| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 114830 | 2010-12-19 02:36:00 | We need more people here | Digby (677) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1163262 | 2010-12-19 09:43:00 | If you guys dont like New Zealand so much why the hell are you still here? Yet your quite quick to split your sections and live on top of each other in a sprawling city. Maybe a few years in a country with high density population will make you realise how great this country is for what it has before you concreate it over. |
coldfront (15814) | ||
| 1163263 | 2010-12-19 10:20:00 | Impossible/tremendous cost!! geeeeez what the h e l l has been spent on oil/gas retrieval over the 100 years and damage to the ecosystem, viz Mexico oil spillage. Google can't give me the name of the New Zealand arborist, who, back in the early 1970's did in fact commence planting pinus radiata in the Sahara to prevent the encroachment of sand into the surrounding areas. In more recent times there was talk of shipping water out of the Manapouri outflow in 300,000 tone empty tankers returning to the Middle East. Lurking. What has been spent in the last 100 years in retrieving oil? Billions probably. Environmental damage as a result of retrieval, leaks and use of oil? Untold billions and billions of dollars, obviously much larger than the cost of retrieving and refining as it's a huge profitable business. What's this planting in the Sahara you speak of? Sounds genuinely interesting. But then again, to grow plants in a naturally hostile environment will require laborious and expensive consistent maintenance that in the long run may prove more uneconomical than leaving the initial problem alone. Not only that, the resources required for such projects (i.e., water in this case) is limited and it won't be long till water sources dip dangerously low or becomes depleted altogether, which in itself will be extensively damaging for any ecosystem that depends on that water source (and that includes any humans living within the water source's vicinity). Are they really talking about transporting water from the Manapouri river to the Middle East??? That's insane! Rivers are the 'veins' if you will of the planet, carrying water from mountains to the ocean, allowing life to flourish along their routes. Starving a river of its water is akin to starving certain parts of your body of blood which could lead to things like gangrene, because there is no flow of water (or blood in our case) that keeps the surrounding habitats alive (or tissues, in our case). Don't get me wrong though, I'm not what you'd call a total nuthead greenie; I'm a self taught thinker. No doubt my mind has been shaped by the things I choose to study school and now university, but I'm no vegan (love meat, can't take that away from me!). I also think things like windfarms should be implemented, I personally don't see what the big fuss is all about; it's clean electricity and to be honest I don't think it's TOO much of an eyesore. But then again that's my opinion, and it certainly would rub most people whose properties will be affected in the wrong way If you guys dont like New Zealand so much why the hell are you still here? Yet your quite quick to split your sections and live on top of each other in a sprawling city. Maybe a few years in a country with high density population will make you realise how great this country is for what it has before you concreate it over. This. I've lived nearly half of my life in Asia, seen what my grandparents' cities in China is like etc......it's hardly a nice place to live in. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 1163264 | 2010-12-19 16:18:00 | Hi Guys, My point is that we are so sparsely populated as it is now, that a doubling or trebling would not hurt the environment in any great way. Singapore with 4 million and about the size of Lake Taupo wants to double its population! As I say, if we had four or five cities with a million people things would be much better and people would not want to leave for Australia as much as they do now. It is much easier to get a job in a big city than it is in a small city. Imagine if every small town like Hunterville, Huntly, Mataura, etc had twice as many people (like they once did) would that be overpopulation ? It would bring those towns back to life. There would be three times as many people to pay for the highway from Auckland to Wellington so it could be double-laned all the way. There would be three times as many people to pay for one Prime Minister, and one head of Telecom and one head of each government department. etc so that in theory rates and taxes could be lower.. |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1163265 | 2010-12-19 17:26:00 | Singapore crowded ****hole now. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1163266 | 2010-12-19 18:18:00 | Hi Guys, My point is that we are so sparsely populated as it is now, that a doubling or trebling would not hurt the environment in any great way . You reckon? The 4 million already here are doing there best to destroy the enviroment with toxinss in the water supplys and rubbish on the side of the roads, nearer to Auckland you notice the problem is worse for rubbish . Singapore with 4 million and about the size of Lake Taupo wants to double its population!] Bad comparison Singapore is not so much a country but a sprawling city state . They like company with mega high rises etc . As I say, if we had four or five cities with a million people things would be much better and people would not want to leave for Australia as much as they do now . It is much easier to get a job in a big city than it is in a small city . Auckland population over 1 million, Christchurch, Hamilton growing fast! Yet the biggest proportion of whiners bailing to Australians in my unscientific Trame Forum reading comes from Auckland . Imagine if every small town like Hunterville, Huntly, Mataura, etc had twice as many people (like they once did) would that be overpopulation ? It would bring those towns back to life . In a time when the population was half what it was now the population in those towns was bigger! You need jobs to bring a town back to life or else you end up with a social welfare problem . 3 million people live in the North Island and the rest in the Larger south Island . There would be three times as many people to pay for the highway from Auckland to Wellington so it could be double-laned all the way . There would be three times as many people to pay for one Prime Minister, and one head of Telecom and one head of each government department . etc so that in theory rates and taxes could be lower . . Hows a multi lane Highway from Auckland to Wellington going to be of benefit to anyone living over 50kms away from it? Places like New Plymouth, Wanganui, Gisborne, Napier/Hastings even Taumarunui and anywhere in the South Island? Oh and finally where are these people going to come from? |
coldfront (15814) | ||
| 1163267 | 2010-12-19 19:29:00 | NZ a much better place to live in would be to double or treble the number of people we have here to say 8 or 10 or 12 million . More jobs, more entrepeneurs, more entertainment, more vibrant, more economies of scale . . More consumers more like . A consumer driven society fails if people stop buying/using . Increasing the number of people does not = more jobs . What, we suddenly have more milk powder to export, more meat to export and more logs and coal? |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1163268 | 2010-12-19 19:43:00 | Pctek More people deos mean more jobs You are a PC technician. If you lived in a town with 100 people, you would not get very much work. If you lived in a town of 1000 people you would get 10 times as much work. If you run a company importing a major product you need a salary of say $100,000. You have to charge enough so that you can get that 100K out of 4 million people. You could charge less if you were selling to 12 million. We are exporting those commodity items and we are still not rich. We try to convert them into "products" and our sawmills close down. The world is "starving" and our beef and lamb farmers are going broke. |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1163269 | 2010-12-19 19:44:00 | The country could easily support a few more million, sure the infrastructure would need to be built to support the population but that's exactly how its done everywhere else. Personally I think we just need to fine tune our existing population, Kill off the grievance industry and the sepreatist movement, send all the overstayers back to the islands,trim all denifits to 10% of their current level. Shoot a few hundred crims and give the rest free land on an island somewhere (Aussie) and revoke their citizen ship. The likes of 12v's can go with them to be their *****. Nothing to add to that first class solution, just a case of when I become prime minister........ |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1163270 | 2010-12-19 19:46:00 | [QUOTE=Digby;977402]Pctek More people deos mean more jobs You are a PC technician. If you lived in a town with 100 people, you would not get very much work. If you lived in a town of 1000 people you would get 10 times as much work. /QUOTE] Zero X 10 is still Zero! |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1163271 | 2010-12-19 20:14:00 | Actually not so squire, more people means more competition. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||