On Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
Actually you want the population to remain about the same so that there are young people to take care of you when you are old. The Chinese one child policy is putting the future of old people at risk, as would the Australian birth rate if we didn't have immigration. I've already provided this data, you really should read previous messages before replying.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_population esp. ยง Ageing, well-being and social policy Unfortunately the ANU reference is broken.
While I don't disagree with you, Russell, I suspect your statement above is overly simplistic.
ISTR many years ago hearing David Suzuki say that we already had thrice the sustainable number of humans, but a quick fact check on WP only turns up these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_sustainable_yield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Population_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
There is definitely room to grow here. My family pays ca. $600 on electricity per year, plus similar prize on gas. I am renting a house, and it is not very efficient. A colleague showed me her bill recently: $1500 electricity per quarter, spring, summer, autumn, winter. Interestingly, cutting costs (and your foot print) can lead to better quality of life. E.g. the programed panel heaters give me a nice warmth when I arrive, and they don't blow air around, there is no noise.. Regards Peter