"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.