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?