Population growth in general is inimical to meeting the challenges of an increasingly overcrowded world. Australia should not only limit immigration but also contribute to population planning outside of Australia.

The average Australian leaves a much bigger environmental footprint than the average Bangladeshi. However, if the Bangladeshi comes to Australia his or her life style will change and will leave an Australian size footprint.

Thanks,Charles,for a well reasoned article expressed with clarity.

The fact is that we have so far overshot our sustainable population level that only (apparently) drastic sollutions are left to us.

I propose Zero Immigration as the best way to start on a remedy.

Good to read an article that provides more disclosure of the options.

It diminishes the value and confidence in politicians and report authors when they are not prepared to offer the full picture and all options.

It’s not a case of governments ‘might not’ be able to provide enough water and infrastructure; it is a definite will not.

Governments have failed to provide enough water and infrastructure for 22 million people.

As the author says, the idea that a population of 36 million, or some other wildly irresponsible number, is ‘inevitable’ is wrong. Politicians just want Australians to get used to such an outrageous figure so that they can bring it about – in the hottest, driest continent in the world, where only one third of the land mass in habitable.

Unfortunately, Australia is blighted by the ‘big Australia’ attitude of bothof the only two parties currently capable of forming a government. There is no correlation between a large population and prosperity as is evident in over-populated countries now, and with countries with smaller populations than ours who have not allowed their manufacturing industries to be taken over by the Third World. The idea of Barry Jones’s ‘smart country’ has been ignored by both parties in favour of the cheaper option of over populating Australia.

Charles Berger is to be congratulated on bringing to notice the good performances of countries with much lower populations than Australia’s. Many of us have always wondered why Australia needs more people than other countries doing as well, if not better than, than we are.

It comes back to the same old story: Australia is badly served by its political class, which has always taken the eas yway and, ultimately, the worst way of doing things. They are gluttons for people because they are captive to big (international) business interested only in the sale of IMPORTED consumer goods and housing.

Australia has been over-populated for many years. All the sneers of people who don’t live west of the Great Dividing Range will not change that fact.

The article asks the question "If Norway can prosper with a stable population, why can’t Australia?", but fails to point out some of the key reasons for their prosperity.

It appears that Norway is by nature a thrifty country. It has a...

"...$400 billion wealth fund that holds surplus revenues from North Sea oil and gas exports, turning petrodollars into a hoard of stocks and bonds... worth some $85,000 per citizen."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14460362 (Subscription required)

The country has a population around one-fifth of Australia. It has a pragmatic view of the source - and duration - of its wealth.

"even Ibsen might concede that it is easier to stand alone when your nation has benefited from oil reserves that make it the third-largest exporter in the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html

It has other natural advantages (also from The Economist)

"98-99% of Norway’s electricity comes from hydroelectric plants"

But is also less than a model citizen in other areas.

"Norway is also a prodigious polluter. Its greenhouse-gas emissions have grown 15% since it adopted the carbon tax."

Nevertheless, there are other structural issues that they seem particularly good at:

"There is an extensive public-transport system, with trains between the big cities, ferries along the coast and buses that call at many of Norway’s remote hamlets. There are cycle routes galore, and not as many new roads as drivers would like."

To select Norway as an example of a country that can "prosper with a stable population" is highly expedient.

To fail to point out that there are many more reasons for its continuing prosperity than simply a stable population is, I would suggest, highly tendentious.

The sheer superficiality of the author's analysis is contained in the one sentence:

"The Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Finland … with so many intriguing examples of countries with stable or low-growth populations that somehow continue to enjoy vibrant economies, it’s a pity the report didn’t take a more lateral approach."

Even the most cursory glance at the reality of these countries' economies exposes the shallowness of the argument that population control is a factor.

C'mon CJ where are you? There's lots of racists here to be pulled into line.

Excellent article Charles.

But I’d like to know which country is represented by the dot in the top righthand corner of your graph, which has both the highest population growth rate and the highest per-capita economic growth.

I would assume that the measurement of per-capita growth is purely in dollar terms and doesn’t take into account inflation or non-fiscal factors. I certainly can’t believe that in Australia we have seen a 60% per-capita improvement between 1997 and 2007 in average per-person ecomomic gain in real terms or improvements in quality of life that are supposed to stem from it.

But the point is well made - that there is a very poor correlation between population growth and per-capita improvements.
----

Spot on Leigh.
----

<< Even the most cursory glance at the reality of these countries' economies exposes the shallowness of the argument that population control is a factor. >>

Pericles, of course there are other factors. But your post, as well researched and composed as it is, doesn’t discount the assertion that a stable population or very low growth rate is indeed a major factor.

Charles Berger's argument is garbage because the comparison between Australia and the EU countries just doesn't stack up. Of course an EU would be going fine with a smallish population they have direct access to the large EU common market which means that people and trade flows easily through their country. We haven't got anything like that working for us on our giant continent where we are the only countryi.

An ageing population is a major problem for us so we need extra workers, who in turn will have children etc at the replacement rate. We can hold 36 million. We do have enough water we just need to be a lot more intelligent about how we manage it. We waste a lot of water in Australia. We use good drinking water on gardens when we could recycle water. We lose a lot of rain water in our drainage system. We don't want to drink recycled water.

Worse still more than half of Australia's population lives in just 5 cities. But the cities surrounding them, liku the smaller towns are ignored. People and jobs could be moved out there. We can do it. We just don't have the brains or the guts to invest in nfrastructure and to plan ahead. We just like scoring cheap points. Thats why these greenies, anti-immigrationists, and closet n not so closet racists are banding together against population growth.

I see this as just part of an obsession with growth - absence of growth in almost any economic parameter is seen as evidence of stagnation and inevitably of decay. But is there or has there ever been any system in which exponential growth will not or has not already led to collapse?

Pericles: I'm didn't claim that a stable population is the cause of Norway's economic prosperity, I cited it as an example of a country where a stable population is consistent with economic prosperity.

You're right that the causes of Norway's prosperity include prudent investment of revenue from non-renewable resources, an abundance of renewable energy resources, and great transport infrastructure despite a challenging climate and topography. So which of those things don't apply (or couldn't apply) to Australia?

(And yes, they're tremendous greenhouse polluters, though not quite so bad as we are.)

Ludwig: It's official OECD data on per-capita economic growth, and yes I think it is before inflation and exchange rate fluctuations. The data point at the top right of the chart is Ireland - booming economy during this period due to low tax regime within EU and a tech boom, which fuelled migration, including the return of quite a few Irish expats.

jjplug: not convinced that an ageing population requires more workers... I refer to Peter MacDonald, one of Australia's leading demographers, on this question: "it is important that the message is heard that our population cannot be kept young through immigration. The problem is that immigrants, like the rest of the population, get older and as they do, to keep the population young, we would need an increasingly higher number of immigrants. … It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young."

An ageing population will require us to be creative and compassionate. It may require some reprioritisation of our considerable wealth and economic success. More migration won't solve the problem, and in the long term will exacerbate it.

Weasel words, Mr Berger.

>>Pericles: I'm didn't claim that a stable population is the cause of Norway's economic prosperity, I cited it as an example of a country where a stable population is consistent with economic prosperity.<<

"Consistent with" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

It's akin saying that Zimbabwe's vast mineral resources are "consistent with economic prosperity".

Either there is, or there is not, causality.

If there is no causality, as you are happy to allow, then your question "why can't Australia be more like Norway" is without merit.

You even admit this here:

>>...the causes of Norway's prosperity include prudent investment of revenue from non-renewable resources, an abundance of renewable energy resources, and great transport infrastructure despite a challenging climate and topography. So which of those things don't apply (or couldn't apply) to Australia?<<

All of the above variables apply exactly to the condition in which we find ourselves. We sit on our hands, do nothing, and blame "population".

The paradox is, of course, that if we were able to make any headway as a country on these key issues, we would be able to sustain a considerable multiple of our present number.

And Leigh, you are being unduly pessimistic.

>>It’s not a case of governments ‘might not’ be able to provide enough water and infrastructure; it is a definite will not.<<

As far as water is concerned, we are constrained substantially by government diktat - the "no dams" policy. For centuries, civilizations around the world have built dams in order to provide their water supplies. Where's the logic that says "hey, I know we are short of water, but you're not allowed to collect any..."

Blaming "population" is a cop-out. Using it to further an anti-immigration policy is dishonest.

Although I generally agree with the author's arguments,Norway is definitely a special case it's an oil kingdom with polar bears, it's not your average OECD nation.

When politicians say that "Australia's economy is growing",they're certainly not referring to per growth in per capita GDP which is somewhat unimpressive.High population growth is simply the easy way for lazy politicians to claim "progress".The real measure is how much each citizen benefits from this growth--not much when the dysfunctions of a high rate of population increase are considered. When the world is consolidating into trading blocs of billions of consumers it's difficult to see the advantage of adding a few hundred thousand people to this old tired desert.There are too many vested interests promoting high immigration because it increases their profits at a cost to the nation.

Economics is not a science, so let's be sceptical about economic modelling and as the author suggests, refer to real national economies.

Pericles,

Why do you imagine that federal and state governments that are happy to ignore or overrule local residents on development and environmentalists on a host of other issues would suddenly cave into them on dams? The real issue is lack of suitable sites, a problem made more acute with risks of more evaporation and less run-off due to climate change. See

http://www.abare.gov.au/interactive/08_ResearchReports/Urbanwater/htm/chapter_2.htm

Desalinated water is 4-6 times as expensive as dam water and very energy hungry. Why would our politiicians go for it if dams were a viable option?

Switzerland (not a member of the EU) is at the top of the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index with a population growth rate of 0.276% (CIA World Factbook figure), compared to our current 2.1%.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm

None of the other top 10 countries, which don't include us, have even half our rate of population growth. Singapore, the US, and Japan are all non-EU countries, and Germany and Japan are actually losing population, at -0.053% for Germany and -0.191% for Japan. To put these figures into perspective see this graph from the World Bank.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN&dl=en&hl=en&q=Population+Japan+graph

It is reasonably correct to say that there are more Japanese alive now than at any time in human history.

Not the worst article I've read. First of all is the author looking at Norway since the beginning of time because since 1980 it's population growth is about 1.7 percent.

The title presumes (a) Norway is prosperous therefore (b) Australia is not. This is false logic.

Australia is doing very nicely considering we just spent $40B on pump priming the economy.

Quite right we could do with more infrastructure but keep in mind we're 120 times larger than Norway. One might like to have a look at Norway's tax structure as they service a high end social welfare and health system. That's good, right? It's good if you want high taxes.

Why can't we be more like Norway? Because we're Australian.

Pericles - I'm puzzled .... I cheerfully admit that there is no causal relationship between population growth and economic prosperity. That, indeed, was the whole point of my article. I wrote it to rebut assertions (in the Intergenerational Report and by the Government) that population growth is necessary for economic success. Clearly, economic success is related to factors other than population growth, as you've pointed out.

I'm not "blaming" population growth for anything; I'm making what I thought was a moderate and sensible point that our economy doesn't have to depend on rapid population growth.

Cheryl - I didn't assert that (a) Norway is prosperous therefore (b) Australia is not.

I asserted that (a) Norway has a strong economy and a stable population, therefore (b) Australia could have a strong economy and a stable population too. Australia is indeed prosperous - my point is that we don't need rapid population growth to sustain that prosperity

Mac - Sure, Norway's special. But what's really unique is not that they have great mineral wealth (so does Australia), but that they chose to exploit that resource through a national oil company which reinvests all the profits for the long-term benefit of the community. Most other OECD countries permit private companies to extract mineral resources and distribute the profits to shareholders, leading to a short-term consumption boost rather than long-term prudential reinvestment in the community.

Berger,

Yes,I agree with your comments about Norway's policy in regard to conserving its oil wealth.I wonder if there's some advantage in small populations when introducing such measures,a less macho, more co-operative ethos perhaps.

I don't like Charles Berger's article because the comparisons don't stack up. The whole piece is about population, the environment and growth - just look at the title - and it tries to make comparisons between Australia and Norway, Slovakia etc that are fundamentally flawed.

Its a bit disengenuous to say that there is no link between population growth and economic prosperity. The truth is that the size of your domestic labour force, their purchasing power as consumers and their youth and replacement rate are all factors that affect economic growth. But there is no direct link as such between population and growth. You could be a very large country but be very poor or very small and rich. Either way, Berger misrepresents the position on population growth and prosperity.

The other main flaw in Berger's argument is the idea that wealth from natural resources could easily be reinvested into Australia. Norway exploits its resources through a national company. Australia's national resources mines, farms etc, are mostly privately owned. Add the fact that the Howard Govt blew 140 billion or the 170 billion collected in tax from these activities on middle class welfare etc then you'll see why its a false comparison. We wouldn't be able to 'nationalise' these assets without paying fair compensation.

I am most definitely convinced that a country does NOT need an increasing population to prosper, and as an active follower of scientific news sites, convinced that there may well be decreasing need for human employment over automated production- decreasing the need for more employees.
Our only problem is a shortage of skilled workers- especially medical staff- whom we can advertise for abroad and try to provide more incentives for pursuing academically at home.

As for managing the increase of population (and there will be- even if we're sensible and keep it a small one), the ONLY way to do that without stomping over someone's rights or significant environmental deterioration is to locate an area- both rich in water (not already significantly relied on by some fragile ecosystem- like some artesian basins), and actually accessible to some business-rich city or more, and create an entirely new city- with proper infrastructural provisions and jobs to offer- and to appeal to the excess populations of the big 5 cities to move there. If its near (but not looming right next to) an agricultural area it might actually be welcomed by the community having some services nearer to home.

Otherwise (and a better option for now), I nominate our capital city CANBERRA to be the first to start developing up- unlike Sydney and its surrounding towns (which are near or well over full-capacity) Canberra actually has plenty of unused space. As in many parts around that city, there are uninhabited areas with nothing but squillions of BARREN crisscrossing roads separated by grassy patches of dirt which absolutely nobody will miss if someone built some highrises on. In fact, I didn't even see any houses for miles of these areas.
And of course, we can start around Parliament House- to create the maximum awareness of the need to consider the rights of the neighbours who may experience reduced comfort and privacy when a giant flat pops up next door when considering my other proposal.

I think it is a reasonable comparison. Sure Norway has a lot of resources but so does Australia. Places like Slovakia benefited from joining the EU just as Australia benefited from a booming China.

If anything it illustrates what might be if WA or Qld secede and do not have to prop up inept NSW state governments. Let's implement the 1933 referendum.

One thing seems to missing from the population debate. If we currently need more migrants to pay for retiring boomers who will pay for the new wave of migrants when they get old? Sounds like the mother of all Ponzi schemes. Perhaps we should up the compulsory super contribution to 15% as was originally intended.

I like Berger’s article because it is dealing with population growth, not some foggy number of people eg. 36 million for Australia, such as our Prime Minister has bandied about.

Should those advocating growth continue to have their way, at the growth rate they have imposed on us (about 1.8 per cent), Australia’s numbers will increase from a present 22 to 44 million people by 2050.

The reasons currently being presented for growth will be even more pressing when that number is reached. As it will be if continued for another forty years at the same rate – and 88 million.

With their underlying arguments remaining impervious to sanity, the powers that be will have us doubling the doubling the doubling – forty years at a time. It will take just over 700 years, but by ever-imposing what are presently undemocratic principles in order to apply that current logic, there will be one person per square metre over the whole of this continent. And that would shrink to half a square metre each just 40 years after that.

Considering our social amenities such as water, housing, infrastructure in general, being presently less than ideal - and waning, it is high time to deal with this growth stupidity rather than letting it proliferate. Quoting Swedish economist Peter Soderbaum: “Present unsustainable trends are very much the result of actors with mental maps influenced by neoclassical economics. In changing direction we should probably not turn to those actors who more than others are responsible for things that went wrong.” And we are currently in that situation with the population growth lobby.

Pericles

"As far as water is concerned, we are constrained substantially by government diktat - the "no dams" policy. For centuries, civilizations around the world have built dams in order to provide their water supplies. Where's the logic that says "hey, I know we are short of water, but you're not allowed to collect any...""

That is an uncharitable summation of a great body of research by many talented scientists. The main constraints for water in Australia are a generally flat topography, meaning a lack of suitable dam sites, high evaporation rates, vast distances between points of collection and utilisation, and the very fickle nature of Australian rainfall.

Unfortunately there are many people like yourself who seem to think that water supply is merely a matter of political will rather than a physical constraint to growth. More unfortunate is the money wasted by government investigating a new incantation of the Bradfield Scheme or Kimberley to Perth pipeline. The latest waste was a study to investigate the potential of Northern Australia as a food bowl. It suggested that irrigated land could be expanded by about 40,000 hectares.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812753.htm

I am curious though, Pericles. Where do you and other growth advocates imagine all the extra water and food is going to come from? Do you think that all the scientific evidence against schemes for drought proofing Australia and turning the north into a food bowl is bunk?

On the issue of water, there are plenty of options (besides continuing to suck up the Murray);
1- more intuitive plumbing diverting grey-water from the sinks and showers into the toilets and gardens- this would easily apply to new houses- not so much for existing ones, and even less again for apartments.
2- recycling- works pretty well, depending on how you do it- the risk of a filtering mechanism malfunctioning is of course a concern (and not all countries with recycled water are ones deemed safe- save Singapore)
3- Desal- expensive for consumers to keep the filtering and plant systems running, and also a pollution problem as concentrated salt is a byproduct.

Most of our water gets used in agriculture. See this table from the ABS
http://www.water.gov.au/WaterUse/Waterusedbytheeconomy/index.aspx?Menu=Level1_4_2

We may be better of growing crops that are suited to dry climates. The excess water can then be used to fill the murrray and add to the cities drinking water supply.

Chickpeas or perhaps CSIRO can engineer low water using wheat,

Australia could if we introduced a norwegian mentality. quite simple really.

Any article that make ridiculous comparisons to start with holds no credibility.

Norway has the North Sea Oil and huge hydro electric, and other resources with a 4m population. So much so that the government almost does not even need income tax.

So the alternative solution is to find huge oil and other reserves?

get real.

Perhaps another reason is their attitude toward their contribution toward their community.

In Norway, everybody's personal Tax records are accessible on-line for a certain period every year.

That way, everybody can see how much Tax each individual pays (or doesn't pay) and therefore, what contribution they are making to their society.

Likewise, the top-paying individual Taxpayers are announced and to make this list is seen as something with a great deal of personal prestige. It not only demonstrates personal financial success but also their degree of contribution toward the whole nation.

Over here, wealthy businessmen employ others to minimise or avoid paying tax and this is seen as normal and even admirable.

Everybody wants something from society but nobody is prepared to pay for it.

I think it does, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, of course there are other factors. But your post... doesn’t discount the assertion that a stable population or very low growth rate is indeed a major factor.

In fact, it drew this exact admission from the article's author:

>>Pericles... I cheerfully admit that there is no causal relationship between population growth and economic prosperity. That, indeed, was the whole point of my article<<

So, once we take population out of the equation, what are we left with?

Norway is a socialist country, where the government maintains a significant investment in its key export industries, as part of its budgetting process. It is therefore able to put in place the major infrastructure that keeps transaction costs low for business in general, as well as providing basic amenities for its 4.6m people.

There is so little similarity between the two countries, we could use precisely the same data to say “since we don't have these advantages, growing our population is the only viable alternative”

Just saying.

And all this nonsense about water is mere diversionary tactics by the dog-in-the-manger brigade.

Divergence offers a typical excuse.

>>The real issue is lack of suitable sites, a problem made more acute with risks of more evaporation and less run-off due to climate change.<<

Cobblers. The real issue is historic inactivity by successive State governments, whose backsides have now been conveniently covered by federal government.

Fester neatly summarizes the government's position.

>>...a study to investigate the potential of Northern Australia as a food bowl... suggested that irrigated land could be expanded by about 40,000 hectares.”

As the CSIRO pointed out:

“At the time of the study, all jurisdictions had a no-dams policy, and therefore we did not investigate the opportunities for dams in the north”

The folly of this blindness will become clear in the coming decades, as we spend an increasing amount on desalination - always a feel-good, jobs-for-the-boys project for State governments. In the meantime, its cost is a convenient peg on which the anti-immigration lobby can hang their xenophobic hats.

Jolly good, the discussion have been well and truly diverted onto nit-picking examples and finally the xenophobe card has been played.

This is what needs to be addressed: "Many Australians are deeply uncomfortable with rapid population growth. A recent poll (PDF 108KB) found that 48 per cent of Australians thought such growth would be bad for Australia, while only 24 per cent thought it would be good. They intuit, perhaps, that governments might not be up to the task of providing sustainable water, energy and transport infrastructure for rapidly growing cities."

This is the practical reality: 'Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said government funding had not kept pace with population growth.

"I think we need to be clear for every 100 families that come to the region, there will be an appetite for a certain number of detached homes and apartment buildings. I'm not confident we've got the mix right," he said.

"I'm not confident we can fund the infrastructure needed in the plan (South East Queensland Regional Plan 2004). I go back to the federal government; they're the ones shovelling them through the door, and people like the premier and mayors then have to deal with it." '

and

'Ms Bligh said an additional population the size of Darwin (about 115,000) had to be accommodated in the state's southeast every year.'

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26761277-952,00.html

Ex-NSW Premier Bob Carr has voiced similar concerns:
'I need only summarise the indictments of such high-end population growth. It assumes rainfall reliability not reflected in any known data. It ignores evidence that high immigration has only a marginal impact on age distribution over the long term. It glides over the proof marshalled by Ross Gittins that high immigration worsens, not relieves, skill shortages. It also spikes the cost of land and cruels housing affordability.

It defies "carrying capacity" constraints. One windy day blows our onion paper-thin soil 1400 kilometres. Our rivers are mere creeks compared with those fed by the Alps, the Rockies or the Andes. Two capitals, Adelaide and Brisbane, have come perilously close to running out of water.'

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/perish-the-thought-that-we-can-handle-a-bigger-population-20091118-imfv.html

Are these the xenophobes?

Diverted, Cornflower? Nit-picking? Xenophobe card?

>>the discussion have been well and truly diverted onto nit-picking examples and finally the xenophobe card has been played<<

The article in question failed to make any connection between a "stable population" and prosperity. Yet the entire tone of the piece was "we don't need any more people".

I quote:

"Migration is the largest determinant of long-term population growth for Australia, and different migration levels mean the difference between population stabilisation and ongoing rapid growth."

Are you suggesting that this was merely a passing observation?

The article also adds its own colour, where it can.

"They intuit, perhaps, that governments might not be up to the task of providing sustainable water, energy and transport infrastructure..."

"They intuit, perhaps..."

Purely editorial. The poll itself drew no such conclusion.

You then quote a couple of politicians covering their own backsides.

A Brisbane mayor pointing the finger at the Feral Gumment. Surprise.

And quoting Bob Carr - puhlease! Only someone who lives outside NSW, and therefore doesn't live with the legacy of his period of arrogant inactivity could possibly consider him credible on the topic of infrastructure.

As for the "xenophobe card", please read what was said, and not what you think was said.

"In the meantime, its cost [water supply] is a convenient peg on which the anti-immigration lobby can hang their xenophobic hats"

They will. Betcha.

Pericles

"“At the time of the study, all jurisdictions had a no-dams policy, and therefore we did not investigate the opportunities for dams in the north”"

True, but the report did suggest that such investigation would have been a waste of resources, as:

"Despite high rainfall from November to April there
is almost no rain for the remaining six months.
Evaporation and plant transpiration is so high
throughout the year that, on average, for 10 months
of the year there is very little water to be seen.

Most rainfall occurs near the coasts and on
floodplains, so much of it runs quickly to the
sea, making it hard to capture. Relatively little
of the rainfall occurs in the upper reaches
of rivers where the topography to allow dam
construction might be more favourable.

The very high rates of evaporation (up to
3 metres a year) make it hard to store surface
water year round without large and deep storages,
for which there are few good sites. The significant
variability in rainfall from year to year, in addition
to its highly seasonal nature, also means
that water storages need to be very large.

For these reasons, the ability to conserve and
access surface water for consumptive use is highly
constrained. The Taskforce therefore considers that
extensive use of surface water is unlikely, principally
on the basis of water use efficiency and the likely very
high cost of capture and storage options."

Here is a link to the full report containing the above quote if you are interested:

http://www.nalwt.gov.au/reports.aspx

Again Pericles, I would ask you where you think all the water and food to support a larger population is going to come from? Yes, there are all the Jack and the Beanstalky stories about turning the North into a food bowl or the deserts into fertile oases, but such hopes seem at odds with the expert opinion.

Pericles

I quoted political leaders from local and state government and from both major parties, yet you dismiss that as 'a couple of politicians covering their backsides'. These are the very people who are responsible for housing, finding employment and providing the necessities of life for the populous 'Big Australia' Mr Rudd dreams of.

Your ad hominem attack on Bob Carr diminishes your credibility and suggests that you have no counter arguments. If you have the facts to dispel his assessment why not give them?

If you really want to take anyone to task for flawed comparison (and great whacking generalisation unsupported by fact), you could start with the person who made this foolish claim, "As far as water is concerned, we are constrained substantially by government diktat - the "no dams" policy. For centuries, civilizations around the world have built dams in order to provide their water supplies".

Suffice it to say that if you have knowledge of good water collection areas and suitable dam sites to supply water for Rudd's Big Australia, please don't keep them to yourself. You could start with Toowoomba if you like, where because of recent good rains and water from the Wivenhoe, the water limit is 140 litres per day.

However, even given the restricted availability of suitable dam sites, politics is still the art of the possible and there are other considerations, as Anna Bligh would readily attest after being stomped on by Garrett.

Asking the hard questions about such critical resources as water and sustainability is not anti-immigration as you might pretend, it is essential to the risk analysis and prudent planning that government should undertake (and why not publically?) before commiting itself to big decisions. As is abundantly clear from the current insulation debacle (Garrett again), the reluctance to perform its due diligence before commiting itself to major decisions is the Achilles' Heel of the federal government.

Lack of due diligence and lack of planning are also the hallmarks of Rudd's Big Australia and both state and local government leaders all around the country are telling him just that.

We have in OZ an ever increasing number of people who will never work , who will be unable to feed themselves , clothe , medicate ,manage Health issues or house themselves , we are challenged now to provide for them .

We need to progress our breeding rate to meet their requirements lest we be labelled a Third world Country with Qnsland Shonkies selling phoney work Visas and offering Passage to the Amazon to pick Bananas in a fleet of old Stebers all UV'd and scared .

Get with the breeding program avoid the stigma of being daubed Ossie People Smugglers and Homeless Starving People Deniers .

Posted by Shadow Minister on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 at 7:25:39 AM:

"Any article that makes ridiculous comparisons
to start with holds no credibility.

Norway has the North Sea Oil and huge hydro electric,
and other resources with a 4m population. So much so
that the government almost does not even need income tax.

So the alternative solution is to find huge oil and
other reserves?

get real."



A throw-away line or two that I just cannot bear to let go to waste, Shadow Minister. Whilst I am by no means convinced that the comparisons made in the article are relevant, the following information appears just too serendipitously apposite to fail to bring it to viewers' notice: http://www.scandoil.com/moxie-bm2/news/central-petroleum-to-drill-five-coal-seam-gas-well.shtml

So, paraphrasing the first sentence of your own second paragraph, it would seem 'Australia has (among other things) the Pedirka Basin coal, coal seam gas, Helium, and salt deposits and huge solar and hot dry rock resources with a 22m population.' The Pedirka Basin coal seams have an aggregate thickness of over 100 metres, with the thickest being around 40 metres thick, and extend over thousands of square kilometres. Reserves, although deep, are estimated in the trillions of tonnes.

I am, of course, trusting that the report reflects reality with respect to Central Petroleum Ltd's prospects in my attempt to fulfil your exhortation to 'get real'.

Interestingly, the above-linked report was published in the Scandinavian Oil-Gas Magazine.

Also interesting how little this has been noised about here in Australia. Perhaps this latter circumstance might go part way to explaining the Jurassic tendencies you observe in the Prime Minister in your current General Discussion topic '"We won't be going nuclear": Dinosaur Rudd'. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3458&page=0

Refocusing upon the article, it makes one wonder as to the possible mechanisms that enable Australian governments to view a projected 36 million population so differently to that of the community they are supposed to represent.

That's kinda... stretching the concept, just a little, Cornflower.

>>Your ad hominem attack on Bob Carr...<<

Whoa there.

Quote: "Only someone who lives outside NSW, and therefore doesn't live with the legacy of his period of arrogant inactivity could possibly consider him credible on the topic of infrastructure.<<

If I had called him a pseudo-intellectual windbag, or a lazy up-himself do-nothing, or a condescending sleaze-merchant, that would be ad hominem.

But might I suggest that to ascribe the same label to the phrase "his period of arrogant activity" is pretty much an over-reaction?

>>Your ad hominem attack on Bob Carr diminishes your credibility and suggests that you have no counter arguments<<

I was merely questioning his pontification credentials. People in glass houses, and all that.

But just to set me completely straight on the subject, would you care to nominate an infrastructure project in NSW that Mr Carr can be justly proud of?

One that would confer upon him the bragging rights necessary to blame nature, and normal day-to-day government responsibilities (which he would prefer to call "insurmountable challenges", no doubt), for his administration's terminal inactivity?

Thought not.

And Fester, yes I did read the report.

>>Here is a link to the full report containing the above quote...<<

I also read the CSIRO report from which it took much of its irrigation-related information, the "Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project"

Which states, specifically, "New storage sites and storage-yield reliabilities, however, were not assessed."

And one of its "key Findings"?

"There is a paucity of quality data for water resource accounting for northern Australia."

Quelle surprise énorme.

The entire report reads as a Green manifesto, with as much blurb about maintaining wetlands for migratory birds as real information on the viability of water supplies.

>>Pericles, I would ask you where you think all the water and food to support a larger population is going to come from?<<

I bet we'll find it when we need to. It's what people do.

In the meantime, it's all playing nicely into the hands of the anti-immigration mob.

"I bet we'll find it when we need to. It's what people do."

Sometimes they find water, sometimes they dont. I would rather have proof than take something on faith. The available evidence gives me little reason for optimism about Northern Australia supporting many millions of people.

"its cost [water supply] is a convenient peg on which the anti-immigration lobby can hang their xenophobic hats"

Physical reality makes a better peg than falsely linking one's opinion to one's morality, though feel free to try and prove a correlation if you can. But there are other pegs, one of which is the infrastructure cost for each citizen. What would you estimate the cost per citizen to be? Ballooning government debt would suggest that the figure is quite substantial: Add the peg questioning whether immigration provides any per capita economic benefit, and I really struggle to see much sense in pursuing a policy with high cost, great risk and uncertainty, and more likelihood of worsening the average lot of Australian citizens.

"I bet we'll find it when we need to. It's what people do."

I said that to my bank manager when he asked how I was going to pay back a $5 million loan on a firefighters salary and the bastard wouldn't give me the loan. Doesn't he understand how the world works. By the way I wonder when we are going to find a cure for cancer. I would have thought that we really needed one, but since we haven't got a cure yet maybe not.

I love the idea that the Intergenerational report using only Japan and Italy is just the way things happen, but Berger using Norway and then listing several other countries is a high crime against humanity.

The point regarding GDP growth is made even stronger considering that it is average GDP not median GDP that is used in the Lindsay Tanner argument. In 2004 Peter Costello, a proponent of high population growth, initiated a study by the Productivity commission to determine the impacts of an increase in skilled immigration. The study found that average wages dropped slightly with increased immigration and noted that the real big winners of increased immigration were the wealthy. In other words high immigration makes rich people richer (which is why they promote it, except Dick Smith thank God) and the average guy gets nothing but a degraded environment and higher costs for housing, food, water, power, etc.

We have to start living sustainably some day. It is either up to us or to our children when the problems are all harder to solve. I'd rather start today.

Pericles

All of that needless rationalisation and not one dam.

You have not managed to dispel any of the concerns expressed by the State and local Government leaders I quoted.

It is time the federal government took its heavy foot off the gas pedal of growth at any cost and considered what the States, Local government and voters are saying. Anyway, since when did PM Rudd have a mandate for his Big Australia, or is that all 'Never you mind'?

There is water, Fester.

>>Sometimes they find water, sometimes they dont.<<

Quite a lot. It's just that the scenery will be spoilt if we build dams to store it in, and a few fluffy ducks will have to find somewhere else to breed. Oh, and the ecology of the region will be upset. Apparently. Or maybe. No-one is really sure, because not many people live there. But it's best to be on the safe side, isn't it.

Your mastery of the subtle art of sarcasm deserves recognition, ericc.

>>By the way I wonder when we are going to find a cure for cancer. I would have thought that we really needed one, but since we haven't got a cure yet maybe not.<<

But it's just a teensy tad overdone, when we are talking about digging holes in the ground. Very few PhDs are required.

Oh, and Cornflower...

>>Pericles All of that needless rationalisation and not one dam. You have not managed to dispel any of the concerns expressed by the State and local Government leaders I quoted.<<

They're just excuses for inaction, expressed as "concerns"

The easiest thing in the world is to find reasons not to do stuff. The difficult thing is actually getting off your backside and making it happen.

It is a really good job that previous generations of Australians didn't think like you do. What a boring, insular and dirt-poor country we would live in, eh?

No, I can't be arsed to build a dam, there's too much evaporation. No, I can't be arsed to build a power station in the Snowy mountains, it's too much like hard work. No, I can't be arsed to dig for coal, it's too dirty and pollutes the atmosphere...

What's wrong with you people?

Pericles

There you go again, making lazy arsed assumptions about people. It does you no credit. If the north could be developed and have year round water to support tens of millions, that would be great. But as previous generations of Australians realised, there is no point building a dam unless it is makes economic sense. And for the physical realities I mentioned, which were realised by talented scientists many decades ago, the dreams of huge irrigation schemes have no foundation in fact or economics. But as you demonstrate, there will always be some who think the experts have missed something. Here is another link to an article outlining the reality:

http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Can_We_Myth_Proof_Australia.pdf

Pericles,

OK, so the Emperor Pericles has no clothes.

Isn't the main point here that a country like Norway is able to prosper with a relatively small population, precisely because they were smart enough to nationalise the exploitation of natural resources, rather than flogging them off to whoever wants to make a quick buck? It seems to me that Australia's reliance on an ever-burgeoning population of workers and consumers is intrinsically tied to our national economic tradition of being the world's quarry, in exchange for the temporary benefits that derive in extracting the resources that other countries want in order to manufacture the stuff that they sell back to us.

If you want to see where that leads, look at Nauru as an example.

Pericles' attitude is one that sees humans as urban creatures, which it is the function of the environment to sustain, regardless of the ecological and social costs. Unfortunately, I suspect that this attitude is prevalent among the majority of Australians who do indeed live in our awful cities, relatively few of whom actually get out and see the damage that is wrought on our fragile environment in order to support their unsustainable lifestyles. I suspect that Pericles has never ventured west of the Blue Mountains in order to witness what I'm talking about.

It's not about fluffy ducks - it's about reorganising the way we live collectively in order that our descendants have sustainable futures.

You'd be pretty right there, CJ

>>I suspect that Pericles has never ventured west of the Blue Mountains in order to witness what I'm talking about.<<

However, I have been to the Top End, through seemingly endless rainforests, along tiny tracks that are invisible when you fly back over them. It has always struck me that there is an entirely new country out there, waiting to be explored -and yes, developed - in much the same way that occurred two hundred years ago.

You object to it, because it "spoils" the countryside, and "wreaks damage on our fragile environment".

On the other hand, there are many millions of people in the world, presently living from hand to mouth, who would give their grandmother (if she hadn't died at the age of forty) for the chance to make a go of it there.

Ok, so I am exaggerating. But only to make the point that we are exhibiting an enormous level of selfishness when making decisions like this.

It is very trendy to use "the environment" as a reason to maintain the status quo. Which means preserving the vast landmass in perpetuity for its present "owners".

It might be valid to point out that there was a time, not that long ago, when this country had different "owners". Who had a very different view of the land than those who now "own" it. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to envisage a time when our own views of "conservation" might be entirely alien to folk who just want to live.

Just saying.

Of course we won't find ways to irrigate the land, if we deliberately choose not to look. Of course we won't be like Norway, unless we install a government similar to that which they have elected. And of course nothing will ever change while people are happy to sit on their backsides and say "we tried that once, and it didn't work".

Pericles said, "And of course nothing will ever change while people are happy to sit on their backsides and say "we tried that once, and it didn't work"."

Dear Pericles,

It's an unfortunate characteristic of humankind that when something doesn't work, they will often repeat the same stupid action with redoubled vigour instead of changing the way they do things.

The story so far....

From the window of his airconditioned aircraft and the map provided in the in-flight magazine, Pericles has found green worthless stuff that needs to be bulldozed to re-settle the teeming millions produced in undeveloped countries by women who have no control over their own fertility.

Specifically, there is a huuuuge tract of 40,000 hectares of very average soil (er, less that average and a bit poor really) in FNQ that each year has a short period of tropical downpour and flooding followed by many months of searing heat and dry.

Now according to Pericles, all that has to be done if only those stupid pollies would get off their fat behinds, is to build a long concrete wall to stop the rain ending up back in the sea and turn around all of those migrants who want to live in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane and send them packing to Far North Queensland.

Too easy and totally unselfish, world's overpopulation sorted and that useless green (green some bits of the year, but even drought adapted Ozzie plants have their limits) spot in the airline in-flight magazine has been changed to a sea of roof tops housing shanghaied, but satisfied, migrants. There is a shiny new ten storey Centrelink office. Meanwhile, everyone looks skywards for jobs. Hey, jobs will come, they've got to haven't they?

Next week Pericles will be over-flying the continent of Africa where there are heaps of jolly big green spots to be seen from on high, but strangely enough thousands suffer famine. However some concrete dams and doubling the population will fix all that too, eh Pericles?

Bah, Phooey to those greenies, the world ain't full yet by a long shot and if the main game is subduing Mother Nature there is nothing like overpopulation and dammed rivers to bring her to her knees.

Back in the real world, Anna Bligh is still trying to build more cities on arable land to house migrants. They can bring their own water, somehow. The urban spill has been over over prime 'food bowl' lands.

Very amusing, Cornflower.

But you miss the point. Again.

>>From the window of his airconditioned aircraft and the map provided in the in-flight magazine, Pericles has found... drone... drone...<<

I also travelled through the same landscape at ground level. I found some interesting spots along the way. Weipa was quite an eye-opener, for example. They managed to find a sustainable 64 gigalitres p.a. supply. Not bad for a small town. Especially as that's pretty much what they use to keep Canberra going. (Yes, I'm aware it could be put to far better use. But that isn't the subject here)

I presume that the idea of reproducing the Weipa story, complete with its rape of the land to dig up minerals in order to stuff the pockets of the bloated capitalists, is what you principally object to. Right?

Your other agenda is also crystal clear.

>>...green worthless stuff that needs to be bulldozed to re-settle the teeming millions produced in undeveloped countries by women who have no control over their own fertility.<<

Oka-a-a-a-y. Nothing to see here, move along please.

>>Next week Pericles will be over-flying the continent of Africa where there are heaps of jolly big green spots to be seen from on high, but strangely enough thousands suffer famine<<

On this basis, those African countries should be as prosperous as Norway, I guess. Strange that they aren't. I wonder why that is?

Keep talking Cornflower. We're learning more about your deep-seated attitiudes with every post.

And it has nothing to do with water, does it?

Nothing dark about my 'agenda' as you ominously put it, as anyone can see from posts. Here is my first:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10084&page=5

I am concerned about lack of risk analysis and lack of planning by the federal government and so are the State and Local government leaders all around the country. I repeated my concerns in my second post and here is an excerpt for you:

"...it is essential to the risk analysis and prudent planning that government should undertake (and why not publicly?) before commiting itself to big decisions. As is abundantly clear from the current insulation debacle (Garrett again), the reluctance to perform its due diligence before commiting itself to major decisions is the Achilles' Heel of the federal government.

Lack of due diligence and lack of planning are also the hallmarks of Rudd's Big Australia and both state and local government leaders all around the country are telling him just that."

I do not agree with your cynical generalisation about State and Local government leaders, or Australians, as being lazy, ignorant and unwilling to try anything new.

I didn't object to Weipa, that is all in your imagination.

I am a taxpayer and while I am happy to see government spending money I sure as hell want to see evidence of good governance and worthwhile results. Private enterprise doesn't expect its shareholders to accept major decisions or plans for investment on faith alone and neither should the federal government expect the community to accept "Never you mind". Judging from recent events including the insulation debacle, the federal government should be re-jigging the way it consults with stakeholders and the way it makes policy decisions.

Let's see if I have your argument on urban water straight, Pericles. Our politicians have boosted urban populations to the point where city water supplies have become inadequate. The problem could be easily and cheaply solved with a few more dams, but the politicians decide to build very expensive, energy hungry desalination plants instead, even though the skyrocketing water and electricity prices are going to give ammunition to the "xenophobes". They do this to provide "jobs for the boys", who mysteriously cannot be put to work fixing up our sclerotic urban transport, deathtrap highways, and many other forms of seriously overstretched infrastructure.

The politicians then institute a giant conspiracy in which the natural scientists, engineers, and economists at ABARE, the CSIRO and other government instrumentalities put their professional reputations on the line to lie about the lack of suitable dam sites, the potential for development in Far North Queensland, and other such issues, just the opposite of what the politicians would want them to be saying to promote public acceptance of further massive population growth.

Perhaps you should stick to showing that the Moon landings were faked, the British royal family assassinated Princess Diana, alien abductions are real, and Elvis lives, all areas where you might have a bit more credibility.

Sadly, Divergence, that's not even close.

>>Let's see if I have your argument on urban water straight, Pericles. Our politicians... institute a giant conspiracy<<

Government inactivity was just that. Inactivity.

When the need became urgent, they were forced into expensive alternatives.

CSIRO didn't lie about the dams. They were asked not to consider them.

No conspiracy. Just business as usual.

<Weipa was quite an eye-opener, for example. They managed to find a sustainable 64 GL p.a. supply. Not bad for a small town. Especially as that's pretty much what they use to keep Canberra going.>

Pericles

I congratulate you for mentioning some numbers instead of assuming the water to be there. So what population might such a supply support? According to this data, you need about 1000 GL per annum per million people, with about 30% of that needed for utilities, domestic and commercial use.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/334/index.html

So on this basis, you might guess that a population of about 64, 000 might be possible for Weipa. For 10 million people, you would need 10,000 GL of sustainable annual water supply. To do this you would require a much larger storage, for the aforementioned reasons of flat topography, high evaporation and fickle rainfall. A real example is Lake Argyle, with a storage capacity of over 10,000 GL. The net annual inflow, streamflow less evaporation, is 2730 GL.

http://www.travelling-australia.info/InfsheetsO/Ordriverscheme.html

The standard deviation for streamflow is 2930 GL.

http://portal.environment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/url/item/FA2985AA6ED484F1E03010AC6E05653F

A previous thread on OLO included a discussion of Lake Argyle. The data available to me then suggested that the water could sustainably support about a million people, and the data I find now gives me no reason to change my opinion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=521&page=0#10252

How many sites for Lake Argyle sized dams are there is the North? Ten? You would need ten if you wanted to support a population of ten million there. I think that if you want to claim that water supply is not a problem, you need to point to where it will come from. Just saying it is there and alleging conspiracy amongst scientists and Government makes little sense.

The "conspiracy" is all in your head, Fester.

>>Just saying it is there and alleging conspiracy amongst scientists and Government makes little sense.<<

I'm personally in favour of Hanlon's Razor as a better explanation.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Or the Silberman variation, that applies more closely to your allegation:

"Never attribute to a conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence"

>>So what population might such a supply support?<<

As previously noted, Canberra runs quite satisfactorily on these sorts of numbers.

http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/facts/annualConsumption.aspx

>>How many sites for Lake Argyle sized dams are there is the North? Ten? You would need ten if you wanted to support a population of ten million there<<

Who said anything about supporting ten million people in the North?

I simply pointed out that where there was a benefit (in Weipa's case, bauxite), previous generations have found ways to build the infrastructure necessary to exploit it. Today, we seem to be permanent nay-sayers. It's all too difficult.

This attitude is highly convenient for those people who would prefer that our wilderness stays untouched.

Those who subscribe to the view that "wilderness values include those of remoteness, few or no people, an absence of human made objects, traces, sounds and smells, and untraveled or infrequently traveled terrain".

http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/NZYbkIntLaw/2005/13.html

These people are vocal, and influential. They even describe visitors to their own particular wilderness (Tasmania is a great example) as "a threat".

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=667

They don't even want visitors, let alone (shudder) "development".

Unfortunately, their vehemence that "none shall pass" is also a handy excuse for those people who would rather we closed our borders and allowed nobody else in.

Sooner or later we must recognize that the concept of "fortress Australia" is neither attractive, nor feasible.

Pericles sends some interesting examples illustrating how it is that Norway has achieved higher per capita economic growth than Australia while not having a high rate of population growth but all are beside the main point made by Chuk Berger in his article, namely that it is possible to have good per capita growth with low or even falling population.
Australia has many of the advantages cited by Pericles but is not exploiting them so as to achieve the long term advantages that the Norwegians clearly recognise. For example, we are spending rather than saving our mineral wealth. Moreover it is quite possible for Australia to put in place many other Norwegian advantages Pericles mentions such as good public transport systems.
The fact is we are not doing it.
Chuk's article is excellent and should be compulsory bedtime reading for every pollie in this country - every night until he or she accepts its wisdom.
JohnC

Fair enough, JohnC. And thanks for dragging us back on-topic.

>>...it is quite possible for Australia to put in place many other Norwegian advantages Pericles mentions such as good public transport systems. The fact is we are not doing it.<<

Exactly. The article somehow makes it appear that we can prosper, even though we don't have these "advantages".

Now if the article had said "we have all these advantages, just like Norway, so we can also mimic their low-growth strategy", it would have made some sense.

Instead, it tries to suggest that the parameters that allow Norway to exist without population growth, would be possible to put in place here in Australia.

The reality is, that to change our society to mirror that of Norway, and in doing so justify the "if they can, we can" claim, is beyond the scope of our political system to achieve.

We have private industry firmly entrenched in the cornerstone revenue-earning industries, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of any government being elected on a nationalization platform. Is there?

Forget even partial nationalization. The government wouldn't get close to instituting a tax regime that creams off industry's profits into some kind of "Future Fund". One that isn't dedicated to the comfort of public servants in retirement, that is.

I'm just trying to bring a little realism into the discussion.

Also to point out that if we were able to create a Norway-clone here in terms of fiscal management and forward-thinking investment, and to reap the rewards in terms of international competitiveness and low domestic transaction costs, guess what?

We'd have room for a lot more people.

Ironic, eh?

The argument that Australia requires high immigration for its prosperity is no more than a scaremongering dogma based on circular arguments. The scaremongering is very evident in comments like this one:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/more-people-does-not-equal-trashing-our-environment-20100113-m6uh.html

"Russia faces the greatest demographic collapse, with its population predicted to shrink from 140 million to 100 million by 2050. All these countries face disastrous economic consequences."

Sounds scary, yet a Wiki of Russia reveals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

"As of April 2008, the International Monetary Fund estimates that Russia's gross domestic product (nominal) will grow from its 2007 value of $1,289,582 million to $3,462,998 million by 2013, a 168% increase. Its GDP PPP is estimated to grow from $2,087,815 to $3,330,623 in the same time, which would make it the second largest economy in Europe in terms of purchasing power."

Wow, dont be fooled by all the gdp growth, Russia is headed for the can because its population is in decline. Somehow I doubt the economic consequences of falling populations would be anything like the disaster Mr Danby would have you believe. It is even debatable whether there would be a disaster at all.

In contrast, there is no trouble seeing the real and unfolding disasters in countries with high rates of population growth. the hopelessness, the corruption, the total lack of education and infrastructure, and no hope of catching up to the growth. There is no need to tell scary stories about what disasters these countries will become in another forty years. They are disasters today, and will be bigger disasters for as long as their population growth continues.

And what of technological advance? I am very optimistic about technology improving our lives and living standards. It will do so for everyone, but it isn't hard to see that the technical fixes for an aging or declining population are far simpler to fix than the vast problem posed by an overpopulation.

The irony is that those for or against population growth believe they are promoting a policy that will help Australians and arguing against a policy which will bring harm.

Your economic analysis is not comparable to that of the son of a farmer who asks himself; “What am I to do if my parents will have another child, when our farm can hardly sustain the five of us?” Now there is only one farm Mr. Berger. It‘s name is planet Earth.

I hope that your next article will make better sense