ben87r Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I would like to see OZ have enough water for 7.5B in QLD , but.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Not wanting to drift off topic but I'll answer this as there seems to be a few Malthusians about (plus those wishing the government to take away even more of their personal freedoms. Serfers?).No, 7.5 billion is not even close to exhausting the resources and space; the earth can easily handle many, many times this number. Don't accept the rubbish Dick Smith and the media spout Dazza, just grab a calculator for a start. As an experiment let's put the entire 7.5 billion people into the state of Queensland only - 1,852,642 sq km. One square km is 1,000,000 m2. This gives us 247 square meters available space for every single person. Sure not all of the QLD land mass is easily habitable but the exercise proves that space is not an issue by any stretch as we know that cities like Hong Kong are operating with population densities down to as little as 18m2 per person and Manhattan works fine at 38m2 per person for example. This of course leaves the rest of Australia and every other continent of the world plus the oceans for wildlife and to provide food and resources. With modern farming techniques food is absolutely not an issue, in fact using techniques like aquaponics very likely you could also produce all the necessary food for everybody within the space of just QLD, not that this would be necessary though. So the problem certainly is not a lack of space, food or resources - the problem lies with people and specifically sin which is within each of us. Leads to wars, strife, greed all sorts of nasty things. So some space to keep different tribes, cultures (prior to the lefts failed multi-culture experiment) and nations apart somewhat is actually quite helpful towards keeping peace. Anyway we will know the Malthusians are serious when they lead by example; apparently the world is overpopulated but not with them. I guess thats one way to ensure that Queensland always win the State of Origin, noone else would have any people... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You can talk to Dick and see for yourself, he has been holding forth on this link over the past couple of days: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/562203-casa-do-something-good.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 One of the most universal requirements drinking water, is running out. Contamination by plastics and heavy metals in the rivers and lakes . Some parts of the sea devoid of life except jellyfish..Increasing acidity in the oceans Population more than doubling in people's lifetime. Sustainable ?? You have to be joking.. It would require a lot of organisation to increase population density and maintain a reasonable lifestyle. It's more likely that social disruption and conflicts, pandemics etc( antibiotics not working). Species extinction and desertification are bad signs for the future. Population puts pressure on everything. For ages the population stays more or less static then goes ballistic in the last 150 years exponentially. It's a plague by any assessment and the way we live we can pollute. The average person in Australia makes about 12 tonnes of rubbish per year. The way the aborigines lived they made none. Nev 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham brown Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dick Smith is a lovely bloke.... yeah yeah However if he wants class E airspace down to the deck on the approaches to aerodromes like Ballina then be afraid. You will need transponders and that will cost you. Later he may want ADSB for VFR aircraft so he can be directed accordingly and that will cost even more. Ballina then the next and the next.....Our freedom to fly needs to be defended. This may get out of control if not opposed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I doubt he will want ADSB. There are about 100 pages on the "other" forum to back me up with that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 . That post is a while ago. I haven't followed the latest technology arguments and developments. Separation is a worry. It has always bothered me outside controlled airspace. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 That's one of them, but there are a few around the traps 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham brown Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Separation is a worry. It has always bothered me outside controlled airspace. Agreed but it is a risk vs mitigation argument. Too many people argue without quantification that there is a risk and the mitigation is restrictive airspace that requires expensive equipment and qualifications to get access to it. CASA do this too because they might get blamed if there was an accident. Class G airspace (uncontrolled) is where we fly and we should only let others take it off us if there is a quantifiable risk that justifies another class of airspace and its associated costs. DS has not provided this justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 He does bang on about global overpopulation (silly idea if you do the math but few seem to) so if this is the case he may top himself soon to show by example so this discussion is unnecessary. Be fun to have a party to the left of the Greens though. GG I have been trying to understand where you are coming from, but this has me stumped. I clung to the hope that you are a thinking human with some concern for your fellow man. Maybe you just get your kicks from stirring sensible people. The maths, which you talk about, tells us that our species (and those we have domesticated) has displaced the others over much of our planet. The results: we are living thru one of the great Mass Extinctions. Our kids won't be able, as we did, to enjoy the wonders of nature. We have destroyed much of God's Creation. No argument. But yes, you are right. It might be possible for science (I presume you are happy to accept the results of science when it feeds more humans) to sustain a few billion more people. But in what quality of life? Already over half of us live in cities, many in squalor. Rural areas the world over are being depopulated as young people move to the Big Smoke, abandoning the more sustainable lifestyles of their forefathers. Most of us are now totally removed from where our food and resources come from. This can only continue while we have affordable fuel for tractors, trucks, buses, trains and cars. Take your pick of the disasters waiting to decimate our civilisation- and send us back to the hand-to-mouth existence of our ancestors...or is that what some crazy religious people want: a clean sweep of the sinful, so they can enjoy their chosen paradise? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Old Kareelah Mate, GG obviously identifies with the 1% elite who feel they are so rich that no ecological event can do them harm. Another way to put it is that he is a troll, a sociopath who delights in stirring us good citizens for his own feeble ego's gratification. Ignore it and it will go away...Poof... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdseye Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 This ABC thread from 1999 makes interesting reading. Draw your own conclusion, but what was proposed in "the trial" was unworkable across Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s20879.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dick Smith should never have been head of CASA, one of the lib's great lies is that the gov can and should be run like a business and that a business man with experience importing and retailing electronics and component kits has some sort of divine gift to public administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dick Smith should never have been head of CASA, one of the lib's great lies is that the gov can and should be run like a business and that a business man with experience importing and retailing electronics and component kits has some sort of divine gift to public administration. You are right there. No one person could get the public servants in CASA to change course or to think about the cost of their actions on aviation. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 And you can pack 18 people into a lift, but would you want to live like that? . . . .well. . . if the other seventeen were nice looking ladies. . . . . .? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 He does bang on about global overpopulation (silly idea if you do the math but few seem to) so if this is the case he may top himself soon to show by example so this discussion is unnecessary. Be fun to have a party to the left of the Greens though. Well GG, I live in a country with 1.3 billion others as you know. I don't know what the area is per head and I guess it could be increased to say 2 billion just based on a feeling of how much denser it could be and still be comfortable. But I reckon it couldn't be any denser than that, not because it's not sustainable, but simply because people won't like it and I reckon would be prepared to go to war to trim the numbers down and find more land and resources for their own races - as the entirety of history has well proven. And it wouldn't always be Government led, various peoples would rise themselves, also scattered in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think that Dick Smith tried to bring the US FAA culture to Aus. This, of course, was resisted by the bucolic rump resident in CASA since the days of DCA. So what we got instead was a cross between a cow and a duck. Of course it didn't work. Politics 101 Australian style. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Sir Humphrey rules... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Just because we disagree with Dick on aviation matters doesn't mean we are taking away from his success in business or whatever. Dick's only interest in aviation is himself. Everything Dick has introduced or wanted to introduce has been due to a direct effect on his flying. And if the ADSB discussion is still on the old forum have a read cause it's worth it. Imagine the aviation world we would have now if we changed it all back then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham brown Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Dick said on the "other forum" " if I had my way, the CTA steps and airspace would follow that of the USA where the Class B and C zones are surrounded with Class E controlled airspace to 1,200 feet AGL. This means in the USA airline aircraft can descend in a very flexible way remaining in controlled airspace. Of course we don’t have the same here because people are obsessed with keeping huge amounts of uncontrolled airspace near airports." Yes we are because they would take away airspace we use without expensive equipment and procedures without justification. The regional airlines with one or 2 flights a day into regional airports have been trying to do this for years. The traffic density is miniscule compared to the USA. Neither Dick or the Regional Airlines give a rats about our access to these airports. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 USA did get GA running into RPT sometimes. or vice versa because the GA blokes have gotten lost. TCAS may help that. They probably have twice the traffic we call a limit at. It could be argued Controlled and RAAF airspace is allocated too much leaving GA missing out. Lanes of entry have to be one of the most dangerous places to be...Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Dick is a winner today. See The Australian exclusive CASA caves in on safety. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Dick is a polarising figure in some ways. I applaud him for his philanthropy as a businessman. He gives a lot of money away to various good causes, unlike the majority of other rich Australian business personalities, the majority of whom will die still holding the first 100 million pennies they ever earned. I wish more business people were like him but in Australia it'll never happen. On aviation though, I'm a harsh critic of Dick Smith. I think a lot of his decisions when in charge of the CAA were misguided and arguably selfish. The USA is not Australia, and Australia is not the USA. The USA has radar almost everywhere, and more airfields than you can poke a stick at. They have TIS and we don't. Etc, etc. It has a fundamentally different air traffic situation. I believe he ignored most of these factors in his pursuit of changing (ie reducing) the way services are provided here. What is good for them may not be (and I believe has not been) good for us but he seems to insist on believing that it must be so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 A major debacle was removing the air navigation component from the price of avgas. This abruptly reduced the price of avgas to less than the equivalent mogas price. Of course, it took less than 18 months for the greedy oil companies to re- inflate the avgas price to previous levels. A huge win for the oil companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy s Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I love my Dick. 1 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now