Is There Anything Bad to Say About Australia?

[JohnB]

Hal. Bullsh*t.

 

A Tripolation. Most of our "Highways" are single lane each way, not like US highways. We don't have a high speed rail network, we can't afford one. It's size and population. Imagine the population of London trying to pay for all highways and high speed rail networks in Europe. The money simply isn't there.

Edited July 5, 2011 by JohnB

[Marat]

I once read an article in a British newspaper which described the Australian accent as "a continuous whine." It does sound like the type of intonation most native English speakers give to their speech when they want to express complaint, agony, or frustration. I suppose that might get on some people's nerves if they were used to another style of speech.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Marat

[CharonY]

Weird, I rather like the Australian accent. At least to me it is one of the easier to understand accents out there. And kind of sounds nice, too. Though it may depend more on the speaker than anyone else. Oh and venomous critters. Beautiful poisonous animals.

We were talking about the positive sides of Australia, right?

Edited July 5, 2011 by CharonY

[lamp]

I'm wondering how do australian people live with those poisonous animals? Are they simply learning every poisonous animal and as soon as they see them they stay away from them? A poisonous spider simply could land on someone's shoulder from a tree.

[Hal.]

Hal. Bullsh*t.

 

 

JohnB , you can't argue with a natural instinct for equality . I have that .

 

.......................... later .......................... ,

 

Do you see the avatar photo of A Tripolation . I don't look at that and say , " look at that pinkman " . Is it natural not to do that , JohnB ? In the image of the 2 lad's above , I didn't look at that and say to myself , " look at the 2 coloured lad's " . When you said " colour " in your post that made me go back to the image and have a look to try to actually see the ' colour ' . I'm not a bullshitter .

 

And , judging by what I've seen people being called in these forums I would say the use of the term bullshitter , especially as I am not calling you it , but using it in defence , is mild .

Edited July 5, 2011 by Hal.

[Arete]

I grew up in Australia - I now work in the US.

 

- Australia has a undeniably questionable human rights history with regards to the indigenous people and now asylum seekers. However, I find it particularly hypocritical when Europeans or North Americans criticize it given the reciprocal human rights histories of say colonial Europe (Australia was a British colony until 1901) or the USA ( smallpox blankets and slavery etc.).

- Distances between capital cities are large, population density is very low in both South Australia and Perth, the total state population is approximately 1.3 million and 1 million of those live in the respective capital city of the state. I drove from Adelaide (where I was doing my PhD) and Sydney, (where my parents live) a number of times. Took me one day each way - 1450km.

- Universities are by and large, ok. Our "top 8" are the top tier universities and usually have research outputs placing them in the top 100 universities globally. However there is increasing reliance on full fee paying international students to financially carry them which is detrimental to degree quality. Check departments out carefully before committing.

- I did my PhD on reptiles. I did fieldwork on reptiles including poisonous ones. I was also a divemaster in the Southern Ocean. I think the figure is something like ~95% of venomous animal bites are inflicted whilst a person is trying to kill or capture the animal. Common sense goes a long way - if you're walking in the bush, wear boots and long pants. Don't stick your feet or hands into places you can't see. Shake your boots out before you put them on. Sometimes people get bitten and an honors student in our dept got taken by a great white 5 years ago doing scuba fieldwork. Driving a car is still considerably more dangerous than the wildlife.

- Winter south of the tropic of Capricorn is still winter. Notably, Canberra often sees winter overnight lows below -5 Celsius. Winters are short however, and unfortunately most houses aren't well insulated because most of the year the weather is nice. I've heard students from Europe complain that they've never felt colder in a house than in Australia.

- Moving to the US has made me appreciate Australia's lifestyle. Universities are in big cities, which are almost all near idyllic coastline and close to forested areas. At least in the US, good school, nice weather, nice beach and forest don't all come together in same place very often.

- Cost of living is higher than the US. Housing is by and large more expensive and so are groceries. However wages are generally higher. Minimum wage for an adult is approx ~$18 usd and an ARC postdoctoral package is $80K - about double what a postdoc earns in the US.

 

if yuo have any specifics I'll do my best to answer them.

[Hal.]

Some say Australia can't begin to discard it's ties to the past unless it truly becomes an independent republic .

[Arete]

Some say the republic-monarchy debate is semantic and only hotly contested in nursing homes between people who can actually remember when the governor general wasn't an Australian citizen.

[Hal.]

Governor generals all over the world have been and gone , there is always room for one more .

 

 

[JohnB]

Hal, when you first posted the pic I didn't have the foggiest who you were, so I checked your profile. I realised, upon seeing that you had managed to rack up an impressive -29 rep points in the short time you have been here that I wasn't dealing with a normal intellect.

 

Unlike others might have, I didn't conclude that I was dealing with a micro-cephalic fool for whom remembering whether "10 thick" was their IQ or shoe size caused some mental confusion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were merely uninformed or that english wasn't your first language and you had perhaps had trouble expressing yourself in the language.

 

Your further posts have unfortunately shown that my assumption was incorrect.

 

Hal, I didn't call you a bullsh*tter, as that would have been against the forum rules. Similarly I didn't call you a gormless little worm so bereft of the general or specialised knowledge, coupled with a lack of the basic language skills neccessary to adequately express a coherent comment that would add any value to a discussion. Nor did I suggest that you were a gutless wonder who lacks the basic courage of his convictions even when hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and is reduced to crying "Who? Me? What did I do?" in tones of injured innocence. (While understanding the fear that these people must have of making statements in person, living in abject terror that they may say the wrong thing and be eating their next meals through a straw, one can only feel great pity for those lacking the intestinal fortitude to even argue their beliefs anonymously.)

 

While it can be generally correctly assumed that a "bullsh*tter" can count amoung his marital aids a magniying glass and a pair of tweezers, I didn't call you a bullsh*tter. I called the comment bullsh*t. There is, in fact, a distinct difference.

 

However, if you wish to extrapolate a response to a comment as a comment on you personally, then that is a matter best kept between yourself and your personal mental health clinician. Sorry, but it's not my problem.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Arete. I had a great post lined up to scare the daylights out of people about our "dangerous" wildlife and you go and get all factual. Where's the fun in that?

 

chaseman, the rules are pretty simple.

 

Do wear good boots when hiking.

Don't stick your hand into a hollow log to "see if there's something inside".

Don't lift up old timber to "see what's underneath".

Do only swim on patrolled beaches and "swim between the flags".

Don't assume that the sign saying "No swimming, crocodiles" is a joke.

 

Rules are basic common sense on a par with teaching children "Look both ways before crossing the road". If the place was really as dangerous as we like to imply it is, it would be a wonder that our kids survive at all. There are dangerous creatures, but common sense and a bit of forethought avoids the vast majority of them.

 

I can't really comment on the quality of our Universities, but I've always thought they are pretty good. (I was quite proud that QUT tested their Scramjet some 6 months before NASA tested theirs.) We must be doing something right.

Edited July 7, 2011 by JohnB

[Hal.]

JohnB , if you want to call me anything then use the appropriate words . I won't be offended but the powers that be may . Send me a personal message and I'll get my dictionary of 21st century profanities ready for replies . I'm amazed you had all that time to put those words together , sarcasm , innuendo , etc , I thought you'd be busy putting dinner on the bahbee . Got to go , Neighbours is starting !

 

Last thing JohnB , you should think about learning English , It looks like you don't know what you are talking about .

 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Edited July 7, 2011 by Hal.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's quite enough.

[Hal.]

Imagine Australia with 300 000 000 people living there in 400 years time , all needing water , summer holidays , history sources , schools , budweiser , sunshades and millions of other things .

Edited July 7, 2011 by Hal.

[Arete]

Australia's population is going to increase from 22 million to 300 million in 400 years?

Australia's fertility rate is below replacement (1.78) and trending downwards. Growth due to immigration is currently 1.15% pa and also trending downwards.

If it were maintained at 1.15% pa. for 400 years, there'd be 2.1 billion people, so where'd 300 million come from?

[Hal.]

' Imagine ' implies a hypothetical .

 

300 000 000 people living in Australia in 400 years time is a guess for the purpose of illustration of the point that a lot of people could need a lot of things not so far off down the road in the future , 400 years is not too long away and 400 years ago wasn't very long ago either .

Edited July 7, 2011 by Hal.

[Arete]

the point that a lot of people could need a lot of things not so far off down the road in the future

 

Can you point out a country where a 13 fold increase in population wouldn't place stress on available resources? If not, relevance?

[Hal.]

' Imagine ' implies a hypothetical .

 

300 000 000 people living in Australia in 400 years time is a guess for the purpose of illustration of the point that a lot of people could need a lot of things not so far off down the road in the future , 400 years is not too long away and 400 years ago wasn't very long ago either .

 

the point that a lot of people could need a lot of things not so far off down the road in the future

 

Can you point out a country where a 13 fold increase in population wouldn't place stress on available resources? If not, relevance?

 

 

The relevance of my post is that this country called Australia will be a very different place in the future and if the people of the future dont want to say very much that is bad about it , then there is a lot to be done between now and then to provide for it's needs .

[Arete]

The hypothetical situation you suggest based upon figures you pulled out of thin air could apply to any country in the world. Rather than be condescending, is it possible for you to suggest how overpopulation is an Australian-centric issue? Otherwise your post appears to be irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

[Marat]

Usually it is not size which determines how large the population of a country can become, but the available resources, the climate, and the geography. Canada, for example, is larger than the U.S and has only one-tenth of its population because the livable area in Canada is like an elongated Chile laterally stretched along the warmer zone next to the U.S. border. Everywhere else is too cold. Similarly, in Australia, I assume population growth would be limited in the interior because so much of it is a wasteland.

[Hal.]

Imagine Australia with 300 000 000 people living there in 400 years time , all needing water , summer holidays , history sources , schools , budweiser , sunshades and millions of other things .

 

 

The hypothetical situation you suggest based upon figures you pulled out of thin air could apply to any country in the world.

 

 

That is what a hypothetical allows me to do . It allows me to suggest what could happen based on an imaginary situation . I am not stating it as fact that in 400 years time there will be 300 000 000 people living in Australia . I did also have my rough estimate based loosely on the current population of the U.S.A. , which has been colonised for 500 years .

 

The topic of discussion is whether there is anything bad to say about Australia . It would be bad to see 300 000 000 people crammed into badly planned cities and a local indigenous population treated badly when there exists plenty of time to do things properly . Of course , I may not be around in 2411 A.D. , I'll have to have a thread on reincarnation at the end of which I'll decide if I should change that way of thinking .

[JohnB]

Hal, you make a fair point here. I don't think that we would get to 300 million for much the same reasons as Canada, however their reason is cold and ours is lack of water. The centre of the country is dry. There is the possibility that due to need we could divert rivers into the inland and create large livable spaces. But without that sort of major engineering the population will be limited pretty much to the coastal strip, and the east coast at that. I think it would be an ugly situation.

 

By the same token, in 400 years we might have Star Trek style replicators to supply food etc, and the central desert covered with solar panels to provide power. The problem with considering long term "What ifs" is that the technological advances can't be predicted. There are simply too many variables for a valid projection. The true future could lie anywhere from a technological nirvana to "Soylent Green".

 

It would be bad to see 300 000 000 people crammed into badly planned cities and a local indigenous population treated badly when there exists plenty of time to do things properly .

 

This distinction is one of the things we have to work out, the problem is that nobody wants to talk about it. Do we want one population or two? And where is the dividing line drawn? For a simple example, my family arrived with the First Fleet so we've been here for 200 odd years. In 400 years time the family will have been here for 600 years. When do they become "indigenous"?

 

The dictionary definition is;

1. (a.) Native; produced, growing, or living, naturally in a country or climate; not exotic; not imported.

2. (a.) Native; inherent; innate.

 

Like the later Europeans, the aboriginals didn't evolve here, they arrived. When was the change from "imported" to "innate"? It's a philosophical point, but it does underly peoples thinking. While ever we artificially divide the population along lines of ethnicity, it is a barrier to to beneficial growth for all. Do we want a future where the population is divided into "Indigenous" and "the rest"? Won't this encourage those in "the rest" to further subdivide themselves? Or do we want a future for "Australians" instead.

 

Let's put it another way. The conditions in some of the outback communities are truly appalling. I do not care that indigenous people are living in third world conditions. I do care very much that Australians are living in third world conditions. It is unconscionable and cannot be allowed to continue.

 

My personal view is that the term "indigenous" is going to become irrelevent in the future. Going a long way down the track, by keeping the distinction we will have the silly situation that people who have been here for 50,000 years are indigenous and people who have been here for 10,000 years aren't. This makes no sense to me. I believe we need to work towards a future where there is one population group called "Australians", but with differing heritages. By then though, except for those racists who don't believe in mixed marraiges, I would think that just about everybody would be mixed blood anyway.

 

For me, indigenous isn't about skin colour or race or heritage, it's a state of mind, a state of being. The waters of this land flow in my veins, the land nourishes me and the wind provides me life. At the end I will return to the land and become part of it. I go to the Dreaming Places and listen to her. The sooner all Australians think this way, the sooner we will all be "indigenous" and the sooner we can work together for a better and brighter future for all.