10 ms·

I lived in Australia for 5 years and my sense is that, as harsh as it sounds, Australia needs to go through an extreme hardship to wake up as a nation. Australi

by mdoms 5y ago

I lived in Australia for 5 years and my sense is that, as harsh as it sounds, Australia needs to go through an extreme hardship to wake up as a nation. Australia has lived true to its moniker as the Lucky Country - at least two full generations of Australians have never witnessed economic hardship or downturn of any kind. Natural disasters pass the nation by (other than wildfires). Even Covid looked like it was going to give Australia a miss until very recently. The populous of Australia are fat and happy, and therefore unbothered by the extremely worrying creeping authoritarianism, an economy teetering on total collapse and incompetent local governance. I had real Brave New World vibes living over there.

King-Aaron 5y ago
This is exactly my feeling. Aussies are constantly whinging about extreme first-world problems and are completely apathetic (or willfully ignorant) of what real hardship is. As a result the general population is blindly letting the government erode our rights and are too pre-occupied with their own lives to actually realise what's happening.
- vncecartersknee 5y ago
  "blindly letting the government erode our rights" what else are we supposed to do? how do you stop the government from doing that?
  - worik 5y ago
    Vote. Protest - particularly direct action Challenge them
    - mc32 5y ago
      In Australia people are compelled to vote, so the problem looks like the majority having a different take. Not that I agree with their votes, but you can’t say they don’t vote. Ultimately what is one supposed to do in a democracy (never mind Australia for a moment) when you’re just not part of the majority opinion on something?
      - worik 5y ago
        No easy answer. It is called politics. The culture helps too. In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong. Just ask the Australian Indians. Fun fact: Māori people had the right to vote in Australia from the start, Aboriginal Australians (just how racist are they when there is no word in Australia for the first people?) did not get that right until 1967. It is a tough fight for the Australians.
        yesenadam 5y ago
        > In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong I don't have much idea what you mean here. > Just ask the Australian Indians. Uh, could you explain what you mean here? > Aboriginal Australians...did not get that right until 1967 I thought that too until recently, but not true. On the history of Indigenous Australians’ right to vote: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-australians-right-to-vote https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous... On the 1967 referendum: While many people think that the Referendum gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote, this wasn’t the case. Aboriginal people could vote at the state level before Federation in 1901; Queensland and Western Australia being the only states that expressly prevented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from voting. It wasn’t until 1962, when the electoral act was amended, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were given the right to register and vote, but voting was not compulsory. Full voting rights were not granted federally until Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were required to register on the electoral roll in 1984. ... When the Constitution first came into being in 1901 there were only two parts that referred to the First Peoples of Australia: Section 51 (xxvi) gave the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to ‘people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws’; and Section 127 provided that ‘in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. ... On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution so that like all other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws for them. A resounding 90.77 per cent said ‘Yes’ and every single state and territory had a majority result for the ‘Yes’ vote. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum
    - largbae 5y ago
      Is that working? Anywhere?
      - worik 5y ago
        Yes. In a lot of places.
        vncecartersknee 5y ago
        Can you give an example?
    - s5300 5y ago
      https://youtu.be/pGuSpEt13Ac https://youtu.be/pGuSpEt13Ac This is a good start. Dudes strongmen literally attempt to kill the (15 year old) kid which can be seen in another video, so you know the act cuts deep as a form of protest...
    - layoric 5y ago
      >Vote. Compulsory voting with good preference system already in place which means we have a ~90-97% participation rate. >Protest - particularly direct action Agree, but increasing using/changing laws to reduce this (declaring environment activists as "terror" groups). >Challenge them Not even sure what this means exactly but more people are organizing support for independents/minority parties over the major two. This combined with the ability to form minority governments I think is the best chance for progressive change, but a lot of money is being spent to keep the status quo.
    - calvinmorrison 5y ago
      I recently read an article in which protesters were fined thousands of dollars for violating "health codes". A country who cannot allow protest is no free country at all.
      - stubish 5y ago
        The right to protest during a pandemic is dubious, in direct conflict with other peoples rights. It is also self defeating, when the majority consider the protesters arseholes for willfully endangering the general community and don't get around to considering the actual issue being protested.
        logicchains 5y ago
        >direct conflict with other peoples rights What the hell? Nobody sitting at home in their house has the right to prevent other people meeting peacefully on the street. People like you are what's wrong with Australia, you authoritarian monster! Nobody has the right to stop other people meeting because they might spread a virus to eachother with a 99%+ survival rate that might somehow eventually find its way back to them.
        stubish 5y ago
        Willfully violating health orders endangers others, who are forced to share public spaces. As a community, we decided the law to protect ourselves (security of person) and the vulnerable (the people who don't have a 99% survival rate if they catch COVID; the immunosuppressed, the elderly, the chronically ill). Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are entitled to security of person and protection by the law. And yes, it also declares several articles further down the right to protest. So the rights are in direct conflict. It is also worth noting that people can still protest. They just can't do it while violating health orders. Yelling maskless at police on lockdown days is going to get you arrested. Other protests on non-lockdown days with people maintaining social distancing have proceeded fine apart from grumpy words and fear mongering by politicians.
        logicchains 5y ago
  - King-Aaron 5y ago
    I mean, stop repeatedly voting for blatantly corrupt parties, for one. The current LNP are so actively corrupt with their corporate interests, religious interests, repeated exposed in-house scandals, etc, yet the majority of the population continue to vote for them because they ignore it all and just keep supporting 'their team'. The Labor government tries to suggest that they're different, and end up with their own dramas of a similar style, but are kind of not as bad. Kind of. There are other options out there, but we're all lead to believe that only the 'big parties' can form government. Which only remains true due to the self-fulfilling prophecy of people only voting en masse for the big two parties (and the preference system that funnels votes into those parties). The likelihood of that changing? Low. The other solution would be to dismantle the corporate media monopoly that glosses over the actual issues the country is facing, but that's probably even less likely to happen.
    - vncecartersknee 5y ago
      Why do you think that people keep voting for the blatantly corrupt LNP? and why are the other parties above becoming corrupt? Is it possible that the LNP are constantly in power because they are corrupt?
      - longwick 5y ago
        I suspect until just recently it was because of the negative gearing policies, but now that Labor has officially scrapped any changes I feel like the differences between the parties gets thinner and thinner.
      - softveda 5y ago
        3 things. 1. People always look after their back pocket. Any policy that reduce income or wealth is a vote loser 2. Rupert Murdoch owns a majority of print and TV media and has extreme bias for the conservative govt. People do not see any other viewpoints. 3. Extreme divide between rural and urban population. It is impossible to satisfy both. A pro-climate change policy in urban Sydney is a vote killer in regional Queensland.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    Organize people who think similarly to you. Turn them in to activists who run for office, pressure politicians, protest, lobby and vote. I know “pressure groups” or “special interests” or whatever they call it in Australia are always derided. But people form these groups for a reason.
- 8note 5y ago
  Isn't this more whinging about extreme first world problems?
gorwell 5y ago
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
- kingkawn 5y ago
  It ain't all men out there
  - tartoran 5y ago
    Men also means people, humans
    - kingkawn 5y ago
      To men.
      - tartoran 5y ago
        I see your point and how the language has been masculinized but the meaning still stands as of now.. until the next changes take place. Language is evolving and these will inevitably change as well at some point.
        kingkawn 5y ago
        You’re talking about it like it’s far away. Yet here I am saying this is an out of date convention and everyone gets their hackles up as if it is such a horrific inconvenience to include others in their ideas. The change has already arrived, only some stragglers angrily clinging to the old way.
  - mc32 5y ago
    It’s a quote. One doesn’t typically alter a quote unless it’s unintelligible if not altered in some way.
    - 5y ago
perl4ever 5y ago
I wonder how much Australia is influenced by people who loathe the US and move from it to Australia because it's far away and yet Anglophone and "western".
- adventured 5y ago
  > I wonder how much Australia is influenced by people who loathe the US and move from it to Australia because it's far away and yet Anglophone and "western". No, you don't get to blame Australia's insanity on the US. They're fully in control of their own destiny and are one of the richest, most privileged nations in world history. Australia will have nobody else to blame if they plunge further into fascism from here.
- asdff 5y ago
  Probably very few. Liberals who are alienated with the U.S. would sooner move to Canada for the healthcare, conservatives alienated with the U.S. would sooner be dead than be alive in Australia without guns if their bumper stickers are to be believed.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    It’s a misconception that Oz has no guns. In 1997 they banned “defensive” firearms. The guns you want because they work well. Semiautos, center fire handguns, pump shotguns. Bolt actions are still possible to get, but not great at self-defense, or overthrowing your government. Side note… in 1997 these guns were banned, and crime fell. As it turns out though, not only was crime already going down, but there was an increase of 2x police per capita, and curiously crime in the USA fell at a greater rate with no gun ban or large increase in police, crime was high in the 90s for some reason, some people say lead paint bans but the causation is weak.
- astrange 5y ago
  The only things Americans know about Australia are Steve Irwin and Outback Steakhouse, i.e., nothing.
  - 5y ago
siquick 5y ago
100% agree. It's almost like Wall-E was written about Australia in 50 years time. The irony being that 30% of the population was born outside of Australia with a decent part of that in countries which have experienced recent hard times. https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/30-australias-population-born-overseas https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/30-austra...
- Swannie 5y ago
  No dual citizens in federal parliament. That 30% are, generally, extremely under-represented in the political system. This is by choice of interpretation of the current federal judiciary (High Court). At a state level, in many states, rules for dual citizens are more complicated, but result in a similar situation. I can understand the need for this legislation, but it does tilt the balance in favor of 3rd+ generation Australians (as many 2nd generation Australians can inherit their parent's citizenship). Yes, if your country of non-Australian citizenship allows you to renounce it, that is recognised in Australian law. But it can be a complex process, with little value unless you have political ambitions (or maybe complex tax issues ;-) ).
robertwt7 5y ago
I've lived here for 6 years and you got it 100%. I feel you mate, feels like their focus has been wrong year after year and it doesn't look like it's getting better at all.
femto 5y ago
One could argue that Australia has always been this way. The full quote is: "Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck." written by Donald Horne in 1964. These words were true prior to 1964 and are still true in 2021. What saves Australia is the word "mainly". There are some first rate people in Australia, mostly not in positions of authority, who stop the ship from sinking. Examples are solar power, quantum information and medical researchers, pockets of the Public Service but less so in 2021, people like Donald Horne, ... Mostly things are second rate, but sometimes something first rate breaks though. (I've lived in Australia since birth.)
- nl 5y ago
  Yes, people always miss the full quote. It still remains absolutely correct.
- mlio 5y ago
  "Just as Samson after being shorn of his hair was left eyeless in Gaza, was this generation, stripped bare of all faith, to be left comfortless on Bondi Beach, citizens of the kingdom of nothingness, who booze and surf while waiting for the barbarians?" - Manning Clark on the settling of Australia.
lexandstuff 5y ago
Melbourne has been in lock down for over 200 days. Sydney is not that far behind. Massive amounts of people are unable to work, and a lot of us haven't seen our interstate family in almost 2 years. A few months before Covid started, 180,000 km2 of Australia was burned to the ground, enshrouding our capital and major cities in smoke, making breathing outdoors almost impossible, causing a mass shortage of P2 masks. Many people died. Many more lost their houses. What sort of additional hardships do you want to prescribe for Australians exactly?
softveda 5y ago
It will not happen. As luck would have it next generation energy will be renewables, Solar, Lithium and Hydrogen. Australia is chock full of these. Steel will still be required and Australia will start producing coal free steel from Hydrogen. The current government has a backwards policy right now but it will change rapidly. The wheels are in motion and can't be stopped.
rainonmoon 5y ago
In which 5 years did you live here? Some time in the 90s? We endured the GFC comparatively well thanks to shrewd economic leadership from the Labor government of the time but to say we haven't faced downturn in two generations is absurd. Speaking as someone who has been out of the office due to COVID since March 2020, I'm amazed you can say it seemed like it was going to pass us by "until recently". As for natural disasters passing us by "other than wildfires", those bushfires have killed hundreds of people, burned thousands of homes, killed over a billion animals, cost billions of dollars, and most victims of the most recent bushfire which scorched half the country still haven't received any relief. There are a lot of very misguided ideas about Australia in this thread, but the least someone driving by could do is spare us condescension.

by mdoms 5y ago

King-Aaron 5y ago

This is exactly my feeling. Aussies are constantly whinging about extreme first-world problems and are completely apathetic (or willfully ignorant) of what real hardship is. As a result the general population is blindly letting the government erode our rights and are too pre-occupied with their own lives to actually realise what's happening.

vncecartersknee 5y ago
"blindly letting the government erode our rights" what else are we supposed to do? how do you stop the government from doing that?
- worik 5y ago
  Vote. Protest - particularly direct action Challenge them
  - mc32 5y ago
    In Australia people are compelled to vote, so the problem looks like the majority having a different take. Not that I agree with their votes, but you can’t say they don’t vote. Ultimately what is one supposed to do in a democracy (never mind Australia for a moment) when you’re just not part of the majority opinion on something?
    - worik 5y ago
      No easy answer. It is called politics. The culture helps too. In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong. Just ask the Australian Indians. Fun fact: Māori people had the right to vote in Australia from the start, Aboriginal Australians (just how racist are they when there is no word in Australia for the first people?) did not get that right until 1967. It is a tough fight for the Australians.
      - yesenadam 5y ago
        > In Australia the "democracy is majority rules" meme (which is a lie) is very strong I don't have much idea what you mean here. > Just ask the Australian Indians. Uh, could you explain what you mean here? > Aboriginal Australians...did not get that right until 1967 I thought that too until recently, but not true. On the history of Indigenous Australians’ right to vote: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-australians-right-to-vote https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous... On the 1967 referendum: While many people think that the Referendum gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote, this wasn’t the case. Aboriginal people could vote at the state level before Federation in 1901; Queensland and Western Australia being the only states that expressly prevented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from voting. It wasn’t until 1962, when the electoral act was amended, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were given the right to register and vote, but voting was not compulsory. Full voting rights were not granted federally until Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were required to register on the electoral roll in 1984. ... When the Constitution first came into being in 1901 there were only two parts that referred to the First Peoples of Australia: Section 51 (xxvi) gave the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to ‘people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws’; and Section 127 provided that ‘in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. ... On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution so that like all other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws for them. A resounding 90.77 per cent said ‘Yes’ and every single state and territory had a majority result for the ‘Yes’ vote. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum
  - largbae 5y ago
    Is that working? Anywhere?
    - worik 5y ago
      Yes. In a lot of places.
      - vncecartersknee 5y ago
        Can you give an example?
  - s5300 5y ago
    https://youtu.be/pGuSpEt13Ac https://youtu.be/pGuSpEt13Ac This is a good start. Dudes strongmen literally attempt to kill the (15 year old) kid which can be seen in another video, so you know the act cuts deep as a form of protest...
  - layoric 5y ago
    >Vote. Compulsory voting with good preference system already in place which means we have a ~90-97% participation rate. >Protest - particularly direct action Agree, but increasing using/changing laws to reduce this (declaring environment activists as "terror" groups). >Challenge them Not even sure what this means exactly but more people are organizing support for independents/minority parties over the major two. This combined with the ability to form minority governments I think is the best chance for progressive change, but a lot of money is being spent to keep the status quo.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    I recently read an article in which protesters were fined thousands of dollars for violating "health codes". A country who cannot allow protest is no free country at all.
    - stubish 5y ago
      The right to protest during a pandemic is dubious, in direct conflict with other peoples rights. It is also self defeating, when the majority consider the protesters arseholes for willfully endangering the general community and don't get around to considering the actual issue being protested.
      - logicchains 5y ago
        >direct conflict with other peoples rights What the hell? Nobody sitting at home in their house has the right to prevent other people meeting peacefully on the street. People like you are what's wrong with Australia, you authoritarian monster! Nobody has the right to stop other people meeting because they might spread a virus to eachother with a 99%+ survival rate that might somehow eventually find its way back to them.
        stubish 5y ago
        Willfully violating health orders endangers others, who are forced to share public spaces. As a community, we decided the law to protect ourselves (security of person) and the vulnerable (the people who don't have a 99% survival rate if they catch COVID; the immunosuppressed, the elderly, the chronically ill). Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are entitled to security of person and protection by the law. And yes, it also declares several articles further down the right to protest. So the rights are in direct conflict. It is also worth noting that people can still protest. They just can't do it while violating health orders. Yelling maskless at police on lockdown days is going to get you arrested. Other protests on non-lockdown days with people maintaining social distancing have proceeded fine apart from grumpy words and fear mongering by politicians.
      - logicchains 5y ago
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  I mean, stop repeatedly voting for blatantly corrupt parties, for one. The current LNP are so actively corrupt with their corporate interests, religious interests, repeated exposed in-house scandals, etc, yet the majority of the population continue to vote for them because they ignore it all and just keep supporting 'their team'. The Labor government tries to suggest that they're different, and end up with their own dramas of a similar style, but are kind of not as bad. Kind of. There are other options out there, but we're all lead to believe that only the 'big parties' can form government. Which only remains true due to the self-fulfilling prophecy of people only voting en masse for the big two parties (and the preference system that funnels votes into those parties). The likelihood of that changing? Low. The other solution would be to dismantle the corporate media monopoly that glosses over the actual issues the country is facing, but that's probably even less likely to happen.
  - vncecartersknee 5y ago
    Why do you think that people keep voting for the blatantly corrupt LNP? and why are the other parties above becoming corrupt? Is it possible that the LNP are constantly in power because they are corrupt?
    - longwick 5y ago
      I suspect until just recently it was because of the negative gearing policies, but now that Labor has officially scrapped any changes I feel like the differences between the parties gets thinner and thinner.
    - softveda 5y ago
      3 things. 1. People always look after their back pocket. Any policy that reduce income or wealth is a vote loser 2. Rupert Murdoch owns a majority of print and TV media and has extreme bias for the conservative govt. People do not see any other viewpoints. 3. Extreme divide between rural and urban population. It is impossible to satisfy both. A pro-climate change policy in urban Sydney is a vote killer in regional Queensland.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  Organize people who think similarly to you. Turn them in to activists who run for office, pressure politicians, protest, lobby and vote. I know “pressure groups” or “special interests” or whatever they call it in Australia are always derided. But people form these groups for a reason.
8note 5y ago
Isn't this more whinging about extreme first world problems?

gorwell 5y ago

Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.

kingkawn 5y ago
It ain't all men out there
- tartoran 5y ago
  Men also means people, humans
  - kingkawn 5y ago
    To men.
    - tartoran 5y ago
      I see your point and how the language has been masculinized but the meaning still stands as of now.. until the next changes take place. Language is evolving and these will inevitably change as well at some point.
      - kingkawn 5y ago
        You’re talking about it like it’s far away. Yet here I am saying this is an out of date convention and everyone gets their hackles up as if it is such a horrific inconvenience to include others in their ideas. The change has already arrived, only some stragglers angrily clinging to the old way.
- mc32 5y ago
  It’s a quote. One doesn’t typically alter a quote unless it’s unintelligible if not altered in some way.
  - 5y ago

perl4ever 5y ago

I wonder how much Australia is influenced by people who loathe the US and move from it to Australia because it's far away and yet Anglophone and "western".

adventured 5y ago
> I wonder how much Australia is influenced by people who loathe the US and move from it to Australia because it's far away and yet Anglophone and "western". No, you don't get to blame Australia's insanity on the US. They're fully in control of their own destiny and are one of the richest, most privileged nations in world history. Australia will have nobody else to blame if they plunge further into fascism from here.
asdff 5y ago
Probably very few. Liberals who are alienated with the U.S. would sooner move to Canada for the healthcare, conservatives alienated with the U.S. would sooner be dead than be alive in Australia without guns if their bumper stickers are to be believed.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  It’s a misconception that Oz has no guns. In 1997 they banned “defensive” firearms. The guns you want because they work well. Semiautos, center fire handguns, pump shotguns. Bolt actions are still possible to get, but not great at self-defense, or overthrowing your government. Side note… in 1997 these guns were banned, and crime fell. As it turns out though, not only was crime already going down, but there was an increase of 2x police per capita, and curiously crime in the USA fell at a greater rate with no gun ban or large increase in police, crime was high in the 90s for some reason, some people say lead paint bans but the causation is weak.
astrange 5y ago
The only things Americans know about Australia are Steve Irwin and Outback Steakhouse, i.e., nothing.
- 5y ago

siquick 5y ago

100% agree. It's almost like Wall-E was written about Australia in 50 years time. The irony being that 30% of the population was born outside of Australia with a decent part of that in countries which have experienced recent hard times. https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/30-australias-population-born-overseas https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/30-austra...

Swannie 5y ago
No dual citizens in federal parliament. That 30% are, generally, extremely under-represented in the political system. This is by choice of interpretation of the current federal judiciary (High Court). At a state level, in many states, rules for dual citizens are more complicated, but result in a similar situation. I can understand the need for this legislation, but it does tilt the balance in favor of 3rd+ generation Australians (as many 2nd generation Australians can inherit their parent's citizenship). Yes, if your country of non-Australian citizenship allows you to renounce it, that is recognised in Australian law. But it can be a complex process, with little value unless you have political ambitions (or maybe complex tax issues ;-) ).

robertwt7 5y ago

I've lived here for 6 years and you got it 100%. I feel you mate, feels like their focus has been wrong year after year and it doesn't look like it's getting better at all.

femto 5y ago

One could argue that Australia has always been this way. The full quote is: "Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck." written by Donald Horne in 1964. These words were true prior to 1964 and are still true in 2021. What saves Australia is the word "mainly". There are some first rate people in Australia, mostly not in positions of authority, who stop the ship from sinking. Examples are solar power, quantum information and medical researchers, pockets of the Public Service but less so in 2021, people like Donald Horne, ... Mostly things are second rate, but sometimes something first rate breaks though. (I've lived in Australia since birth.)

nl 5y ago
Yes, people always miss the full quote. It still remains absolutely correct.
mlio 5y ago
"Just as Samson after being shorn of his hair was left eyeless in Gaza, was this generation, stripped bare of all faith, to be left comfortless on Bondi Beach, citizens of the kingdom of nothingness, who booze and surf while waiting for the barbarians?" - Manning Clark on the settling of Australia.

lexandstuff 5y ago

Melbourne has been in lock down for over 200 days. Sydney is not that far behind. Massive amounts of people are unable to work, and a lot of us haven't seen our interstate family in almost 2 years. A few months before Covid started, 180,000 km2 of Australia was burned to the ground, enshrouding our capital and major cities in smoke, making breathing outdoors almost impossible, causing a mass shortage of P2 masks. Many people died. Many more lost their houses. What sort of additional hardships do you want to prescribe for Australians exactly?

softveda 5y ago

It will not happen. As luck would have it next generation energy will be renewables, Solar, Lithium and Hydrogen. Australia is chock full of these. Steel will still be required and Australia will start producing coal free steel from Hydrogen. The current government has a backwards policy right now but it will change rapidly. The wheels are in motion and can't be stopped.

rainonmoon 5y ago

In which 5 years did you live here? Some time in the 90s? We endured the GFC comparatively well thanks to shrewd economic leadership from the Labor government of the time but to say we haven't faced downturn in two generations is absurd. Speaking as someone who has been out of the office due to COVID since March 2020, I'm amazed you can say it seemed like it was going to pass us by "until recently". As for natural disasters passing us by "other than wildfires", those bushfires have killed hundreds of people, burned thousands of homes, killed over a billion animals, cost billions of dollars, and most victims of the most recent bushfire which scorched half the country still haven't received any relief. There are a lot of very misguided ideas about Australia in this thread, but the least someone driving by could do is spare us condescension.