Holy Moly, it would appear that this article is actually NOT tongue-in-cheek, but that the author actually believes in what he has written! ( :>|

There is no point in arguing the case. I'll just point out that at long last there are many scientists, academics, some economists and business-people and all sorts of others, comprising a now large portion of our population, who can see the absurdity in continuing with rapid population growth and in not striving to reach a stable population at some point in the near future. And the mainstream media has grabbed hold of it big-time and not in a manner that ridicules it, but in a way that treats it as a very serious concern.

Even the person at the very core of our traditionally endless-rapid-growth-supporting government, our Prime Minister, has come out against a big Australia and in support of a sustainable Australia with a much lower population growth rate.

This is a huge milestone. It could only happen if there was real merit in shifting ground so fundamentally from Rudd’s big Australia and extreme rate of immigration and if the government could sense a large level of support for this change.

So it would appear that Greg Barns is going to find himself to be a member of a progressively smaller minority holding onto the bizarre idea that rapid population growth with no end in sight is actually better for us all than the opposite.

I often wonder when those who promote growthist economic policy (let's be honest this is about increasing profits) will realise that resources are not finite and whether we will be standing wall to wall until someone realises this basic fact.

Yes innovation, invention can all reduce impact on resources but at some time there will be a point where the impact of unfettered population growth will surpass those innovations - even if we all disagree on exactly what is a sustainable target.

The only thing I agree with is that the politicians are making platitudes about population to appease the masses as though the will of the masses is something to 'contend'. I thought we were living in a democracy.

Population is not an issue in Western Sydney despite the sudden interest in the usually forgotten Western Sydney. While Sydney and Melbourne are indeed most affected by lack of planning and infrastructure, and hence one can understand the frustration, they are not the only areas affected by resource use. Just look at those along the Murray-Darling and the effect on our river systems and yet despite this you still have people proposing more dams. It is just ludicrous.

Why is an ageing population put up as a reason for growth? It is equally ludicrous that we argue caring for an ageing population means we have to set ourselves up for another generation of ageing Australians. Lets not scapegoat the elderly for some commercial purpose.

Growth is just about increasing markets for profit, nothing wrong with making a profit, but not at the cost of commonsense and to the point where humans are actively working against their own survival. Using side issues like racism or ageing as a counter-argument just means logical argument is on shaky ground.

Greg, what have you been smoking to come up with such rubbish?
Is there any limit to growth, and if so when will we get there?
At 2008’s rate of increase (2.2%), we were on track to 45 million by about 2040. The rev-heads for higher population enjoyed it - cheering, much like a dog with its head out of a fast-travelling ute; and of similar intelligence.
Those rev-heads have pulled their heads in a bit - (maybe smoke in the eye?) - but still want more of the action; and to oblige them, there has been an easing off, so that our last radar check (Dec 2009) recorded only 2.0 %. Maybe this is less eye-watering for the growthists - and will delay the 45 million until 2043.
Of course 45 million is not a destination; as populate-or-perish types such as Harry Triguboff knows. People of such vision see a continent with its forests, national parks, grazing lands, and deserts, all dusted off and paved over with his urbane thoughts. Harry, an outspoken enthusiast, says a hundred million an’ a’, an’ a’ should be piped in to his merry tune. Not that a hundred million is a stopping-off point if they get weary of incessant travel - whatever the speed. If growth is needed now, it will be needed even more at that point, in order to provide the vastly increased needs: services, skills, the innate intelligence which is lacking (if such “visionary” folk are to be believed).
It’s biblical vision - leaving us with not a loaf of bread, nor a fish, to feed the multitude: nothing, from a displaced/desiccated landscape, where walking on water would be a dream indeed.
Greg, get off the pot long enough to have a clear vision of the fundamental reality. And the incidental smoke-and-mirror supports you use to underpin the argument for continuing growth could do with a bit of attention: without more cross-bracing they will collapse when put to the test. A bit like a bridge being built over a highway.

Greg, at what point would you consider Australia 'full', and what state do you think the world will be in at that point? Are you aware that after 2050 the world population is expected to decline, and some even predict that it will collapse - don't you think we should be planning for no-growth economies and a gradual transition to same, for the sake of future generations? By 2070 the world will be close to the end of oil, the end of coal and the end of iron ore (to name just a few vital resources) - what then?

Greg, I agree with your stand 100%!

Here in the Philippines we have the neo-Malthusians and the 'reproductive health" folks saying there are far too many people here (almost 100,000,000!)so we'd better start some drastic family planning soon when the real culprits all along have been the the lack of economic opportunities at home leading to the exodus of millions of overseas foreign workers (OFWs)propping up a stagnant domestic economy, as well as the pervasive culture of corruption which closes off life chances to the majority poor.

But where are all the people going to come from to care for the aging population we already have here - from 'overseas', or from right at home? And if only the wealthy tax evaders could be made to comply with the existing tax laws, this new government would have some funding to spend on things that are really needed, like health, education and welfare instead of paying off the public debt, currently 20 centavos in every peso.

We need to see a booming population as an opportunity, not as a threat.

Greg, These no growth low growth neo - nimbys believe they are the font of all wisdom and fear competition as they get older and their home values tilt on the bloated congestion inspired with their nimby no new roads, dams or railways under green labor state governments.

Greg, unless we start to address the issue of environmental sustainability the economy will crash anyway.
The lazy economics behind the "growth at all costs" relies on unsustainable Ponzi structures. It is not inevitable that sustainability will reduce wealth, but unchecked growth will surely lead to decline.
Sure, we can do an Easter Island and "grow" for another generation or two, then we crash. Or we can bite the bullet and start addressing the issue. Bank profits may level out, house prices may even drop...but this is better then running out of fresh water, productive soil and sustainable fisheries.
Sure lets increase population...but only after we have at least one sustainable city as a proof of concept. Remember, we have run out of unoccupied continents and are already using the prime land. The Club of Rome was ridiculed for suggesting there were limits to growth, yet science, technology, conquest and most importantly, cheap energy with no regard to pollution has been the only saviour from their conclusions. Without sustainable energy, food, water, shelter and health we *cannot* go on growing unless the growth is restricted to a tiny minority...But I guess that is what the pro-growth lobby has in mind.

Greg,

You take a great leap of faith when you say "Furthermore, Australia cannot afford, on economic growth grounds, to implement strategies that will result in close to zero population growth."

There is a strong inverse relationship between population growth rates and productivity improvements (http://ckmurray.blogspot.com/2010/08/last-piece-of-population-puzzle.html)

There is a strong inverse relationship between GDP per capita and population growth (for example see this graph
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qh5svI3Dd2A/TE-ruRj6g7I/AAAAAAAAAUY/xP00kfkE54I/s1600/Pop+growth+and+GDP+chart.JPG)

There is a geographical fallacy - if a higher rate of population growth is good for Australia it should also be good for the world, every city, every street and every house. Why it is good at this arbitary geographic level and not others is a clearly irrational conclusion.

You cite Becker's (I assume Gary Becker) remarks on the market size and incentive for innovation. Yet there is no reason markets for medical cures are limited to Australia's domestic population, rather than the global market. Higher rates of population growth as a result of increase immigration simply shuffles this world market geographically.

Finally, Japan has amongst the highest GDP per capita in the world and has the longest life expectancy in the world. What is it about Japan that is such a problem? Methinks it is the case that domestic businesses find it much more difficult to increase profits through simple market expansion.

Your arguments fails simply on economic grounds. I suggest reading the following article to become more familiar with the economic argument surrounding population -

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10375 (first published at http://ckmurray.blogspot.com/2010/04/economic-arguments-against-population.html)

A thoroughly predictable set of impassioned, but thought-free, responses to a straightforward and lucid article.

Note the rapid application of the knee-jerk "growthist" epithet, ascribing the author with a "growth at all costs" mentality, and forecasting "unsustainable Ponzi structures".

No-one actually deigned to discuss the article's content, but like pollies on the hustings, went straight into their prepared pet spiel, using the word "population" to segue.

colinsett at least referred to it...

>>And the incidental smoke-and-mirror supports you use to underpin the argument for continuing growth could do with a bit of attention...<<

...but declined to elaborate either what was "incidental", or "smoke and mirror" that needed attention.

And of course nobody dared approach the method: how do we achieve this miracle of "sustainability". I brought this up on another thread recently, but got no takers.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10800#180001

I doubt I will have much greater success here, given the content of the responses to date.

Pericles,

The rate of population growth is determined by the birth rate, the death rate, and the net immigration rate. For example, the birth rate in 2008 was 296,600 (the highest on record), the death rate was 143,900, and net immigration was 298,900 (the also the highest on record, while the refugee and humanitarian intake share was around 13,500), giving a net population increase of 451,600, or 2.1%. The natural increase (births minus deaths) was 152,700 (or 0.7%) while the remaining 1.4% was due to migration.

A few things should be noted. The first is that the total net migration figure is a product of government policy. There is no obligation to set any particular immigration numbers – we are free to choose a figure desired by the people.

Second, it should also be noted that the birth rate for 2008 was particularly high compared to recent history, no doubt a product of the ‘children of boomers’ starting families, but also of the baby bonus, which has encouraged many young couples to bring forward family planning decisions – another government policy decision. The fertility rate is currently the highest since 1977. This trend will surely wane.

Influencing the rate of population growth is a simple matter of determining an immigration quota we, as a society, are comfortable with, and removing the absurd incentives designed increase the true natural birth rate (yes, remove the baby bonus). There is no need to fear Chinese style communist intervention in family planning – the freedom to have as many children as you wish will remain.

You asked at the linked forum about where the no growthers want to be. My goal would be a stable population by 2040, and an immediate goal of <1% population growth. The final figure, around 30mill, would not be exactly stable year on year, but one would expect there to be no reason why the gradual slowing of the growth rate would change dramatically after this point.

There are easy ways to acheive these goals
- remove the baby bonus
- reduced immigration limits
- become wealthier

Now, as you will not from my previous comment, becoming wealthier with a high rate of population growth is very difficult, mainly due to the duplication of infrastructure argument.

(from here http://ckmurray.blogspot.com/2010/08/last-piece-of-population-puzzle.html)

"...housing investment and other infrastructure duplication does not improve productivity – it is a short term cost that simply allows more people to be equally as productive as the current population at some time in the future. Slower population growth is the recipe for improved per capita well being."

If the pro-growth logic was sound then simply allowing more migrants, say 1million/year would be the easiest way to prosperity. Why not 2million per year? Why not more? At what size do the pro-growth arguments no apply? Even if Australia had a 1billion population the argument would not change, and we could still acheive prosperity by having a >2% population growth rate.

Greg, spot on.

This article is so clear!

Thought I'd throw my support in since a lot of the comments are of a different view.

I'm currently living in Japan and while it might be true that Japan has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, a lot of it is due to the inflated yen. When Korea, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia etc improve their manufacturing brands' image, even a deflated yen will not save the Japanese manufacturers and Japan will go into a deep recession. The port of Yokohama used to be one, if not, THE gateway to Asia but Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong are fast overtaking.

While a lot of middle-aged to older Japanese enjoy full employment, home ownership and are more or less guaranteed a comfortable retirement, the under 35 generations are looking at a bleaker future. Permanent, full-time employment (in the Japanese context read: pension, health insurance, home loan accessibility and the like) is in decline and many young Japanese are currently contract workers on 1-3 year placements.

Several corporations (onlie retailers, fashion retailers, manufacturers) here are looking to secure their future by looking at starting or increasing their exposure to overseas markets. That will work for some companies but others will not do so well and again young Japanese will find themselves with no prospects.

I realise there are many differences (cultural, economic, historical) but Japan should be used as a model for what will happen to Australia if we simply shut ourselves out.....and also, how many established global manufacturers or retailers are headquartered in Australia?

http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Hi Greg,

Understandably, from your cultural background you are a Specist. That is, this country and the world is only for the benefit for One Species.

Vibrant, stable population economies, not dependant on property developers and land speculators, are obvious in for example, the Scandinavian countries.

I would like to leave you with Population Perspectives.


1. Our precious bushland ( read unappreciated ancient forests ) destroyed, species that cannot vote.. destroyed, our best farmland covered over/destroyed and families that "never" see happy parents because of mortgage and time stress.

2.There is enough of our species.

3,Balanced migration ( emigration = immigration) and around 2 children at 30 years of age ( births = deaths ).....is an achievable , internationally transportable policy for a healthy world and a healthy Australia.

Very best wishes,

Ralph (Bennett) Mob. 0402 335 080

Greg,

From the ABS Statistics, our per person GDP is falling, as population growth is increasing.

Denmark with 5 million people exports all over the world.

USA with massive population growth is heading towards being a "basket" case.

The last thing the "poor" in society needs, is more competition for scarce resources.

The "Opportunity Cost " of population growth means that the Billions of Dollars spent on endless real estate infrastructure/services ( an investment in pollution ); could have alternatively been spent on research and development into emerging technologies for export, health/education and appropriate foreign aid.

Greg.........please don't forget that we are posting in "boom" times an average of 2 billion dollars a month, current account deficit. That is , everyone on average in Australia is consuming more than they are producing. We have to borrow and keep borrowing year after year for every extra person. It is NOT an a sustainable economic design. Stabilisation will reverse the current account deficit and will also free capital for productive investment.

Cheers,

Ralph

Jorge,

Japan is only about 40% self sufficient in food. There have been recent dramatic increases in food prices on the world market, only partly due to biofuels, although the situation has eased somewhat since 2008 when there were food riots in 34 countries and a number of food exporting countries shut down exports to protect their domestic populations. See

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/rosegrant20080507.pdf

World grain production per person peaked in 1984. In a world facing peak oil, peak phosphate, water shortages, inadequate arable land, and likely risk from climate change, do you really think it is a smart idea for them to grow their population even more? They are going to find money rather indigestible when there is not enough food on the world market.

Shrode brought up the Philippines. Thailand and the Phillipines had about the same population in 1960, approximately 27 million. Thailand really supported family planning. They now have a population of 66 million growing at 0.6%. They also export food and have a GDP per capita of $8,100. The Philippines have a population of 100 million growing at 1.9% (36 year doubling time). They import food and have a GDP per capita of $3,300. (Figures from CIA World Factbook, apart from 1960 census figures). Not much of an argument for high growth.

It is really quite simple.

Every environmental problem all over the world is essentially caused by the pressures of increasing human population(s).

And there are countless environmental problems, micro, small and large.

Ever heard of the very real existence of water wars?

Please Greg clear this up. Are you saying that we are all hopeless and couldn’t possibly solve our problems without the help of a huge and increasing number of immigrants every year? Are you saying that immigrants are geniuses for a few years after they arrive and then when they turn into Australians, they turn hopeless and we have to bring in a bunch more? Does this ever stop?

You say that we need a steady stream of immigrants to have economic growth. The Productivity Commission and several overseas studies say that the average wage drops due to high immigration. It also says that the big end of town does very well out of high immigration. Is the economic growth you are talking about the kind where the rich get richer and the average guy has his wages reduced?

You say that we need immigrants to increase our capacity for innovation and new business opportunities. Newsweek just published their list of the 100 best countries and one of the topic areas was economic dynamism. All the top countries in economic dynamism have low population growth (0.5% per year) and all the countries that are the least economically dynamic have high population growth (2.1%).

Your quote about Gary Becker is a little porkie pie, Greg. He was talking about developing economies not developed economies like Australia’s and he was repeating a comment that has been made for over 20 years. There is no reason to think that Australia’s environment will get better with a higher population and are you really trying to imply that we would use less water with a bigger population?

Lets have 70,000 immigrants per year, not 200,000 or 300,000. Lets invest in the people that are here now and build the country from within and then help the rest of the world get sustainable too. http://www.theage.com.au/business/postponing-prosperity-20100818-12f7x.html

why is it that so many who demand a slow down in population also insist on higher pensions and welfare payments. They don't seem to get the simple fact that taxpayers fund these things. Ironic that we kill our own unborn and then have to bring so many in.

Surprised at you Greg Barns. As Ludwig said Holy Moly, it would appear that this article is actually NOT tongue-in-cheek, but that the author actually believes in what he has written!

Didn't you see the Dick Smith movie.... I take it from there. Especially with focus on Bob Brown's statements followed by Tony Burke.

What’s Wrong with Greg Barns?

Footprints?

http://www.miacat.com/

[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended].

Well said Ericc. You’ve posed a bunch of very pertinent questions.

Greg, it would be great if you were to come back on this thread and partake in the debate.

Pericles
Ludwig and I and many others have put forward ideas to achieve sustainability without resorting to oppressive methods which I think is your main concern if I have read you right. The methods by which sustainability is achieved is equally as important as coming up with what would be a sustainable target.

A one-in-one-out immigration scheme with flexibility depending on skill need and obligation to asylum seekers and less emphasis on middle class welfare in the way of baby bonuses etc.

Aside from the target issue, other ideas for removing congestion in cities has been to develop regional areas that can sustain more people. This can be achieved through better transport (even fast rail) and health/education services to attract people to regional aeras.

As a businessman I can see why you would want population growth but at what cost for short term gain?

Land, water and resources is not a bottomless pit.

The only other way is to let the population growth remain unchallenged and let nature take it's course which I think is eminently more barbaric than increasing education and prospects in the developing world with less tragic impact.

Equally why do you think unsustained growth is a good thing? How will it benefit the wellbeing of people on this planet?

Greg Barns:>> It will instead turn Australia into Japan - a nation in decline because it is suffering from declining population, an ageing society, and a xenophobic attitude to migration.<<

Greg since 1945 6 million people have come to Australia as new settlers. When you extrapolate this figure to first second and third generations since that time you come up with half the population having come originally from other climes in the past 50 years.

My point is the "xenophobic attitude to migration" you bleated about being a lie. Australians with half a brain of all heritages realize that we are the driest continent on earth and that we sit perched like flies on the rim of a saucer on this continent. Sustainability is the issue not xenophobic hatred as you comfortably smear your fellow Aussies with. If you talk xenophobia talk Japan, Middle East, and Africa where you are legally constrained if not a native of that country in the assets you can own and the religious freedoms you enjoy.

If your heart bleeds, let it bleed for us, your fellow Aussies.

This article IS rubbish.
Could Greg have given a moment to elaborate on his ambiguous message "Japan- a nation in decline"? Because I'm not entirely convinced that there is anything particularly profound about the word 'decline' when mentioning Japan at all.

Ageing populationa problem? Debunked, diced and sliced every which way. Reflects attitudes in business worlds, pension timing and priority, and ignoring volunteer work, consumers.

Now this is a beatiful nugget- "innovation" -yes indeed Greg, of course it would be impossible for Australians to 'innovate' to maintain the lifestyle you feel 'selfish' while remedying any economic/social costs, isn't it?
Why, that's why Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Singapore are falling so far behind the rest of the world in terms of any form of progress imaginable- oh wait.

And funny you did mention Japan- because they're presently innovating increasingly automated industries to offset labor shortages (and yet at the same time- ways to offset population growth)

Usual trash from a trashy writer, whose only change over the years is an increasingly dishonest position on the matter at hand (this case, utilitarian business lobbyist now- well done Greg).

I'd welcome an article that actually LISTS some innovations to cope with or completely offset the effects of increasing population- sadly that belongs to a thinker (let alone writer) WAY above your caliber Barnsie.

why is it that so many who demand a slow down in population also insist on higher pensions and welfare payments. They don't seem to get the simple fact that taxpayers fund these things. Ironic that we kill our own unborn and then have to bring so many in.

Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 August 2010 11:13:49 PM

Pensioners are demanding higher payments precisely because council rates etc are rising fast in turn due to your population growth!

So Runner would you care to explain your reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that population growth allows us to collectively pay higher pensions.

The arrogant population growth lobby need to start getting used to the fact that they are very clearly the minority.

80% or more of Australians want no part of your vision for this country and, given Australia is a democracy where the majority decision is carried, you need to stop arrogantly insisting that politicians implement your vision rather than that of the majority.

Greg,
Lets grow, grow, grow until...... When do we stop? And then tell me about stopping. Do you want the end of growth to be decided by nature? Nature is very cruel and will pick from famine, disease or perhaps you think war is a better way to go.

Growth, of a mathematical certainty, will stop. and if you are familiar with exponential growth and its related doubling time, it will be very soon. the european culture has only been in Australia for 222 years. Pity we are not aiming to be here for another 222 years.