All Australian mainstream media outlets push the idea that we must have rapid population growth in Australia and that this must be sourced by increasing rates of immigration. Whilst the mass media never shuts up about this, they are very repressive about any contrary opinion, although people are really angry about the increasingly obvious costs in all this, and they seek ways to express themselves.
This is a neat summary of what informed sources tell us about Russia's aims are and its conduct to date in the Ukraine conflict.
Definitions of Dictatorship:
Definitions of Poverty:
If population growth is the primary driver of the social, environmental and economic outcomes of a country, including extreme GDP growth, then "absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control" over the rate of population growth is the act of a dictator.
This is analogous to a tin pot dictator whose regime rapes and pillages, depositing the proceeds in a Swiss bank account while the population of the country live in poverty in a degraded environment. In this analogy the Swiss bank account is the accumulated assets of the super-rich, the degraded environment is there for all to see, and the poverty is not just measured in dollar terms. In this context the government orchestrates rape of the environment and the people because its operatives choose to believe the assumptions fed to them by Economists - who call everything they cannot understand irrelevant "externalities".
Whilst most politicians may not be direct recipients of the booty (apart from paid employment and defined benefit pensions); they are responsible.
Isn't it bizarre that a tin pot dictatorship like Australia is run based on a simple, numerical measurement called GDP Growth, whose real consequences neither economists nor politicians seek to understand? Naturally the super rich might encourage government to achieve a threshold value of GDP value each year. But so-called eminent economists have no right to claim strategic advisory authority over something they admit is riddled with assumptions that they do not understand!
In fact; growth in GDP appears to be directly correlated with growth in most measurable forms of poverty.
All the major political parties have stated policies supporting Australia's extreme rates of population growth - which is the primary driver of GDP growth. Consecutive Prime Ministers of Australia have been, and continue to be, the dictators of population growth; by stealth, without consensus; and at their absolute discretion.
"The Australian Press Council agreed on the following Charter in 2003 and encouraged other organisations (including the ABC) to adopt it.
Freedom of opinion and expression is an inalienable right of a free people. Australia is committed to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the Declaration provides: "Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
In a truly democratic society open debate, discussion, criticism and dissent are central to the process of generating informed and considered choices. These processes are crucial to the formation of values and priorities and help in assessing and finding solutions to social, economic and political problems.
A free press is a symbol of a free people. The people of Australia have a right to freedom of information and access to differing opinions and declare that the following principles are basic to an unfettered flow of news and views both within Australia and across the nation's borders.........."
(Refer to http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3613 for proof of the ABC's undemocratic failure in this area.)
Australia is an Extreme Pro-Growth Dictatorship where the rate of GDP growth is not merely "assisted" by legitimate tweaking of interest rates or legitimate adjustment of policy settings. In Australia, GDP growth is deemed, by successive autocratic regimes, to be an end in itself that can be achieved by ongoing dispossession of the people of Australia; in exactly the same way that the dispossession of the Aborigines commenced in 1788.
“ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state ”
Noam Chomsky
Isn't it time for Australia to recognise that this longstanding process is undemocratic - and take the necessary steps?
Citizens in Australia’s major cities are becoming increasingly unhappy about what they perceive as the escalating deterioration in their quality of life - traffic congestion, overloaded public transport, unaffordable housing for young people, increases in the costs of basic services and overcrowding. There is little doubt that recent election results and unfavourable opinion polls are partly an expression of this dissatisfaction. (Article first published on On-Line Opinion, where you may also currently make comments.)
First published as an Online opinion article by Tony Recsei - 23 August 2011
Citizens in Australia’s major cities are becoming increasingly unhappy about what they perceive as the escalating deterioration in their quality of life - traffic congestion, overloaded public transport, unaffordable housing for young people, increases in the costs of basic services and overcrowding. There is little doubt that recent election results and unfavourable opinion polls are partly an expression of this dissatisfaction.
‘Save Our Suburbs’ believe that these adverse trends are the result of high-density policies that have been imposed onto communities by state governments. Due to the misleading misinformation that has accompanied these policies, the public may not fully realise the connection between these policies on the one hand and deteriorating standard of living on the other. It is only when one sweeps the propaganda veil aside that one realises how shallow, trivial and sometimes downright deceptive the spin has been.
We should start out by making it clear that we have no issue with anyone that prefers living in a high-density area or with the free market construction of buildings to fulfill this preference. The issue we have is with the enforced imposition of high density housing upon the bulk of Australians that don’t want it.
The premise behind this government totalitarianism is that high-density living is better for the environment. They say that people will use their cars less and that greenhouse gas emissions will be greatly reduced. While these two propositions sound very much like commonsense the unfortunate fact is that the data does not bear them out. An idealised Melbourne study currently being quoted assumes that people, no matter where they live, will drive to the central business district daily. This is a completely unrealistic assumption. Only 9.9 per cent of employment in Melbourne is in the CBD. The majority of destinations for most people in the suburbs lie close to where they live and they do not in fact make daily trips to the CBD.
To get a better understanding we should look at the Australian Conservation Association’s Consumption Atlas, which shows greenhouse pollution per person in each postal code. The underlying research shows that the actual travel energy used by dwellers in inner Sydney suburbs is more than those in the outer suburbs, even when air travel is excluded.
When domestic energy is added to travel energy, the energy total for people in the inner suburbs is 22 per cent more than those living in the outer suburbs. This is because of energy needed in high-rise buildings for communal lifts, scores of individual clothes driers and ever-present security lighting in foyers and garage spaces.
While we do concede that private transport generates somewhat higher greenhouse gas emissions than public transport, the difference is not nearly as much as people think. Greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre on Sydney City Rail are 105 gm. The figure for the average car is 155 gm. It is much less for modern hybrid vehicles, being a mere 70 gm.
Furthermore, a study of Melbourne areas shows that the people squeezed into newly converted dense areas did not use public transport to any greater extent and there was little or no change in their percentage of car use compared to living in the previous low-density.
In fact, traffic congestion increases whenever high-density policies are imposed wherever you are in the world. Any slight increase that may occur in the proportion of people using public transport is overwhelmed by the greater number of people squeezed into that area. The resulting congestion causes higher fuel consumption and dangerous exhaust emissions. The authorities fail to admit that many people still require their cars for getting to the many workplaces, sporting facilities, and relatives and friends homes not easily reached by public transport and for transporting items that are impractical or illegal aboard public transport such as weekend recreation equipment and the family pet.
High density advocates claim that high-density saves money. This is palpable nonsense. We are all acutely aware that high-density policies have resulted in a dramatic rise in the price of housing, due to the government enforced infill policy causing land scarcity, thereby locking out an entire generation of young people from the housing market. We are also conscious of substantial rises in the cost of services such as electricity, water and sewerage due to the incredibly inefficient modifications required to increase capacity in areas originally designed for lower densities.
A tragic and often overlooked failure of high-density policies is the adverse effect on human health, especially mental health. There is a considerable body of peer-reviewed research proving the link between density and ill health. An article published on 23 June 2011 by eleven authors in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, states that the incidence of schizophrenia in city dwellers is double that of people living in less crowded conditions. This article has received worldwide media attention. In view of the serious mental health situation existing in our society, those forcing high-density onto communities that do not want it, should hang their heads in shame.
We reiterate that we have no issue with those of us that preferliving in a high-density area or with the free market construction of buildings to fulfill that limited demand. What we object to, is having draconian high density policies based on demonstrably faulty premises forced upon the 83 per cent of people that Australian research shows prefer to live in a free-standing home.
This is especially so when the result is maddening traffic congestion, more greenhouse gases, a creaking and overloaded infrastructure, the young and disadvantaged unable to afford their own home and poorer health outcomes.
Dr Tony Recsei has a background in chemistry and is an environmental consultant. Since retiring he has taken an interest in community affairs and is president of the Save Our Suburbs community group which opposes over-development forced onto communities by the New South Wales State Government. You can find the Youtube site here; and the blog here.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12504
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Recent comments