Jump to content

How do we approach the future so our kids etc have a decent chance at life


Dax
 Share

Recommended Posts

Been chatting with a neighbour, who is really pissed off at the state of our nation and the direction it's being taken. Asked him what he would do to change things and he looked at me as though I was stupid and said, not my job to work things out, that's politicians job. When I said they are doing a terrible job and don't have a clue, all he could say was, then we are stuffed.

 

What do others think, what ideas does anyone have that would change our country into a progressive one that can provide generations to come with a decent future. I have some idea's which are probably way of planet for most, but we have to change our direction soon, or we won't be able to change and may just have to work out how to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could start by being honest in our dealings with others and looking after our best interests, rather than brown nosing the big world powers.

We could also start to take an interest in what our pollies are doing, rather than saying politics and religion are off the agenda in polite society.

How about getting rid of the stupid saying that if you cannot say something good about a person, don't say anything. That is what politicians rely on. Plus refusing to answer any question. If our media reporters chased politicians for an answer we may find out what is happening, but the pollies have the media worried. If they question too hard they are afraid they will be excluded  from the circus.

What we are really lacking is honesty and sensible thinking.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't my idea, but I like it - teach kids philosophy in Kindergarten.  They will then learn how to think critically.

 

(Of course, an LNP government would never do that, the last thing they want are voters who can think.)

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second your nomination for el president of the republic of Oz, OK.. BTW, if you want a country to test your theory, an Aussie protectorate has just come up for sale: https://eliteagent.com/micro-nation-hutt-river-hits-the-market-for-the-first-time-in-50-years/

 

(actually, it threw in the microcountry towel about a year ago).

 

In Finland, which reportedly has the best education system in the world and the happiest population (not sure how it is measured), the education system is totally different to western style education; The system is geared to the individual, there is no publishing of results or comparison tables, and importantly, becoming a teacher is a well paid and well respected profession (no, I am not a teacher). I was watching a documentary and it is as hard to get into teaching there as it is to get into medicine or dentistry in Aus (or the UK).. so you have to really want to be a teacher, not choose to because you can't get a job in your chosen sector (so many have when I was at school).

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could start by introducing a job application for politicians, including a public examination of their abilities, skills, qualifications, and policies they would follow - instead of the current setup where the position of running the country and making major decisions that affects everyones lives, doesn't require any job application, nor any presenting of skills and abilities - just joining a political party, knowing the "right people", and gathering enough political party supporters to be able to convince a small group of party power brokers, that you're the person for the job.

 

We could also start by banning political parties, and making every politician represent their voters that elected them.

As it now stands, a politician is elected today, and then makes decisions that are all based in favour of the political partys requirements and desires, which are usually at odds with the voters desires and aims.

 

Thirdly, politicians should be bound to a publically agreed, fixed planning agenda or programme, that is untouchable by political party alterations and diversions.

Every worthwhile business, company, or corporation in the world has a business or corporate plan mapped out for several years ahead. That plan is only changed when economic conditions dictate modifications to the plan.

Australia is the equivalent of a corporation, and it should have a fixed plan for the future as regards energy supplies, water supplies, public health spending, infrastructure spending, education spending, and the dozen other important expenditure areas that govern our daily lives.

Instead, we currently have a piecemeal planning agenda, operated in knee-jerk reaction fashion, laid out according to vote-buying and pork-barrelling ability, and subject to the whim of political party desires and aims.

Our political and governance system is seriously damaged and perverted, and needs a roots-and-all pruning.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk of investing in this and that, may be good, but the government is already doing that. They find a problem and make a lot of noise about fixing it. This always involves putting vast amounts of money into fixing the problem.

Somebody else also sees the problem and decides that the way to get rich is to be a problem fixer. That way they get the money the government is throwing around and sit back to enjoy it.

Just think back to child care scams. Old peoples homes. Home insulation and so on ad infinitum.

Now aged care is getting a boost, but for every dollar  from the government I reckon 80 cents will go to the aged care home owners as profit.

 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Step one:

 

Ban the party system.

 

Parties are counter to the concept of democracy.

 

Step two:

 

Ban political donations and donations/gratuities/gifts to individual politicians for ten years after they leave the job.

 

Step three:

 

Introduce a payment schedule linked to achievement of election promises. Penalties for non performance.

 

Step four:

 

Remove their golden handshake.

 

Step five:

 

Transparency. Allow public to hear information about any activities related to their jobs.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this, move all government online and have it fully open, except for major national security things. Introduce referendum style voting for every policy by the people in every portfolio. Strip all current and past politicians of all their assets to pay back all the money they've wasted given away and used for themselves.

 

Have elections where those wanting to represent the people, have one page of what they intend to do in the portfolio they want to take over and then elect the best person who has the experience and knowledge to put the peoples decisions into action. Sack anyone on the spot who fails in the job at any time, or lies or tries to deceive the public.

 

Throw out all the boards of government enterprises, sack all senior public servants and strip them of their assets. Nationalise all essential services and stop selling our resources until we have value added to them.

 

Sadly we need a political party that will get rid of political parties to be elected and those representing the people wishes should be paid no more than double the aged pension. It should be a privilege to work for your country, not a cash cow.

 

One of the best things to do which would make a huge difference to the rural economy is to raise the aged pension to the minimum wage. These are the people who want to travel round Aus in their retirement and will spend the money in country towns round the country. So the money we give them, will go round and round lifting many country areas out of the terrible situation they are now in and it will open up opportunities for small business to develop round the county and that means, people moving from cities to the country. Instead of the other way round as it is now.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 3 things to be won before you can even think of a future for the kids: climate change, resource depletion and overpopulation. So far, there have been half-baked suggestions aimed at one or the other. But never all 3. Yet we need to win 3/3 to stand a chance to speak of a future for the kids. Sorry to be such a wet blanket.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Truth is not a being a wet blanket, the only way to tackle climate change is to force stop the use of fossil fuels and land clearing and stop th4e export of natural resources and recycle everything, stop importing junk and make it mandatory that all goods much have long lives and be able to be updated.

 

Overpopulation, is easy, stop all immigration and change the education system so that kids are taught how to live life properly, then at 16 put them into 4 years of work experience throughout every government department, health and defence. This will give them experience in just about every aspect of working life, once they've done their 4 years, they can choose their career and continue education or get into work.

 

Naturally we will need to create new jobs and let automation take on lots of other jobs, but things like restoring the environment would give them physical work and experience for the future as would. Having an informed and experienced youth would reduce youth crime and give us responsibly adults that have real experience in life.

 

But most importantly of all, we must prepare for the dramatic effects off climate change now so we can cope as the future unfolds.

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's looming problem which nothing is being done about and they recorded temperatures in the antarctic of 18deg, which would only increase ice sheet and glacier collapse rising seas faster. There's probably many other things happening we don't see that are going to make life probably unbearable pretty quickly.

 

"NASA warns the layer in the atmosphere that protects us from the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation is cooling and shrinking due to human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The mesosphere, located 30 to 50 miles above the surface, is cooling four to five degrees Fahrenheit and contracting up to 500 feet at the poles per decade - and these rates are expected to continue."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9747065/Layer-Earths-atmosphere-protects-UV-radiation-SHRINKING-climate-change.html

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How  to reduce the worlds population & stop the Cow gas production.

EAT: SOYLENT GREEN,

High protain food made from Bovine & children meat !.

No children for the future, means resources won't be needed.

China tried that child reduction policy, & it has problems, For the future. 

( uneven population   ) !.

Homosexuality does not produce more humans than the two parents of zero.

World war three, " the nuclear blast  " , 

Would the last person alive  " please turn off the light ".

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't fret Spacey.

The next pandemic (or asteroid) might solve the problem for us.

 

I think Sars-covid-2 was just a trial run. So far it's proved that personal greed and selfishness of the human race will over rule any concern for the common good. So, it follows that the next pandemic only has to be slightly more effective at causing death or sterility, and it'll quickly solve the human plague problem.

 

  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of population growth is a complex one,   

 

The growth rate of the population (world) has halved since the 60s.  It was 2% in the early 70s and has fallen consistently every year since then and in 2020 was 1,05%.  I think people often assume that the rate of growth is increasing but it is actually decreasing.  If present trends were to continue we would stabilize around 10.8 billion around 2050.    

 

Reducing (naturally) the population is a slow process.   In my case I am part of a baby boom in the early 60s, we don't just disappear but the wave moves along gradually towards death.   My fellow 60s babies will probably have long lives and require a lot from the younger members of society.

 

I totally agree that population is a huge problem.    It is though extremely complex though.  Should we not offer life extending care to older people?   This would be difficult, none of us want go sooner than we have to.   On the other end, you have to ask what happens to society if it has no or very few young people.   These are real problems that some countries already face (Japan I believe.)  

 

Last year my father died at the age of 92.   He required a lot of medical care in his last few years.  I consider that the taxes I paid were to some degree paying his aged pension and for his medical care.    If we only reduce the birth rate who pays to look after the elderly, who physically cares for the elderly?

 

Whilst population growth may seem to have simple solutions like most problems  it is complex.

 

For interesting facts and figures

 

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

 

Edited by octave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overpopulation is a more complex beast than Malthus could have imagined. Food production has mushroomed, but is frighteningly dependent on chemicals, fertilizers and diminishing irrigation water.

 

Birth rates tend to decline when women are exposed to education. Once a country of large families, Brazil’s birth rate has collapsed since girls began watching soap operas about career women.

Both China and Japan are concerned about the rapid aging of their societies, due to low birth rates. 

 

The other side of the equation is consumption per person. Now that most of the world’s people live in cities and aspire to the lifestyle enjoyed by those of us in wealthy countries, demand for food, water and other resources is skyrocketing, even as population growth slows. Sand for concrete and construction is now so scarce that organized crime has entered that industry.

 

The rate of extinction of wildlife, trees, etc. has accelerated to crisis levels. Most political systems cannot protect the natural world from this onslaught of human greed.

Perhaps this is one area where strong governments might have an edge; recently China seems to have done fairly well in protecting some of their rare species.

Meanwhile political cowardice means tree-clearing in NSW is going gangbusters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, octave said:

If present trends were to continue we would stabilize around 10.8 billion around 2050.    

Find that hard to believe, from 2000 to 2020, we went from 6 billion to almost 8 billion and even though t he birth rate has dropped, the population is still increasing rapidly. That prediction seems to me to be another delusionary attempt to deny the true reality we face, it matters not how quickly the birth rates drop, we have almost depleted the planets ability to sustain life and that is where the monstrous hidden problems lie.

 

China has dropped it's one child policy since 2000, in many parts of the planet they believe they more children you have the more chance of surviving and getting rich, but the facts are the opposite. To me this shows how deeply the human race is stuck within the fantasy world of delusional ideology, as religions still persist in demanding their followers have more children to build up their faction of the yahweh cult.

 

As nomadpete points out, the elephant in the room, is the next pandemic which will appear within the next couple of years and as we have seen this century, these viruses are getting more deadly every time. There are no reports of the long term effects people are suffering from after catching covid, making many people unable to live as they had with constant respiratory and circulation problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dax said:

Find that hard to believe, from 2000 to 2020, we went from 6 billion to almost 8 billion and even though t he birth rate has dropped, the population is still increasing rapidly

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

The problem is that perceptions can sometimes be skewed.    What is important is the facts and figures.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the birth rate which has halved since 1960s does not immediately show up.  The number of people on the planet is just not just a function of how many babies are born each year.  The other factor is life expectancy.  The increase in population really comes down to births Vs deaths.    If for example we found a miraculous cure for cancer this would allow people to live longer and thus feed into the population.  The difficult question is do we not look for cancer cures? Do we only attempt to cure cancer in young people?  These are tricky questions that have to be considered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless we Cure ' Old age ' that Old population Wil serccume to the inevitable !.

When that stage happens  there will be a leveling of the ages.

So the young will Not have to bring in the ' Logans run ' law.

The government's of old are the one,s to blame for the mass of child birth !.

.' Cannon Fodder ' .

Yes l,m a WAR BABY, so ordered by the british government.

spacesailor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, octave said:

If for example we found a miraculous cure for cancer this would allow people to live longer and thus feed into the population.

About 95% of cancers are lifestyle diseases, easily cured if found early enough by changing your diet and lifestyle. The rest are environmental and one or two hereditary, but those are found within people who continue to live and eat the same way their predecessors did. Cancer in the very young, is hereditary and when you look at the diet of the parents, you can see why. It's not very prominent at the moment, but there seems to be a real increase in people 40's and below who are dropping dead and getting horrendous cancers. When you look at their diets, you can see why, almost all young people today live on pure junk chemically saturated foods from birth. If this trend is real, we will see a huge rise in deaths in those generations that have lived purely on junk food and that goes for most born after the 1960's.

 

In my mid twenties had the lower lobe of my right lung removed and given 18 months to 2 years to live. Because from the age of 8 I lived on rubbish food, it was no wonder I got very sick, eating leftovers from restaurants and fish and chip shops after they closed and when I started to work and could afford it, the same junk foods, which was not very good for ones body. Luckily I ran into someone who guided me in the right direction and was able to get through and still be here today.

 

Brought my kids up and excellent diets and none of them had a cold, flue or sick in any way, when they left home, they changed completely and now they have health problems aplenty, as do their own kids.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Unless we Cure ' Old age ' that Old population Wil serccume to the inevitable !.

Old age can't be cured, when we live on such biologically destructive diets. However we can prolong life with the right diet and lifestyle and now they have found a way to rejuvenate our bodies to a certain degree with a simple process. the problem they've found with it is it doesn't last, which is perfectly understandable because those that underwent the tests who had their biological ages reduced by 25 years, continued with the same diet they always had and so the good outcomes are destroyed quickly by bad diets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What  ever way you look at it the population growth is the balance between births and deaths.     Extending life expectancy means that the number of humans on the planet at any one time is more than if we didn't live so long.     I take the point about lifestyle but what has happened in many cases is that people with poor lifestyles do not necessarily die particularly young.   I read some stats recently that said heart disease was on the increase but actual deaths for heart disease had decreased.   By way of an example my father had bypass surgery at 67.  He wasn't especially good at modifying his life style and had angina for quite a few years before his death at 92.

 

Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting we should withhold treatment from older folks just pointing out that there is no easy way to reduce the earths population.   The world birth rate has already dropped substantially but it will take many years to have any real effect.  it is a bit like a bus, how crowded it is is a function of how get on compared to how many get off.

 

 

e833b0ac3df4f14101961df7a0760653.thumb.png.5ae737eaf9445b64bbf772e5d1776423.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution to population with limited resources is to divide people up into mutually supportive groups, give them weapons and tell them that the other groups are evil. It worked for thousands of years. But now we have moral philosophy and are better educated.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...