"The global population growth has been dropping now for 20 years and it is thought that our peak population, and then decline, will be around 2070."

Yeah well, we are 60 years and a few billion humans away from that peak and major fisheries are already collapsing or collapsed, oil production is at peak and will be in advanced decline by 2070, climate change is reducing agricultural output and we already have major political unrest and/or civil war across the Arab world.

I don't think we can rely on this supposed natural decline in fertility to avert a major human and environmental catastrophe.

In fact this decline in fertility you speak of is far more likely to result from the catastrophe than occur before it.

Global fertility drops is not a supposed thing. Load the image on my last post.

World historical and predicted total fertility rates (1950–2050)
UN, medium variant, 2008 rev.[2]
Years TFR Years TFR
1950–1955 4.92 2000–2005 2.67
1955–1960 4.81 2005–2010 2.56
1960–1965 4.91 2010–2015 2.49
1965–1970 4.78 2015–2020 2.40
1970–1975 4.32. 2020–2025 2.30
1975–1980 3.83 2025–2030 2.21
1980–1985 3.61 2030–2035 2.15
1985–1990 3.43 2035–2040 2.1
1990–1995 3.08 2040–2045 2.06
1995–2000 2.82 2045–2050 2.02

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

dempografix,

thanks form all the stats, it's a great niche but I've always thought statistics are the ultimate in abstraction. 2.5 kids for instance applies to no one, it's just a crude measure derived from the whole, as is life expectancy, whose increase in the modern context comes down mainly to marginal improvements. More importantly, do you note the way statistics isolate phenomena? For instance, the way they describe a trend in population growth, even extrapolating it based on dedicated "fertility rates", but without factoring in forcing agents such as the artificial demands of economic expansion, or even "real" fertility degradation due for instance to pollutants in the food chain. Population growth is dependent upon the means of production and its carrying capacity, rather than upon family planning, sustainable development or any of the other impressive catch phrases we observe in the breech.
The problem is that our system is inflationary and predicated on growth rather than sufficiency or sustainability. The means of production is not dedicated, or designed to sustain communities--though husbandry is optimal for economic reasons--but to produce a surplus extract above and beyond, and if necessary, despite those needs. The surplus is the raison d'etre, and "not the society". Think about this. "Human society is the means of production and not the point in itself"--it's merely the crop and capital is the harvest. Similarly, environmental degradation is merely a bi-product, an inefficiency that according to best practice is gradually refined. Unfortunately, capitalists are irresponsible farmers devoted to the current crop.

You are correct. Peak oil makes a big difference and may increase the global decline of the global population.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

http://www.populationmedia.org/2011/04/08/is-peak-population-almost-here/

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/03/28/peak-oil-and-the-third-demographic-transition-a-preliminary-model/

I support a neutral NOM, that is we bring in only as many as are leaving and using our natural growth to balance the increasing death rates to come.

We will be nowhere near 35 million. It is a smokescreen really as we are likely to desk around 2035 then decline back to our approx numbers now. Mad as batshit as it is not overpopulation that we need to fear, but underpopulation.

"We will be nowhere near 35 million. It is a smokescreen really as we are likely to desk around 2035 then decline back to our approx numbers now. Mad as batshit as it is not overpopulation that we need to fear, but underpopulation."

What a load of bl00dy rubbish!

I don't think the human race has to worry about underpopulation even if peak oil and global warfare causes a major carnage.

The minimum number of individuals that geneticists estimate is required to maintain a healthy population long term is around 500. We are currently at about 7 billion!

The only individuals that fear 'underpopulation' are economists, big business and property developers due to the severe reduction in consumers, customers and first home buyers.

Many interesting comments, but some critics fail to appreciate that Oz can certainly still have great economic and technological growth without a substantially increased population. We have the opportunity of a great export boom to invest in new industry in all sectors, to vastly improve our nation's infrastructure. No-one can argue that our facilities are currently anything other than substantially lacking. Dick makes a valid argument that achievement of needed improvements can only be hindered by having even greater numbers in need of these services. It also can not be denied that Oz is way behind in many of these services, in spite of (or more probably because of) a steadily increasing population, and in spite of good economic performance.

Another factor not being taken properly into account by the pro-pop lobby is that we are part of a much greater global community, and which is increasing exponentially, irrespective of whatever we may do in Oz. Food security may not currently be a significant issue in Oz, but in global terms the NEW Green Revolution some are expecting is currently nothing more than wishful thinking. Some are also forgetting the millions who do not have food security now, and the sort of investment which will be needed to give those populations any long term certainty of even minimal levels of food security.

The sort of advancement required globally is enormous, and some seem to be arguing that we should relieve some of that burden by increasing immigration. (So a small number can have a better life in Oz, while the rest of their compatriots just suffer on regardless?)

Facts: We have limited arable land (and those who think barren desert can be easily converted to flowing gardens are sadly mistaken), and we are lacking in industry and jobs for our current population.

When we can provide properly for ourselves, and can ensure similar benefit is extended to the whole of the earth's population, then we may be in a position to look at alternatives for substantially increasing our own population.