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