Someone should point out that Europe is far more over-populated than, say, Africa, or South America: it probably would not matter if there were only half as many Europeans - that would give their environments some respite, after about a century of population decline.

But Africa alone is many times bigger than Europe, or Australia, as is South America. The proportion of Africa which is uninhabitable, or totally unproductive, is probably about the same as Europe's, but it is around four times bigger. So it follows that the population of Africa should be around four times Europe's. Similarly, South America.

Asia is, at a rough guess, eight times as big as Europe. So, between them, Africa, South America and Asia should have around sixteen times the population of Europe.

But we are mostly agreed that there are already too many people in the world, in total. So clearly, the task is to somehow reduce the population of Europe (not by migration policies, but by policies promoting actual decreases in population) and RELATIVELY increase the populations in Africa, South America and parts of Asia.

One way to slow down the population growth of Asia, Africa and South America is to ensure that women gain very high levels of education, by the way.

Of course, all this could take centuries, but the optimal outcome is surely:

* a massive reduction in the population of Europeans, in Europe itself as well as in Australia (we already have too many people) and in the US;

* a steady increase in the populations in sparsely-occupied parts of Africa, South America and Asia;

* co-ordination of these two arms of policy such that overall population declines in a socially-supportive way.

If we took steps immediately, in perhaps a century, there could be ten times as many non-Europeans in the world as Europeans, which would be in line with geography. Of course, with population mobility, populations may be far too mixed to be able to make any firm rules about any of this, and getting more mixed with every generation.

Joe Lane

*Yabby, Japan was not built on service industries; it was built on producing products for export*

Yup Sonofgloin, they worked hard in those factories, lots of sweat
and blood for the nation there. The Govt wasted huge amounts,
building bridges to nowhere etc. A big chunk landed up in US
treasuries, earning nothing, but keeping the yen low and assisting
Americans to live it up. Inflation will eat most of it away over
time, Japanese savers and workers are the losers. Perhaps its time
that they spent some of it on themselves, rather then watch it vanish
before their eyes.

The new Japanese economy can change and adapt. No need for more
bridges to nowhere. Japanese service industries have huge potential.

*if you have the money to travel os to obtain quality medical expertise then you could afford the best in your country of origin*

Not so Sonofgloin, air travel is cheap as chips these days, unlike
medical procedures. I seem to recall even posters on OLO mentioning
going to Thailand for dentistry work. Others fly to India for a
kidney or various places for a boob job.

It was in fact Pericle's favourite article in the Economist, which
just happened to be lying on my coffee table, which suggested
medical care as a growth industry for Japan. So it was not my
idea and I am in good company on this one, unlike yourself :)

*So it follows that the population of Africa should be around four times Europe's. Similarly, South America.*

Sheesh Loudmouth, there was silly old me, thinking that those
vast rainforests in Africa, South America and Asia, were considered
the lungs of the world, sucking up CO2 and releasing oxygen.

Given that the likes of Cheryl think that we are above nature, clearly
we don't need to worry about things like rainforests or breathing,
humans will solve that one too! More people will fix it, according
to Cheryl. Breathing, pah, its so passe you know..

Fair question, Divergence.

>>Pericles, How do you explain the top 10 countries of the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index?...How is it possible for a country to have a stable population and still be competitive and give its people decent lives?<<

Best suggestion I can come up with at this stage is simply that there is a lead/lag component in operation here.

Leaving aside Switzerland for a moment, a country that has operated independently of the economic, ethical or moral standards observed by the majority on your list, most are entering the zone where the impact of an ageing population is only just starting to be felt. So even though we can forecast the pain, as the post-war "bulge" hits 65, it has yet to trickle down.

But I notice that you are in some danger of contradicting yourself, by simultaneously including the US in your list, then choosing to denigrate its inclusion with a bit of income-discrepancy irrelevance.

Also, while it is clear that it is presently possible to "have a stable population and still be competitive", any model of the future needs to include the additional burden the aging population will create.

So your graphs are merely historic, and in no way indicative of the future - because we know that these people are alive now, will stay alive longer, and need to be fed and watered for a long time to come.

As I have said before, these are decisions that need to be made with an eye to future generations, and not just, selfishly, for ourselves.

Compulsory reading for all High School and University students on how Government policy is corrupted by "big" business and land speculators.

Seventy to eighty percent of Australians want stabilisation.

Why isn't Government policy reflecting this ?

It is a shame our bushland and ancient forests can't vote.

I fear the demolition of the anti-pops is helped by comments from their supporters. They wouldn't be alone in that. The Greens have been spoke screening division in their ranks for the last three years and it wasn't so long ago in the ALP that the rank and file were called the 'crank and vile'.

Lets turn to the political implications of anti-pop rhetoric or more kindly, 'policy'.

Lets say you want to run as Mayor for a Council in Adelaide. You're a gung-ho anti-populationist and you want to spread the word. Get people to vote for you. So you call a public meeting and families, young home buyers in the outer suburbs - all sort of people come out. This is good. Right? Gee there are reporters there too. That's good right?

Now what they want to hear is how you're going to cut the population. Here goes:

We'll stop building cheap houses in the outer suburbs.
We'll limit family size to two kids - how are you going to do that? Better skip that. Sounds nasty. Sounds like central control = Logan's Run and ZPG.
We'll stop immigration - you've won some hearts but you've lost the left and the ethnic vote. Probably a number of small business owners too.
We'll cut paid maternity leave - well, that took women 30 years to get that. They'll walk out, dragging their husband and kids with them.
We'll slash international students - now you've got landlords and the unis, TAFEs and secondary schools up in arms - and the NUS.

Actually, you won't get this far. It be be pandemonium. The reason is that cutting the population must happen to someone else. Get it? Not me or you. Get it? I know you guys think you've got a monopoly on the future and doom and gloom. But you have no policies, no principles, no manifesto. You have Malthuse - who couldn't even do math.