Are you suggesting that it is coincidence, Divergence?

>>You haven't refuted anything by showing that both population and per capita GNP have gone up. Correlation is not causation.<<

The claim "[population growth] does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" could quite possibly be true, but there was no evidence presented for it.

You can argue causation until the cows come home to roost, whether an increase in population is the driver of higher per-capita GDP. But what is certainly true is that the two have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years.

Riddle me this. If the figures had been trending in the opposite direction, i.e. that all the time Australia's population has been growing, GDP per capita had been declining - would you have accepted my argument that they were totally unrelated facts? Be honest. You would have laughed me out of court.

rstuart, feel free to answer that one too.

Pericles has provided us with a fine examples of the intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation that passes for debate and argument these days.

"You can argue causation until the cows come home to roost, whether an increase in population is the driver of higher per-capita GDP. But what is certainly true is that the two have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years."

Did you see where I showed that countries with low population growth grew gdp per capita faster than high pop growth countries (There are too many people in the world)? Any assertion that growth in gdp per capita is a consequence of population growth is demonstrably false. The data I provided suggests that population growth inhibits growth in gdp per capita.

While those that would arrest human pop growth are often called misanthropists, I contend that the growthers who are willing to push humanity to inevitable misery and tragedy on a unimaginable scale are the true misanthropists. Are you relaxed and comfortable in this cocoon of materialistic self interest?

Have you any proof that the Earth isn't a finite entity? If you concede that it is finite then we can only assume you will also concede that unchecked human population growth will result in systemic collapse?

@Pericles: Riddle me this.

Ye gods. We are all begging you to give us reasoning from referenced facts instead of high falutin logic, and you pose a riddle?

@Pericles: rstuart, feel free to answer that one too.

Initially I wasn't going to, but then I realised answering gives me an opportunity to illustrate continuing the debate on this level is a waste of time.

@Pericles: If the figures had been trending in the opposite direction, i.e. that all the time Australia's population has been growing, GDP per capita had been declining - would you have accepted my argument that they were totally unrelated facts?

No we, or at least I, would not have accepted it. There are two reasons. Both have been given in previous posts. I am hoping you didn't understand what I said that time around, and if so it is probably my fault for not being clear. Which is another reason for taking the opportunity to have a second stab at it.

Firstly it's a sample of 1. Cherry picking an example to "prove" a point is not an uncommon deception here on OLO. You could have overcome that objection by referencing a graph like figure 4.1 of appendix 3 in Jane Grey's link. And of course it would have to demonstrate there is no simple relationship between the two. Two truly unrelated variables should have a uniform smattering of dots, like a blast from a paint gun.

The graph doesn't look like that, which brings us to the next reason. A best fit straight line on that graph data points shows a negative correlation between population growth and per capita growth. Ie, that graph seems to show "higher population growth implies lower per capita growth". So the two are related somehow. But it may be in a very distant way, so you can still prosecute a "they are aren't meaningfully related" argument with a bit of effort.

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

The out is "correlation does not imply causation". To take a concocted example lets say our data is the heights of two buoys, floating on the tide. Clearly their heights will be strongly correlated. But does this mean the height of one buoy is directly determined by the height of the other? In other words, if we mechanically lifted the buoy, would the other follow? The point is, unless you are familiar with buoys and are aware there is a there is a third element involved here, the tide, that explains the strong correlation there is simply no way of knowing. Maybe the buoys are just two peaks on a hidden iceberg. It is logically impossible to derive that understanding just from looking at the data. So you have to supply model of what is going on, so people can understand why is it likely there is no direct connection. That involves some effort in presenting it, which you didn't do in this example. Because you didn't do it there is no reason to believe you, or disbelieve you for that matter. In fact there is no reason to believe you have a clue about what is actually going on.

Which brings me back to my original point. You didn't present a model that explained why the relationship in the data isn't causal, but this was only an hypothetical question so perhaps fair enough. The problem is you have repeated this pattern in all of your 11 posts here. In fact in all but one you haven't presented any new data at all. The nett result is you have expended a lot of words, but have not progressed the discussion, nor have you contributed to anybodies understanding of the topic. That is why there is no point in engaging you if you continue in this vein. The sad bit is, I'm know you are capable of something better than just repeating your beliefs like some religious mantra.

I'm not sure why you folk are deliberately misunderstanding my point here.

(Well, actually, I think I do know, but I'm too polite to point it out.)

You are both, Sardine and rstuart, reading what suits you into the facts that I am stating. In doing so, you are yourselves indulging in the "intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation" of which you accuse me.

>>Did you see where I showed that countries with low population growth grew gdp per capita faster than high pop growth countries<<

Well, yes, I did. But as you are both at pains to point out, correlation is not causation. You are drawing "conclusions" from data taken from a wide assortment of countries, and applying them to "why this should be shaping Australian public policy".

As the narrative associated with Figure 4.1 points out:

"The chart shows little clear relationship between per capita GDP and population growth for the majority of countries."

To then select only those examples that support your theory is surely putting the ideological cart before the statistical horse. And to apply those broad, global generalizations to Australia is a logical step too far. What conditions, economic, social or political, exist that make a comparison with Saudi Arabia, Gambia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Liberia, relevant to the Australian situation?

And this, I'm afraid Sardine, is totally irrelevant - but sadly, utterly typical...

>>Have you any proof that the Earth isn't a finite entity?<<

No, I don't. Given the subject here is a dissertation on Australian public policy, what is your point? That we should implement some form of global population control out of Canberra?

>>The sad bit is, I'm know you are capable of something better than just repeating your beliefs like some religious mantra.<<

Back atcha, rstuart.

So Pericles, if you say that "correlation is not causation" (after I have shown that, in similar Western economies, population growth appears to inhibit growth in GDP per capita), what evidence can you provide for your assertion that population growth and GDP per capita "have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years"? Have you any statistics and graphs at hand to support this claim?

You ask whether I believe "... we should implement some form of global population control out of Canberra?"

Yes. Domestic and foreign policy should both address this pressing issue. Providing a temporary 'release valve' for a problem that will continue is no solution to the problem.

What is your motivation to support domestic population growth? Is it economic? That link has been categorically disproven. Is it humanitarian? In which case why don't we boost humanitarian intake from a pi$$y 12,000-15000 p.a. asylum seekers and refugees and boost it to 50,000-70,000 p.a. so that we can carry some international responsibility (without growing our population)? If we do that, to remain socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, we'll have to ditch all forms of economic immigration. No problem in my book as, statistically, population growth in similar economies is shown to inhibit growth in GDP per capita.