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/