 | Review of What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire | The Oil Drum | Avoiding Harmful Solutions (to Our Climate and Energy Problems) |  |
| The Bullroarer - Friday 26 October 2007 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Monday 29 October 2007 | |
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Hello from Brisbane,
As an immigrant, I can easily see that Australia, in comparison to the USA and Europe, has a much better ratio between its population and national resources.
So, this country really is a big bar of Cadbury chocolate.
The problem I can see is that we are surrounded with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, India.. that all have a 100 million people or more. When things in those countries get hairy, and crowded rafts with hungry and desperate refugees start arriving to Australian shores, the question is, what are we going to do? How to stop them? With megaphones? With machine guns? I don't think so, and I don't want to believe in such scenario. But it keeps bugging me.
I'm glad Miroslave is bringing this to the fore: every place on earth with a relative abundance in the coming squeeze is going to see an ever growing influx of the deprived, the sick, and the destitute, even from different continents.
Dear David, a hat tip to your honest presentation of the 'mild' Ozzy predicament, but I think you're trusting on your splendid isolation too much.
Miroslav is putting the obvious question: what are you going to do, when they're coming in droves? There'll be too many of them to put into 'guarded camps'. You'll feel obliged to feed them, and this will bring on more and more to your shores.
Megaphones will not scare them away, for they are starving and desperate. The MSM will bring their sorrows into your very homes, and people inclined to charity will clash on your very streets with the hard-liners, who, in the end, will opt for gunning those rafts at sea.
In ten years time the Ozzy population may double, and then your supplies will dwindle two times faster, than you're exspecting today.
Yes, it's the ultimate question, but a little premature. But, maybe, in five years or less, the 'haves' are going to make a stand, to protect their shores and borders against a stealthy invasion of the 'have-nots'. On the Mexican border they're building a wall, already, as others did in Palestine.
The future will not bring 'interesting times', prepare for them to be outright terrible, with horrible decisions to be made by otherwise agreeable people. I'm afraid we'll become really scared by ourselves in the end.
I'm looking forward to your next article.
Ronald
Lagedargent has brought up very good points. We need to understand the situation - Australia is NOT an isolated land.
Well, if I'm not too wrong, within 15-25 years, Australia might become the biggest refuge camp in history. Our current population is 21 million. This can double. Or triple.
This is the problem. Do we have a moral right (we, the 21 million people) to keep this entire continent, with the size of Europe, only for ourselves? No. But, are we able to welcome 20+ million people and give them SUVs, air cons, swimming pools, K-Marts, Medicare cards and Centrelink..? Again, NO. It's not sustainable. A good news is that potential refugees could live without SUVs and air cons, because they already live without them. I think our government should have a plan. The plan does not need to be exposed to the public, but it would be fair if the government (Howard's or Rudd's, it doesn't matter) simply says "yes, we are aware of this, and we do have a plan".
The way how I see it, Australia might have to draw a line between, say, Perth and Darwin, which is almost 50% of WA, and say: "OK, if you get here in a bathtub, we're not gonna send you back, we'll give some basic infrastructure, some petrol, some food, medicaments, vehicles, etc. but from that point you'll be on your own. We cannot let you in our big cities because they are already overloaded".
Yeah, I know, this is all like a 'Mad Max' scenario, but you see how things quickly progress..
I think you are forgetting a few things:
1)Crossing the sea in leaky old boats is dangerous. If people do so in large numbers, most will die on the way as the Navy will not be able to save them all. Think about logistics.
2) People aren't going to get on a boat and travel 5,000 km if they are starving. They are going to use their last remaining money to buy food. The refugees we have seen so far have relatively good resources, they are fleeing political persecution.
3) Boats have owners. Remind me again why the owners would be interested in making a long and dangerous journey which will quite likely end with their boat being burned in Darwin harbour?
4)Indonesia won't be starving, it is a tropical country producing its own food via subsistence agricultural. Global warming will increase its rainfall.
5) Anywhere north of Indonesia is just too far for refugees to arrive in large numbers, though some will die trying.
6) If you think millions of people can successfully get to Australia from anywhere, you need to look at a map and thing about logistics.
7) You don't need to machine-gun anyone to stop mass migration. You just impound and destroy every boat you can catch. See point three. "Burn the boats" is a pretty simple and effective strategy that would rapidly dry up the supply of transport. You think people are going to swim?
If we are to believe in things we cannot see or touch, how do we tell the true belief from the false belief?