Talks of two child policy for Australia

Originally posted by Maslo
Besides, who would even want to invade Australia lol?

Seriously? Look north and west and you have at least two nations that need more land. China and India both have huge populations that need space......

all of mankind needs to adopt this policy. we live in an age with health care and education, people are not dieing at 25 on a regular bases, unlike 100 years ago when having 6 kids to see which survive was necessary. we as a species have claimed too much of this planet and its causing discomfort (war and famine) . by being allowed 2 children you can have 1 boy 1 girl and have enough time to care for them and food to feed them. i do not believe in the saying "it takes a village to raise a child", that belief mostly raises gangbangers. to raise a child properly it takes a stable household, adequate necessities, and the time to start teaching them from day one, all of which are hindered by having too many children.

reply to post by littlecloud


Didn't they teach you at school that the government announced decades back -- based on their own and commissioned research -- that the maximum population which could realistically be sustained was 13 million ?

Sure, Australia's a massive land mass. It's also a barren landmass, with the vast majority of the population huddling on the eastern States' ocean edge

Are you keeping abreast of the Murray Darling situation ? Are you aware that five generations of rice-growers are tossing in the towel due to insufficient water supply ? You looking forward to eating foods grown in trenches in Southern Asia ? Better get used to the idea

Where to the migrants congregate ? That's right -- in major city ghettos. Do you see them heading out into that massive Aussie landmass to establish farms, towns or industry ? No. They're not crazy. They're not interested in busting their guts trying to grow crops in sand and gravel and salt pans

How many head of cattle per square mile provide a return for station owners ? Is it one -- or two ? And why is that ? Is it because there's an abundance of grazing fodder out in that massive Aussie landscape ? No, it's because nothing grows out there. It's because you can kick up fossillised shells and marine-life out there, just by walking along the ground. It's because it's parched and virtually sterile land where people dig homes into the bare ground to escape the heat (Lightning Ridge, Coober Pedy)

Have you been to the Outback ? Seen the ghost towns ? Seen the grave-yards baking in the sun -- the graves of British migrants of the 19th and 20th centuries who tried to farm and died in the effort through lack of water and lack of decent soil

You only have to travel a couple of hundred miles out of Brisbane, to regions around Kingaroy, to learn that the only things the soil will produce are onions, peanuts and shrubs. Migrants from Germany and Poland were given land to farm and again, they busted their guts trying. But lack of rain and poor soil defeated most of them. Most of those towns out there are dying on their feet - rail lines, schools etc. closed down, the last die-hards scattered after three or more generations of struggle

But go ahead, seeing you seem to know more about it than Dick Smith and Australian government researchers and genuine environmentalists. Pack Australia full of people -- fill that great big dry rock -- and watch them, like lemmings, rush to the sea, dying of hunger and thirst

reply to post by sonofliberty1776

Look north and west and you have at least two nations that need more land. China and India both have huge populations that need space......

Well, there is no habitable space in Australia, not even for new australians, thats kinda the point of the thread

OK, this is offtopic. it was more of a rhetorical question. Breeding more in constrained resources environment would not help against foreign invasion either way.

reply to post by littlecloud


Merry April Fool's Day?