Limit Australian families to two kids, says **** Smith

[nat965]

EVERY Australian family should be limited to just two children to curb the population explosion, millionaire **** Smith said yesterday.
He called for a China-like quota on the number of kids, warning the growing burden on our resources was like "a plague of locusts".
Likening high-rise apartments to chicken coops, the former Australian of the Year thanked property developers at an Urban Taskforce population debate for "not lynching" him after he attacked their drive for profits and called for an end to growth addiction.
"It's either going to be forced on us or we are going to plan," Mr Smith said. "I would like to see Australia stabilise at 24 to 25 million.
"I don't see it by force. I see it by saying to parents, 'It's best to have two kids'. I see us having an immigration intake of 70,000 per year."

He said unaffordable land prices had left generations of children stuck in apartments. "We descended from hunter gatherers - not from termites. We are putting our kids into high-rise because we are running out of land.

"We pay $50 million a year for free-range eggs for our bloody chooks to be free range - what about our kids?"

He said population growth had to slow to allow housing to become affordable again.

Mr Smith also called for an end to "stealing resources" from future generations.

"We have to decide - are we like locusts that breed to huge numbers and then die off? Or are we like the majority of other magnificent natural creatures in this country which have lived in balance for millions of years?" he said.

Mr Smith said the economic system was built on "perpetual exponential growth".

"We are addicted to growth. It's like the religion of capitalism but it is a false god," he said

MacroPlan economist Brian Haratsis called Mr Smith alarmist and accused him of using scare tactics.

He said the population debate in Australia had been stolen by "anti-growth people with a Green sentiment".

"We could triple the population of Australia and we wouldn't use much land. Fly from Sydney to Perth and what do you see? Not much."

Taken from - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...1226031020658# (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/limit-australian-families-to-two-kids-says-****-smith/story-e6freuzr-1226031020658#)

[Conservative,]

I agree with this tbh. I think limiting the amount of children had to 1 or 2 is a good idea and it keeps the population down. Sadly, I don't think it will work in a democracy.

[dbgtz]

Not one child, I hate the thought of being an only child. Personally, I think it should be 3.

[Conservative,]

Not one child, I hate the thought of being an only child. Personally, I think it should be 3.

The whole point is to restrict population growth - aka only replacing yourself and your partner. 3 goes over that and thus the population would still grow.

The maximum I'd put it at is 2. Then you replace yourself and your partner, and no more. Then the population won't grow.

[Josh]

The whole point is to restrict population growth - aka only replacing yourself and your partner. 3 goes over that and thus the population would still grow.

The maximum I'd put it at is 2. Then you replace yourself and your partner, and no more. Then the population won't grow.

No growth? Really.. lol.

I think we should have a limit on the amount of children, possibly at three or four. House prices are already ******* high and to be honest, I don't want my children to pay those prices, let alone the ones in 25 or so years.

---------- Post added 01-04-2011 at 07:02 PM ----------


The whole point is to restrict population growth - aka only replacing yourself and your partner. 3 goes over that and thus the population would still grow.

The maximum I'd put it at is 2. Then you replace yourself and your partner, and no more. Then the population won't grow.

No growth? Really.. lol.

I think we should have a limit on the amount of children, possibly at three or four. House prices are already ******* high and to be honest, I don't want my children to pay those prices, let alone the ones in 25 or so years.

[Conservative,]

No growth? Really.. lol.

I think we should have a limit on the amount of children, possibly at three or four. House prices are already ******* high and to be honest, I don't want my children to pay those prices, let alone the ones in 25 or so years.

---------- Post added 01-04-2011 at 07:02 PM ----------



No growth? Really.. lol.

I think we should have a limit on the amount of children, possibly at three or four. House prices are already ******* high and to be honest, I don't want my children to pay those prices, let alone the ones in 25 or so years.

We don't want and don't NEED a bigger population. You just basically said the argument FOR 1 or 2 child policy. 1 child means in a generation the population will halve. 2 children means it will stay roughly the same. However 3/4 means it will grow. And house prices, food prices etc. are already going up, so what if everyone has 3/4 children? There'd be more demand for the same, or less, amount of stuff which will then force the prices higher.

[Catzsy]

We don't want and don't NEED a bigger population. You just basically said the argument FOR 1 or 2 child policy. 1 child means in a generation the population will halve. 2 children means it will stay roughly the same. However 3/4 means it will grow. And house prices, food prices etc. are already going up, so what if everyone has 3/4 children? There'd be more demand for the same, or less, amount of stuff which will then force the prices higher.

I thoght you were an advocate of freedom of speech, less regulation etc. This is an appalling idea.

[Josh]

We don't want and don't NEED a bigger population. You just basically said the argument FOR 1 or 2 child policy. 1 child means in a generation the population will halve. 2 children means it will stay roughly the same. However 3/4 means it will grow. And house prices, food prices etc. are already going up, so what if everyone has 3/4 children? There'd be more demand for the same, or less, amount of stuff which will then force the prices higher.

Just because people are restricted to 3/4 children, it doesn't mean they will. i don't like people when they have 6/7 kids, but there is nothing wrong with 3/4.

The average number of children per Australian family is something like 2 anyway. It sounds like you're assuming everyone will have 2 kids. Some people don't have any and some have 7+. If there was to be a change, I'd say to 3/4 as it gives to-be parents a bit of freedom.

Also, who is "we"? We may not need population growth, but it is a good thing if it is sustainable and more jobs are created along with them.

[HotelUser]

In many MDCs I think a two or three child per household limitation would be a good idea - although I don't see that being implemented in a democratic nation.

I wish we could impose such restriction on certain LLDCs too. I don't understand why some people there choose to have five kids knowing they're all going to have a miserable life in poverty and die at a young age.

[Hecktix]

On average, families have less children now than they did 50 years ago. Most of my family in the generation above me have four or five siblings, nowadays the average family size is 5 (3 children 2 parents). It really isn't a problem and people should not be told how many children they can have, it's up to them. With average figures down on what it was 50 (or even 30) years ago it really is not a problem.

[GommeInc]

Ummm, April Fools? :P

I don't get the reasoning for why it should work and how other countries and creatures have worked for years. Lions do not rely on the property market and land isn't an issue for most creatures :S 2 children is a bit daft too, would this not lead to a dramatic decrease of the population? Having 2 children suggests that these children will make it into adulthood and then to death by old age, when anything could happen to these children. How can they regulate it anyway? Surely allowing such a law would begin to make their democracy questionable, if they are looking at China for inspiration?


On average, families have less children now than they did 50 years ago. Most of my family in the generation above me have four or five siblings, nowadays the average family size is 5 (3 children 2 parents). It really isn't a problem and people should not be told how many children they can have, it's up to them. With average figures down on what it was 50 (or even 30) years ago it really is not a problem.
Indeed, the major concern (if anything) is the aging population where the generation for having lots of children existed. Later generations like our parents generation and our generation have fewer children being born into it. The only problem is that Austrailia has become so popular in recent years that many UK citizens have moved there as with other immigrants, thus boosting the number of the population.

[Josh]

Ummm, April Fools? :P

He said it on 31st of March. :p

[GommeInc]

He said it on 31st of March. :p
Well he's very bad at April Fools, everyone knows it's unlucky (or plain stupid) to post them before the 1st and after 12pm on the 1st :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

In many MDCs I think a two or three child per household limitation would be a good idea - although I don't see that being implemented in a democratic nation.

I wish we could impose such restriction on certain LLDCs too. I don't understand why some people there choose to have five kids knowing they're all going to have a miserable life in poverty and die at a young age.

The best way to stop population growth in the LEDC's is for them to develop faster, its well known demographics that the more wealthy and well off a nation is, the slower the population rate will growth (sometimes even decline as with Japan and Germany). Of course this flys in the face of the AGW lobby who wish to deindustrialise both the west and limit the growth of the east - which would mean the east using more fuel for a bigger population.

To all those who want to put draconian, almost 1984 limits on whether I am allowed x number of children I must ask - so does that mean you are advocating a total and blanket ban on immigration, so no immigration under any circumstances ever? Am I right?

If not, then there is a gaping hole in this argument.

[Inseriousity.]

The problem with this approach is that in 50 years time, if you force people to only have 1-2 children, when those people grow older, there isn't enough of a younger population to pay their pensions!

I think attitude change is probably better than forced quotas tbh. :)

[GommeInc]

The best way to stop population growth in the LEDC's is for them to develop faster, its well known demographics that the more wealthy and well off a nation is, the slower the population rate will growth (sometimes even decline as with Japan and Germany).
Italy too :P Infact, at the current rate Italy's population will probably be gone in the next couple of hundred years, they're in a steep decline :P

[Hayleigh]

We don't want and don't NEED a bigger population. You just basically said the argument FOR 1 or 2 child policy. 1 child means in a generation the population will halve. 2 children means it will stay roughly the same. However 3/4 means it will grow. And house prices, food prices etc. are already going up, so what if everyone has 3/4 children? There'd be more demand for the same, or less, amount of stuff which will then force the prices higher.
Not everyone has children so 3 wouldn't increase it by much...

[ifuseekamy]

Australia? Running out of land? From what I know there's a few million people living down the seaside. In other news Britain has twice as many people as the USA's most populated state and is over half the size.

[Ajthedragon]

I agree, I have always said I will have no more than 2 children. Although I'd make the law three, given some couples only have one child or none at all.

I don't agree with large families because it puts pressure on world resources and will cause soaring demand for food, etc.

[flipflop!!]

It should be 3. 2 is a little low.