AHC: Uber Australia

Really?! Spend some time in Melbourne traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Really?! Spend some time in New York traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Really?! Spend some time in Moscow traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Really?! Spend some time in Vancouver traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Really?! Spend some time in Rio traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Really?! Spend some time in Cape Town traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Really?! Spend some time in Minsk traffic and tell me we can't afford to lose a few people!!!

Just LOL. I mean yes there can be congestion but ...

If someone is concerned about over population why they do not start with them selfs ? :D
 
Does space equal carrying capacity? Does cramming more people in and dropping the level of wealth, education, infrastructure etc make Australia 'Uber'?
 
Last edited:
Kick
Does space equal carrying capacity? Does cramming more people in and dropping the level of wealth, education, infrastructure etc make Australia 'Uber'?

It does not. But Idea that "cramming more people" does reduce wealth is absurd Honk Kong does even Import water and they have nice incomes. By your logic Africa should be wealthy and Singapur poor. Yet it is quit opposite. Institutions meters, culture to (to same extant even genetics).

Rhodesia was food exporter now Zimbabwe has famine. East Germany was wealthier part of Germany. For example Detroit is nice example with white flight.
What is even more right wing observation is that Vermont has more regulated economy that Michigan and standart theory is that Michigan should be wealthier but then you look on Ethnic composition of Detroit.
See:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605001078
 
Hong Kong and Singapore are rich and Singapore has a hefty military but neither are what I would consider powerful. If Australia is to be uber then it needs a strong balanced and resilient economy. Jamming more people in up to and beyond carrying capacity will reduce several lucrative revenue streams such as energy and food exports and make the economy more vulnerable to shocks like drought and fire.
 
A cursory search on google could easily provide you with a basic understanding of what Australia's carrying capacity actually is, much more useful than just reiterating the phrase.

If the entire South Pacific is included in 'Australia', with the population of the continent being at roughly the number of people that it currently feeds, then a population of 80-100 million is fairly doable*, in particular if New Zealand is also populated to the extent that it currently feeds people. Going beyond this number probably would require some increasingly different and new farming practices, a real possibility but hard to calculate without any real reference point. What this would translate to in terms of hard and soft power would of course be variable, given current disparities in these departments between countries such as France or Germany; how powerful Australia would be would depend on exactly what policies it followed and what it was trying to achieve internationally. At the very least though it would be a 'latent' great power on the lower end of the scale similar to Germany, and potentially much stronger.

*The real question is not whether these people could be fed or watered, or whether they would have good jobs, but where they would come from. There's a number of ways to do that but most would require a POD in the 19th century.
 
If jamming people in equalled national power then China and India would be the most powerful countries in the world, Indonesia and Thailand would be more powerful than Australia and the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War.

Greater population is needed for more power, which is why I suggested in my first post that the post WW2 immigration programme be started post WW1, which would fatten the population curve 25 or more years sooner. But if the goal is increased power then this increased population must be coupled with increased nation building to keep standards high because this is what the 20th century has shown the path to power to be.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It does not. But Idea that "cramming more people" does reduce wealth is absurd Honk Kong does even Import water and they have nice incomes. By your logic Africa should be wealthy and Singapur poor. Yet it is quit opposite. Institutions meters, culture to (to same extant even genetics).

Rhodesia was food exporter now Zimbabwe has famine. East Germany was wealthier part of Germany. For example Detroit is nice example with white flight.
What is even more right wing observation is that Vermont has more regulated economy that Michigan and standart theory is that Michigan should be wealthier but then you look on Ethnic composition of Detroit.
See:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605001078
Is it already time for your annual trolling/racist post? You are strongly advised to make this your last, especially involving racist ideas like these.

Kicked for a week.
 
Top