It is easier to plan with a stable population. That goes for the rest of the world also.

Let's make it easier for the rest of the world to plan by supporting worldwide population plannig programs and worldwide education for women so they can be more than just baby making machines.

We are part of the world, and there is pressure to come into Australia. Denying entry is not enough. We must try to relieve the pressure.

An excellent comprehensive article Eric.

Trouble is, long articles with lots of links and additional reading don't tend to appeal to the OLO fraternity, when there are numerous shorter articles and indeed lots of stuff on the same subject matter on this forum.

The first big step towards genuine sustainability has surely got to be the reduction of immigration progressively towards net zero and the abolition of the disgraceful baby bonus.

The next or concurrent all-important step is to impress upon our powers that be that we are terribly precariously positioned with our dependence on oil and that we need with the greatest of urgency to relieve ourselves of this addiction.

Even the mining industry and every other sector that is contributing to our antisustainability momentum would have to concur with this and be willing to support strong moves to wean ourselves off of oil .... surely!

Fancy that - getting the major sectors that are upholding the continuous growth antisustainability paradigm to actually strongly contribute towards sustainability!

It would be relatively easy to plan for this eventuality, wouldn't it? It would be a lot easier to achieve it with a stable population, but of course we can't wait until we have a stable population to start planning for a sustainable future.

Stable population, or zero population growth with zero immigration is a fallacy. In case you haven't noticed, humans breed like rabbits, and the global population is growing. So in short, yes, it's easier to live in fantasy than it is to live in reality.

Australia is an indefensible continent with only a few million on it, with the riches of King Solomon's mines. What's wrong with that picture in global terms of population versus resources?

We need to embrace the inevitable and to grow from it, developing our infrastructure along the way.

Nationalize our resources and banking...that'll throw a cat amongst the pigeons (he says facetiously). You can plan with what you can control, but you cannot plan with that which you have little to no control over.

Eric, your photo makes you look like the sort of bloke I would not want to meet on a dark night.

How can such a bruiser talk so much sense?

Mindless, now I realise the choice of mane. Your suggestions that we should put our mining & banking sectors in the hands of out typically dithering public servants is certainly reason enough to add Cruelty to any name. Hell, haven't you seen what they can do to a simple school building plan?

This suggestion is probably self defeating in view of your other suggestion that we can not stop population growth.

With these two sectors of our economy in the hands of the bureaucrats, the ensuing failure of that economy would be so complete that no one, even the current asylum seekers, would want to come here.

Hasbeen, I did say I was being facetious. And I wouldn't put anything but toilet-paper into the hands of the Liberals or Labor...or any of the politicians currently. This election is about who will give the mining companies and other large interests what they want, nothing else. It's not about leadership, but the acquisition of office.

We are not voting for good government, but who will have good jobs.

Hasbeen I am a kind and gentle person at all hours of the day and night. I am 2 metres tall and weigh 140 kg, though, so you are not the first and probably won't be the last to make a similar comment.

It will be interesting to see how the Dick Smith program on Channel 2 at 830 is received tonight. I don't think the old "population growth is good for the economy" argument is working very well any more. I'll bet that the Bernard Salt's and Heather Ridout's have got some other ideas though. They get paid too much to just sit there.

The importance of a stable population was driven home beautifully by Dick Smith in his docco last night.

The concern about population and sustainability really has finally become a mainstream subject.

On Q & A, the Libs’ Scott Morrison, Labs’ Tony Burke and Greens’ Bob Brown were all in agreement and in support of Dicko. Wonderful stuff! Nothing short of the best night’s television EVER!!

I reckon that 12 August 2010 will go down in history as the day that that the population / sustainability issue finally broke right through the pro-growth brick wall that has held it back for decades and entrenched its position in the mainstream debating arena and federal political sphere.

Eric, and others who have been fighting the good fight for umpteen years, you should all go out somewhere nice this Friday evening and celebrate!

Cheers ( :>)

Ludwig -

I think last night was good but there is a difference between making the right noises and doing the right thing. Both parties + Bob Brown say they are going to study the situation. When political parties stall for time it means "Lets hope everybody forgets about all this and then we can continue on with business as usual."

Tony Abbott has already guaranteed 170,000 immigrants next year and acted like he was slashing but that still gets us to 40 million. Labor has said that isn't a slash we were going to do that anyway. I didn't hear Morrison or Burke say that they would cut those numbers or get rid of the baby bonus.

There is still a long way to go.

Yes Eric..... you are right.

I was trying to put a positive spin on it. But yep, I'll believe in real action when I see it!

Hwaaaaw! ( ;>(

At first glance, this would seem to be a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

"It is easier to plan with a stable population"

But is it actually true, except in the most theoretical sense?

Let us start with the challenge of actually achieving a "stable population".

No, actually, let's start with a definition of a "stable population".

What is the ideal demographic content of such an animal? How many under-fives? How many schoolchildren? How many at university? How many actually in the work force - and, by the way, what work will be available to them?

And how many [gulp] will be allowed to be old?

You cannot just say "oh, let's stop immigration. And oh, by the way, let's stop the baby bonus", and hope that the economy will not require further adjustment.

So there are two critical issues already, that no-one has even remotely approached, let alone provided some form of vague answer for.

That also ignores the broader potential problems with the creation of what is effectively, Fortress Australia.

With all this idealistic introspection of "wouldn't it be nice if..." codswallop, it is easy to forget - or ignore - the fact that we actually occupy space on the globe.

People notice us. We trade with them. They trade with us. No-one has even started to think that one through.

I know it is election time, and you can't walk down the street without the sound of yet another dog-whistle policy making its appearance.

But this one is dumbing-down in its rawest, most insulting form. It can only take us to a place that we really don't want to get to, people.

"That also ignores the broader potential problems with the creation of what is effectively, Fortress Australia." says Pericles.

Doesn't Pericles realize we are already living in an occupied country? Look around the big business community and see that something like 90% of our industry, mining, services, and agriculture is foreign (largely USA) owned and controlled; count the American accents you hear coming from top business executives and on radio (even from the ABC). With few exceptions, Australians have become the drones in our workforce.

Are we supposed to clutter our land with double our population so that in times of international dispute we can be conned into defending Fortress Australia for that lot?

I don’t have the least concern about other countries trading with us if we have net zero immigration. Countries trade with a variety of countries that don’t take immigrants. Countries trade with other countries that have hazardous work environments. Countries trade with other countries that have dangerously high levels of urban air pollution and unsafe drinking water for their citizens. Countries trade with other countries that torture their own citizens. Countries trade with other countries that provide funding for terrorists who attack their countries. Countries trade through third parties with countries that they have trade bans against.

Certainly the economy will change with net zero immigration. Many of those changes will be positive for the economy. Wages for the average worker will increase. Australian capitalism can thrive with 70,000 new immigrants per year. Planning for infrastructure will benefit. Certainly the environment will benefit. The standard of living will improve. Over 65's will be more highly valued. We will set an example for other countries and then we can help them stabilise their populations.

Well, it looks as if Tony has done his dash. Made out he was going to substantially reduce immigration when the coalition's policy was the same as Labor's. Now he is facing a certain defeat. Serves him right for trying to pull a con job on the Australian public, which is 70% against the status quo. So much for representing the people.

Abbott would win in a landslide if he announced a cut in immigration to around 120,000 per annum, but I think that some of his backers would rather him lose if it came to that.

<< Abbott would win in a landslide if he announced a cut in immigration to around 120,000 per annum >>

Very interesting point Fester. I reckon you are right.

If he would just realise that his cause is lost if he doesn’t do something really significant, and that the really significant thing to do is to announce a very large reduction in immigration along with a genuine stabilisation of the population at a level not too much higher than at present and a real desire to achieve a sustainable society, he could put himself in the WINNING position in this election!

Of course lots of people in the business sector would hate him for it, but out there in the general community, they’d love him to death for actually showing some balls in this election!

Fester and Ludwig,

Well said and I thoroughly agree.

Tony Abbott needs over-population through over-enthusiastic immigration to maintain downwards pressure on wages and conditions. For most workers the eight hour day was lost years ago and unethical employers are reaping the benefits of stolen wages from unpaid overtime.

Immigration is a beaut blunt weapon for that - plenty of competition and they are soft targets. Just think how difficult it is for unions to organise workers from such disparate backgrounds and so desperate to work that they would forget OH&S in the workplace. What regulations, work or be fired, how simple is that?

If one reads the stories of migrants from previous immigration waves brought in as factory fodder it is impossible not to be affected by their stories.

Is Work Choices dead? Absolutely not, the attack dog was put out to stud and its ferocious pup is already being groomed for action.

I think that you small-Australia people are still missing the point.

Before you begin a journey, you decide where you want to get to.

It is pointless simply saying "somewhere else". You need to say exactly where that is.

Define what you want - say, for example, "a stable population of x".

Then you have to plan the trip. How to get there.

It is pointless simply saying "that way". You may find that you end up in a swamp, or over a cliff, with no way back.

You need to look at the various means at your disposal – immigration management, enforced birth control, taxation – and superimpose those on your “travel plan”.

Only then will you be in a position to guess at an outcome, as you will be able to see the demographic shifts involved. How many taxpayers, how many elderly and so on, at each stage that evolves.

At that point you will also need to address the challenge of the original target. How to ensure that the population remains “stable”, given the shifting sands upon which it is now built.

It is of course true that the sands are always shifting anyway. The difference is that you have turned them into government-policy-driven shifting sands.

Highly dangerous, even if you get it only slightly wrong.

So please, stop living in dreamland. If you are really serious about population control, and not just repeating comforting slogans to each other, you will start to address the practical issues involved.

My thoughts. Dick Smith or Kelvin Thompson may have their own.

Net zero immigration. This amounts to about 70,000 new immigrants per year about balancing the 70,000 or so that leave. It doesn't matter if you are high or low by 5,000 or 10,000. Can the baby bonus. Maternity leave system okay.

Start trying to be sustainable. Ween off fossil fuels. Build up infrastructure urban, rural and environmental. Increase retirement age 1/3 of a year per year. In 15 years it will be 70 then re-evaluate.

Pericles - Outline advantages to high immigration.

Pericles

Intervention has been more of a problem than a solution. For Australia, the high immigration of the 1950s was for the purpose of protecting the manufacturing industry and fortifying Australia against invasion. Both these reasons turned out to be bogus. Today the high immigration interventionists would have you believe that Australia faces an aging catastrophe, which ironically will be bigger as a result of the high immigration of the 1950s.

The high immigration of the last decade has left Australians with a housing crisis, massive infrastructure shortfalls and huge government debt. In addition, over seven million Australians are not being utilised in the workforce as it is much easier to poach workers from overseas than to train locals. That doesn't sound like successful planning to me.

On a world scale, the population would stabilise were contraception made available, but unfortunately there are too many who believe too strongly in intervention to allow people the right of self-determination.

Tony Abbott has nothing to lose now and should take a punt with the electorate with a last minute pledge to cut the immigration rate to 120,000 per annum.

<< Highly dangerous, even if you get it only slightly wrong. >>

YES pericles.

So we’d better damn well start erring on the side of caution, instead of just blundering forth with absurdly high population growth.

We need to miinimise the chances of getting it gravely wrong. It has become pretty obvious that one the biggest factors, which is also one of the easiest factors to address, is to pull right back on our immigration rate.

We now have many learned people espousing this, as well as ex-business people who no longer have a vested interest in growth, such as Dick Smith, as well as the federal minister and shadow minister in the relevant subject areas and even old Bob Brown!!.

Hey, even our PM and traditionally rampantly pro-growth government have shifted ground to some extent in this direction.

<< Define what you want - say, for example, "a stable population of x". Then you have to plan the trip. How to get there. >>

Ideally yes, but not necessarily. We CAN plan for a much-reduced population growth rate without having anything more than a vague total population level in mind.

Whatever the case, we should err on the side of caution and head towards the low end of the spectrum. Then if we find that with a low growth rate we are managing to get ahead on infrastructure and other important quality of life and sustainability factors, we might choose to increase the growth rate and the target population level a bit.

I love the way you make it sound as though there is a tap that we simply turn one way or the other, Ludwig.

>> Then if we find that with a low growth rate we are managing to get ahead on infrastructure and other important quality of life and sustainability factors, we might choose to increase the growth rate and the target population level a bit.<<

There are a number of problems with your somewhat cavalier approach to the issue, only one of which is the means by which you intend to impose your will on other people's lives.

But there's nothing much more I can add to that which I have already noted. If you are unwilling to do the analysis and forecasting that is involved, then you are not really taking it seriously. It all just becomes a slogan on a banner.

And if you really believe that life under your controlling hand will be an improvement, so be it.

I, for one, don't.

ericc asks:

>>Pericles - Outline advantages to high immigration<<

Define "high", ericc.

My thoughts on this are pretty much aligned with those of Malcolm Turnbull:

http://tinyurl.com/29j5j39

"Historically – and this remains true today – immigration rates are directly correlated to the health of the economy"

It's worth reading, if only because it highlights how much of the perceived "problem" is the result of historically appalling infrastructure planning. His target is of course his home State of NSW, where he observes...

"Shanghai['s] metro only opened in 1995 (the same year Bob Carr became Premier) and now carries 6 million passengers a day on a 268 station network over 400 kilometres in length – by 2020 it will be 877 kilometres in length and the largest in the world."

...but the same could be said of all the rest as well.

We have been complacently lethargic in planning for our existing population - water, energy, transport - and now use that as an excuse not to plan for the next fifty years.

Pure laziness, that's all.

"My thoughts on this are pretty much aligned with those of Malcolm Turnbull"

Not on the subject of AGW they aren't, Pericles. Malcolm has promoted the idea of recycling water from drains. Such a scheme would be viable only if domestic water was more expensive than it is now, and would require a revision of health regulations. Without a much larger population it wont happen.

Malcolm is a sucker for a good story (isn't everyone?), but I dont think he has much of a scientific brain. This might be why he gave public money to those Russian scientists who claimed they could make it rain with an electronic pogo stick or some such.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2095134.htm

It may be that governments have suddenly become very incompetent at providing infrastructure, but could it also be an economic truism that when something is suddenly in great demand you will pay through the nose and more than likely get poor quality? Such was the case with the Tugun Desalination plant.

And how is China an example for Australia to follow when 700 million of her citizens have no health care? It certainly has a large pool of cheap labour.

<< I love the way you make it sound as though there is a tap that we simply turn one way or the other, Ludwig. >>

Pericles, when it comes to having very rapid population growth that is the highest in the OECD or low population growth that will gear us towards a stable population level that is only a little higher than the present level or anything in between, it is EASY to implement! So yes, there essentially IS a ‘tap’ that we can turn by simply adjusting immigration numbers and perhaps by also adjusting the birthrate a bit by way of abolishing or boosting the bilious baby bonus.

It is not hard, either in theory or practice.

<< There are a number of problems with your somewhat cavalier approach to the issue, only one of which is the means by which you intend to impose your will on other people's lives. >>

There is absolutely nothing more ‘cavalier’ or more of an imposition on peoples’ lives about significantly reducing population growth than there is about upholding the current absurdly high level of immigration and continuing with the country’s worst policy of all time – the baby bribe!

<< And if you really believe that life under your controlling hand will be an improvement, so be it. >>

Absolutely I do.