The unfettered growthists are beating the same tired old drum again about limiting family sizes etc. We are an educated, democratic and free society I can't see any Australian (of sound mind) arguing for draconian policies of the one-child policy as in China. Why so many people can look at China and not see the potential dangers in burgeoning populations will remain a mystery.

The pro-sustainables have only ever argued that governments don't encourage large families by social engineering triggers like Baby Bonuses for wealthy middle class families, subsidised child care, increased immigration (excluding asylum seekers) etc.

There are concerns being raised in Europe about living conditions and infrastructure issues due to population growth. I have relatives in Europe and their concerns are far greater than any of those raised in Australia. The negative impacts of huge influxes of people into these smaller countries is being felt across Europe.

The only way to work toward a sustainable population IMO is to improve education and working conditions in the developing world and introduce social services including pensions to ensure that large families are not used as a cultural substitute for well targeted social programs. The largest problem is economic inequities that foster civil war and impact on food security in the developing world. Fixing those problems is the key or at least a good starting point.

There are too many issues to go into in the space provided but sustainable populations are achievable over time without resorting to Orwellian of facist scenarios.

I am not sure why some of the unfettered growthists believe humans are capable of great endeavour in technological terms to solve problems but fail to see those same capabilities in terms of solving problems in other ways. Technology is not always the answer as the desalination debacle has revealed with a great impatc on energy consumption and cost. Victoria has already blown out the costs of desalination which is to be managed by a private company costing (estimates) of about $570M per year. That is not including the billions it is costing in establishment.

Pericles,

No one disputes that a bigger population leads to a bigger GNP, at least until collapse. That is why the business elite and government want it. This doesn't mean that the average punter is better off.

"income per capita is higher by about 0.71 per cent... average hours worked per capita are higher by 1.18 per cent"

Any numerate person can see that the Productivity Commission model only shows a (very modest) gain in income per capita because they assume that hours worked are increasing faster, i.e., average income per hour worked is falling. You could no doubt increase your income by working 6 days a week, but would hardly say that you were better off. Furthermore, they did not consider environmental deterioration, crowding, etc., matters that are difficult to quantify economically, but have an enormous impact on quality of life. A few hundred extra dollars are not going to go very far when your utility bills and your housing costs have doubled or tripled in real terms.

So far as the global literature is concerned, Prof. Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) wrote in a column in the Sunday Telegraph (UK, 7/2/2006):

"If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.

There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions."

Total dependency ratio includes both the elderly and children. It costs approximately $10,000 to keep a child in public school for a year.

Are you sure, Divergence?

>>There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.<<

I know some historians who disagree with this view at a fundamental level.

"[Immigration] constitutes one of the central elements in the country’s overall development, involving a process fundamental to its pre-national origins, its emergence as a new and independent nation, and its subsequent rise from being an Atlantic outpost to a world power, particularly in terms of its economic growth. Immigration has made the United States of America." Hasia Diner, Professor of History, New York University.

You mention "large scale immigration".

Between 1892 and 1926, 16 million immigrants were processed through Ellis Island. That's around half a million a year, or thirteen hundred a day. Any thoughts on the impact of "large scale immigration" on the economy of the United States during the twentieth century?

Of course, no-one is remotely suggesting - least of all me - that such a massively bold, and preternaturally successful, experiment could ever be repeated. But your absolutist claim that "there is no evidence" lies in tatters around you, does it not.

I notice in passing that you avoided any "clarification" of your assertion that:

>>Dependency ratios will be no worse than in the 1960s, as we will have more elderly, but fewer children, who are far more dependent for far longer<<

Any chance you might do so, any time soon?

Pericles,

Go back and look at the quotation marks. What you have referred to is a quote from Prof. Rowthorn's article, not from me. I am a natural scientist, not an economist. Nor are Prof. Rowthorn and Hasia Diner in conflict. She is talking about when there was still a frontier in the New World. In this situation, more people may indeed be of general benefit. Prof. Rowthorn was talking about the situation today.

What is unclear about the total dependency ratio including both children and elderly? I have gone through my references on aging. This one suggests that disability is going up far less quickly than aging.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7991505/Costs-of-aging-population-have-been-overestimated.html

This one is an animation of age distribution since 1920 for the US

http://beacheconomist.com/popdis2.gif

Australia would not be all that different. You can see that the proportion of children has been going down as we move from a pyramid shaped towards a column shaped age distribution.

See also

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/agepop.htm

Divergence,

I apologise by lumping you in with the fanatics at Sustainable Population Australia who post here. Sandra Kanck, the head of the SPA, called for Oz's pop to drop to 7 million as per below.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-onechild-policy-20090421-ae3l.html

Kanck was also behind the push to legalise ecstasy. At least we'll go out with a smile on our faces.

Aged dependency plus child dependency (beyond 65 plus 0-14 groups) when factored together from the Australian Bureau of Statistics graph (ABS 3105.0.65.001) has the following ratio of the total dependency age groupings to that of the total population at five year intervals over the last sixty years in Australia:
1950, 26 Per cent; 1955/29; 1960/30; 1965/28; 1970/29; 1976/27; 1980/26; 1985/24; 1990/22; 1995/21; 2000/21; 2005/20; 2010/19