Pericles,

I'm a Londoner by birth and have lived in big cities most of my life and can relate to your gregariousness. Indeed I think Australia's Parkesian provincialism is due in part to the "insistence" of space, both outside the CBD's and inside the burbs. But since Sydney, Australia's only (minor) world-city, is surely populace enough for even the pathologically extroverted, may I ask what your reasons are for not preferring a cap upon its modesty? In many ways more intensive living would be good for Aussies, and we might consider condensing our urban centres by half without shrinking their populations--the famed Australian drollery is the uninspiring product of idle independence imo.
As I've said above, my view is that the only plausible motive for population growth is entrepreneurial--for profit and for keeping up with the rest of the world. Is there any other good reason for not being mindful of the stresses we are putting on Australia's fragile ecology, and the world's?

I'm sorry if you took my smartarsed comment the wrong way Pericles,
I did put a smiley in there. But that I think that Desmond
Morris was right, when he wrote The Human Zoo.

I grew up on a quarter acre block, with all its benefits.
I had pet rabbits, rats, mice, chickens, a squirrel, dogs etc.
We had a workshop, I learnt to make things. We had a garden,
I learnt to grow things. The friends I had who were stuck in
apartments, had a miserable time in comparison. Luckily they
could come to my house.

Last time I was in Sydney, everyone whom I talked to, seemed to be
working an extra job or extra time, to afford the real estate payments. Less time for the family of course.

As population increases, those quarter acre blocks are becoming
a luxury. I lived in Paris for a while. Those huge mega blocks
surrounding the city were the perfect breeding ground for troubled
kids, gangs, drugs, etc. I gather its much the same elsewhere.

Why on earth keep cramming more people in there? For what?

If you halved the population of Bombay and Calcutta, they would
be alot more pleasant places to live. Too many people on too little
space and before you know it, you have people pollution

But what about economic growth, Yabby?

<Queensland has just been deemed the worst performing economy in Australia precisely because of stagnant population growth>

That claim was made by CommSec. It is a bit like blaming a drug addict's poor state of health on his inability to get another hit. In fact, Queensland's problems of huge government debt, infrastructure, service and housing shortfalls, are a direct result of the rapidly growing population, not its slowing down. Maintaining a rapid rate of population would only defer a greater downturn.

Queensland is a perfect example of the pitfalls of growing to quickly.

<Capitalism is based on endless growth, period.>

Hopefully, but that is economic growth, not population growth. Personally, I get a kick when the pop growth zealots argue that we need immigration to assuage the jealousy that might arise in other nations from the wonderful lifestyle that a stable population would bring. If you want to argue that capitalism is better with population growth, this argument does not help.

Squeers

Productivity and participation can also produce economic growth and achieve better outcomes, without population increase.

tet, productivity and capital require expanding markets; zero growth at home just means exploitation and growth offshore, which is why I call the idea a western conceit.