Here we go again.
The Malthusians are out in force with all their gloomy doomsday predictions.
The article - and Part-Time-Parent - made some fundamental mistakes confusing cause and effect and completely ignoring other factors. Have you ever considered that although poverty and fertility are linked it is not the fertility that makes a country poor but the poverty that leads to higher birth rates?
The population of Australia has been growing since European settlement - and every measure of quality of life has been improving along with it. Of course, some will declare; it can't go on forever, we have limited space, limited food, limited water - the tipping point must come eventually. Well, perhaps - but as Part-time-parent has already pointed out, the more affluent you are, the fewer children you have.
The key to population growth is not coercion, it is wealth creation.
Besides, I can never take hypoctrites seriously. Anyone who is seriously concerned about over-population should take the only honourable course and do something within their power about it.
Oh, finally, there is no land shortage in Australia. High land prices are a natural and deliberate result of our government's desire to limit urban sprawl and the associated cost savings in infrastructure. Get rid of these limits and land prices will dive.

I guess the main issue to worry about is what standard of living (income, community, environmental, ageing, health etc) do we want in a future Australia.

On the article:
1. Increasing costs that threaten export-oriented businesses may be one side of the coin, but we also need to look at demand overseas and the widely-reported undervalued Chinese yuan which makes Chinese products cheaper than they supposedly should be. I would guess the GFC has not been too kind for businesses either.

2. Infrastructure...does anyone blame the lack of planning from all our governments? One of the drawbacks of our current politicians is that they worry about winning elections as much, if not more, than the actual tasks at hand. Also, what lifestyle do we want? If we all want a backyard, car and low-density neighbourhoods, then we will continue to have the same problems as now, unless everyone in Australia immediately stops having babies, 1-person/2-3-bedroom house cases are banned and no-one is let in even for a holiday visit. (A little extreme, I know, but using it for emphasis)

3. Also as population and wealth have increased in recent years, the number of businesses would have increased accordingly. Thus, it is fair to say that the number of businesses closing or shutting shop would also have increased - sadly, not every business is successful. Is the real problem: population, the GFC or the fact that big business has a cosy relationship with government? And isn't competition usually good for consumers by fostering innovation and efficiency?

4. The environment is a difficult one. While I'm hopeful that oil and coal will gradually be phased out (thanks mainly to consumer demand), the question of water supply is important. There are alternatives: desalination, recycling...cost, safety and feasibility should be studied.

Finally, what industries are going to maintain the current high Australian standard of living in the future? Agriculure? Mining? Tourism? Manufacturing? The world is moving forward, in good ways and bad. Australia needs to figure out what will generate growth for itself in the future, otherwise big or small population..it won't matter.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

J S Mill,

There seems to be a conflict here between reality and libertarian dogma. It is true that development makes people richer and brings down fertility rates, although developed countries can still have high population growth rates, as in Australia, due to government sponsored mass migration. Development can also take place quite quickly from apparently unpromising beginnings. South Korea was tied with Senegal for poorest country on earth in 1960. However, even if all societies were willing to make the necessary reforms and trade-offs, and there is no reason to believe that they are, it would require the resources of three Earths to give everyone a modest Western European standard of living. See this graph from New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2624/26243101.jpg

The y-axis scale of the graph ranks groups of countries by their ranks on the UN Human Development Index. Cuba is highlighted as the only country that gives its people a relatively decent standard of living without using more than its "fair share" of resources. This is just for the existing population, not the 9 billion or more that we might expect in the future.

There is also serious concern among the mainstream scientific community, not just fringe Greenies, about the impact we are having on our planetary life support systems, even at the present level of global population and low average consumption. See this paper from Nature for example

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Furthermore, I reject the accusation of hypocrisy, apart from the (rare) case where a "Malthusian" has been having a large family while urging others to show restraint. Why should only growthists like yourself be deemed fit to decide if we wipe out half our bird species, force my (two) children and their friends to live cheek by jowl with their neighbours, or force everyone to pay three times as much for water? (Desalinated water is 4-6 times as expensive as dam water.)

What are the reasons for you believing that continuing population growth is good? I.e. I am questioning REASONS behind this opinion.

The main REASONS are economic ... the 'theory' behind business.
Economics is based on numerics and everyone thinks More people = More sales = More money for you. This is the ERRONEOUS basis population growth ideology.

FACTS why these REASONS are erroneous:
Earth's resources (read any environmental constraint) within a specific time period (eg 100 years before interplanetary migration) is limited. Economic theory which our eco-political system is based and operates does NOT apply this Zero Sum perspective (yes your bank/govenment economists actually believe this 9-5 monday-friday). Point = The system you seem to be endorsing is theoretically refusing and only politically bent to acknowledge our physical limitations. it sees growth based on population growth is limitless. In fact individual wealth and life quality (true economic growth) - given historical proof from numerous times of population REDUCTION - increases.

Economic theory again believes that we all have the CAPACITY to improve our economic well being. We all KNOW the global fact poverty is reducing, but also inequality is increasing. So how are you I and any other person (unless you don't believe in resource constraints) INDIVIDUALLY getting wealthier and improving life quality as a DIRECT cause of population growth? Your improving life quality is due to technology i.e. QUALITY not QUANTITY.

Policitally, why is the system saying that the richer and better educated you become the stupider and selfisher you are because Australians have fewer children? Why was your individual wealth rising until we promoted and taxpayer funded a wealth-reducing population-increasing program (many countries not just here). Point - What is your politcal lobbyist doing for you? Currrently those profiting from mortgages are our main political lobbyists ... would your interests come after or before theirs?

Phew, I haven't even started to ramble about how we stopped the MASSIVE damage this fact-denying system is wreaking on our natural environment and the incredible plant and animal life within.

This is clearly one of the top 10 most crazy population articles. Up there with rising sea levels and population, extinction of polar bears and population, the death of bonobo chimps and population and the real estate conspiracy and population. Now it's interest rates and population. So the monetrist policy is due to population? That's a new one - and a new one for the Reserve Bank and Milton Friedmann too.

Much of this poppycock has been debunked and it's moving off the media's agenda which is why we're seeing desperate articles like this.

The reason I like these articles is that they teach us something about ourselves - an almost endless propensity to run and believe in fear campaigns. The anti-pops use pop terms such as 'tipping point' or chaos theory to create a meaningless stew of babble. Actually, this is nothing new. Every 50 to 100 years the cranks rise up and trot this stuff out. Why?

Why would normally sane, rational people write this stuff? That's the same question Arthur Miller asked when he wrote The Crucible. It's not the problem that's the problem. It's the people. Solution: get rid of the people.

cheryl; is adding more than 200,000 people to the planet daily sane?

from Dr. Albert Bartlett's "Laws of Sustainability"

"First Law: Population growth and/ or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained"

"Tenth Law : Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel,causes a dramatic decrease in the life-expectancy of the resource."

" Twenty-First Law: Extinction is forever."