5 ms·

This might be a bit of an insensitive comment, but alas so be it (not living up to my nickname unfortunately). I'm too used to this discussion in my own country

This might be a bit of an insensitive comment, but alas so be it (not living up to my nickname unfortunately). I'm too used to this discussion in my own country and have little sympathy for the other side because in The Netherlands they have been wrong for 70 years now. The "we are getting too full comments" come from emotions, not from facts and I have the prejudiced feeling that in Australia it isn't any different. Australian planologists should talk to Dutch planologists, and it'll be fine. I am culturally biased but I think it will become a problem once they reach about 200 to 250 million. The Netherlands as well: it can still grow a huge bit before it will hit a ceiling. Yes, it'll get more crammed, it just means you have to organize yourself better as a nation. But my point: if the Dutch can live in a crammed space, so can the Australians.

schoen 8y ago
> Australian planologists should talk to Dutch planologists, and it'll be fine By the way, in English planologie is called "city planning" or "urban planning" and a planoloog is an "urban planner" or "city planner". We don't really have the terms planology and planologist (although they sound pretty awesome!).
- mettamage 8y ago
  Haha, you caught me! I was too lazy to do a dictionary check on the internet and found it fun to assume the word existed.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    To be fair though, in English the suffix '-ology' means a subject of study; a branch of knowledge, and English is fine with portmanteaus. Words mean what people use them to mean. Dictionaries are only, and can only be, historical records.
IForgotUsername 8y ago
I do still think it's worthwhile for us to have the conversation about growth rate regardless of what we could handle in the long run. The only issue is that this conversation keeps getting derailed by racists so I just stay away completely :(
- supernovae 8y ago
  I agree... its absurd to continually just grow grow grow without looking back to see if we're losing what makes us humans in the process. We're getting so stuffed in the USA that national parks are starting to limit visitors and close gates at capacity - that for me alone is signal that a) we should take a serious look at our population b) we should do more to preserve and open more public lands for this growing population.
  - klipt 8y ago
    I suspect national park attendance: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20Graph%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=YOSE https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Rep... has grown much faster than population, due to heavy advertising by national parks and a general increased awareness of visiting national parks as a "thing to do" on vacation rather than e.g. going to Disney Land.
    - astura 8y ago
      And National Parks are an incredibly popular destination for foreign visitors https://www.ustravel.org/press/study-more-overseas-visitors-choosing-us-national-parks https://www.ustravel.org/press/study-more-overseas-visitors-...
- mettamage 8y ago
  > I do still think it's worthwhile for us to have the conversation about growth rate regardless of what we could handle in the long run. Of course, good to point out. I would call this a scientific discussion. Not that we necessarily only need to have this conversation on scientific conferences and the like but keeping it scientific as much as possible is the extent to which such a discussion is useful, in my opinion.
jl2718 8y ago
It’s not so much insensitive as much as completely devoid of facts, observations, or relevant experience. Somebody says that they have a problem. You have zero experience with the problem, and tell them that they are wrong. Thanks for the contribution.
rb808 8y ago
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:AUS:NLD&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... Aus population has grown much more quickly than The Netherlands, even if it isn't full yet.
antt 8y ago
Give us the fresh water per acre the Dutch have and Australia would have been a second US in the 20th century already. 250 million. There's more to how many people a country can support than what you can see on a map. That's as ignorant as looking at Antarctica and saying "Yes, they can support 200 million people there, just look at the Netherlands."

schoen 8y ago

> Australian planologists should talk to Dutch planologists, and it'll be fine By the way, in English planologie is called "city planning" or "urban planning" and a planoloog is an "urban planner" or "city planner". We don't really have the terms planology and planologist (although they sound pretty awesome!).

mettamage 8y ago
Haha, you caught me! I was too lazy to do a dictionary check on the internet and found it fun to assume the word existed.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  To be fair though, in English the suffix '-ology' means a subject of study; a branch of knowledge, and English is fine with portmanteaus. Words mean what people use them to mean. Dictionaries are only, and can only be, historical records.

IForgotUsername 8y ago

I do still think it's worthwhile for us to have the conversation about growth rate regardless of what we could handle in the long run. The only issue is that this conversation keeps getting derailed by racists so I just stay away completely :(

supernovae 8y ago
I agree... its absurd to continually just grow grow grow without looking back to see if we're losing what makes us humans in the process. We're getting so stuffed in the USA that national parks are starting to limit visitors and close gates at capacity - that for me alone is signal that a) we should take a serious look at our population b) we should do more to preserve and open more public lands for this growing population.
- klipt 8y ago
  I suspect national park attendance: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20Graph%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=YOSE https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Rep... has grown much faster than population, due to heavy advertising by national parks and a general increased awareness of visiting national parks as a "thing to do" on vacation rather than e.g. going to Disney Land.
  - astura 8y ago
    And National Parks are an incredibly popular destination for foreign visitors https://www.ustravel.org/press/study-more-overseas-visitors-choosing-us-national-parks https://www.ustravel.org/press/study-more-overseas-visitors-...
mettamage 8y ago
> I do still think it's worthwhile for us to have the conversation about growth rate regardless of what we could handle in the long run. Of course, good to point out. I would call this a scientific discussion. Not that we necessarily only need to have this conversation on scientific conferences and the like but keeping it scientific as much as possible is the extent to which such a discussion is useful, in my opinion.

jl2718 8y ago

It’s not so much insensitive as much as completely devoid of facts, observations, or relevant experience. Somebody says that they have a problem. You have zero experience with the problem, and tell them that they are wrong. Thanks for the contribution.

rb808 8y ago

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:AUS:NLD&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... Aus population has grown much more quickly than The Netherlands, even if it isn't full yet.

antt 8y ago

Give us the fresh water per acre the Dutch have and Australia would have been a second US in the 20th century already. 250 million. There's more to how many people a country can support than what you can see on a map. That's as ignorant as looking at Antarctica and saying "Yes, they can support 200 million people there, just look at the Netherlands."