Not necessarily, Bazz.

>>To get back to the subject all the above problems get worse with larger populations.<<

Japan built one of the world's most powerful economic engines during a period of population growth. Proving that there is no direct causal relationship between larger populations and "worse problems".

What we are seeing is a deliberate blindness, on the part of the folk here who believe we can just say "stop", and everything will suddenly be all right.

(I actually think that Cheryl's neologism "anti-pop" is quite a good shorthand for this attitude, but am willing to accept that there may be a better descriptor).

Here's a fact about Japan's ageing population. "Ten years ago each person in retirement was supported by four in work. In ten years that burden will fall on only two workers." Economist: Special Report on Japan, 18th November 2010.

But some folk are actually doing something about it.

"Tomohiko Murakami, a pioneering Hokkaido doctor... closed down two-thirds of the hospitals, cut the number of ambulances in half and told his elderly patients they should walk to hospital because it was good for them. They grumbled, but it caused no obvious deterioration in their health... 'They had to use their own initiative rather than relying on the government to look after them.'"

Thing is, it is far easier to cower in a corner and say "stop the tide coming in", than it is to bend one's mind to solving the problem in a positive and constructive manner. And while we can blame "government" for not catering for our every whim, nothing will change.

One more thing.

History has been full of naysayers.

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon". Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

Personally, I'm a great fan of human ingenuity. I fully expect that we will continue exploit that ingenuity, and future generations will chuckle patronizingly at the current crop of doom-merchants, in the same way that we today smile knowledgeably at Sir John's timidity.

Spot on, Pericles, as usual. Even many of those anti-pops would concede that they have some measure of ingenuity, intelligence, initiative and innovativeness. So it can be with most of their fellow-humans.

It would help if the debate occurred in a factual environment. Population growth has four components: births, deaths, inward migration and outward migration. The net difference between the first wo and second two constitute the elements of growth or decline. First births. This is generally not susceptible to being changed by government policy in a democracy (I studied and wrote on this area for 20 years). Australia's present total fertility rate (TFR) is about 1.9, i.e. just below the level necessary for long term replacement of those dying. With the present age structure even sub-replacement fertility means that the natural increase (births over deaths) will continue for at least 20 years. Even without net migration growth the population will continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate, for a considerable time.
Secondly, deaths. No-one seriously argues that the death rate should be increased and all government policy is directed to reducing deaths, i.e. increasing life expectancy. Although the population is aging it will still be at least 20 years before births and deaths are in balance.
Thirdly migration. A government to most intents has little or no control over emigration which will fluctuate according to a range of condiitons.
That leaves immigration. Again a small part of that is susceptible to government control. People entering Australia for the long term (i.e more than 12 months) include returning Australians, people entitled as of right to come (eg New Zealanders), people coming under family reunification programs, humanitarian reasons etc.
So of the 4 main components of population change governments can influence only one to a significant degree, but much less than popularly believed.
In this set of facts the Australian population will grow by about 1% minimum for the next 10 years and slowly taper down after that. This equates to a minimum growth level of about 17% over 10 years with zero net migration. It is within this minimum framework that the issues should be discussed.

Ah Pericles, but now its you who is preaching gloom and doom,
about Japan!

Japan indeed had huge growth, created huge wealth, all on the back
of cheap oil and plentiful fish to feed its people, as they
plundered the world's oceans.

But we do have global game changers coming along. The worlds
fish stocks can't handle all that plundering anymore, energy costs
are heading upward, as the oil genie runs out of puff.

Japan has already found solutions to some of its problems. Toyota,
Honda, Isuzu etc, all manufacture around the world, no need to
do it all in Japan. The Japanese have huge investments in
China and elsewhere. Profits are still returned to Tokyo.

The retirement age could be increased to 70. Guest workers could
be imported, much as the Swiss used to do in the 70s. Japans income
from its accumulated wealth is not unsubstantial. By 2050, robots
will be doing most of the assembly anyhow. I gather that in America
alone, there are over 1 million of them these days.

So its not all gloom and doom, as you might think. So lets say
that Japans population eventually drops to say 50 million. Why
would that be such a bad thing? No need to plunder the world's oceans
anymore. No need to import hay to feed their cows, they could actually
eat Japanese grass. All this makes lots of sense in an expensive
energy world.

People could once again live in houses, rather then be cramped in
endless apartment blocks, like animals at the zoo.

Your option of ever more people, to solve the problem of more
people, we'll rely on luck to innovate our way out of this mess,
might work, but it might not. If it doesen't, it will be one hell
of a mess

James O'Neil said:
"That leaves immigration. Again a small part of that is susceptible to government control."

Do migrants fall on Australia like unavoidable rain storms?
No, the government sets targets each year.
It can if it wanted to put hard numbers on all the various alphabet soup of Visa categories in the same way as it has defined targets for refugees, family reunion and skilled migration.
Also the government could if it wanted to put caps on NZ migration numbers. Instead we have the likes of James O'Neil throwing his hands in the air proclaiming our population destiny is controlled by some being in the skies.

I always thought I lived in a democracy where a government that is elected expresses the will of the people. Clearly polls show that we are not in favour of a big Australia (40M+ by 2050). Cutting net overseas migration (including all various Visa categories) to 76,000 per annum would stabilize our population at 26 Million. Gee, it can't be that difficult?
But I suppose if we had a government do that James O'Neil would declare that the sky had fallen.

Have a read of federal ALP MP Kelvin Thomson's 14 point population plan:
http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/Editor/assets/pop_debate/091111%20population%20reform%20paper.pdf

Pericles, 16 years ago my kids often attended a show jumping club at a pony club grounds, in an outer southern suburb of Brisbane.

The district had many areas of acreage living, & most kids rode their horses to the club. Even parents who did not have acreage could find cheep agistment where a kids pony could be kept. Over the years I had noticed less kids, & more horse floats, as it became dangerous to ride the roads, & horse paddock numbers became few.

Now it's just another suburb, & I noticed the other day, the club had died.

When I was a kid in Sydney, virtually everyone lived within 45 minutes drive of a beach. There was parking free when you got there, & room in the surf. Hell, I could even drive into the city on a Saturday night, park in the street, & take in movie with my girl. What heaven.

Today,for most Sydneysiders it's damn near an overnight trip to go to the beach, or the city. If that's progress you can keep it.

Only an absolute idiot would say that people today have a lifestyle anywhere near as good as I had back then. I would take a smaller house, TV, car & a lot less income any day, if I could have that life style back.

Why on earth would we want to increase our population, when every extra head reduces our well being. Why on earth would we reduce our standard of living, as distinct from income, just to favor some foreigner who wants to use us only for their own ends.

By the way, I am very much a capitalist, but there is more to capital than just money