rehtcub,
Where will all the energy come from to build the houses and roads and establish new towns and new farms. Most of our current energy fuels are non-renewable.

We could very well be using up our energy reserves to increase our population, and then when our energy reserves run out, we have to quickly reduce the population.

All for nothing.

vanna

Nuclear power would be one option.

You can't tell me that a misshsp that occurred some 25 years ago can't be avoided, or better handled nowdays.

How long are we going to continue to bury our heads in the sand.

Until someone else desides to take it I would suggest!

Populating the bush - there but for the heat, dust, and flies go I; and most others.
Actually, I came from there and have great affinity for it. It is already populated; and people of regional areas deserve more supportive services to induce them to stay in their role as custodians.
But calls continue to reverberate for pouring people into regional centres, echoing for decades:
Glenn Withers (Professor of Public Policy), with impeccable numeracy declared that a patch of sod the size of Queensland could accommodate the world’s population in quarter-acre family blocks. Paul Davies (a “Thinker in Residence” for Adelaide) favored city life, sprinkling Australia with new cities the size of Adelaide to overcome burgeoning population problems. Federal Minister Tony Burke sees regional Australia as a pressure valve for ever-increasing numbers. Feral Independent Bob Katter wants regional numbers boosted. And Rehctub.
Tugging the forelock to this accumulated wisdom, in the knowledge that more than 50 per cent of people in the world choose city life, Paul Davies’ proposal gets the nod: Leave Australia’s exisiting cities to catch up on their shortages of houses, schools, roads; build a new Adelaide to accommodate the population increase.
Start with Shepparton, add a million. Then head north along the great inland plains - providing modern city infrastructure linked by roads, rail, and broadband. Build one every three years - Hay, Bourke, Longreach, Normanton: Five new Adelaides, drawing upon the natural capital from those regions and from outside of them; and providing for population increase to 2025.

But perhaps Doug Cocks, in his book People Policy (1996), might have been onto something: “the population question is important -- the consequences of getting it wrong could be quite unpleasant. --the resource arguments -- suggest that Australia should not set itself a long-term population target much outside the 18-36 million range. If Australians do not want to pay increasing real prices for basic services nor to be increasingly rationed for their access to unique natural resources, the target will be much nearer 18 million than 36 million.”
Doug Cocks recognized natural resources as capital.

OK, put together the suggestions from rehctub and colinsett with the following. Nuclear power has indeed taken great leaps forward; and, much as I still don't like it, may well be the only way forward for the immediate future (i.e. the next generation or two). Google the term 'thorium reactor' or go here for more:

http://energyfromthorium.com/

Instead of doing the traditional Aussie thing and buying in the technology - probably from a Third World country like India, the way things are going, thereby proving that we're actually a Fourth World country - we could open up some new regional centres devoted to researching and developing the technology in the environment in which it would be deployed, rather than in the comfort of a capital city university. If the new broadband network lives up to even a fraction of what is promised, if Australians truly are free-thinking innovators, and if the Federal Government is actually prepared to back Australian R&D instead of kowtowing to the TNC's, this plan would create immediate real employment, establish some REAL indigenous R&D and new industry, and set a course for a future energy solution.

Of course, it wouldn't be easy. Much simpler to turn on the telly and crack another stubby ...

For those that advocate population growth I have but one question - at what point do you recommend we stop growing our population?

Or do you intend that we keep growing until we are all standing cheek by jowell with our neighbours?

The Foundation for National Renewal advocates aiming for a population of around 20,000,000 distributed over our country more evenly than at present.

In other words, we can't keep growing so why not stop now when there is a reasonable chance of that 20,000,000 enjoying a reasonable quality of life and while there is still room for all the other creatures equally entitled to survive?

Charles S Mollison

charlsmol,
We could actually stop growing our population and maintain the present number, however, for this to work we would have to stop people being reliant on the minority who pay positive income taxes.

You see, there are simply more who don't pay positive taxes, than there are who do pay them, and there in lies the problem.

Now there is one way being tossed around, and that's a 'transaction tax', however, big business simply doesn't want it.

Now until we address these serious issues, along with 'real job creation', we simply have to continue growing due to our diminishing tax base.

So many of our jobs today are government funded, either directly, or indirectly and, that's actually spending our taxes simply to create employemnt. Much like the recent stimulus.

However, if we still had a strong manufacturing industry, these jobs would be creating jobs that in effect also create jobs, like servicing cars, manufacturing consumables for cars and industry.

Unfortunately, those days are all but gone.

Who knows just how many 'IT' jobs will be at risk when we get the NBN.