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.