I think the Malthusian factors need more weight in immigration policy. Clearly per capita usage of energy and water must decline even with a static population. If we can make voluntary energy cuts per head of 20% but population increases 50% by 2050 by my maths (.8 X 1.5) we will still need 20% more energy. Yet the PM has said that will cut carbon emissions 60% by 2050. The situation with water may be even more dire with 30% median rainfall decline and desalinated water far too expensive for growing food.

If the ageing baby boomers require nursing home care and there is a shortage of home grown staff I think there will be considerable unease about bringing recent immigrants or guest workers. It might seem as if other countries are rewarded for their burgeoning population while Australia is penalised. Or perhaps it will be another example of global imbalances levelling out. Some long term planning might be in order.

“What our population future holds remains something of an unknown.”

And that’s a disgrace. Australians should have a population policy; we should be stabilizing now with a view to reducing population in the future.

We are not being told anything new when this author tells us that the world’s population will rise to 50 billion, and that rise will be inflicted by undeveloped countries. It is also a disgrace to sit back and watch that happen.

Although it is obviously not yet provable, the fixation with an ageing population in developed countries might be mistaken. People now living well beyond their ‘three score and ten’, into their 80,s and 90’s in Australia, at least, are of a tough generation who knew real hardship during the depression and a world war. They were not brought up on junk food; they were fitter physically without as many cars and labour saving devices. They were/are survivors.

It is unlikely that future generations will live as long. Alcohol, drugs, junk food with more and more people relying on pre-prepared meals, growing obesity etc, might very well see ‘ageing populations’ as a one generation only phenomena.

“As far as our own society is concerned one is tempted to say that States and churches should not be in the business of pushing people to have more children”.

Rather than merely being tempted to say that, we should be saying it, loud and clear. Whether or not people take notice of what their churchmen say, governments should certainly not be touting such nonsense, given the Australian Government’s, for example, extremely hypocritical intention to try to control carbon emissions while still pushing high immigration and encouraging child bearing with bonuses.

The outdated catchcry of ‘Populate or perish’ should now be ‘Populate AND Perish’.

This article is worrying.

“It is interesting to reflect on how discussions of population growth have run full circle over the last 50 or so years. Concern about unrelenting population growth was one of the great preoccupations of the second half of last century.”

One of the great preoccupations?? My goodness, I’ve been concerned about this issue for 20 years and I didn’t notice any preoccupation with it, from anything more than a tiny number of concerned individuals! The truth is quite the opposite; that this vitally important issue has been one of the great blind-spots of the last fifty years!

“Perhaps the best way to handle declining fertility and a shrinking population…”

There is NO PROBLEM with declining fertility and no prospect of a shrinking population in Australia! In some European countries, yes, possibly. But not here.

Even with the pre-baby-bonus-boosted fertility rate of ~1.76 and net zero immigration, Australia’s population would continue to grow for three or four decades before it reached replacement level and then started to decline. But at that point, the decline could be arrested very simply by adjusting immigration upwards.

This article is worrying because it is written by the Professor of Population and Security at the Centre for International Security Studies, The University of Sydney, but contains some pretty ratty stuff.

I'm not really sure what the intent of the article was. It seems that the good professor was having a bit of a bet both ways.

The comments by the first three posters are all more attuned to the problems of a burgeoning world population. Malthusians have been derided in the past, but people at last are starting to see the wisdom in his writings.

Curson's statement, "Or indeed the demographic hysteria of the 1960s-90s when overwhelming population growth was claimed to be eroding world resources, threatening ecological doom, epidemics and widespread population decline. None of this happened."

In fact "overwhelming population growth,.... eroding world resources, threatening ecological doom," is happening, and our leaders, both religious and political seem to burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the problems of continued population growth. On Tuesday, it was calculated that if the whole world population were to consume food on the same scale as the developed world, there would be seven days food available. Makes you wonder about how overpopulated we already are.

All I can say to the younger generation is "Make sure you have good supplies of the pill and your favorite condoms".

David

I find myself agreeing with Mr Right on this one. The controlling factor of population is the carrying capacity of the country. Australia has always had limited capacity to carry population, usually the narrow and fertile coastal strip. The idea that we can carry on increasing population is a good way to ensure that we get increasing pressure on the country's capacity to provide water and other necessities. We are already getting into the arguments about transporting water for thousands of miles, which is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Carrying capacity.

That seems to be a concept about which the city slickers in the government and the churches have absolutely no idea. On the other hand, those of us who have anything to do with farming animals, or even growing crops, have an intimate knowledge. The ideas of Thomas Malthus apply equally as well to farming as they do to the human population. If the demand for nutrients exceeds the supply, then the system fails. If the farming system fails, then the human system will also fail.

Here in Victoria, we have the ridiculous situation, where the already stressed water resources of the Goulburn, which is the life blood of hundreds of farms, is to be further stressed, by piping its water to the city, to satisfy the demands of an ever increasing population. This will only result in a further reduction in the amount of viable farmland while those so employed will also be forced to move to the city. A no-win, no-win situation.

David