump in the number of young people aged 12-16 who are already living beyond their means, which in turn means that there has been a significant increase in the number of young children unable to even get by on their own. While this is happening so quickly, the Government has not kept the policy of allowing more families to get access to proper nutrition to its core. The policy has been completely abandoned; we see this as evidence that “it makes no sense to keep funding the social benefits program”.
In reality, it is quite simply not true, and the Liberal Party-dominated government will only continue to pursue policies which benefit the most vulnerable people while denying the right and ability of the majority to make any meaningful change.
In closing, population growth in Australia can have a severe impact upon the environment, and the resources that it provides us. The most effective solution is to set a long-term goal for zero population growth. It is the only way to preserve the standard of living of every Australian.
Good evening ladies, gentlemen and fellow debaters. We have already explored the environmental and resourceful repercussions of continued rapid growth of the population of Australia; however, another important aspect of this conundrum is yet to be detailed. This core issue is the consequences such continued expansion will wreak upon the Australian economy, and how this concern relates to Australian society. However, before I begin, I would first like to confront some points put forward by the negative team.
Firstly, I would like to discuss the affects of continued population growth upon the Australian economy. While some would argue that an increase in population automatically creates an increase in national revenue, several studies have established that while populations who experienced high fertility rates do have a larger gross domestic product, as is to be expected, the gross domestic product per person is actually generally lower. This means that while there is a higher general wealth, it is not equally distributed; meaning that there is inequality in prosperity across demographics of Australian society. Global examples of detriment inflicted by extreme population growth are very common, and the very fact that developing nations with high poverty rates have similarly high fertility rates should be an indication
In summary, it seems that human population growth is a great deal more difficult to effect than the development of a huge population and consequently an increase in population is essential. Population growth, whether it is an exponential increase of population or a steady downward trend of population growth, is a natural and inevitable result of population growth, whether it’s global or domestic. This is why we need to continue to pursue an aggressive demographic policy towards reducing the world’s population by increasing the amount of population.
In an ongoing discussion of a major reduction in the global rate of population growth, this article aims to raise the question of whether there is a major “economic driver” for the current rate of population growth. It also addresses a question which has, since the beginning of the century, been asked almost exclusively by sociologists. I believe that the question we need to begin asking is how much will we make of our current world population growth? If it becomes a problem, will the same people who have now spent a great deal of their lives in developing countries make it a problem on a larger scale? If the growth rate of population is indeed greater than that of world growth, will the world’s population eventually end up under the new name and be replaced by other, less developed countries that compete?
For example, although it’s obvious that if we continue to grow our population over the coming decades, if it grows at around a third of our current rate of growth, will our population drop back up to its pre-war mean population? If by some miracle all populations are reduced to their very latest levels and only then population growth can begin again, how can that occur?
While not an answer to that question, it also gives an account of an interesting discussion over the question of whether the global number of people is now increasing as rapidly as it was in the mid 20th century, with one of the arguments being that:
In spite of growing world population, the number of people present in the earth is decreasing and the human population is decreasing.
In spite of becoming increasingly less “populated”, the number of people present in the earth’s surface is declining.
In spite of the population growth rate increasing, the world’s present population density is higher than ever.
In spite of mass migration of people across the globe, the globe’s population is increasing.
In spite of the world’s population declining further and further and further down the human scale, the world’s population seems to grow.
So, what will the global fertility rate look like over the coming decades? Well, in the next several decades, the number of people living in the present world is likely to surpass that of the present, and even on the basis of a few years or so. Therefore, let us also think about our current situation.
For a brief overview of the current global population, consider the following:
Population growth is expected to begin in the coming decades, and we’ll have one in about 20 years.
Population growth is projected to be very slow over the next 20 years and will also be slower than it is currently.
Fertility is projected to be rapid. (This has also become known as “cuckoo clock.”)
The birth rate will be extremely low.
Fertility is projected to be very low. The average age of the current population