With 2236 people arriving every week in Victoria - 1800 of those moving to Melbourne
Why buy east when you can Mumbai west? 11/9 The Age there is scant recognition of the amount of infrastructure needed to support these numbers.
Point Cook is called "Mumbai Cook". According to the article: one of Melbourne's newest suburbs tells an old migration story that echoes the history of places like Carlton's Little Italy - Lygon Street - or Richmond's mini Saigon - Victoria Street.
Comparing Melbourne's multicultural imprints of Victoria Street and Lygon street and Richmond simplify and hide the real issues here. It is the reluctance of our political leaders to acknowledge the world's global threats, and the impact of on-going and limitless population growth on an already stretched Australia's resources. Our wide and open spaces are being turned into housing estates!
What was stimulating in the past, and helped us create an economy of scale, is now toppling our population over the point no return, and human numbers will keep increasing.
Delhi and Mumbai rank among the world's top most populated cities. Mumbai, with a population of 20.4 million, occupies fourth place behind Sao Paulo in Brazil.
Undoubtedly, like in Australia, urban sprawl will keep continuing and real estate prices keep increasing. Property in Mumbai is already some of the most expensive in the world, and no doubt there are some great positives about the city, and some have become wealthy!
Everybody is searching for good jobs in Mumbai for earning money that can helps them to survive their life. But many of the people are unable to get the job even if they are talented and meritorious. Currently Mumbai stands communally far more polarised in terms of population distribution than ever before, and this is one of the primary reasons for the presence of crime in the society. The burgeoning crime rates to the fact that more and more unemployment has been created after the shutting down of the textile mills in and around the city. In India, religious and caste divisions generally coincide with economic divides, and these give rise to an amplified form of social division.
The city's crime graph, like its burgeoning population, is also rapidly rising: over the last decade the city has witnessed a 52% rise in crime.
Sankar Chatterjee, curator of paleontology at the Museum of Texas Tech University says that a meteorite more than 25 miles wide hurtling toward Earth at 36,000 miles per hour and caused massive destruction. In fact, the exact scenario played out 65 million years ago near present-day Mumbai, India, and could be the smoking gun that ended the dinosaurs’ reign on Earth.
The sixth extinction can't be blamed on meteorites but to human overpopulation!
Bringing Mumbai to Victoria's west is about importing this global threat to Australia. Despite the converging threats of climate change, peak oil, peak soil, extinctions, rising costs of water, power and infrastructure needed to maintain our lifestyles, growth continues!
Urban sprawl means additional infrastructure are needed for power, water, increased transport and health costs, not to mention the increase in greenhouse gas emissions!
The Australian Conservation Foundation has called for clear goals to stabilise our population, saying that a rising population will make it much harder to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, restore our rivers, biodiversity and soils to health and ensure a good quality of life for everyone.
Infrastructure spending will always be inadequate in keeping up with such high growth.
However, the tremendous financial and political power of the growth-lobby is far greater than the threat of anthropogenic climate change, or any global or local environmental or sustainability concerns.
Comments
Matilda (not verified)
Mon, 2010-09-13 12:24
Permalink
Our leaders are in the past
Milly
Mon, 2010-09-13 17:43
Permalink
Victoria Naturally Alliance report
John Marlowe
Thu, 2010-09-16 23:31
Permalink
Politically correct invasion = mass-immigration / deculturation
Where in Australian/Victorian law can be found traditional Melbournians authorising immigration free-for-all such as being allowed to take over by Brumby?
If Brumby was indeed a 'Kumar' from India, I suggest the local reaction would approximate that of Fiji's Frank Bainimarama, who saw the Indian invasion of his country and did something to stop it - overthrew the government!
Hale Frank! Frank and Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka before him (1987), each recognised the demise of ethnic Fijians being overrun by Indian Fijians in Fiji.
As Brumby's economic immigrants take local jobs, houses, rentals, offer job preferences to their nationals in employment, change shop names from English to Hindi, traditional Australians are sidelined, marginalised and any complaint quickly labeled 'racist'. What chance do locals have when government sides with the invaders? This is 21st century Vikingism, even including the slavery - Indian immigrants have been found guilty in Australia of slavery!
Australia's Celtic virtues are being bulldozed by Brumby and LibLab political correctness, allowing skilled immigrants first choice over local Aussies - jobs, housing, childcare, loans, you name it.
Under Brumby, immigrants have more rights than locally born Australians!
Eugene (not verified)
Mon, 2010-10-04 11:26
Permalink
Simply shutting our borders won't stop overpopulation
nimby
Mon, 2010-10-04 14:01
Permalink
Globalisation increases overpopulation
Eugene (not verified)
Wed, 2010-10-06 16:05
Permalink
Nationalism, are you serious?
Bandicoot
Thu, 2010-10-07 14:42
Permalink
Running on empty: the end of oil as we know it
James Sinnamon
Thu, 2010-10-07 22:34
Permalink
What credible Government could not be labelled 'nationalist'?
Opposition to high immigration is equated by Eugene with 'nationalism', as if to label anything as 'nationalistic' automatically discredits it. This is often a tactic of the left.
From such logic, it would follow that were ordinary Australians to achieve the control over their standard of living and quality of life (which they now don't have) a terrible risk would arise. It is as if Eugene were suggesting that, in the longer term, there would be similar consequences to infamous variants of 'nationalism' when millions died, such as in German Nazism, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Rwandan genocide of the 1990's, and the First World War.
It would be interesting if Eugene could provide us with a single example of a credible government at any time in history that could not have been accused of being tainted with the supposedly evil trait of nationalism. Contrary to mainstream leftist mythology, which holds early communist examples as pure and genuine, even the early Bolshevik government from 1917 until 1923 implemented programs based on narrow nationalism on more than one occasion.
The first example was the Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918 in which the Bolshevik Government ceded vast quantities of territory formerly controlled by Tsarist Russia to Germany. The territory included almost all of the Ukraine and the three Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Because the leaders of the Bolshevik Party of Russia and of the Tsar's former Asian colonies allowed the Germans to brutalise the people of these countries, the Germans signed a peace deal with the Bolsheviks, thus permitting them to go on ruling. The Germans were thus able to avoid fighting a war against their former Russian enemies in the East. This freed them to almost win their war in the West against Britain, the British Commonwealth, France and the United States in its military offensive in 1918.
A second example was when the Red Army entered Polish Territory in 1920. Then too, the Soviet Union appealed to Russian nationalism. It even sought, and obtained, the help of the Russian Orthodox Church. Politically this led to the counter-ignition of Polish nationalism and the military defeat of the invading Russian Red Army by the Polish Armies led by right-wing Marshall Pilsudski.
So, if the early Russian 'Communist' government could not be held to be untainted by nationalism, who could be?
At least nationalism is one means by which a community can assert its own rights, as long as the leaders of that nation are committed to the welfare of all members of that community and not just to a wealthy elite. Without nationalism, the rights of the poorest of the national community are sold out to wealthy foreigners as they were in Vichy France, Holland, and Norway after 1940 or in Japanese-occupied Korea. How much better have recent 'non-nationalist' Australian governments been, where they have allowed land and strategic assets to be sold off to powerful foreign investors? By the way, a new sell-out looms now in the contemplation of a Chinese [nationalistic] government built new power station in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. How different were the actions of those puppet regimes from past history?
Geoffrey Taylor
Fri, 2010-10-08 11:41
Permalink
Isaac Deutscher confirms pure Marxist Internationalism a myth
James Sinnamon
Mon, 2010-10-04 16:14
Permalink
Why are high-immigration proponents silent on housing poverty?
Eugene (not verified)
Tue, 2010-10-05 12:13
Permalink
High population density does not reduce birth rates
James Sinnamon
Fri, 2010-10-08 17:47
Permalink
YouTube of How Immigration Can't Solve Third World Poverty
This YouTube Broadcast, "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010" graphically illustrates #comment-5538">my point that immigration, unless at a rate vastly higher than even its strongest proponents are prepared to publicly argue for, will do nothing for 99.9% of the Third World's impoverished. Although high immigration cannot hope to help the poor of these countries, it will almost certainly impoverish the poorest in countries like the Australia and the US and cause incalculable environmental harm.
As Roy Beck says, the only way we can hope to help all, or, indeed, even a substantial proportion of the world's poor is to help them where they live.
Tim Murray (not verified)
Sun, 2010-10-10 04:09
Permalink
Nationalism good and bad
An excerpt from "The Culture of Xenophilia" at http://candobetter.org/node/369
In 1970 I signed and supported the notorious "Waffle Manifesto" which urged that the NDP---Canada's social democratic party---return to its socialist roots with a commitment to reclaim our economy and culture from the American Empire and reject further integration into the global economy. Trotskyists and right wing commentators made common cause by accusing us of "nationalism", which to their minds conjured up sordid images of death camps and wars of aggression. Leading socialist economist and expatriate American Mel Watkins --a key force behind the Manifesto--- retorted with a famous response that became our rallying cry: "The road of Canadian nationalism does not lead to Auschwitz. It only leads away from Washington." Amen.
Tim Murray (not verified)
Sun, 2010-10-10 04:55
Permalink
Open borders provoke global overpopulation
Add comment