Considering that this prick of a place is over-populated it does seem odd.
Everything the bloke's posted in this thread seems odd.
Just had a look at his posts.Suprise suprise another yank projecting here about the same problems effecting his own country. He talks about our multiculturalism, meanwhile half of central america is on the way to the USA as we speak...to meet up with the other half who already work there
Seriously, the mods need to add a sticky to this forum like
1. If your wife, dog, boss or left wing president is dissing you, try to deal with it like a man instead of bothering Aussies with lightweight crap. 2. Whining on some other countries hunting forum isnt going to save you. 3. Or even better. We conservatives are all in this together. How about posting like you are talking to us as friends, not POS.
It's nice to dream about how things were in the 1950's: cities were smaller, less cars on the road, less people, less pollution. However in the modern world, for an isolated country to be able to defend itself it needs a large, strong economy and a large population. It needs the large, strong economy to buy the very expensive military hardware. It needs the large population to be able to have a large military and also to be able to sustain heavy casualties in a war...and the wars do happen. As the economy grows, it needs labour to feed that growth. The amount of additional wealth that can be generated through agriculture or minerals which are capital intensive is limited. So whether anyone likes it or not, the population needs to grow. Whether anyone likes it or not, it will grow. That population growth can come about by people reproducing in Australia, or through immigration (or a combination of both). It was recognized last century that people were not having enough children in Western countries. In fact there was negative population growth. Because of the failure to populate naturally, countries such as Australia relied heavily on immigration. Now for those who don't like the high levels of immigration, you only have yourselves to blame for failing to populate.
The paragraph above sounds like either a teenager or slightly slow millenial. I notice no one answers or acknowledges his hunting posts on other forums, this thread is about the most mileage he has gotten. I guess if you have no substance, lightweight trolling is the next best thing. Ignore sounds like a pretty good idea and one he is used to
It's nice to dream about how things were in the 1950's: cities were smaller, less cars on the road, less people, less pollution. However in the modern world, for an isolated country to be able to defend itself it needs a large, strong economy and a large population. It needs the large, strong economy to buy the very expensive military hardware. It needs the large population to be able to have a large military and also to be able to sustain heavy casualties in a war...and the wars do happen. As the economy grows, it needs labour to feed that growth. The amount of additional wealth that can be generated through agriculture or minerals which are capital intensive is limited. So whether anyone likes it or not, the population needs to grow. Whether anyone likes it or not, it will grow. That population growth can come about by people reproducing in Australia, or through immigration (or a combination of both). It was recognized last century that people were not having enough children in Western countries. In fact there was negative population growth. Because of the failure to populate naturally, countries such as Australia relied heavily on immigration. Now for those who don't like the high levels of immigration, you only have yourselves to blame for failing to populate.
At what point does population size exceed carrying capacity?
[quote=dan_oz][quote=JSTUART][quote=DBT]What do you mean by 'failed to populate?'
A good idea. This bloke's an idiot.
Id say hes a kid or mentally ill, his last post which you probably cant see was some weird lecture that looked like he just read it off google.
Back to the subject Dan, I like the lack of obesity in the video. Almost forget how slim folks were. I seem to remember in the early 80's which is as far back as I go, people were a lot slimmer than but also 'less chunky''. Even where people have similar fitness level there just seemed to be a different body shape between then and now.
I look at my early army pics and people just seemed smaller. The ones from the 2000's, 15-20 years later all the people in the photos, including the younguns seem to be 2 shirt sizes larger. 2 bra sizes larger for women too. Steroids in the chicken maybe lol?
DBT, the ideal population size for a sustainable carrying capacity is clearly far less than the population needed for a large economy and a strong defence.
158XTP, instead of trying to befriend losers such as J Stupard and Dunno Dan on the internet, if you were really in the army (which is good), give some support to some of the ex-vets who are struggling with everyday life after leaving the army. And don't try to be too clever...because you're not.
DBT, the ideal population size for a sustainable carrying capacity is clearly far less than the population needed for a large economy and a strong defence.
Does anyone believe that our cities are not overblown in terms of livability, overpriced real estate, traffic, sidewalks, shops, cafes, etc?
Not only that, but much of our agricultural land: much of that which was near to major centres being built over, while a bit further out it is broken up into penny packets, and much of it affected by the symptoms of over-exploitation, such as by the competition for water, salination etc.
Does anyone believe that our cities are not overblown in terms of livability, overpriced real estate, traffic, sidewalks, shops, cafes, etc?
Depends on perspective I suppose, and extent of what qualifies as a city ie the CBD or including surrounding suburbs.
Livability: There are people living in apartments in and around the Brisbane CBD, in particular. I would assume that they are in the younger age demographic. Able to walk to shops and entertainment facilities, so saving on transport time and costs. Likely a fair percentage of them working at or near the CBD as well. No gardens to look after, no lawns to mow. I never saw myself as an apartment dweller myself but spent many years doing just this but in the suburbs. No real great cost savings compared to with living in a house, and I ended up with a house and garden, and have gotten away from the Strata Committee situation that can be frustrating at times.
I live about 10km from the CBD and work in the CBD. Door to door is an hour by bus, each way. Driving might be slightly quicker but traffic would make me homicidal, plus the high cost of parking, so bus it is (I can catch up on 24hr CF on the bus.) There are a couple of big shopping centres close to where I live but I need my car for shopping.
Real Estate costs: The cost of homes is pretty shocking these days, but they sell anyway. I was amazed at what the place next door to me went for, and the house has been knocked down and to be replaced with a new house. There was a premium based on the number of bedrooms and bathrooms that the old house had, but it's been leveled.
Many years ago, when I was living and working in Perth, I was seconded to a project in Sydney so sent three months over there (with fortnightly trips back to Perth). Was living in an apartment in Potts Point, shopped at Kings Cross and worked in the CBD. I didn't actually mind the rat race (by population size, Sydney CBD was the direct opposite extreme of Perth CBD). I went to a gym at Surry Hills and even jogged out to the botanical gardens and back. Then again accommodation was paid for. I didn't have or need a car while there, although I hired a car once to visit Lithgow to see the small arms factory of course.
I also went to New York once for a holiday and quite liked it. The ability for a large population to ignore each other, but follow the basic rules of respect and conduct, certainly helped. I was a tourist though, so actually living there bring different feelings and perceptions.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
I miss zero speed bumps, no seat belts, no fences on backyards pools, no dogs leashed, no eperbs on boats, no gun laws, no swimming restrictions, no camping permits, no bike helmets, no gunsafes( never had anything stolen) only 2 TV channels, most yards with no fences, beers at lunch time then back to work, kids hanging about in groups of 6-20 after school playing cricket, tag or just cruising around to each others place. I miss when bad behaviour, lack of fortitude or poor judgement wasnt blamed on learned helplessness, OCD, PTSD, PMS, ADHD and all the other alphabet spaghetti nonsense. Explaining this to kids these days youi'd think the 70's and 80's must have been a warzone of uncaring pyscopaths, dogs attacking kids while dad crashed drunk into next doors unfenced pool in the middle of stolen firearm gunfights lol. But it wasnt. It was a quieter, easier and politer life than now.
On that note I miss how in a workplace you could set your watch by the way people acted, in that it rarely changed. Occasionally some guy might have a death in the family or divorce and seem a'' bit off'' for bit. Contrast this to a modern workplace where the mood//snakiness/verbal abuse cycle up and down several times in a bloody day. Everyone acting normal at 12pm... then everyone acting like angry dicks by 2pm. Actually can someone even explain what that phenomenon is??? It started in about 2002, I even remember the year and thinking wtf everyone is acting crazy, is the government putting something in the water lol. Still wondering now.
I miss zero speed bumps, no seat belts, no fences on backyards pools, no dogs leashed, no eperbs on boats, no gun laws, no swimming restrictions, no camping permits, no bike helmets, no gunsafes( never had anything stolen) only 2 TV channels, most yards with no fences, beers at lunch time then back to work, kids hanging about in groups of 6-20 after school playing cricket, tag or just cruising around to each others place. I miss when bad behaviour, lack of fortitude or poor judgement wasnt blamed on learned helplessness, OCD, PTSD, PMS, ADHD and all the other alphabet spaghetti nonsense. Explaining this to kids these days youi'd think the 70's and 80's must have been a warzone of uncaring pyscopaths, dogs attacking kids while dad crashed drunk into next doors unfenced pool in the middle of stolen firearm gunfights lol. But it wasnt. It was a quieter, easier and politer life than now.
On that note I miss how in a workplace you could set your watch by the way people acted, in that it rarely changed. Occasionally some guy might have a death in the family or divorce and seem a'' bit off'' for bit. Contrast this to a modern workplace where the mood//snakiness/verbal abuse cycle up and down several times in a bloody day. Everyone acting normal at 12pm... then everyone acting like angry dicks by 2pm. Actually can someone even explain what that phenomenon is??? It started in about 2002, I even remember the year and thinking wtf everyone is acting crazy, is the government putting something in the water lol. Still wondering now.
That's what I'm talking about. Couldn't have said it better.
