Purchase and view. This author is way behind the times.
http://www.demographicwinter.com/

Perhaps "The Demographic Winter" is also a furphy. Even if it is true, it will take quite some time for the world food and resource supplies to catch up with the currently burgeoning population.

I think the odds are currently in favour of Malthus, but I probably won't still be around to find out as I only have less than 25 years to go.

David

Demographic Winter is of course produced by self righteous right wing Catholics and other denizens of the loony right in the USA.
The same kind of self righteous Catholics who pretend that even the use of contraception is a crime, on a par with murder even.

The same kind of mindset that is actively seeking to have the "rights of the unborn child" made into mandatory law in the USA.
Even contraception, and the giving of advice re the use of contraceptive methods would therefore be illegal.
To them even the Planned Parenthood movement is an abomination.

Mark, I read your essay with interest, and agree generally with your demolition.

But Malthus is a straw man. There seems always to be a disconnect between the mouths to feed and the food to sustain them. For the last two centuries Western countries have overcome this problem by industrialising agriculture and developing transport infrastructure to speed the delivery of the food. Other countries lack both the 'industry' and the infrastructure. As I recall it, the great Bengal famine in the 1940s was due more to a lack of infrastructure than to a lack of food.

I generally agree that population increase is the core of our worries, which is why I keep hammering away at the need to educate girls and to provide contraception. And, quite apart from the food anxiety, unequal family sizes present an equity problem in the availability of service of all kinds. But that leads us into another kind of debate.

I think you could make the points you want to make without mentioning Malthus at all.

Mark
I was intrigued to see you base an arguement on population levels in the time of the Napoleonic wars. But this reference does little more than destroy your argument.

Compare population levels in napoleonic times with population levels now. We have obviously far exceeded anything that Malthus could have foreseen as a population cap. But Malthus was right for his time. In fact he was right for most of human history. Something changed. What was it?

The answer is, as far as anyone knows, the rate of innovation. Where previously innovations meant that population levels went up and then stopped at a new level, now the rate of innovation is continually raising the possible population level faster than it can rise to meet it. This is why populations have been continuously expanding for decades.

Is there any suggestion the rete of innovation is slowing down? Not really. Food prices are high at the moment for a range of factors including a sharp increase in income for large numbers in India and China, but high prices stimulates production. If you can see genuine barriers to production increases then I'd be quite interested to know what they are.

Australian exports $46B of food per year and growing. We import about $6B thought reciprocal trade agreements. If you're worried about being hungry, get a job.

Why stick up for Malthus? It's like sticking up for bad maths.The anti-pops have slid off the agenda because of silly articles like this.

The world's population is slowing at a massive rate and has been doing so since the 60s. We are confronted with a world that is both ageing rapidly and wih less people in Western Europe, Russia, American and Japan being born.

These cranks ought to just come out and say they hate capitalism, hate the social welfare system, hate liberalism and almost everything that supports modern life. They are like Andrew Bolt in reverse.

At the core of their bearded gnome engineering/genetics thinking, is a deep hatred of women, of children and probably of Sunday's nights watching Disneyland.

They had their moment with Dick Smith's dreaming of a 1950s Australia.

Cheryl,

"Why stick up for Malthus? It's like sticking up for bad maths."

Yeah, 'coz believing you can have infinite growth with finite resources demonstrates a real sound grasp of numeracy (sarcasm).

Here we go again.

The level of discussion on this topic never seems to change. Anyone who does not believe in instant and draconian legislation to i) stop all immigration ii) prevent reproduction above replacement level, will be designated a "rabid growthist" who "believes populations can grow exponentially".

Any discussion on the effects of the ageing population on our economic future - especially that of our children, who will be required to support us - will be instantly suppressed. Mainly on the basis that "it won't happen like that", but without the presentation of a credible alternative scenario.

We will no doubt also hear from the personal-downsizers, who fervently wish that life were as simple today as it was back in the fifties, when...

>>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...<<

Still there, Hasbeen?

Malthus is a red herring. What the author really wants is to tell us how to live our lives, under the shadow of the impending doom that is "overpopulation". It's always easier to control through fear, after all.

Cheryl, world population growth might have slowed from over two percent per year back in 1970 to just over one percent at the present time, but if you look at the latest graph
http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population+growth
you will see that the rate of slowing down has almost stopped. However, even if it averaged just half of one percent between now and the end of this century, the population would still be 11 billion by 2200.

David

Population movement & migration, production efficiency, re-cycling, technology & innovation... all these things will continue to drive resource production and the human population upward.

Add to this social-political mechanisms like Education, Land Management policies & the Rule of Law and there is no reason to assume that increased populations will have a largely negative effect on the environment.

Market capitalism will ensure that cost-of-production keeps populations in check.

Anything else is just social engeneering for its own sake. Only crazy lefties think that such social engineering is a good idea.... but they are wrong.

DK

Why are they wrong? Don't just make a bald statement without a bit of proof.
David

It's funny how people can see things differently. When Malthus proposed his idea it must have been pretty contentious. The mathematical model was simple enough: when exponential growth hits a stable food supply, recurring famines will be the result. But when Malthus proposed this the population was stable. When people died, it normally wasn't from famine, it was like the tree deprived from water being brought down by borers, disease killed them while they were weak. In short there was no direct evidence to support Malthus's model.

The industrial revolution was an experiment Malthus could never have even dreamt of performing. It removed the limits on food production for 200 years. If Malthus was right the population should have grown exponentially. It did.

Extrapolating that mathematical model to conclude it was the driver for recurring famines of Malthus's time is something anybody who has completed grade 12 maths should be able to do. Indeed, I hope some grade 12's do it as homework.

So far from the current industrial revolution proving Malthus wrong, I'd say it proved him right.

@VK3AUU: I probably won't still be around to find out as I only have less than 25 years

I was listening to an ABC interview of Australia's top grain scientists a few months ago. All interviewed said the same thing: they could not see how food production could possibly keep up with population growth in the next 20 years. I've since this assertion repeated in various forums by similar people (ie ones who should know), so it appears to be a meme within the food production circles now.

I'm in no position to gauge how correct they are of course, but if you do the AGW thing and just go with what the bulk of the people who has studied it longest are saying, you won't miss out, you will get to see what happens when a planet of perhaps 8 billion starts starving. I was hoping to miss out on that spectacle myself, but it seems like a forlorn hope now.

Hay Pericles, I don't give a damn how many kids or people you want, just as long as you pay for them, & don't expect me to.

The problem is for some reason, they all want to crowd, or the damn planners want to crowd them, into the same place.

Sydney was a better place in the 60s because it was smaller. People would have been much better off with a dozen 60s Sydneys & Melbourns spread around the country. It would only have required government to spilt the public services. It is totally ridiculous that people who are over 2 hours from the GPO, but still live in Sydney.

How long before Sydney & Canberra are joined by suburbs?

Hasbeen asks

'How long before Sydney & Canberra are joined by suburbs? '

At the rate of illegal immigration, not to long.

As usual the likes of Curmudgeon, Cheryl and Pericles are busy fighting shadows:

Pericles:

Malthus is a red herring. What the author really wants is to tell us how to live our lives, under the shadow of the impending doom that is "overpopulation". It's always easier to control through fear, after all.

Cheryl

These cranks ought to just come out and say they hate capitalism, hate the social welfare system, hate liberalism and almost everything that supports modern life. They are like Andrew Bolt in reverse.

Curmudgeon:

Is there any suggestion the rete of innovation is slowing down? Not really. Food prices are high at the moment for a range of factors including a sharp increase in income for large numbers in India and China, but high prices stimulates production. If you can see genuine barriers to production increases then I'd be quite interested to know what they are.

The author is not telling us how to live our lives - on the contrary the objection is that the social engineering that successive governments have engaged in is to pursue policies which encourage population growth. There is no need to tell anyone how many children to have but there is a need not to have policies which pay people to have children, which actively encourage migrants to come here.

To be anti growth is not to be anti-capitalism - people forget that the idea of a continually growing economy is a relatively new one - classical economists assumed that a mature capitalist economy would be stable. (Try reading people like Adam Smith or Galbraith, Cheryl)

I am assuming that Curmudgeon has the plans for a perpetual motion machine somewhere in his back pocket - pinning your hopes on continual innovation is like planning your financial future on the assumption that you will win lotto.

All that the article is saying is that nature bats last. We dont have to do anything about population growth, we can ignore it for nature will solve it for us - if that thought is scary then head nature off at the pass.

This article is part of the new Environmental push to exert mass behavioural control through pushing the 'impending famine' agenda just as they have through the Global Warming 'disaster scenario'.

Far FEWER people are dying of hunger now than in the past.

The author's rather 'lame' reasoning that someone else repeating Malthus' argument could be correct, even if Malthus was wrong is silly and implausible. He is predictably following the new Green agenda of limiting food supplies using false 'famine' scares.

Also, famines aren't caused by overpopulation but by sudden weather events, biological agents or bad central planning such as by Chinese and Russian Communist regimes.

The Malthusian argument has been used over and again by 'experts' e.g. Paul Ehrlich to make similar predictions to the author in the 1970's which all failed miserably. The Club of Rome did so again with the Limits to Growth book. Their predictions again proved incorrect.

Environmetalism will probably lead to a lack of available energy sources in the future, an now they are moving on to food production and population. We really should resist this new scare campaign. Its ultimately all about control and the new Green vision which is inevitably the path to ruin.

<Any discussion on the effects of the ageing population on our economic future - especially that of our children, who will be required to support us - will be instantly suppressed.>

No, Pericles. What happens is growth advocates tell scary stories about the ageing catastrophe and how Japan, Russia, Australia are all doomed because of it. The argument fails because of its abject absurdity: The idea that suppression is involved is delusional.

I welcome argument as to why the future of countries with growing populations is rosy compared to countries with stable or falling populations. I welcome argument as to how immigration can solve the aging catastrophe. I welcome argument as to why someone can be so critical of the accuracy of climate forecasts, yet so accepting of long range economic forecasts: This point is especially contrary, as it would seem to be synonymous with the deepest Malthusian pessimism.

Settling down nicely into its usual pattern, I see.

>>The author is not telling us how to live our lives - on the contrary, the objection is that the social engineering that successive governments have engaged in is to pursue policies which encourage population growth<<

Those policies would be economic growth that leads to better standards of living, a humane immigration policy and a lack of intervention on family life, I guess. Or perhaps you were thinking of other social engineering policies, BAYGON? Which would they be?

>>What happens is growth advocates tell scary stories about the ageing catastrophe and how Japan, Russia, Australia are all doomed because of it<<

It has nothing to do with "doom", Fester. That is the province of the population control freaks. It has to do with economics, and the effect of an ageing population on income distribution.

>>All that the article is saying is that nature bats last. We dont have to do anything about population growth, we can ignore it for nature will solve it for us<<

I'm not sure that is what the article was saying, BAYGON, but I will happily agree with the conclusion. Human beings are only human, so to speak, and our ability to feed ourselves and our desire to live in free societies will continue to drive our economy, and our growth. As they have in the past.

Yes Malthus gets a good run in these usually stereotypical debates about population.

Those who support continual population growth will always resort to the extreme to state their position. May as well just accept any reference to overpopulation is aligned with genocide, racism, eugenics and restrictions on liberty. At the risk of being repetitive, there are ways to control populations without resorting to the extremes. We already do that to some extent with immigration quotas. Do the growthists think that it is in best interest to open up borders completely without any restrictions or quotas. It is unworkable and infrastructure will not cope or keep up with the influx.

What about reducing middle class welfare like baby bonuses which arose with the corresponding push for 'productivity' enabled by taxpayer funded institutionalised child care.

Freedom and human rights do not automatically equal unfettered growth.

It always bemused me at the lack of acknowledgment that unfettered population growth can lead to those same extremes of which the anti-growthists are accused, especially when people start competing and fighting for scarce resources like food and energy. It is happening already in wars being waged to secure oil interests.

But here we go again.

Like I said purchase and view. http://www.demographicwinter.com
There is nothing here that counters the arguments made in the Demographic Winter and the Demo Bomb. Speakers are mostly secular thinkers and scientists by the way, not Catholics. Also if your truly honest, those self righteous Catholics have a point. The Contraceptive Pill is an Abortaficent Device and does kill embryos, (i.e human life). It does not always prevent ovulation, nor conception. Even an honest atheist, (i.e truly ethical honest), would protect human life. You don't have to believe in a Soul to do that.

@Daffy Duck: Demographic Winter is of course produced by self righteous right wing Catholics and other denizens of the loony right in the USA.

@aga: The Contraceptive Pill is an Abortaficent Device and does kill embryos, (i.e human life).

And here I was mentally putting a black mark against Daffy for being over the top. Sorry Daffy.

Why not just come up with an agreed (suitable and relevant) population cap and operate within that range using the one in/one out style of operation.

This would allow compassion for refugees, skills requirements (ideally filled by appropriate domestic training), family reunions and general movement of people.

What a good idea, pelican.

>>Why not just come up with an agreed (suitable and relevant) population cap and operate within that range using the one in/one out style of operation.<<

Presumably you'd need to apply for a reproduction permit to comply with the "cap". You could make it tradeable, of course, so that you can (say) sell your permit to a Tamil refugee, rather than give birth yourself. And whenever a boatload of refugees landed, you could advertise for the collection of the requisite number of permits from the bleeding-hearts brigade, instead of pushing the boat back out to sea. Or shooting them, or whatever.

I can foresee a few problems arriving at the "cap" number, though.

As we have seen on this very forum, quite a few folks out there think we are already over the limit, so to speak. The issuance of "Special Permit Requisition (Offspring) Grants" (the "SPROG") would need to be delayed for a few years until the required number had popped their clogs. Which might create demographic imbalance some time in the future, but what the heck. That's not important.

Although, I suppose you could just say "that's enough" as of today - allowing an existing pregnancy to complete, of course, so long as it has been registered with the Department of Population Control, of course.

Hold on, though. Didn't you say...?

>>Those who support continual population growth will always resort to the extreme to state their position. May as well just accept any reference to overpopulation is aligned with genocide, racism, eugenics and restrictions on liberty. At the risk of being repetitive, there are ways to control populations without resorting to the extremes.<<

How would you operate your "one in/one out" scheme without restricting liberty?

Oh.

I see.

It is a "one in/one out" scheme, not "one out/one in".

That has potential, I can see.

It's the 3a.m. knock on the door, isn't it.

"Sorry, but someone just gave birth, and you've been selected to depart under the One In, One Out Act of 2012 (Cth)"

Yum. Tasty eugenic goodness for all.

<It has nothing to do with "doom", Fester. That is the province of the population control freaks.>

I advocate no intervention other than to make contraception available to those who want it. What we have in Australia is policy to increase the population, and I cannot see why it is justified.

< It has to do with economics, and the effect of an ageing population on income distribution.>

What you base your prediction of doom on is an economic model, which, like the doom laden prediction of Thomas Malthus, takes no account of the impact of new technology. Nor do I understand how high immigration will change the age profile substantially: What it has done is to greatly increase public debt due to the expensive infrastructure required for the modern standard of living.

I think it far more sensible to develop technologies and policy to make people healthier and more productive: Making the population younger with immigration seems to be an impossible objective unless you plan to exterminate old people. You aren't planning on exterminating old people are you, Pericles?

I don't buy it, Fester.

>>What we have in Australia is policy to increase the population, and I cannot see why it is justified.<<

How is this policy enforced? Who enforces it?

Answers: it isn't, and nobody.

What we have in Australia is a (relatively) free society, where individuals are allowed to make their own choices on matters concerning their family.

>>What you base your prediction of doom on is an economic model<<

You probably forgot for a moment, but it is the population-controllers who have the doom scenario. Check it out. Doom, doom, doom, every one. Unless of course we "take steps" to "control" our population.

>>You aren't planning on exterminating old people are you, Pericles?<<

Sorry, once again you seem to mistake me for a population-controller, like pelican's "one in/one out" brigade. Who, it would appear, keep an eye out for the next candidate for the ovens, each time another baby is born.

Pericles,

We may not have enforced policy to increase the population, but there are any number of policies (baby bonus, paid parental leave, family tax benefits etc.) which encourage breeding.

"Taking steps" to "control" our population need not involve ridiculous solutions like Carousel and Sandmen (I presume this is where your headed with all this hyperbole - fascinating how you jump straight to death squads as means of population control). A far simpler approach would be to dismantle some of the policies which encourage breeding, rather than trying to introduce any contentious policies to discourage breeding. Or to limit those incentives to breeding to a certain number of children. People can still choose to have more, by all means - but they'll be paying for them out of their own pocket rather than sponging off the taxpayer.

Just as I thought.

Fester states "What we have in Australia is policy to increase the population", The Acolyte Rizla corrects Fester with "We may not have enforced policy to increase the population"

I'd be more precise, and say "we do not have a policy to increase the population", but that's just me - a boring pedantic stickler for accuracy.

>>...there are any number of policies (baby bonus, paid parental leave, family tax benefits etc.) which encourage breeding<<

It is debatable whether these are encouragements, or simply a form of welfare to the less well-off. If they did not exist, then no doubt we'd have a whole bunch of do-gooders trumpeting on about how only the rich can afford children, and how desperately unfair that is to the lil' Aussie Battler.

>>A far simpler approach would be to dismantle some of the policies which encourage breeding, rather than trying to introduce any contentious policies to discourage breeding.<<

Simpler? Every government, regardless of its social engineering leanings, is dependent for its survival on the votes of the lil' Aussie Battlers (see above). The pre-election tabloids would be filled with pictures of fecund plutocrats lording it over childless peasants, you can bet your boots on it.

>>Or to limit those incentives to breeding to a certain number of children<<

Trouble is, the marginal cost to a family of an additional kiddiwink decreases with each new sprog.

Hmmm, let's think about that, shall we? A disincentive whose effectiveness lessens, as the problem it is designed to combat grows. Cool policymaking. You should be in government. Actually, with solutions like that, it is possible you already are...

>>People can still choose to have more, by all means...<<

Well, that's all right then.

But such a laissez-faire approach doesn't sound much like any population management programme I have ever heard of. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?

Some people veritably salivate at the idea of assuming the worst in people.

Pericles

In summarising the idea of a population 'cap' I specifically used the term 'range' which implies flexibility in the arrangement.

How you can always jump to the absurd to make a point I do not know. Of course I do not advocate implementing a one-child policy or for citizens to have to make an application to have a child - that is an unfair implication and assumption.

If the birth rate rises naturally then the natural response is to reduce immigration. It is not new for governments to tinker with immigration intakes to match needs/outflux etc. Reducing immigration may not even be necessary if the numbers of exits are greater or equal to the BR. Due to economic pressures and higher education the birth rate in Australia is at put at slightly lower than replacement level.

"Despite an increase over the last decade, the total fertility rate remains below the replacement level of 2.1 babies per woman (the number of babies a woman would have to have over her lifetime to replace herself and her partner)."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Components%20of%20population%20growth%20(3.1)

The population cap or range would be set up as an 'ideal' and can be easily managed through responsible policies while not encouraging (through baby bonuses and other social engineering schemes) or discouraging. Let people make their own decisions.

The suggestions put forward cannot be nit-picked in isolation (it is a whole-of approach), all parts of the (potential) solution have to work hand in hand. That is, reduce poverty through implementation of social welfare, increasing access to education, greater economic equity in global arrangments, stonger democracies etc in the developing world.

While I invite reasoned responses, I cannot see any issue with the above suggestions from a local or international perspective. That is not to say these issues are easy, and that there are not political obstacles. However, the recent emphasis globally for democracy and freedoms in the developing world I reckon there is a bit of hope.

Large Australian families are hardly the most important problem. Our national fertility rate is slightly below the long-term replacement level and has been since 1976. What natural increase we are still having stems from demographic momentum. (If the young adult generation is very large in relation to older generations, then births will still outnumber deaths, even if families are small.) Natural increase was about 150,000 last year, is getting smaller all the time as we move towards a stable age structure, and is projected to end altogether at some time in the 2030s. A half to two thirds of our population growth is due to immigration, entirely a matter of government policy.

What is interesting about Pericles' point of view is that he only opposes government interference if there are attempts to limit the population. Policies to boost it are fine, even if they involve forcibly taxing people or depriving them of public services to pay for reproductive bribes such as the baby bonus - and they are bribes, because they are either not means tested at all or are paid to most families - or the very large infrastructure costs required for due to mass migration and other population growth.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39930.html

The government is actually taking a larger share of GNP than it did in the 1970s, when tertiary education was free and the aged pension wasn't means tested. It can't even be argued that this growth is ultimately in the punters' best interests. The 2006 Productivity Commission Report makes it clear that any per capita economic benefits are trivial. We know that the growth is putting pressure on the environment and on urban amenity. The politicians and other folk at the top want the growth because it makes the total pie bigger and because of the distributional effects, not because it is good for us.

I only just read the 'candidates for the oven' comment Pericles.

Sheesh... talk about drawing a long bow and making false analogies. That is poor show even for you. If BOAZ had made a comment like that in, say , the context of euthanasia, you would be on him like rats up a drain pipe.

I don't mind admitting that you have me perplexed as to why you are so opposed to addressing issues of sustainable population. It is possible to have a civilised discussion around this issue, dealing with the solutions and potential difficulties without the knee jerk reactions. What is happening to OLO lately. Is it the warm weather

@pelican: That is poor show even for you.

I don't know about the "even for you" bit. There was a time when Pericles wasn't quite so easy to dismiss. But as you say the level of debate he stoops to in this area is definitely down there with the worst. There is no real attempt to persuade. It seem more like he is playing a game - who can paint the other in the blackest colours. Then again, perhaps he has always done that and I just didn't notice because he generally espoused viewpoints I agreed with.

@Divergence: The government is actually taking a larger share of GNP than it did in the 1970s, when tertiary education was free and the aged pension wasn't means tested.

Hmmm. That sounds bad at first, but then now that I think about it we are kids are spending longer in schools, there are simply more oldies about now and we spend more on health per capita than ever. It would be interesting to see it broken down.

Your link was pretty much spot, as usual. I think population growth is the real reason the treasury is dry (or in my states (Qld) case, projected to be $80B in the hole.) They are spending it on infrastructure. But then you have always have posted pretty good links.

I can't see any of this changing until people start dying in greater numbers, unfortunately. It is just too convenient, too easy, too profitable and just downright comfortable to continue in the current vein. People will have to genuinely scared before things change, and no one is going to be scared while times are so good the world population is growing exponentially. I am getting cynical in my old age, I guess. On the positive side if the food supply people are right that will happen in the next 20 years, but in most likely in other places in the world so the likes of Pericles can watch, and hopefully learn.

Well now I am feeling guilty about using personal terminology as well eg. "even for you". Apologies.

Maybe the warm weather is affecting everybody.

*Maybe the warm weather is affecting everybody.*

Perhaps its just hot flushes, Pelican :)

Heh heh Yabby - fact is there is probably some truth in that. :)

Pericles,

"only the rich can afford children, and how desperately unfair that is to the lil' Aussie Battler."

Sod the little Aussie Battler - they should get themselves a higher paying job, turn to crime, sell an organ on the black market or shut the phuck up and stop whining. Life is unfair.

"Simpler? Every government, regardless of its social engineering leanings, is dependent for its survival on the votes of the lil' Aussie Battlers (see above)."

The obvious consequence being that we end up with policy based not on reason but on populism. Any government would certainly win a lot of votes from the little Aussie Battlers if they were to abolish income tax for said Battlers - but that would that make it sound policy?

"But such a laissez-faire approach doesn't sound much like any population management programme I have ever heard of. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?"

Turns out it's a moot point (note to self: this is why it pays to check your statistics before going off half-cocked). According to the ABS website, Australians are breeding below replacement rate anyway (go team!). So there's no need for a "population management programme" beyond an ecologically responsible immigration programme at present - there's no sense in fixing what isn't broken.

TAR. The "little Aussie battlers" don't always get what they voted for. At the moment I am thinking of the carbon tax, but there are no doubt many other examples. The government could control population increase by regulating immigration. This is not so simple though, because there are so many people coming in legally with visas and just overstaying. They are then difficult to remove.

See http://www.nationalobserver.net/2000_summer_ed2.htm

David

So if there isn't a problem, The Acolyte Rizla, what is everybody getting so upset about?

>>According to the ABS website, Australians are breeding below replacement rate anyway (go team!). So there's no need for a "population management programme"<<

My only concern is the consequences of government interference in the choices made by individuals. Once you persuade yourself that "limiting population" is a Good Thing, any legislation that implements such a concept is certain to be oppressive, intrusive and enforced by mindless government drones.

pelican identifies the core issue:

>>In summarising the idea of a population 'cap' I specifically used the term 'range' which implies flexibility in the arrangement. How you can always jump to the absurd to make a point I do not know.<<

Anyone with any experience of framing legislation knows that the concept of a "range" is unworkable. If the decision is taken to limit Australia's population to, say 23 million, then the rules will be devised to bring that to pass. It would not be feasible to describe it as "between 22.5 and 23.5 million", would it, so it would necessarily be a specific number. This many, and no more.

If the manner in which I have highlighted this upsets people, I don't apologize. It is far too easy to sit back with a glass of red and pontificate about "what the gumment should do", when the reality of the measures to enforce the resultant policies can only be oppressive. Only by taking extreme examples of the implications of such policies in action, can the dangers be clearly identified.

And this is pure imagination, Divergence.

>>What is interesting about Pericles' point of view is that he only opposes government interference if there are attempts to limit the population. Policies to boost it are fine<<

I have nowhere, on any occasion, ever, said that I support any government initiative or policy to boost our population. I did point out that the baby bonus etc. could be classed as welfare payments to the lower-paid. But even that doesn't necessarily mean that I approve of them.

<My only concern is the consequences of government interference in the choices made by individuals.>

The only government interference is via policies which seek to increase the population (such as high immigration and the baby bonus), which would otherwise stabilise, or even decline. I think that government should have no business determining what the population is, be it higher or lower.

Frequent references to wanting a stable population equating to genocide are simply untrue. What the discussion is about is whether or not government interference to increase the population is beneficial. Credible supporting argument is needed.

<I have nowhere, on any occasion, ever, said that I support any government initiative or policy to boost our population.>

What you have done is to suggest an aging catastrophe from a diminishing tax base. What is your remedy for this? You dont seem keen to exterminate oldies, so how about more immigration and pretend that it wont have an infrastructure cost? And what impact might higher productivity and technological advance have? More to the point, where do such things fit in to those dodgy economic models of doom you have such faith in?

I think you may be confusing symptoms with intent, Fester.

>>The only government interference is via policies which seek to increase the population (such as high immigration and the baby bonus), which would otherwise stabilise, or even decline<<

While the policies themselves may arguably contribute to an increase in our population, I think it is unrealistic to bucket them as being specifically designed to do so - as in actively "seek" to increase the population.

The baby bonus is primarily a welfare measure. If it has a design point anywhere, I suspect it is in the "let's catch some cheap votes" category. And while immigration policies exist the world over, I doubt anyone could view them objectively as being originally motivated by a desire to increase population numbers.

Let's face it, if there were a policy hidden away somewhere that has "let's boost our population" in big letters on the front, the measures to implement such a strategy have been largely indirect, and generally extremely weak.

>>Frequent references to wanting a stable population equating to genocide are simply untrue.<<

Who mentioned genocide?

I will however continue to point out that any measures that have as their intent the "stabilization" of a population will necessarily be fraught with dangers to our few remaining liberties. So far, none of the population-controllers has come up with a scheme that is remotely workable in real life, without asking the people to sacrifice their freedom of choice, when it comes to the size of their families.

If you are comfortable "letting nature take its course" on this topic, then we have no argument. As The Acolyte Rizla has already pointed out, this has resulted in a lower-than-replacement birthrate here, in exactly the same way that it has in other prosperous countries.

Which just leaves immigration, I guess. Which sadly is an argument more often conducted at an emotional, rather than a factual and logical level.

Pericles,

You are being disingenuous, as usual. The year ending March 2009, Australia hit its peak population growth rate of 2.2%, implying a population doubling time of 31 years, six months if continued. Two thirds of this was from immigration. This has since come down to 1.4% (49 years, 6 months doubling time, with immigration supplying slightly over half), no doubt partly for economic reasons and partly because of the flak over Rudd's Big Australia gaffe. Of course, the politicians intended to boost the population. Their big political donors in the business elite want bigger markets, high profits from real estate speculation and control of other resources, and cheap, compliant labour, preferably already fully trained at someone else's expense. Senator Nick Minchin said as much when he was interviewed on the ABC's In the National Interest a few weeks ago. He said that the Labour Party also favours mass migration because it believes that migrants are disproportionately likely to be Labour voters and that politicians of all stripes like to strut on a bigger stage.

If the Baby Bonus is simply welfare, why isn't it means tested like the aged pension, unemployment benefits, and virtually every other welfare measure? Why was it introduced right after Peter Costello told us to have "one [child] for the mother, one for the father, and one for the country"?

<I doubt anyone could view them objectively as being originally motivated by a desire to increase population numbers.>

Suppose a doctor prescribes a medication to a patient that has the unintended consequence of causing a blood clot which results in the patient losing a leg. Is it valid for the doctor to say to the patient, "Dont blame me for your lost leg because that isn't why I prescribed you the medication."? Yet in the case of politicians pursuing policies which are known to increase the population, apparently that's okay because it wasn't the intention of the policy? My understanding of the world is that you wear the consequences of your actions regardless of your intentions.

<So far, none of the population-controllers has come up with a scheme that is remotely workable in real life, without asking the people to sacrifice their freedom of choice, when it comes to the size of their families.>

There is no policy of self determination for Australia's population, instead there is the belief that the natural progression of the population is economically problematic and needs to be rectified. And given the view of Kevin Rudd and this former Howard advisor, I think that quite a few pollies are devout followers of the population growth religion.

http://www.narrominenewsonline.com.au/news/national/national/general/go-north-and-populate-sinodinos-pushes-for-a-big-australia-policy/2368935.aspx

Malthus wasn't wrong, any more than Isaac Newton was.
After watching the movie “Matrix”, a friend said he liked something one character said about humans being the only animals that don't gear their population to their environment; that we are “more like a virus”.
Great theatre, perhaps, but completely wrong. Some of the more 'ancient' marsupials show some ability to control their own reproduction according to the availability of food, but the more recent mammals have found the most successful strategy is simply to overproduce. The basic key is how much care the parents are able to give.
Fish, amphibians and reptiles can have enormous broods which they walk or swim away from, so only a very small portion survives. Similarly, in very impoverished lands, parents will have many children in the hope that just a few survive.
Nature in toto really doesn't care whether a creature is alive or dead; they're all are part of the food chain sooner or later.
Except for Humans.
First due to religion and more recently due to exaggerated concerns about hygiene, humans have a natural bias against their own remains and excrement. This has created a linear system which now starts at mines and quarries and ends up in the ocean or locked up and useless cemeteries.
This is blatantly unsustainable.
The growth paradigm we currently inhabit encourages us to look only at the supply side. Just as the rich continually complain about the disproportionate taxes they pay and ignore the disproportionate amount they keep, we are only looking at the availability of food and resources and completely ignore the possibility -and need- to recover, recycle and redistribute those resources.
It is really so much to ask that 'Wise Wise Man' should use their vaunted powers of reason, and stop justifying amoral actions with references to amoral nature?

I am very late coming to this thread, probably because the article's title did not immediately appeal. (And other interests beckoned.) However, after wading through the article's convolutions and the 42 subsequent comments, I have a tuppence which some may think worth considering.

Firstly though, I must compliment Pelican on her posts (I think it's her, rather than his, and please forgive me if I am remiss), and particularly on the posting of Wednesday, 23 November 2011 6:51:55 PM.

It surprises me that the discussion has focused almost entirely on the situation in Oz, rather than looking globally, and I am also surprised by the apparent depth of disconnect of city dwellers from ours, and others', rural realities.

Rurally, I would offer that worldwide food producing resources are finite and rapidly becoming tired - due to production intensity, fertiliser input costs and limits, and soil and topography degradation (erosion, salinity, acidity, loss of soil microbes/ecology, and deforestation). The vagaries of climate and water supply add further uncertainty. Mass hydroponics may be the future, but relevant energy, infrastructure and inputs are massive and also finite.

Human waste recycling will be essential; though the recycling of cadavas (as someone suggested) would contribute little - relative to the protein and energy consumed in a single lifetime.

Environment Is important, as the sea-change diaspora confirms - most wouldn't willingly retire to a highrise. Environment relates directly to quality of life, societal success, custodial integrity, and future-vision. Maintenance of land, forest, aquatic and oceanic environments is foundational to life, atmosphere and sustenance (and much more).

Baby bonuses, family allowances and welfare I see as living standard equity processes, and childcare allowances as productivity enhancing. Immigration control I see as a necessary component in achieving supply/demand balance; and birth control, higher education and better living standards I see as essential for enabling developing nations to achieve similar sustainability, and hence global sustainability.

Overpopulation will destroy our world as we know it, leaving future generations short-changed, disillusioned, and probably miserable.