And so the recommended means to cut our fertility rate is...?

As a quick calculation, at 32 million, Australia’s population will be only 0.47% of the world’s population.

But the author does have some good points regards consumption and sustainability. At present, I don’t believe Australia can be sustainable with present rates of consumption and immigration.

We actually have one of the highest rates of consumption in the world, and have become a highly secular, feminist, consumerist society, with an over dependence on importation and immigration.

Not much to write home about.

I believe the generally recommended option is contraception - the 'not shagging' option being rather unpopular. Contraceptives are imperfect, but I daresay their failure rates are low enough to facilitate the cut in fertility rates the author desires.

Any article on population that does not mention immigration is not serious. If we cut our birthrate our politicians will increase the immigration rate. The population will continue to grow at the same rate, but it will be an increasingly non-white population.

So, while I support population stabilisation, authors like Jenny Goldie are merely advancing a demographic/ethnic transformation with no effect on population. Until such time as our leaders cut immigration, we ought to increase our birthrate to ensure that the ethnic mix of Australia remains something that resemebles Australia rather than a balkanised, segregated mix of ethnic tensions.

And I haven't even mentioned the fact that some immigrant groups are being taught by their leaders to increase their birthrate as a means to expand their power and influence in Australia.

how deceived can one be?

Last month, I became a grandfather for the first time. I hope our only daughter has only one child, because the research is clear. Only-children do better than others in both academic achievement and career pursuits - likely because of the added attention they receive from parents. the author's concerns apply globally.

mralstoner,
I agree. France is set to become a Muslim country in a few decades, because it had an immigration policy that overlooked the fact that France was not a Muslim country, and had never been a Muslim country.

France is now set to lose its traditional culture and identity.

The fertility rate in Australia is already below replacement levels, which is what the majority of Australians want, so it seems.

But the population keeps increasing, which is not what the majority of Australians want, except for some real estate agents and property developers.

I have no idea how old Ms Goldie might be, nor have I any inclination to ask.

But this article epitomizes for me the absolute worst of Baby Boomer thinking and logic: "Do not as I have done, nor enjoy what I have enjoyed, but wear hair shirts and deny yourself everything good on this planet".

From her bio:

"Jenny Goldie... is married with five adult children, four of whom are adopted. She lives on 100 acres at Michelago"

A nice, comfortable spot from which to lecture one's fellow humans on how they should behave, I'm sure.

I can understand and empathize with the youngsters who feel somewhat cheated by the evident selfishness and self-indulgence of the supremely lucky and profligate post-war generation. But it sticks in my craw to be harangued by someone who quite clearly has "had it easy", to the extent where she can afford to raise five kids in comfort.

Her argument falls short in a number of areas, primarily in those where her audience can actually exert some influence. If we assume that her "one child policy" wishes are granted, and at the same time all her fears are fulfilled - four degrees of warming (admittedly better than the six she was "predicting" in 2006) and no oil - what will our country look like?

Does she expect the population void to remain unfilled? If not, who will fill it?

Or will there simply be fewer, but abjectly miserable people? If not, what might make their lives bearable, in Ms Goldie's vision of the future?

I put far greater faith in the adaptability of mankind, who has through the millennia encountered and surmounted similar - and also some very different - challenges.

Heaven knows what number of people the world or Australia itself can accommodate, at what life-styles, in the long term. From all the best data at hand, whatever the magic number, it is considerably less than at present; less, due to reasons the author presents, and for others as well.
Those reasons are starkly evident; but there is almost universally no political will to engage with them.

Even more troubling is the minimal degree of public pressure on politicians. In large degree this is due to lack of public awareness of where we are at, in the ever-changing and over-stressed ecological niche upon which we humans depend.

This lack of awareness is not helped by the attitude of those directing our educational institutions: “Imagining a different future means looking within and beyond the walls of individual educational institutions-- ” a commendable opinion of the University of Canberra Vice-chancellor Stephen Parker, declared in the Canberra Times of Dec. 21). Unfortunately, he went on to confine his imagination to the facilitation of continuing growth; and sadly, h is not alone.
We should not expect educational institutions to predict the future; but surely they have a duty, while imparting skills, to alert their students to certain and identifiable barriers to be faced while applying the skills being imparted - barriers which are becoming increasingly evident.

Our educational institutions, where they neglect to impart knowledge of such evident and fast-approaching barriers as part of standard curricula to their students, do society a disservice.

The king of all barriers is the mathematical impossibility of unending growth. Institutions should not foster, in the upcoming generation, a blindness to it. That fundamental barrier is equally important across the whole spectrum of human endeavour: Agriculture, Banking, Business Administration, Economics, Law, Politics, Public Administration, etc..

Unless educational Institutions can imagine the reality of a future in which there is scarcity of oil, a climate altered by Carbon Dioxide, suffering in overpopulated lands, depleted financial capacity - all due to excessive and continuing growth in supplying increasing numbers of humans needs/wants - what hope is there for society

What an odd inverse-ad.hom. posting from Pericles, who presumably chose his nom-de-keyboard because it suggests wisdom. He seems to be suggesting that only the deprived have the right to an opinion on matters of human welfare. Why should Pericles (the Wise) assume that Ms Goldie's home life is comfortable? Why should Ms Goldie's home life have any bearing on her argument (except insofar as she herself uses personal anecdote to add legitimacy to that argument)?

I am sitting comfortably at my desk, the early summer weather is pleasant, the dog is snoring on the verandah. But despite Pericles, and despite my present ease, I am fearful for the future, and I think that Ms Goldie is entirely correct in her assessment of the dangers of climate change and resource depletion. I wish parents well, but today I would think twice before becoming one ...

Colinset,
It is true the education system has done very little for this country, and the education system has become one of the greatest “stuff-ups” in Australia’s history.

Despite increased government spending over the years, it did not produce enough skilled workers, resulting in the necessity to import more through immigration.

Results:-
Increased urban sprawl in cities.
Increased housing costs.
Increased stress on infrastructure.
Increased environmental degradation.
A future where there is a likely shortage of even food.
A multi-cultural society that actually has no culture of its own.

Someone could also have a look at any school as they drive past, and try to find one rooftop that has a single solar panel on it.

I haven’t seen one yet, and while so many academics screech about global warming, they do next to nothing about it. Too busy wanting more and more and more from the taxpayer.

A most cogent and salient article, worthy of deepest consideration.

All would have to admit we live in challenging times, with economic and political crises abounding, food shortages, mass people movement, and wide environmental concerns. Yet, the closest recognition we see by world leaders of the looming resource crisis is a climate-change forum - and even this is taken as an opportunity to strengthen trade relations and pursue business as usual. Global myopia.

It is sobering to contemplate our dependence on oil, and the overall impact of its shortage on so many aspects of the Western way of life. Broadacre agriculture alone consumes huge quantities of oil - as fuel, and as herbicides and pesticides, as well as in the manufacture of heavy farm equipment. Many industries are in a similar position, and in fact our entire food chain, as well as mining, manufacture, transportation, shipping and air travel.

Currently, wide environmental destruction is being increasingly risked for the sake of oil supply, and bio-fuel is being produced at the expense of food supply. Further shortage and fuel price escalation can only exacerbate this already precipitous situation. And, courtesy of global migration, the spectre of scrambling for all manner of increasingly diminishing supplies is coming to a door near you.

Can human intellect prevail and reverse the march to global destruction, or will the drive for capitalist expansion force mankind over the proverbial cliff, with only visions of Easter Island remaining in the wake? When in fact is the developing world going to be apprised of the ultimate cost of continued capitalist expansionism?

Our global village is looking very untidy indeed.

I agree with Pericles. Why should the young people of today be told to limit their number of children?
That is a very personal subject that should not be dictated to by Governments.

Just look at what happened in the 'one child policy' fiasco in China.
Naturally, most Chinese wanted a son, and thousands of female babies were/are murdered every year to make way for desired male babies.
(I guess that state of affairs may well suit many of the anti-female posters on this site though...)

Now these pampered Chinese sons have to look to other countries to find wives. It sort of defeats the purpose of cutting the local population numbers down doesn't it?

What next?
The government decides what sex your one child can be?

The promotion of effective contraception is the wisest way to go, and then at least we can limit the number of unwanted pregnancies in Australia

What an odd...

>>What an odd inverse-ad.hom. posting from Pericles, who presumably chose his nom-de-keyboard because it suggests wisdom.<<

...posting from nicco, who presumably chose his nom-de-keyboard because it suggests Machiavelli.

>>He seems to be suggesting that only the deprived have the right to an opinion on matters of human welfare<<

Not at all. The thrust of my "inverse-ad.hom.", as you call it, is that the lecture provided by Ms Goldie is entirely typical of the baby boomer generation, full of pious instructions on how other people ought to live. A classic case of do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do, in fact.

>>Why should Ms Goldie's home life have any bearing on her argument (except insofar as she herself uses personal anecdote to add legitimacy to that argument)?<<

Simply because in such cases it is essential to draw attention to the relative comfort from which the philippic is delivered, otherwise the entire point - that we are witnessing a form of hypocritical political correctness - would be lost.

Does that make it clearer for you?

As I also pointed out, such a diatribe is no more than self-important posturing, when it also becomes clear that the writer has considered none of the outcomes from her preferred solution. She advocates a one-child policy, studiously ignoring its massive failure, and the concomitant misery that is in the process of unfolding, in a country that has tried it.

>>I am sitting comfortably at my desk, the early summer weather is pleasant, the dog is snoring on the verandah. But despite Pericles, and despite my present ease, I am fearful for the future<<

Since you are quite comfortable to provide such personal detail, the question has to be asked: what would make you less fearful, and why?

Think beyond the platitudes and slogans, to the reality of what you and Ms Goldie are advocating.

There is a book that should be made required reading for the HSC. It's called Planet of Slums and was written by Mike Davis in 2007. I challenge anyone scoffing at the ideas presented in this article to read the book.

Suzieonline, where are the anti-feminine posters you seem to have identified on this thread?
Your own trend is much more anti-feminine than those you are castigating: why is it that you embrace the enforcement of “no contraception” which is widespread through so many governments, religions, and antediluvian cultures; the lack of choice in this regard?
Why should women, in both the less-developed, and some of the more-developed world, endure a continuing inability to control their own fertility - due lack of self-enfranchisement? A lack which is almost invariably due to an enforcement by those governments, religions, and cultures which you seem keen to have continuing to endure.
The conference of 1994 in Cairo on this issue identified the way forward for women who wanted the ability to embrace choice; a path away from the demands that they have children in numbers which could not be adequately supported. A direction away from such problems of fistula in young mothers, away from an excess of maternal and infant deaths, and an inability to adequately nurture such numbers of children as they had into adulthood.
That path has been effectively blocked by people with a philosophy very similar to what you are espousing - in effect, anti-feminisim.

It's time to INCREASE OUR fertility rate... and do something about the out-of control population explosion in the poor world.

The average fertility rate in many countries is 8 per woman! 8! That's why they're poor... can you imagine paying for 16 children? (most are Muslim polygamous nations) How can any country afford to provide quadrouple the schools, hospitals jobs and magically create farmland every 25 years? Impossible - that's why they are poor... and that's why they stay corrupt and uneducated.

Meanwhile here and across the wealthy world we are suiciding at an unprecedented rate. For every two adults we are producing between 1.1 and 1.8 chilren. 1.1 children for every two adults is halfing the population every generation.

And if you look inside these numbers.. the poorer, the less educated, the worse suburb... however you want to measure it, basically the less intelligent you are the fewer children you are going to have.

It's largely welfare/meanstested benefits... welfare-dependant can't afford not to have large families due to over-generous benefits... professionals can't afford to have children because they get none of this myriad of payments and subsidies. We can't afford the kids we want.

And then there's divorce, many men have realised that fatherhood is a bad deal and have decided never to marry. They're not commitment-phobic, they are being rational.

The world has never seen such a eugenics program... it beats Hitler's hands-down in pure numbers. The smart people are dying out, and the less able are being paid to produce, while professionals receive no benefits and find childless-ness a better option.

Jenny,
This has been posted here before.

http://www.hans-hass.de/Englisch/index_english.htm

Peter Hume wrote:

>>And so the recommended means to cut our fertility rate is...?>>

That is easier than you may think.

There is a very strong and well-established inverse link between educational and career opportunities for women and fertility. The better educated they are, the greater their career opportunities, the fewer children women choose to have.

So if you want to reduce fertility make sure that women have access to education and that there are no barriers to their entry into the workforce.

There is also a strong inverse link between URBANISATION and fertility. In my native South Africa back in the 1960s the fertility rate for rural Black women was steady at 6.6 babies per woman. In urban areas it was 2.8 and falling.

In any case fertility rates have been falling all over the world. Europe is below replacement rate – a continent-wide average of around 1.5.

In India fertility rates have fallen from around 5 in the 1970s to 2.6 today.

Even in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia fertility rates have fallen from around 6 in 1990 to 2.3 in 2011. Another ultra-conservative Islamic country, Iran, has a below replacement fertility rate of 1.88.

China too is below replacement. Doing away with the one child policy may bring about a bounce in fertility but I suspect it would not last long.

In 1960 the UN forecast a global population of 8.5 billion by 2000. Here we are in 2011 and the population has just passed the 7 billion mark.

When I reached my 65th birthday someone asked me what had surprised me most during my life. I did not have to think about my reply.

THE BIGGEST SURPRISE OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN THE GLOBAL PLUNGE IN FERTILITY RATES.

So fertility rates are falling and the best way to accelerate the process is to ensure equal rights for women.

Further to my previous post about plunging fertility.

As ever the devil is in the details. Religious people have on average more babies than their secular counterparts. This is true even when adjustments are made for differences in socio-econonmic status and educational levels.

In the past the seculars boosted their numbers by recruiting the children of religious folk. This MAY be coming to an end.

You can find an interesting discussion of these trends in:

Breeding for God by ERIC KAUFMANN, Prospect, 19th November 2006

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/11/breedingforgod/

Atheists believe the future belongs to them.

They may be wrong.

See also:

Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann

http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325140940&sr=1-1

I've noticed that atheists get apoplectic when I point out that the trend towards increasing secularism may be coming to an end.

Sometimes I think atheists have as much of a hard time confronting reality as religios.

halduell, writes

' There is a book that should be made required reading for the HSC. It's called Planet of Slums and was written by Mike Davis in 2007. I challenge anyone scoffing at the ideas presented in this article to read the book.'

No wonder so many see so much commonsense in Jesus words. When you read the drivel the author of the article has written you don't know whether to cry or laugh at such stupidity. Here we are inviting skilled immigrants by the thousands as this sort of dogma is preached. Never before has our lifestyle been more affluent. Keep breeding guys and don't fall for such nonsense.

This is a thoughtful article which raises serious matters. The author probably doesn't mention immigration because there is not the space to discuss Australia's other (major) source of population growth in the one opinion piece. Rather than putting our resources into building more infrastructure for more people in this country we should set an example by adopting a population policy that leads to stability as soon as possible. Then we will be able to afford generous overseas aid, especially aid for family planning. For example, the total fertility rate in Afghanistan is currently 6.3 and their annual rate of natural increase is 2.8%, (This means their population is set to double every 25 years.) No amount of military intervention or generic development aid can create peace and prosperity in such a demographic setting.

>>Jenny Goldie has interests in population, peak oil and climate change. She is an active member of Sustainable Population Australia and of ACT Peak Oil.>>

PEAK OIL!

Quick quiz:

Which country has the largest proven recoverable oil reserves?

If you answered Saudi Arabia you're probably wrong.

At current prices exploiting Canada's Athabasca Oil Sands is economically viable. As the technology improves so will the amount that can be recovered. Canada may have the largest oil reserves. Production seems likely to reach 3 million barrels / day by 2015.

Another contender is Venezuela. It has the worlds largest known reserves of "heavy crude."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_crude_oil

There are also greater economies that can be squeezed out of the internal combustion engine. I expect the trend of improving fuel efficiency to continue.

We are not going to run out of oil for a while yet.

Finally, with improving battery technology the time may come when we need less oil anyway.

SUSTAINABLE POPULATION AUSTRALIA

How can you write about population without writing about immigration?

Full disclosure: I am an immigrant. If I had been setting immigration policy in 1996 I would not have accepted me.

Some very good points in this article. The main global problem is that we have 7 billion people going on 9 or 10 billion on a planet that could sustainably support (at least until the far future) 1 to 2 billion in modest comfort. The Global Footprint network has done the math on the resource issues and why we are in environmental overshoot as Jenny Goldie says. It is clear that peak oil is far from being the only issue. See

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

Nevertheless, I agree with mralstoner and stevenlmeyer that the main issue for Australia is immigration. Our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976, and most estimates suggest that growth by natural increase will stop at some time in the 2030s. Without net immigration, the population would then slowly decline, until we decided to stabilise it with some mild encouragement or incentives to have a few more children, or with a modest level of net immigration. According to the ABS, natural increase was 150,000 last year, less than half of our population growth for the year. The ABS didn't specify what share of the natural increase was due to births to recent immigrants.

I haven't found a similar graph for Australia, but the demographer Leon Bouvier worked out the trajectory of the US population assuming zero net immigration after 1970 and a continuation of the 2.0 fertility rate prevalent then. He showed that the US population would have peaked at 255 million in about 2020 and would be down to 236 million by 2050. It is now 310 million and headed for the stratosphere due to Congress' policy of mass legal immigration and tolerance of mass illegal immigration. See

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about-problem/our-lost-future.html

I also think that mralstoner is right that our politicians would simply further increase immigration if the fertility rate fell. If we can't force them to back off, it isn't even worth worrying about fertility, which has been pretty much taking care of itself.

stevenlmeyer,

".....Canada's Athabasca Oil Sands is economically viable"...but not environmentally viable.

"We are not going to run out of oil for a while yet."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/essick-photography.

Oh goody!

Divergence,
“The ABS didn't specify what share of the natural increase was due to births to recent immigrants”

Yes.

We are now subsidising abortions up to about 90,000 per year, and also subsidising contraceptives, and it is estimated that up to 25% of adult men in Australia have had a vasectomy.

Why do we have to go through all this if the government keeps bringing in more and more immigrants, and then does not keep records of how many children they are having.

That was the big mistake made in a number of European countries, until eventually, the local population became strangers in their own country.

That was the big mistake made in a number of European countries, until eventually, the local population became strangers in their own country.
Vanna,
And guess what I & others copped flak for saying that all along ?

Fiji is a shining example of Democracy at work. Australia is definitely in the firing line now.

I agree with the general tenet of Jenny’s article.

But immigration is of far more concern than fertility rate, in our country.

I see no point at all in pushing for a fertility rate that would be lower than the one we had before the baby bonus artificially boosted it. All we need to do is get rid of that despicable baby-buying bribe, and the national fertility rate will return to a level respectably a little bit below replacement level.

Everyone should then be free to have as many kids as they want, because most will choose to have two, one or none. The occasional larger family should not be of concern, for as long as the national fertility rate remains at or below replacement level.

Immigration should be reduced to about net zero. This is the big factor.

Of course, once you start talking about the rest of the world, the approach needs to be very different.

Neither entirely rational nor particularly accurate, Pericles asserts that Ms Goldie's article is "a classic case of do-as-I-say not do-as-I-do".

Repeating an assertion does not make it correct, if it was wrong the first time. Pericles again claims that it is hypocritical for someone in comfortable circumstances to express a view about social policy.

This is of course nonsense in itself, but neither does Pericles have any evidence about the particular situation of the writer, and in order to score his patronising debating point, he ignores what little information Ms Goldie provides. The writer quite clearly describes the actions that she herself took (one biological child, several adoptions, long-term fostering.)

Pericles is also (wilfully?) inaccurate in his use of the emotive term "one child policy", which Ms Goldie specifically rejects. She says: "I believe that a fertility rate of 1.5 is not unreasonable ..."

Clearly, Ms Goldie has not only thought about the issue, but she has also acted on her charitable principles. A case of "do-as-I-do".

This is an excellent article.

A much simpler way to comprehend the fact that humans are massively overpopulated is to review the definition of overpopulation. From Wikipedia: "where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat." How is it possible for an organism to exceed the carrying capacity? There is only one way. The organism must consume resources faster than they renew. To put it in simple terms, there must be a pile of food that the organism is eating down faster than food is added to that pile.

Humans have a huge pile of food and are eating it faster than it renews. That bulk of that "pile of food" is fossil fuels. People make the mental error of thinking that oil, coal, uranium, are not food. They are as good as food, because we must burn those resources in order to grow, harvest, package, store, and distribute food for 7 billion humans. If we do not burn those resources, we collectively have no clue how to feed 7 billion. We don't need to figure out what a sustainable population level might be, because this logic proves we are way beyond sustainable. The correct course of action is clear. We humans must get our numbers down to where we are not consuming resources, that are essential to provide for our numbers, faster than they renew. The only way to do that is to ensure we average fewer than 2 children.

Moving quickly to policies which balance emigration with immigration (or perhaps even a bit more in favour of emigration) as suggested by the likes of the Stable Population Party and the Democrats is the most practical and achievable course of action.

Immigration has been of benefit in building Australia, but now we must recognise that these policies are now doing much more harm than good. Our government and corporate citizens are understandably reluctant to move from a model that has worked to a larger extent, but we now need to move to a more sustainable population and an understanding that our economy will fail if we continue to believe that a stronger economy requires more people than we already have.

We should be looking more towards the handful of countries with about half our population who have governments that work very collaboratively and have economies that are very successful - this will allow us to also reinstate a lot of the native wildlife corridors that made this country a treasure. Whatis pertinent also about these countries is that they have not deliberately set about growing their populations but instead, have largely let their populations find their own level that affords a decent standard of living for all (and the highest quality lifestyle ratings on the planet).

One thing is clear. Australia is becoming increasingly unstable, increasingly unattractive to investors and prospective migrants and more and more of our citizens are slipping into poverty or living hand-to-mouth. For an increasing number, the prospect of owning a home is a forgotten dream. It is worth considering as is well put in Kelvin Thomson's "witches hats theory of government" that our stability depends on us slowing our population growth (predominantly driven by high immigration) and ultimately allowing our population to stabilise by encouraging Australians to make the link between finite resources and population. Given the choice and understanding along with financial and time pressures, most people will opt for smaller families in balance with career and lifestyle.

Wilfully misinterpreting an assertion twice does not make it right, if it was wrong the first time, nicco.

>>Pericles again claims that it is hypocritical for someone in comfortable circumstances to express a view about social policy.<<

That is simply burying a specific point inside a broad generalization.

I merely pointed out that the entire tenor of the piece was a typical example of baby-boomer logic: "we've created a problem that we want you to solve. And we want you to solve it by doing exactly the opposite to what we have done all our lives."

I'll repeat it for you, just in case you have forgotten:

"...this article epitomizes for me the absolute worst of Baby Boomer thinking and logic: "Do not as I have done, nor enjoy what I have enjoyed, but wear hair shirts and deny yourself everything good on this planet"."

Denying other people the right to have children is about as fundamental an example of control-freakery that you could invent. And the fact that Ms Goldie pronounces all this after having made her own comfortable nest only magnifies its expedience.

Generalize all you like, my specific point remains. And presumably Ms Goldie is not advocating that every Australian couple raise five children, as she has done. How does that fit under the heading "do as I do"?

>>Pericles is also (wilfully?) inaccurate in his use of the emotive term "one child policy", which Ms Goldie specifically rejects. She says: "I believe that a fertility rate of 1.5 is not unreasonable ..."<<

Which translates as a "one child policy for some", does it not? Otherwise it would be totally unenforceable. Which raises the obvious question, how will the rate of 1.5 be achieved? Voluntarily for some, but not for others? Who gets to choose?

I find it strange that anyone can support, let alone advocate, such policies.

A very persistent straw man. Pericles refuses to understand the point made by Ms Goldie, in fact refuses to understand several points, in order to persist with his denigration of her proposal.

Raising five (mostly adopted) children does not indicate that Ms Goldie has created "a comfortable nest", rather that she has undergone considerable sacrifice. But whatever her personal situation, it is simply impertinent for Pericles to snidely imply that she has not done, herself, what she suggests that others might do. Nor, in fact, does it matter; the proposal should be considered on its merits.

His straw man is also evident when he mentions 'control freakery'. Ms Goldie at no time suggests or implies "control" - rather that a wise parent, or a wise polity, would do well to take account of an impending period of economic and environmental decline. And as another poster (Colinsett) notes, unending growth is a mathematical impossibility.

*My maternal urges were unsatisfied, however, with just one. Only after adopting three children and long-term fostering another did I decide that my maternal urgings were at last satisfied.*

Nicco, I snipped the above from the authors article. Which raises
the interesting question wether its a sacrifice to satisfy the
"maternal urges", or rather just a reaction to genetic programming.

Individual,
The baby bonus may not have lifted the birth rate according to the paper “The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis”

“It finds the effects of the ‘Baby Bonus’ and the Child Care Rebate are slight. The effects of education, income, occupation, marital status, age and parity are significant.

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol25/6/default.htm

Basically, the increase in birth numbers had more to do with the mining boom, and not the handouts from government. So the $1 billion paid out each year did not do as it was intended, and was largely a waste of taxpayer’s money.

Noted that this paper has not been questioned by any of the lobby groups that wanted the baby bonus in the first place.

Any public official who took steps to restrict the birth rate would leave themselves open to charges of genocide under international law, that should be the end of the discussion.

"Malthus was wrong, Darwin was a fraud!"...say it twenty times when you get up in the morning ;)

Yabby,
Maternal urges satisfied with four children. That is a natural phenomenon no-one can argue with. What we can argue about is when those maternal urges cause others to carry the burden. i.e. people have more children then they can afford be financially, socially, from a feeding point of view etc. We should then expect it as just as natural that others shouldn't have to foot the bill. You look after yours & I look after mine is how it should be. Unfortunately, people can have one kid after another & taxpayers fork out for them. I see young women having four kids & getting free health care, free child care, free private schooling, free travel & mum spends all day in the Pub playing pools & Keno while grandma looks after the children & collecting some sort of child support assistance as well. As long as we don't make people responsible for their actions others should not be made responsible for others as well. A little natural selection would do a grand job.

And so the recommended means to cut our fertility rate is...?
Peter Hume,
It's what we can afford without planning on relying on the taxpayer to constantly fork out.

Inidividual, I agree with you. Capitalism is a great contraceptive
and if people had to pay all the costs of having children, they
would have less.

IMHO parenthood is not about altruism and sacrifice at all, its
about people satisfying their own genetic urges. The author of this
article to her credit, was honest enough to admit it.

Well, um, yes, nicco.

>>...it is simply impertinent for Pericles to snidely imply that she has not done, herself, what she suggests that others might do.<<

I did wonder about that, when I mused...

>>...presumably Ms Goldie is not advocating that every Australian couple raise five children, as she has done.<<

Are you suggesting that she is, in fact, advocating precisely that?

But leaving that aside for a moment, there is nothing in the article of a practical nature. It is always "someone else" who has to take action, and those actions are never specified.

Never.

And for very good reason - they are all quite ugly.

Quite the quickest way (but don't tell anybody, because they will look at you very strangely) is for the rich countries to stop sending food and medical assistance to the poorer countries.

"Oh, but we couldn't do that!"

So instead we have the Ms Goldies of the world wagging their fingers disapprovingly saying "I really wish you wouldn't do that, you know". There simply is no humane way to control population. Because, as the author herself points out, there are these things called "maternal urgings" on the female side (I'm not quite sure what the male equivalent phrase is, but it is far more direct, and somewhat indifferent), the only viable control methods involve coercion.

The only means that Mother nature has provided involves a combination of education and wealth. Which ultimately enables a form of personal choice, which is in the vast majority of cases also a selfish one.

A very persistent straw man indeed.

If Pericles had read the article to the end, he would have noticed that Ms Goldie quite strongly states that the options "... in these days of coming difficulties are zero, one or two children. If you can't bear it, adopt a child who really does need love and a home."

In other words, yes, Pericles, she is suggesting that others might do as she has done.

More straw, where Pericles attempts to suggest that any possible actions are "ugly". Firstly, the actions proposed by Ms Goldie, to provide love and a home to children of others, are far from ugly. Secondly, a number of other posters have pointed out solutions to the problem that are far from ugly (Yabby: "capitalism is a great contraceptive") and the truism that the education and emancipation of women is the first and major step in lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies. Not ugly at all.

Thirdly, unless Pericles is correct in his Panglossian view of the world, the probable alternatives are worse than ugly. They are catastrophic.

Enough, already. I have wasted enough time on this non-debate.

I'm glad that we agree on that at least, nicco.

>>yes, Pericles, she is suggesting that others might do as she has done.<<

And this was... raising five children.

But her solution - for others, not for herself - was...

"While I think a one-child policy is too radical, I believe that a fertility rate of 1.5 is not unreasonable, that is, half of couples having two children and the other half only having one."

My point, which you seem to have great difficulty understanding, is that this "solution" cannot be arrived at without some form of enforcement.

If, on the other hand, we are already well on our way to achieving the end result through the combination of education and additional material wealth, why on earth is there a need for the lecture? If it is going to happen in the natural course of events - which, by the way, is my assessment of the situation - articles like this are merely self-important posturing.

Which shall it be, do you think? Population control by enforcement, or by allowing the natural instincts of humans to manage their own affairs?

The ugly side, by the way, completely apart from the control-by-diktat issue, is that attitudes such as Ms Goldie's are a tacit encouragement to the xenophobes amongst us. Such as this earlier post on this very thread:

>>Until such time as our leaders cut immigration, we ought to increase our birthrate to ensure that the ethnic mix of Australia remains something that resemebles Australia rather than a balkanised, segregated mix of ethnic tensions. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that some immigrant groups are being taught by their leaders to increase their birthrate as a means to expand their power and influence in Australia.<<

Just an unintended consequence, I guess.

It's no business of any one but ME,ME,ME how many children I have. And I will have THEM till the last tree in the last forest on Earth is felled. Till the last whale is blubbered and the last fish is long-line hauled. And who needs a silly old Barrier Reef that is fatally poisoned by Sugar farmers anyhow.

Its NOT OUR FAULT. WE in the west are reducing our fertility rates even if I am up to my seventh. God only knows I need the $Child Endowments. So we are more intelligent and can afford to have more kids.

The FAULT is the developing countries who have NO right to keep having 75million babies every year, stuffing up the climate and precipitating WARS. I and most Aussie women are better than they are! We are first world citizens for God's sake!

So if you want to save the planet from overpopulation deal with all those low lifers in africa and asia and Sth america etc and stop telling us we have to only have 1.5 children. A woman just can't make a realistic life on that child allowance.

Besides, we will get our men all steamed up and they'll fight for us to get our way ... so THERE!

Yours Sincerely

A. Woman.

Pericles,

It might make a refreshing change and possibly even give you more credibility to play the ball instead of the man (or the woman in this case).

It is amusing to read posts from libertarians who are exquisitely sensitive to political coercion, but completely blind to economic coercion. Similarly, you are concerned about the slightest infringements on people's right to procreate, but ignore government coercion when it is used to boost population. You and I are not given a choice about whether our taxes should pay for the Baby Bonus or Large Family Supplement. Due to "bipartisanship", we are not given any choice about the our very high migrant intake, even though each new migrant will immediately require hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure which must be paid for from the taxes of existing residents or by reducing the resources that are allocated to them.

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

On payback time in the UK:

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6869/1/MPRA_paper_6869.pdf

In pioneer days in the US and Australia, there were enormous resources per person, but people were too few to make effective use of them. Subsidising population growth really was in the interests of the whole population under those conditions, but those days are long gone. From the latest Productivity Commission annual report:

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite
mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
* immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
* immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing."

Dare I suggest, like Yabby, that you don't have a God-given right to procreate at someone else's expense or to live in someone else's country, using infrastructure and public services that they have paid for? Without violating anyone's rights, we could simply adopt a user pays policy towards procreation past the second child (apart from heavily means tested welfare payments), as suggested by Labor MP Kelvin Thomson. This would mean no Baby Bonus, no paid parental leave, and no other family payments for the additional child(ren).

<There simply is no humane way to control population. Because, as the author herself points out, there are these things called "maternal urgings" on the female side (I'm not quite sure what the male equivalent phrase is, but it is far more direct, and somewhat indifferent), the only viable control methods involve coercion.>

False. In fact, populations have a natural tendency to stabilise when voluntary birth control is made available, as evidenced by this UN report:

http://www.ehow.com/how_7528762_assess-family-planning-clinics.html

<The demand for voluntary family planning, a recognized human right, is global and rapidly growing. UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, estimates that 200 million women, mostly in the developing world, want but lack access to modern, effective family planning methods.>

The real coercion in the population debate is in the denial of birth control to those who want it, but who cannot afford it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15822637

We have been below replacment fertility for over 34 years now. Really, people should understand our demographic momentum, more people living longer, before writing such uneducated articles.

Australia is NOT below replacment fertility.Further we have added 8 million people to this DESERT Island over 34 years. The Murray-Darling-Basin fiasco says it all.

Really, people should understand our demographic DISASTER. in the context of the GREEDY WOMEN and their "unequal-righted-children-BUSINESS" and MEN who can't get sex without becoming despotic, media & "Propaganda" controlling CEO's.

The 'momentum', more people living longer, is a FRAUD. Quality of that living is undermined by taxes. $100,000's infrastructure-costs that every Government-and-CEO-benefiting-immigrant is NOT paying!

Uneducated Pro-immigration and pro-OVERPOPULATION commentary is TREASON. Certain people should get a firm grip on themselves and realise THIS-IS-A-DEMOCRACY and EVERYONE(here)-COUNTS.

Australia is sick of the few GREEDY PIGS stealing the VOICES of the MANY, aided and abetted by a failed parliamentary system. Just read this New Year prognosis!

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/17-quotes-about-the-coming-global-financial-collapse-that-will-make-your-hair-stand-up

This article clearly demonstrates nothing short of a revolution in this country can save it from civil strife, caused by overpopulation, overimmigration and POOR LEADERSHIP. Ultimately this inherent weakness, this lack of true Aussie connected-to-the-land spirit, is making us fair game for those sterner minds in our region. This will soon lead to an ASIAN takeover initially with a loss of mining rights and eventually with dire consequences for what we understand the meaning of "AUSTRALIAN" to be.

Australia must STABILISE populations at current numbers and seek special drilling technologies to extract GEOTHERMAL energy up to 10 times current fossil fuel generating capacities to maintain its freedom in a globalised economy that is run by people who take risks and make failures that WE the people are always NOW being made to pay for.

Unlimited clean GEOTHERMAL energy is the key to independence and we don't have much time.

Two relevant facts about GEOTHERMAL energy

1. The energy within fossil fuels is more than 90% due to geothermal/tectonic energy enhancements

2. Hydrogen plasma drilling has not been used in Australian Geothermal experiments. Whatever the reason, and oil company collusion comes to mind, Australia must make plasma-drilling technology our OWN.

KAEP,

Excellent tongue-in-cheek! (Though perhaps certain amount of truth.) Thanks.

Dempopgrafix, Pericles, et al,

I read this article as applying to the broader world context, and not to Aus itself in isolation - and we all know our Aus birth rate has been below population maintenance level for quite some time, but world rate is the real problem.

The problem we inherit from this is migration exodus - and a major part of the solution to this is to reduce world population expansion (through education, elevation of quality of life and opportunity, as well as access to family planning; ie, real freedom of choice.). Nonetheless, we are not exempt from the overall objective of sustainable world population.

What appears to be a major fly in the ointment is religious fundamentalism - and its interference in affairs of state. (And we can included cultural, nationalistic and identity fundamentalism in this equation.) Someone on this forum once commented that my views often indicate a favouritism for a 'world order'. To be honest, I can't see any viable alternative, in the longer term. So, yes, I confirm that conclusion, and the question in my mind is whether the UN is up to the task.

In a way, conflict has acted in some measure to contain population, but it is an horrific and retrograde expression of human ambition and ingenuity. And, conflict is enormously expensive, in terms of world resources, development-focus and human relations. Cooperation rather than contest has to be the way forward, and this may only be achieved through compromise.

World harmony - an extremely elusive ideal; but, with the rise of China, is there any real alternative? (Other than the world's oldest continuous civilisation becoming the world's only civilisation?) (That, or oblivion.)

The lesser of two (or three) weevils?

KAEP
1. We have been below replacment fertility rates for over 34 years now. FACT!
2. We have grown only because of our NOM.
3. 2011 was the highest year on record for emigration and 25 to 35 years olds are the largest group to leave.
4. "Demographic Momentum" is science, of which you seem to have little understanding of.
5. Our death rates double in the next 25 years and our natutral growth may drop to zero or even negative. The UN have good stats on this.

Saltpetre
1. World growth rates have been dropping.
Time for some real study for you....

KAEP,

Perhaps I have misinterpreted?

My tongue-in-cheek comment was in reference to your posting of 4.15pm on 1 January; however, your subsequent posting of 10.13am today indicates a rather different agenda, and one with which I certainly cannot agree - I can find no justification whatever for your excessively xenophobic stance on Aus' sovereignty and identity.

Geothermal may be a viable energy alternative, and your love affair with geothermal my be visionary, though I can't share your level of enthusiasm; but your injection of your views in this regard into virtually every posting irrespective of relevance to topic is somewhat confusing, and rather boring.

In the end result, do you forget that Aus is an island only in geographical terms?

Dempopgrafix,

So the world achieved 8 billion through divine intervention?

And, are the projections towards 9-10 billion based on all of us living to 130?

Saltpetre
Devine intervention?
The world has had, and still has a positive growtrh rate that has been declining.
Living to 130? No, not seen that stat at all.

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/visual.php?shortname=population_growth_rate

My comment re study wass directed at KERP, an bot who obviously needs to do some more study.

<a major part of the solution to this is to reduce world population expansion (through education, elevation of quality of life and opportunity, as well as access to family planning;>

Access to family planning is by far the most important measure, as has been demonstrated most notably in Thailand and Iran: The infrastructure cost savings achieve the other two objectives as a consequence.

http://www.unfpa.org/public/cache/offonce/home/factsheets/pid/3856;jsessionid=915E3E444AAA33988AB10F676E983C4E.jahia01

And contrary to the pop-growth cultists' repeated lie that you can only limit population growth by authoritarian measures, the reality is that it is authoritarian forces who are actively preventing the world's poor from gaining access to affordable contraception. The destitute masses are a great source of slaves, and there are many in power who do not want this resource threatened.

Cutting the fertility rate? Well, we already have a whole host of contraceptive measures; and most western countries, where women are an educated income earning demographic, use them!
Our own natural population was in decline. Until the introduction of the baby bonus; given, our entire economic growth and prospects; are entirely predicated, on a very dated economic dictum; that demands population growth as the principle core underpinning factor.
As for imposing infertility on the third world, well they could all go and tie a knot in it; [ oh the pain, mummy, daddy, anybody, how do you untie a phallic Windsor; and or, teeth marks on many a dunny door,] or, a few nuclear warheads would suffice?
Failing those knot nice, really ridiculous, risible or patently inhumane options; there is no other choice; than to do what simply has to be done; to ensure that the women of the third world, also become an educated demographic, with the same rights and income earning opportunities as their male counterparts! Rhrosty.

Here we go again: Yet another porkie about how it is well nigh impossible to reduce fertility amongst the less educated and affluent unless you hold guns to their heads, when the opposite is true. Thailand and Iran provide examples of access to affordable family planning being provided as a primary measure. It has worked quickly and been a cost effective success in both countries.

Why is fertility lower amongst the educated and affluent? Maybe it is because they can afford contraception, whereas for the poor such things are beyond their means. The fault lies with the people in power who do not want to lose their slaves.

Wikipedia: There has been a fall in the 'rate of natural increase' (but still well above the rate needed for replacement) since 1962 due to falling fertility. In 1971 the rate of natural increase was 12.7 persons per 1,000 population; a decade later it had fallen to 8.5. In 1996 the rate of natural increase fell below seven for the first time, with the downward trend continuing in the late 1990s. Population projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that continued low fertility, combined with the increase in deaths from an ageing population, will result in natural increase falling below zero sometime in the mid 2030s. (Already disproved>) However in 2006 the fertility rate rose to 1.81, one of the highest rate in the OECD

What this is telling me is that the bureau of statistics is just the TOOL of a Federal government intent on an immigration program that has ONE PURPOSE - TO INCREASE THE RICH V POOR DIVIDE.

There is plenty of room, outside bogus statistical crystal balling, to cut the fertility rate in Australia and NO reason at all to continue a destructive and divisive Immigration program in light of the immediate 2012 global economic prognosis. The article I linked by 17 of the world's most influential economic minds has obviously not even been looked at. The BS in the last dozen posts has been shameful and appalling. Australia is going to have to fight for its identity within the year and we are already surrounded by a bunch of mealy mouthed traitors.

I reiterate: the way to avoid loss of Australian sovereignty to Asia is not more people but 10X more energy from GEOTHERMAL sources.

And to the nut who thinks this boring. Since when is SURVIVAL (staying alive) deemed boring! Twit!

KAEP
At below 2.1 fertility, we have been below replacement for over 34 years.

Dempografix,

Australia has been slightly below replacement level fertility since 1976 (about 1.9 now), but you are wrong when you say that the population would be falling without net immigration. Natural increase added 150,000 last year. Some of this would be due to births to recent migrants, but most would be from the existing population. See the link to the Bouvier graph in my first post for the comparable situation in the US. So the population would be growing even with zero net immigration. This is because of demographic momentum. If the young adult generation is big compared to older generations, there will still be more births than deaths, even if family sizes are small. Demographic momentum will also add huge numbers globally, even if fertility rates fall to replacement level everywhere. That is why Jenny Goldie wants to encourage 1.5 child families as a temporary measure to counter this trend and get overall numbers down to the point where everyone can have a decent quality of life without trashing the environment and exterminating most of the other species.

You seem to be very concerned about the Australian fertility rate. Since natural increase is predicted to fall to zero some time in the 2030s and then go slightly negative, eventually our grandchildren or great-grandchildren are likely to want to bring the fertility rate up to replacement level again, depending on how much immigration has been going on, but why do you think that this will be a problem? Desired family size is high enough to stabilise the population, even with zero net immigration. See

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/rp41/rp41.html

This paper also discusses some of the reasons why people aren't having all the children that they say they want, such as economic insecurity due to casualisation and high housing costs. (Some of these things are clearly related to our very high immigration rate, even if it is not the only cause.) The paper also gives evidence that higher family payments can help tilt the balance towards having that extra child.

Divergence
1. Not sure where I said the population would decrease with our NOM.
2. Agree with all your points. It amazes me that the majority of people do not know about our, and the worlds demographic momentum.

The main issue I see is that as our nation ages, anti-immigration will take hold and the likelyhood of doubling our NOM, to counter effect the declining natural growth is going to be a major political hurdle.

Still our peaking emigration is mostly ignored.

Dempografix,

For point 1, see your first comment on this thread.

If we are reasonably clever at picking the right time to turn things around, stabilising the population won't require big numbers. Just make it a bit easier for people to have the babies that they say they want. We certainly don't need to double NOM.

If emigration goes up, then you increase (zero net) immigration to match. I doubt if anyone would object if the migrants are selected to fit in easily and the goal is to maintain an optimum population for the benefit of ordinary people, not just to make the 1% richer at the expense of everyone else. See the links in my second comment here. In any case, why would there be a stampede for the exits by our own people if we keep Australia a good place to live and bring up children?

All of this means that we need to worry about such things as oversupply of the labour market, urban crowding and congestion, skyrocketing housing costs, overstretched infrastructure and public services, etc. We also must squelch the impulse of our urban planners to force people into high density housing. According to demographer Joel Kotkin, this is a more effective method of reducing fertility rates than China's one child policy.

http://www.news.com.au/money/property/sydneys-dense-housing-a-threat-to-fertility-rates-warns-joel-kotkin/story-e6frfmd0-1226135327168#ixzz1ZVHq6pDO

Divergence
I think you and I are on the same page.
I am not for population growth for growths sake, however as the agequake rolls on, more people will see that our fiscal challenges are going to require many solutions.
1. Death tax of 25% for amnounts over $1m. ($2m estate would have a $250k tax)
2. CGT on the PPOR if sold under 10 years. (Exemptions for health, work, babies etc)
3. 0.5% land tax.
4. 88,000 (half Australian born) left permanently last year. This is a disaster as it costs our society approx $250k to get someone to the age of 25.

<The main issue I see is that as our nation ages, anti-immigration will take hold and the likelihood of doubling our NOM, to counter effect the declining natural growth is going to be a major political hurdle.>

And what thread on population growth would be complete without someone mentioning the aging catastrophe? What aging catastrophe? Oh yes, the doom that awaits Australia in two to three decades, as foretold by that infallible oracle, the "LONG RANGE ECONOMIC FORECAST", replete with wonderful assumptions such as no medical advances and dramatically increasing health costs. Yep, Australia will be infested with demented old fools as apposed to wonderful wealthy and stable nations of young folk like Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia and the Gaza Strip. Instead, we are doomed to suffer the demented old fogeydom of horrible places Like Monaco,Japan, Italy and Germany. Yuk!

But I can help things with a two question test for detecting dementia in the early stages:

Early dementia detection test (circle the correct answer)

Q1 Are economic forecasts generally accurate?

Yes No

(hint: the answer isn't "Yes")

Q2 Are long range economic forecasts generally accurate?

Yes No

(hint: see above)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/breakthrough-closer-for-alzheimers-treatment-after-vaccine-success-20111209-1om3c.html

Oh, and if you are in a bit of doubt you can throw in a third question:

Q3 Is immigration an effective means of maintaining an age profile?

Yes No

(hint: see previous post)

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/179

<to maintain any substantial and enduring effect on the age-structure requires a constant increase in the number of immigrants, leading to a huge growth in population. The reason is that immigrants themselves age and then require still more immigrants to compensate for the larger number of older people. Keeping the Potential Support Ratio (PSR) to present levels would require a growing but variable number of immigrants peaking at 1.2 million per year before 2051 and up to 5 million per year later in the century. That would increase UK population to 119 million by 2051 and 303 million by the end of the century and so on to the stratosphere. A wide range of expert studies has come to a similar conclusion.>

Bottom line is that it certainly is not the time to be trying to cut our current below replacement fertility rate. We actually are trying to raise it to at least replacment levels.

Over the next 25 years our death rate approx doubles and our natural growth may drop to zero or negative.

I think we should consider a plan to get our population to stablise over this 25 year time frame and yes, only match immigrants against emigrants along that path.

Does this require a rethink on how to grow our GDP? Yes and it should be easy to achieve. 25 million sounds about right to me, but hey I am just a simple bot.

Humans are massively overpopulated in every country. There is no excuse for advocating a stable population number at current levels. Our numbers in every country must go down and the sooner and faster the better. Our goal must be to have a population age distribution that is shaped like an upside down pyramid, where there are a lot of old folks compared to young ones. That's the only way to get our numbers down peacefully.

Why is this a certain fact that we are overpopulated? Because we are consuming resources that are essential to provide for our numbers faster than those resources renew. Imagine the situation where there's a huge stock pile of food on the planet, plus some amount is grown each year. If we are in the situation where we consume all the food that grows, plus that stock pile of food, then we are certainly overpopulated. We are doing exactly that by consuming fossil fuels, uranium, and a collection of other resources. If we do not burn fossil fuels, we collectively have no clue how to feed 7 billion people. We can't plant, fertilize, harvest, package, distribute, and store the necessary food to feed 7 billion without consuming those resources. There's no difference between the situation where we must eat into a stock pile of food, and our current situation where we must burn fossil fuels

JohnTaves
Upsidedown pyramid?
Mmmmm... and then they die.
What sort of population number do you think Australia should have. An inverted pyramid would mean serious outcomes. Over a generation or two you would reduce by 90%?

At the moment the pig is moving into the back end of the snake. The snake now can not move and water and food need to be brought to it. Eventually the snake poops the pig out and takes off again, remembering never to eat a pig again. 2060....

<Bottom line is that it certainly is not the time to be trying to cut our current below replacement fertility rate.>

No, the bottom line is that you are basing your pessimism on the most inaccurate predictor known to mankind, the long range economic forecast. And if that isn't stupid enough, you seem to be totally ignorant of the real and present damage being caused in Australia by the current high population growth.

More immigration as a solution is moronic as it does little to change the age profile in the long term. Moreover, in the short term it creates a huge infrastructure burden for government, thus taking vital resources away from the most effective means of dealing with an aging population, better health and education. Resources should instead be put toward making people healthier, better educated, and consequently more productive.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/25/vaccine-hope-for-sufferers-of-auto-immune-diseases-like-crohn-s-and-rheumatoid-arthritis-115875-23658845/

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2011/Dec/new-diabetes-treatment-breakthrough-claimed-99925352.html

No, the bottom line is that you are basing your pessimism on the most inaccurate predictor known to mankind, the long range economic forecast.

demografix>> - No I am basing it purely on demographics, sociology. No economics included. I certainly am not pessimistic about the global population potentially peaking and then declining in my kids lifetime. Wow, it will certainly be a day to remember...

And if that isn't stupid enough, you seem to be totally ignorant of the real and present damage being caused in Australia by the current high population growth.

demografix>> - 66% of our NOM are temporary VISA holders. Students who are here longer than 12 months are included in our official rates and we have dropped from 2.1% to 1.4% in just over 3 years. We are growing at about 3 million per decade. So yes, I fully expect Oz to rise to approx 28 million and then start its population decline around 2035.

More immigration as a solution is moronic as it does little to change the age profile in the long term. Moreover, in the short term it creates a huge infrastructure burden for government, thus taking vital resources away from the most effective means of dealing with an aging population, better health and education. Resources should instead be put toward making people healthier, better educated, and consequently more productive.

demografix>> - Not lobbying for more immigration. Zero net NOM is my agenda.

Jenny Goldie is too sensitive to spell out how the world population will be reduced, although an intelligent 'read between the lines' makes it pretty clear that starvation is the answer. Of course the 'skeptics' will say 'Oh yes, we've heard that before from Erlich, Club of Rome et al. and it has not happened'. Those skeptics won't be around in the latter half of this century, but if they were I'm willing to wager they would be eating their words, which might be the only things left to eat.

From dempografix: "What sort of population number do you think Australia should have. An inverted pyramid would mean serious outcomes. Over a generation or two you would reduce by 90%?"

Yes, if we average fewer than 2 children, we would end up with an upside down population age distribution pyramid and that means our numbers would decline. That is the goal. A sufficiently low average rate could indeed drop our numbers to 1/10th of what they are today in a few generations. That would be a very good thing indeed.

We must reduce our numbers until we are no longer consuming resources, that we depend on to feed our numbers, faster than those resources renew.

There is nothing debatable about that concept. People refuse to comprehend this with a variety of bad logic. One is to recoil at the thought of the world population at 1/10th of what it is now. That instinctive recoil is just wrong. There is no logic or reasoning that says that our current numbers are a good thing.

A world population of 700m would be much much better than a world population of 7b. Assuming no change in our consumption, we would use fossil fuels and produce carbon dioxide at 1/10th the rate. As the population declines and the energy needs decline, what are we going to do, stop feeding coal to coal fired power plants, or tear down damns? Obviously hydro and other renewable sources will make an ever increasing percent of our energy consumption.

JohnTaves
1. Oz has been below rerplacment fertility of the 2.1% for 34 years now and so is achieving your 'goal' already in terms of reducing the global population.
2. Thorium will be online in China, India and other countries very soon. Cheap, clean nuclear. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html and http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
3. The 700 million might be pretty lonely in the many ghost towns? You are talking about Australia having only 2.3 million people? Wow.....will need to ponder deeply on that.

Oz has been below replacment fertility of the 2.1% for 34 years and IS still stacking on a NET natural increase of 150,000 people per year.

Figure that!

The vanity of those USING irrelevant statistics to inveigle an assumed dumb down Aussie audience indicates a wickedness that is the hallmark of a way too segregated multiculturalism in this country today. It is tantamount to foreign interference.

The FACT is women are having too many children for our fragile ecology.
And no amount of vested interest BS statistics will ever change that.

Only Politician power-lust, business council greed and selfish immigrant "we want to take over you weak skippys" mentalities are interested in 150,000 net additions and 300,000 immigrant additions to our population per year. In terms of history these vested parties will be viewed as traitors. That is a FACT.

Perhaps the real issue is not "WE cutting OUR fertility rate" but Women, who are the ones with the incessant maternal urges, "taking RESPONSIBILITY for the damage overpopulation is causing" in a wide range of liveability indices not least of which is the Murray Darling Basin fiasco.

Women must understand that they as human beings must care for our collective environment with more than just mealy words, man bashing placards and and politics of increasing the Rich V Poor divide. These are just vain attempts to get on the right side of the "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST CURVE" mania that pervades our society as a substitute for real values & Love.

Men KNOW women are equal and we keep waiting for them to prove it by showing us how to improve our living standards. But all we get are shopaholics, unattractive baby factories and Ah Bra advertising.

What are we to think?

johntaves,

You are obviously generally right in terms of the global picture. It would take the resources of approximately 3 Earths to give everyone a modest Western European standard of living, as shown in this graph from New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2624/26243101.jpg

Note that this is based on 2003 data, so the situation would be worse now.

From the Global Footprint Network atlas (link in my first post), Australia is still within its biocapacity, although we are certainly experiencing environmental and resource problems, as evidenced by the expensive, energy hungry desalination plants in our big cities and our ranking near the bottom of the developed world in terms of environmental management

http://epi.yale.edu/Countries

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment.aspx#context

Back in 1994, the Australian Academy of Sciences recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit

http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section8.pdf

Stabilisation (which Dempografix supports) is clearly the most important first step for Australia, before deciding if and how far to let the population slowly decline. However, he appears to have been misled by media propaganda suggesting a massive overhang of Baby Boomers, who will make the population sink like a stone when they die. The truth is that Generation X is 10% larger than the Baby Boom generation, and Generation Y is larger still. Mark O'Connor has dcne the math in his blog

http://markoconnor-australianpoet.blogspot.com/2011/06/bernard-salt-abandons-his-baby-bust.html#comment-form

The biggest part of the problem; is economic paradigms absolutely locked to population growth to growth! These models demand more and more resources, more and housing/urban growth/hospitals schools etc. This keeps demand happening and the wheels of traditional demand driven commerce turning. This in turn creates inflationary pressures and rising prices or endlessly devaluing currency.
What you could buy for a $1,000.00 when I was a boy, now costs at least $30,000.00; and or, at least double the hours of employed endeavour?
And the basic wage in America, hasn't moved upward in real terms, for around thirty years?
Doing what you've always done while expecting a different outcome is madness.
We need to replace population growth, with something that will keep the wheels of the commerce, we all depend on for our livelihoods, turning!
That something is change, reform and removing poverty in all its forms and guises wherever we find it.
This will allow us to end our current dependence on designed obsolescence; another absurdity.
We need to remove all unproductive parasitical practice and middle men marketing. [No one is owed a living and there are no free lunches.]
These practises and or speculation, simply doubles living costs and lines the pocket of speculators, who effectively do little or nothing to earn it; and, do little more than perpetuate misery, or remove bread from the mouths of babies.
Instead, lowered costs will enable the poorest among us to better use their scarcer resources; to meet unmet need, and in so doing, add new demand; to the demand driven economy.
We also need to vastly reform and simplify our tax systems; to make avoidance actually impossible; dramatically cut the cost of collecting it; and, make the wealthy pay a fair price; for the various privileges they are accorded; and indeed, enable many of the opportunities seemingly reserved for the privileged elite; to be made available to everyone.
We also need trade not aid; and, what aid remains, needs to be focused on helping the needy to help themselves; and or, remove the root causes of enduring poverty!

@Divergence

You've got things a bit backwards. You are using Australian Academy of Sciences and Global Footprint Network as the authority to judge whether my statement is correct or not. The statement I made is the concept that must be understood before one can estimate how many can be sustained. The statement I made is fundamentally sound. The estimates you quoted are by no means certainly good. When I read the information on the Global Footprint Network, I do not come away convinced that they fully comprehend that we must not consume any resources that we depend on faster than they renew, and it isn't clear that they comprehend how much we depend on oil. But maybe I conclude that because I comprehend how ridiculous it is to make those estimates.

What do you estimate is the crop yield given no fossil fuel derived fertilizers? How do the crops get planted and harvested without oil driven tractors? Can we transport, store, and package in anywhere near the efficiency we do with oil? Seriously, why would any self respecting scientist be so arrogant to think they can imagine the outputs of an economy so very different from today's? But more importantly, why do it? We cannot possibly wave a wand and wake up tomorrow without needing to use fossil fuels. The idea that such an estimate is useful proves they aren't paying attention. It will take several generations of averaging less than 2 children before it is not obvious that we are consuming essential resources faster than they renew.

Unless I am mistaken, the Australian Academy of Sciences recommendation of an upper limit of 23 million is not a statement that Australia can actually sustain that many. They are simply attempting to say "hey, lets try to stop here and go down". If I am mistaken, then the AAS are a bunch of blithering idiots.

Divergence.
1. No there are 5.2 million boomers (1946 to 1964) 4.1 million born here and the rest from the NOM. I will get the correct and factual numbers from the latest abs ages data and post here later.
2. Less kids now as a poewrcentage of our population and I certainly am not schooled by media propaganda. It is called Sociology.

KAEP
"Oz has been below replacment fertility of the 2.1% for 34 years and IS still stacking on a NET natural increase of 150,000 people per year.
Figure that!"
1. It is called the increased lonjevity and is about our demographic momentum. More people living longer...
2. Your 'FACTS' our NOM are way out and not facts at all.

"stabilization is clearly the most important first step for Australia, before deciding if and how far to let the population slowly decline."

If you define "stabilization" as some short time span, (a year, a decade, a few decades) where birth rates hover around 2 and immigration is halted and population momentum as run its course, then maybe that "stabilization" is possible. A more logical concept of stabilization would include a mechanism that ensures we do no not over breed. If you don't have that mechanism, then individuals do not comprehend that they have a moral obligation to limit the number of children they produce. If society does not have those morals, then there's no way to "decide if and how far to let the population decline".

My point is that it is one thing to observe and measure a sub 2 average number of children, it is a very different matter to ensure that average stays below 2.

johntaves
We have been below 2.1% for approx 34 years now. What do you see that would drive fertility above replacment levels?

<No I am basing it purely on demographics, sociology. No economics included.>

Um, you are claiming that the age profile in a few decades will create a revenue shortfall for government. To me that is a long range economic forecast. But call it demographics, sociology or what you will, it is still a long range forecast, and notoriously unreliable. About all you can reliably predict about the world in twenty years is that anyone still alive will be twenty years older: Everything else is speculative.

What disturbs me about this thread is the way people so casually discuss the control of human fertility. Humanity is not your ant farm. Fortunately there is strong evidence that human beings given access to family planning services will not breed themselves to oblivion. And as you can observe, in countries where it is available and affordable, populations are, by and large, in decline; no control freaks needed, benevolent or otherwise.

What could be better than letting people determine their own fate? Surely this is democracy in its purest form?

"What do you see that would drive fertility above replacment levels?"

At the core is the lack of knowledge that it must not go above replacement levels. People just don't understand that we cannot allow that. At some level many do understand it, but we put countless bad arguments in the way. For example this quote shows some goofy attachment to the current 23m number. "The 700 million might be pretty lonely in the many ghost towns? You are talking about Australia having only 2.3 million people? Wow.....will need to ponder deeply on that." There is no rationale for thinking 700million would be lonely, except because it is not 7billion, and thus logically 7billion is lonely because it is not 70billion, right?.

34 years of a near 2 average number of children is meaningless. That might be a long time if you wanted to claim that house prices are stable (equally silly), but with respect to how many children we produce, it is nothing.

There are beliefs regarding how many children your god wants you to have, and some belief a lot of children is right. Those that have these sort of beliefs will grow in relationship to those that do not, and eventually will dominate the average. The only antidote is the knowledge that this belief is morally wrong. If my descendants average more than 2, they will overpopulate whatever area they are contained within. Thus it is morally wrong.

The demographers who provide the stats on how many we are averaging, don't comprehend this, thus don't look for it and don't report it. Their methods for producing these averages filter out any beliefs that are passed from generation to generation.

>>I have a democratic right to drive my car at any speed I want no matter how many people I kill or how many secondary accidents I cause by scaring people into mistakes along my wake. The police are WRONG and their statistics are FAKE.

V.F.T. Hoon

>>I have a democratic right to drive my car at any level of drunkenness I please no matter how many people I kill or how many secondary accidents I cause by scaring people into mistakes along my wake. It's not my fault if people don't get out of the way when I'm in that state. I shouldn't be held resposible when clearly I'm not!. The police and Judges are WRONG and their statistics are FAKE.

D.U.I. Goodtime

>>I have a democratic right to have all the kids I need to make my life respectable and profitable without too much tedious thinking no matter how many rivers, species or people I kill with the tons of nappies and muck I produce or how many climate changes I trigger. People asking me to have only 1.5 kids are not only WRONG, they are criminals and should be put to death! Or better still, die in a roadside bombing caused by the overpopulation and overcompetition I am causing on this finite planet.

F.U. Its-al-mylivelihood.

I have NO democratic rights in the Congo so I have all the kids I can to make up for the DEATH of so many more that die in wars over the minerals and bush meat trades that support the democratic rights of Mr Hoon, Mr Goodtime and Mrs Its-al-mylivlihhood in Australia. If they can't see this and can't fasttrack me into their immigration program I will die before twenty seven years old. My ghost will find them and make them pay with wars and real and mental torture.

M.R.M. Macarbra

johntaves,

Your basic principle is self-evident, and the Global Footprint Network certainly accepts it too, as they say that globally we are in about 40% environmental overshoot, about as dire a statement as you can get. We don't have a world government with a command economy, though, so the individual countries will have to take action, and their circumstances vary. It is like obesity. If you are morbidly obese to the point that it is life threatening, then anything that could get your weight down quickly is justified, even risky bariatric surgery. If you are overweight rather than obese, your quality of life is reduced and there may well be health risks in the long run, but you are probably better advised to try a moderate diet and getting more exercise.

If your country is so overpopulated that you are staring collapse in the face, even due to demographic momentum, then you had better go for a one child policy, regardless of human rights and any problems later on from a severely unbalanced age structure, but is it that immediately dire *in Australia*? There has certainly been deterioration in the environment and urban amenity since the 1970s when there were are 13 million of us, so 23 million is pretty clearly above the optimum. Zero net immigration and a refusal to subsidise large families involve no violation of human rights, and would stop and then reverse the growth. (The government is spending about $12,600 per child per year in the public schools, so sending the bill to the parents for third and subsequent children, along with the loss of family payments, would act as a strong disincentive, even for religious nutters.)

In answer to your question, global population was about 1 billion in 1800 at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Our technology is better than theirs, even without considering fossil fuels, so we might be able to go a bit higher. That is why I would say perhaps 1 to 2 billion, probably closer to 1 billion if we want them all to have good lives.

Dempografix,

This graph from the ABS shows the age distribution of the population as of 2010. The Baby Boomers at that time, using your definition, would be 46 to 64.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3201.0

Divergence
Wow, look at theat pyramid. It tells so much looking at only 20 years.
Kids decreasing, elderly increasing
Half as many over the age of 85 as kids 0 to 4. Wow!

The chart above the pyramid shows the boomers better....

Boomers 1946 to 1964 (18 years)
Gen X & Y 1965 to 1985 (20 years)
Generation i 1986 to 2008 (22 years)
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/lookup/4914.0.55.001Main%20Features5May%202009#defgen

Graphs and images in this document will give a good insight...
http://www.apa.org.au/upload/2002-2A_Parr.pdf

Generations information and links
http://www.esds1.pt/site/images/stories/isacosta/secondary_pages/10º_block1/Generations%20Chart.pdf

And so many govts are working to boost fertility, not reduce it.....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27999012/Generations-defined

Dempografix,

Which generation is biggest obviously depends on which intervals you assign to which generation. If they are all equal 18 year (say) intervals, then Mark O'Connor is clearly right, as from the age distribution chart I linked to, the 5-year age classes between 50 and 65 are clearly smaller than those between 20 and 50. The smaller age classes under 20 are a sign that demographic momentum is finally playing out.

Countries are trying to boost fertility for two reasons, one well founded. Some countries have very low fertility rates, below 1.5, which does have the potentional to be very disruptive and will make it difficult to finally stabilise. In other cases, such as our own, the politicians are simply serving the interests of the 1%. More people mean a higher total GNP, which is what they care about, even if there is no improvement in per capita GNP. A bigger population also undercuts the bargaining power of labour and gives the corporations bigger domestic markets, as well as handsome profits from ownership of real estate for housing and other vital resources.

Sing a song of statistics,
A pocket full of lies.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in 4 pies.
When the pies were opened,
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king?

The king was in his counting house,
Counting out his money;
The queen was in the parlour,
Eating bread and honey.

The maid was in the garden,
Hanging out the clothes;
When down came a black GFC bird
And pecked off her nose.

There were 1 billion people added globally in the last 12 years. Whether people hide their heads in statistics or sand, there will be 1 billion more added in the next 10 years despite all the demographic distributions indicating otherwise. So many countries with zero replacement fertilities and still the overpopulation and overcompetition for global resources is reaching a crescendo.

REALITY, ie. Wars and economic collapses will make demographic statistics and AGW theory and all other excuses for continuing an OLIGARCHICAL infinite growth on a finite planet unsubstantial & in FACT plain idiotic.

This is why Jenny Goldie is right. Doing small adjustments to Australia's population growth now will save a lot of pain and loss of lives in the turmoil of the next decade.

Kaep

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/12/30/population-is-the-world-ready-for-7-billion/

http://www.prb.org/Journalists/PressReleases/2011/2011-world-population-data-sheet.aspx

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/

The rate of adding those billions is slowing down.....

The only issue is the less developed countries, not the West....

The population statistical models make ridiculous assumptions:
First failure will be 1-billion people > 8 billion (NOT 7.5 billion) by 2022. The second will be 3-4 billion @ 2050 due to WAR and disease. History guarantees this - blind statistics(GIGO) can't include various historical-tipping-point indicators.

1. Population growth in all species is NOT technology dependent , it is free-ENERGY dependent. Without free energy progressive technologies can't be developed, function or maintained. Oil will be plentiful to 2025 and then supplies will CRASH. Coal, renewables, nuclear are all TOTALLY dependent on OIL. We know, from WWI & WWII that coal alone will only support ~2 billion people before global warfare erupts. Without oil , the technologies that can prevent war will be useless. Imagine a police force that had to ration motor fuel and oil! The bikies would run major cities for starters.

2. The reasons developing countries are so fertile all revolve around First world FREE-MARKETS based on money that costs a few cents to print but which can buy a full dollar of 3rd world commodities.
Print enough dollars and a street sweeper from america can Run the Congo- and probably does. Its the corruption that leads to anarchy, violence that force populations to breed out of fear and BOREDOM.

3. Bogus charity organisations provide food to keep MARKET populations growing. What you see in the disparity of 1st to 3rd world population is in large part engineered and is the REAL powerhouse of 1st world economies. The reason for the slack statistical assumptions is deliberate. If 3rd worlders knew the truth they would rebel . See Nigeria which just had its petrol subsidies removed along with most of its once plentiful oil reserves.

4. Countries like Australia are not getting off scot-free. Our JSF committment alone will be paid in real dollars while the planes are built in US dollars printed for a few cents each. Also the JSF will be obsolete before the first one hits our shores. Pilotless drones already have cut US defence budgets by nearly 1$Trillion.

KAEP,

There is nothing wrong with a fertility rate of 1.5, and all else being equal, it would stop population growth more quickly. You and I both know, however, that all else will not be equal. The politicians will simply boost the immigration rate to get the numbers that they crave, regardless of whatever we do. There may even be *more* people. This is because fertility tends to remain high for longer in areas with high emigration, as shown in a number of studies, including some comparing Caribbean islands or Welsh villages with or without high emigration (see the references to Chapter 3 of Virginia Abernethy's population politics).

People who believe that some of their children are going to emigrate worry less about them having enough land or jobs close to home. They may even believe that a larger family gives them a better chance of getting at least one child into a developed country, from which he or she can send home remittances or facilitate the immigration of other relatives. Furthermore, migrants from some ethnic groups may have larger families in the land of milk and honey than they would have had at home. This is because they believe that they can now afford the very large family sizes idealised by their culture. Mexican fertility was 3.5 in California when it was 2.5 in Mexico.

The Malthusian trap was not an invention of evil Westerners. People have been overpopulating, overexploiting their environment, and killing each other over land and resources since before there were modern humans. What needs explanation is when people stop doing it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/may/featwar

Divergence,

"Global Footprint Network certainly accepts it too, as they say that globally we are in about 40% environmental overshoot, about as dire a statement as you can get"

Except 41% is more dire.

"That is why I would say perhaps 1 to 2 billion"

You are making my point. If you really think the GFN is making a quality estimate, then why would you estimate something dramatically different?

The point I want to make is that these estimate cannot be used to convince anyone that our numbers are too high. They are trivial to debate and argue. Even if you and I debate these numbers with both of us arguing for numbers that are lower than the GFN number, the take home message for someone listening will be that nobody knows, thus we might not be in overshoot.

In contrast, this statement: "we must get our numbers down below the point where we are not consuming resources, that are essential to provide for our numbers, faster than they renew" is not debatable. The listener either understands it, and agrees, or they don't comprehend it.

This distinction is important. We must embark on an education campaign that will transform all societies so that it is known that we must limit our births. We don't have the right to have as many children as we want. That education campaign can have basic truths like that sentence. It won't do well with debatable estimates like the GFN's.

"We have been below 2.1% for approx 34 years now. What do you see that would drive fertility above replacement levels?"

This question shows the horrible state of understanding that our experts have with respect to these population issues. This question is one that just about every demographer is willing to ask. It shows several bad assumptions.

1) Time - It assumes that if something goes well for some amount of time, then it will go fine forever. If the space shuttle works successfully for 24 launches, then we can assume that the next will be fine. It also assumes that this time factor is measured in years, not for example generations, and assumes that 34 years is a lot.

2) Selective Success - It grabs one sample set that looks good and assumes that as the normal situation. In this case the good sample is probably all countries that have a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) below 2.1 for the past 34 years. Never mind that the TFR of the USA is not looking so good lately.

3) Random limit - The expert knows that 2.1 is a magic number. A TFR above 2.1 is bad. A TFR below 2.1 is good. But nothing in the fact that the TFR has been below 2.1 for 34 years in some sample group has anything to do with 2.1. It has been below 2.2, and 2.3 and 5 also. There is nothing in the math, or stats, or sampling or anything that suggests there is a barrier at 2.1.

This is a very important concept. The demographers have provided the expert conventional wisdom on this topic, and at the core of that "wisdom" is the Demographic Transition Theory. The DTT is essentially the same bad assumptions that led to this question.

We must figure out how to get demographers to comprehend that the DTT is crap for predicting long term fertility, and we must comprehend that we don't need predictions. We need mechanisms that ensure we do not over breed.