There are so many good arguments against growing Australia's population - both economic and environmental - that it is becoming obvious that the only reason the government continues with this self-destructive behaviour is the short term gain of support from big business, especially the property industry. Great article John!

...Unfortunately for us, John Coulter is correct!

Excellent article, John.

Totally agree, Michael and Dan.

Yep, great article. Time that all those advocating population growth realised there is a cost to pay, not just in increased congestion and pollution, but in the cost of services and infrastructure. We are about to enter an era of resource depletion, not least cheap oil, and we have to pull in our collective belts. Not only do we need to stabilise population, we must reduce it such that we at least get global levels below five billion and then on to two billion and below. How to do it? Let's hope through education and voluntary means, otherwise nature might just do it for us.

Yes, great article.

Unfortunately, growth is perceived by governments as the only way to pay back debt. That, or by printing money and consequent inflation. We shall get both I'm afraid. The world is already in a race to debase its currency against each other.

Governments are becoming increasingly directed by private businesses and policies can be bought through political donations. With globalization, big businesses are becoming bigger and more powerful. The patronage of governments is about buying policies for their own vested interests. Population growth is the lazy way of economic growth, the most dodgy route, It creates easy tax revenue for governments, and then they must cut benefits due to "shortages" of infrastructure, sell off public assets to chase the debts caused by growth. Governments need to to back to democratic principles and represent the people of Australia. The great majority of people do not want more population growth, and it is grinding down our economy and living standards. PM Julia Gillard must be forced to address her promise not to "hurdle towards a big Australia".

It's very hard to find fault or flaw in this article. Moreover it's hard to disagree with or dismiss the basic premise.
We do not need population growth to stimulate the economy. We just need to reduce and eventually eliminate poverty in all its forms and guises to provide endlessly sustainable economic stimulus.
We need to invest in our own people and their better ideas. We need to step back from this seemingly mad rush to rip all our mineral wealth from the ground; but particularly, when we could achieve even more wealth creation and well rewarded jobs of a much more permanent nature, by recycling stuff currently poisoning groundwater/landfill.
Or flowing wastefully out to sea, damaging the marine environment, with a nutrient overload; all while our land starves and we import ever more expensive hydrocarbons to convert to nitrates etc, utilising scarce potable water supplies.
We don't have adequate infrastructure for the current population. Great for some who like Sydney property developers; see a very rosy future for themselves cramming people into smaller and smaller spaces; that simply cost more and more.
Why, when we already have the highest median house prices in the English speaking world.
We are a net exporter of energy, yet we pay well over the odds in comparison to another large country confounded by the tyranny of distance, America, which still imports around 20% of its fuel/oil requirements. We have abundant NG supplies, enough to last over 700 years if properly husbanded. Hardly a single vehicle currently plying our road or rail systems cannot be converted to run on CNG. One cubic metre of NG has the same calorific value as a litre of petrol, and can be supplied even with a fuel excise added; for around forty cents per cubic metre retail.
Finally, and this is, I believe, the true nub of the problem under discussion, we regularly elect clueless, incompetent or incredibly inept people, whose knowledge of economics and multi billion dollar budget management could be written on a postage stamp, using a crowbar for a pen. Rhrosty.

What a great article, further to the Oz-centric discussion, the issue of global carrying capacity is one that is fraught with all sorts of technical, scientific and philosophical problems. But the best effort to deal with these various problems and come up with concrete numbers is the one that has been carried out by Mathis Wackernagel who came up with a concept called the global ecological footprint.

In its essence, it converts all of the energy and materials that humanity uses every year from non-renewable sources [such as oil] and makes the assumption that somehow they would come from renewable sources [such as wood or the sun]. Then, it compares our current consumption with what the earth could generate.

The reason we are able to go over the carrying capacity briefly is the same reason that you can for a brief period spend more out of your bank account than you save, if you have come through a long period of thrift. But eventually, of course, you bring your bank account back down to zero and you’re stuck.

That is exactly what is happening to us on the globe. We are living off the savings of biodiversity, fossil fuel accumulation, agricultural soil build-up and groundwater accumulation, and when we have spent them; we will be back down to the annual income.

Sustainable development is an oxymoron. It probably was possible back in the ’70s, but not now. We’re at 150 percent of the global carrying capacity.

We are in an absolute bubble, a bubble in population and in material and energy consumption.

We need to focus our energy on coping with the permanent loss of cheap energy or the permanent change in our climate and what we can do at the individual, the household, the community and the national level to ensure that we will be able to take care of our basic needs.

While this article is about population growth I noted its implications for the Carbon Tax (CT). Given the evidence cost of living is rising at the rate it is, citing ‘electricity prices had risen by 32 per cent in real terms between 2007 and 2010 ''well ahead of the general increase in prices and faster than growth in the average wage''’, question must be raised in relation to what the CT is about.

If the CT is a market tool to prompt consumers to change behaviour then why hasn’t the “electricity prices had risen by 32 per cent in real terms” already achieved that? If one believes in markets then all the signals needed are already in place to change behaviour.

In addition to the rises in cost of electricity there are already cost advantages of gas fired generation over coal; if markets are so effective why aren’t stations already being converted to gas? The cost of replacing coal firing of boilers with gas is about 20% of the capital value of the plant.

If the CT is an income stream what is it being used for and what justifies that use?

In terms of the main point of the article the failure of governments to plan long term is becoming apparent. But the catch 22 for government development of much infrastructure becomes self defeating. Construction of roads generates additional demand. London has realised using both congestion taxing and reduction of capacity is controlling traffic.

The other planning issue is lack of creativity – construction of power stations in the middle of cities to utilise co-generation (electricity and heat that both cools and heats buildings) as well as reduce the 20% power loss in transmission needs to be considered. The other is the absurdity of diseconomies of scale of large cities, companies should be placed where it is economically wise not where executives want to live.

Cronin, I suspect the carbon tax WILL change behaviour though it is strange that the prior price rise has not. But there is also a matter of principle - we have to send a message somehow that we must mitigate climate change, otherwise we will have an unliveable planet. As Sir Bob Watson said at a conference in London a fortnight ago: we're going to pass two degrees and we may go to five degrees. Given that at 5 degrees you get the release of methane from the tundra and from methane clathrates in the oceans that will add another five degrees warming, you can kiss the planet as we know it goodbye.

Rezoning and development approvals by Local Government becomes very lucrative and corrupt with high population growth. I remember one guy who owned a few acres in a coastal town. He couldn't get his block rezoned for subdivision so he decided to sell. But he found out that the buyer was an entity with a few councillors as silent partners, and the gossip was that they intended to profit greatly from the purchase by rezoning it. So he spilled the beans to the media and the councillors retaliated by subjecting his block to a nature rezoning, which effectively stopped any chance of developing his land.

Severe restriction of development rights of property owners and an obscure development process are important parts of the corruption, but the main driver is population growth.

A real economics textbook: one written by people who understand and respect physical limitations is the book, Ecological Economics, by Herman Daly and Joshua Farley, and it states in its Note to Instructors:

…we do not share the view of many of our economics colleagues that growth will solve the economic problem, that narrow self-interest is the only dependable human motive, that technology will always find a substitute for any depleted resource, that the market can efficiently allocate all types of goods, that free markets always lead to an equilibrium balancing supply and demand, or that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant to economics.

Sounds logical to me!

Ah former Democrat Senator Coulter who accused the Government of not charging a tax on airfuel and then was filmed jumping on board a Canberra flight to Adelaide. We must live within the boundaries of our own hypocrisy.

Not much democratic about the nasty anti-immigrant rant from the Doc. But good on the Doc for mentioning the rising cost of power infrastructure and how in Queensland, NSW and SA the network is 40 years old.

You know, once upon a time, according to classical economics, the more people who use or purchase a product has a deflationary effect on price but not on the cost of upkeeping an old network.

I'm wondering if the Doc and Michael in Adelaide have anything in common, say the Doc being Vice Pres of the People for Unsustainable Population? Another ZPG front.

Of all the angles to take such as supply/demand/competition policy/dollar value/efficiency/ trade positions/ depreciation of plant, etc, etc, the ZPG lobby have decided to simply blame the number of people. Single lens theory in action.

I suspect the ZPG lobby have got antsy lately as their precious enforced depopulation agenda has slipped completely off the media radar. Why? Because the media only call them when they want a barking mad quote.

Oh,I forgot, female fertility is 1.9 not 1.4.

Australia's population like western Europe and SE Asia, Russia and America is slowing at a dramatic rate. The problem is a lack of population tax base to fund future infrastructure projects.

The ZPG lobby would be better off looking at how urban design can help alleviate congestion in our cities. But fundamentally, you are fundamentalists who are love-locked in a mutual appreciation society.

You guys didn't get picked to play sport at school did you and now you're taking it out on the rest of us.

One aspect of this argument puzzles me.

When I was looking at setting up a business back in the eighties, I was repeatedly told that the market here was too small to sustain the pricing structure that I had in mind. Production volumes would be too low to enable me to set a competitive price.

So tell me, whatever happened to economies of scale?

"...these costs would continue to rise, presumably because governments continue to pursue polices of high population growth."

Why is it taken for granted in this article that an increase in population generates higher per-unit costs? Surely, the normal laws of economics apply, where the marginal cost decreases with volume.

What am I missing? Can someone explain?

I've been wondering how long it would be for those who can offer nothing positive to the debate to turn up. We've had quite a nice discussion until now. But Cheryl has emerged to make the usual libellous ad hominem arguments rather than offer anything substantial to the issue. Does he/she have evidence that population growth is NOT adding to the cost of electricity and other commodities? Does he/she have evidence that Sustainable Population Australia is anti-immigrant? Anti-high immigration yes, but not anti-immigrant. It's not a 'front' for anything - Zero Population Growth does not exist as an organisation any more but certainly many policies are common to both. What is your problem Cheryl with ZPG anyway? Don't you understand that we live on a finite planet with finite resources and that at some point the growth has to stop? Go away Cheryl and take your nastiness with you.

Pericles
You wonder why economies of scale don't work with more people and electricity prices. Because of the need to build more power stations and power lines to cater for the ever-growing population, that's why. It's really not that hard. Just every now and again you have to give up some old economic theories that don't work in the real world.

Totally disagree. The cost of living is being driven by unnecessary Govt debt and taxes.The Green movement is driving us into poverty while China and India booms with our energy and resources to facilitate it.

The Green movement's agenda is a communist world Govt,destroying the middle class while they the political/ banking elites live like kings.

we have already brought enough people here to bludge on Government. They remain uncontent and only Labour wins by gaining a few more votes. Plenty of food, water and space for those wanting to contribute. Hasn't anyone been to Singapore or Israel. If they had they would stop all this overpopulation selfishness.

Arjay,

Just a case in point regarding India.

In a bid to encourage large scale crop growing by peasant farmers, electricity was provided free so that the pumps could work through the night - and along with the pesticides and fertilizers fuel bumper crops.
Aside from the fact that peasant farmers were lured into giant debt to pay for pumps, fertilizers and pesticides....the water is "disappearing" and the soil is degraded.

That's the free market at work, not the Greens or whomever.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

Poirot, please do tell, how you can suggest that government interference if farming systems, by providing free electricity is, & I quote, "that's the free market at work, not the Greens or whomever".

I do find it strange that those who believe in government in every facet of our lives can suddenly find a "Free market" at work when government interference fails as it usually does.

Well done John, though Ajay has brought the stupid.

Hasbeen

Successive Indian governments are obligated to observe agreements with the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF.

These organisations promote and orchestrate free trade in a globalised world.

Mmmmm.. our death rates double in the next 25 years and our natural growth may drop to zero or even negative. 1/3 of our growth is our demographic momentum, or more people living longer. I am not suggesting that population growth is a good or a bad thing, however understanding the actual data may help. As people age, they reject change and this nation, like many others, is ageing for the first time in history. People vote till they die, which is stange really considering we do not let kids under 18 vote, yet we still accept the vote of the 4300 people over the age of 100 now in Australia.

Oh dear Popnperish, why do people turn to latin when they get overly sensitive?

http://www.bigpondmoney.com.au/why-power-bills-are-rising

It ain't population. It's because SA, NSW, Vic and especially Qld have very old distribution networks as per the link above. They are very inefficient. It's not anyone trying to have a go at you. It's just a fact. Absolutely nothing to do with population. Everything to do with old infrastructure. Actually, having more people use an old grid is a problem which revolves around paying more for goods and services but that's another story.

But that is exactly what you find with high population growth. Funds are so short that Government has to get the maximum life from public infrastructure. So things get left until they fall apart, services, education and training get cut, taxes are raised, public assets are sold off, and still debts rack up.

The mining boom has greatly improved the balance of trade, but the pursuit of high population growth by the Federal Government has left state finances in a mess.

Cheryl - you are drifting from simple abuse into incoherence. I am having trouble following the "logic" of your sentences. Maybe you need to seek medical help?

A couple of things, transmission losses averages at around 50%. Locally sourced power made by digesting human waste onsite, and then using the biogas, [methane,] to create on demand electricity, costs around one third of the cost of coal fired power, which currently costs 3-5cents per kilowatt hour to make. We not only pay for the transmission losses but the resale mark-up as well, and given the losses, twice as much carbon creation as would occur making the power right where it is needed.
We are told the huge recent increases are a consequence of the need to renew aging infrastructure. Transmission lines etc. It seems to me, we could simply reject this centralized power delivery system with its quite massive renewal costs and make our own onsite, utilizing Aussie innovation.
We are told that some of the old power stations are going to be replaced by gas burning ones? If gas halves Co2 emission, then piping the gas directly into the homes and making power on site on demand, using a ceramic fuel cells, will halve it again. We can make all the fuel we will ever need by replacing fossil fuel with that created through large scale algae farming. Some algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb up to 2.5 times their own bodyweight in Co2; and furthermore, under optimised conditions double that bodyweight every 24 hours. Growing algae inside closed circuit systems, can be achieved for just 1 or 2% of the water required for traditional food or ethanol crops. This single feature, if applied to areas like the Murray/Darling, could rescue all the towns and villages who depend on the river system for their livelihoods, as well as the river itself.
We don't need to live in a bubble or allow others to do our thinking for us. Or swallow all the BS and simply destroy our manufacturing base by pricing it out of existence, with entirely unessential increasing energy charges, all of which impact most negatively on our most disadvantaged and vulnerable citizens. Rhrosty

Given the anti-population, anti-development thrust of the paper, one could be forgiven for mistaking the author as a member of the Greens.

The author overlooks the electricity inflationary contribution of all the "green schemes" that have been implemented. He should be aware that there is no scientific nor economic justification for adopting the 20% renewable energy target that led to the adoption of those schemes and the carbon tax, thanks to politicians being conned into accepting the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. The UN political organisation, the IPCC, was and still is the main con-merchant. After some 24 years of searching, the IPCC has failed to table empirical scientific evidence to substantiate that claim. Instead, it has used assertion and its unvalidated climate change models to project the alarming outcomes that have been accepted unquestionably by its scientist disciples, socalled learned societies, the media, politicians and others.

Given that wind-generated electricity is about three times as expensive as, and solar-generated electricity is about ten times as expensive as, coal-fired electricity generation, there is no economic justification to switch to renewable energy.

Apart from the cost of upgrading the electricity networks, a task that previously had been neglected by the various power supply authorities, electricity price rises otherwise should have been insignificant.

Here I am in India, looking upon Dharavi. I see a mass of enslaved humanity, living in abject poverty and filth, with little chance of bettering their lives. Yet to my astonishment, there is Cheryl looking on with a broad smile and nattering excitedly about their wonderful prospects. I do admit to a bit of embellishment here as Cheryl has an antiseptic soaked cloth held to her mouth the whole time, so I cannot be certain of the smile, let alone the gender. But the lilt of gaiety is definitely in her voice at the sight of all that suffering and deprived humanity.

Then it is off to Tokyo. I hear moaning and look about to see Cheryl prostrate on the ground. “Whatever is the matter, Cheryl?” I ask. “They are all doomed!” she howls. And no Arjay, it isn't the caesium, it's the ageing catastrophe. And here was I, looking at the wonderful infrastructure and thinking of the great wealth and education of these people. “Opportunity” was my thought, not “Doom”.

I guess the truth is that people will ever see things differently.

Populate or perish used to be the catch cry of many politicians, who thought that ever greater populations would result in demand created economic growth. Well it did. Moreover, our population was decimated by 2 world wars. But there is a very finite limit to how many people our narrow green coastal belt will support. Or the equally modest water supplies. Why, the Fly river in Papua, has a greater annual flow than the totality of all Australia's rivers.
The only economy in Europe still doing okay is Germany's, and then because they had the practical common sense to retain their manufacturing supported economy. We currently cannot compete with highly populated countries like India and China. However, if we are to retain or rescue a manufacturing economy, it can only ever be one where high tech and quite massive automation replaces most human hands. This means we need to reduce electricity prices not endlessly raise them. The only jobs growth will be in highly paid technical/knowledge based ones.
We need to transition to rapid rail and roll on roll off ferries to move freight and commerce given that combination produces the least carbon for tons moved. We as an Island nation, need to once again become a self sufficient maritime power. We all but lead the world in computer assisted high tech ship building and need to tap into that expertise to build large new ships. New pebble reactors, will allow us, with our huge uranium resources, to become the most successful and prosperous freight forwarders in the world. Even more so as oil supplies dry up.
Bulk freight forwarding is and has nearly always been one of the most lucrative enterprises. I see a future where submersibles will ply most of our marine trade. Submersibles can access favourable undersea currents, sail under ice, the worst storms and or would by pirates, with virtual impunity and an armchair ride. Rhrosty.

I think it's good that young men such as the anti-pops have a hobby/ a club or society. But what are you going to do now with population rates slowing all over the world, except Africa? Australia only barely passes replacement because of immigration and even that has fallen.

I'm touched that a Dr of Genetics aka Michael in Adders, is concerned about my health but I won't be touching his socio-biologic/eugenic medicine.

Fester, poverty is India has been falling for the last 20 years, in main due to the incredible success of the Indian education system and trades. You should have been there 40 years ago if you wanted to really have a crack at our brown skinned brothers and sisters.

Did you know that in the 50s the Indian Government under the guidance of the UN, implemented your and Coulter's abortion remedy in Kerala which created ZPG but the program failed because the locals didn't want people from Australia and America telling them what to do.

Population is so par se. It had its day in the 60s. Even so, I'm sure people such as Robert Mugabe would be interested in your anti-people ideas. He has form.

Cheryl - "Australia only barely passes replacement because of immigration and even that has fallen." Despite Julia Gillard's reassurances that we "won't be hurdling to a Big Australia", we are!! Our population is heading to be at least 36 million by mid century, and with no population cap, there is no end in sight. The environmental, financial and social problems we have now will all be compounded.

Population growth is determined by the number of births over death, plus immigration. Australia does not have high fertility levels, and without immigration our numbers would continue to rise (ABS) but then gently decline.

Traditional, and politically-decided and driven, economic immigration levels were beneficial in the past but now we are over saturation point. Jobs are going, housing is too expensive, and future generations will forget "lucky Australia" that used to be. Australia is at some important tipping points, and who we vote for in future elections must be scrutinized for their population policies.

Wow, popnperish, this is pure gold.

>>Pericles You wonder why economies of scale don't work with more people and electricity prices. Because of the need to build more power stations and power lines to cater for the ever-growing population, that's why. It's really not that hard. Just every now and again you have to give up some old economic theories that don't work in the real world.<<

Try thinking that through again.

For a start, just to get your brain working, take a piece of paper and work out how the cost of electricity would change, if the population decreased.

(I'll give you a hint: the cost of supply would be spread over a smaller group of people. The cost to each of those people would... increase. Got that? Good.)

Now do the same calculation, given a stable population, where the infrastructure needs renewal, refurbishment, updating etc. Because it is also a fact of life that power stations become more expensive to maintain as they get older.

(Another clue, just in case you are still confused. The additional costs incurred would be divided between the customer base, with the result that prices would... increase. With me so far? Excellent)

Now - and you can use a new envelope if necessary - calculate what the cost of supply, in either of the above scenarios, would be to the individual consumer, given an increase in the consumer base.

I'm afraid that some old economic theories stand the test of time, over and over again. This is one of them.

Kerala is a case in point of seeing things differently, Cheryl. Far from rejecting family planning as a genocidal plot of western countries, Kerala has used family planning along with education as a development strategy. It is now the economic success story of India, with high literacy and education levels. There little poverty, and it is the only state in India with more women than men, presumably because there is not the infanticide of baby girls as occurs in other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Kerala

And this article written just before Kerala's economy started to take off.

http://www.ashanet.org/library/articles/kerala.199803.html

Pericles,

The economist Lester Thurow has estimated that 1% population growth requires 12.5% of GNP to be spent on infrastructure to accommodate that growth. Assuming an average 50 year lifetime for infrastructure, this would imply that a country with a stable population would need to spend 25% of GNP on repairs and replacement of public and private infrastructure. With 2% population growth, such as we had 2 years ago, this amount will double. Kelvin Thomson, the Labor MP, has estimated the infrastructure costs per additional person at $200,000 to $400,000, mostly from the public purse. See this article by Jane O'Sullivan

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10137&page=0

Link to her scholarly paper on the same subject published in Economic Affairs (behind a paywall unfortunately)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1999200

This is a huge amount of money, given our current growth rates. Migrants and new residents are not expected to (and usually couldn't) pay upfront, so the government is left with the choices of squeezing the existing residents harder with taxes and charges or letting the infrastructure and public services deteriorate. Both strategies make the voters angry.

This paper by Ralph Musgrave estimates that it will be more than 20 years before the average migrant to the UK has contributed enough to pay for his share of the costs. Some never will.

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

You are also ignoring diseconomies of scale. For example, a city outgrows its natural water supply and has to build a desalination plant supplying water at 4-6 times the cost per unit volume.

From the 2006 Productivity Commission report, the benefits of the population growth are trivial in per capita terms, even if you ignore the effects on the environment and amenity, and concentrate on a narrow economic perspective. This is affirmed in their 2010 annual report where they say that evidence for per capita benefit or alleviation of our age structure issues is "poor or mixed". So why put up with the crumbing infrastructure and public services if there is to be no ultimate benefit, except to the folk at the top, who can take advantage of the distributional effects and the bigger total GNP?

Dear Cheryl,

A big victory for your "antipops" in Adelade today:

http://tinyurl.com/84r7er3

What are you going to do? I think you should write to the Sunday Mail/Advertiser and spread your vitriol for the benefit of South Australia.

Oh, but then you would have to use your REAL name and everyone would be able to link your comments to the person. (Probably a repressed 65 year old priest.)

God bless you Michael,

Alas, a news story in the Adelaide Sunday Mail is a massive black eye for the credibility of the anti-pop ZPG extermination lobby. Adelaide needs less people like a chocolate tea pot needs hot water. Is that all you've got?

Surely Kanck has written something lately.

Michael,

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/recession-biting-our-state-bank-warns/story-fn7j19iv-1226318207688

SA's low pop a key part of the problem. Would the last person to leave Adelaide, please turn out the light.

Cheryl
This is not about South Australia, but try this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/africa/in-nigeria-a-preview-of-an-overcrowded-planet.html
As the demographer says: "Population is key. If you don't take care of population, schools can't cope, hospitals can't cope, there's not enough housing - there's nothing you can do to have economic development."

No argument out of me there Pop.

Good to see Africa is on your horizon. That's the ticket!

Cheryl
The same principles that apply in Nigeria, also apply in South Africa. In the end it's a matter of balance between population and resources.

I can certainly understand the concern about overpopulation of Nigeria, and sub-Saharan Africa in general.

What puzzles me though is how their experience affects our policies here in Australia. Just off the top of my head I can think of a number of major differences in government, demographics, poverty levels etc., but not a single similarity.

Any thoughts, popnperish?

At what points does the Nigerian experience have relevance to, say, South Australia?

I might be able to help Pop out here.

When the local examples of alleged over population are shot down in flames, the anti-pops flee offshore and look at the international experience.

When they find pop is slowing across most of western europe, Italy Russia, Singapore they bash China and India only to find education has reduced both nations birth rate.

Finally, the anti-pops settle on where they should be looking all the time - Africa. Unfortunately they have no cross country comparisons, data or studies between the developed world and developing world which is why they end up looking silly re comparisons between Nigeria and South Australia.

As any school kid knows, this is the natural product of examining the world through a single lens. It produces distorted results and tends to end up in absurd intellectual positions.

Cheryl and Pericles
Glad you read my 'South Africa' as 'South Australia' because that is indeed what I meant.
Perhaps you may be aware of Liebig's Law which says carrying capacity is limited by the resource in least supply. In the case of Nigeria it is probably arable land in association with a suitable climate. As the Sahel creeps south with climate change, people are being pushed south into ever more crowded conditions. Revenues from oil (a finite resource) are not being distributed equitably, making the situation worse.

In the case of South Australia the limiting resource is water. OK, there is now the prospect of desalination for the cities but it is uneconomic for farming. It's a big state but much of it is arid and places like the Eyre Peninsular are marginal at best.

As I said, it's a balance between population and resources in the end. Climate change, of course, threatens to lower carrying capacity. In SA, the Goyder Line will move progressively south rendering towns like Clare too hot to grow grapes.

With so much uncertainty, the precautionary principle should apply.

¿qué?

>>Glad you read my 'South Africa' as 'South Australia' because that is indeed what I meant.<<

That's as maybe, popnperish. But the experiences of Nigeria still have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the experiences of South Australia. You admit as much, yourself.

>>...carrying capacity is limited by the resource in least supply. In the case of Nigeria it is probably arable land in association with a suitable climate<<

So, no similarities there, then.

>>In the case of South Australia the limiting resource is water. OK, there is now the prospect of desalination for the cities but it is uneconomic for farming.<<

That will solve the problem of drinking water for city folk, though, and even allow them to take the odd shower or to. Hopefully.

But if the scenario you describe comes to pass, and there is no hope for agriculture, what benefit would you get - apart from a very fleeting, temporary one - from depopulation? People are resources too, you know. Every person who leaves the State will leave it poorer, not richer. You might have this idealistic notion that somehow, everything will balance itself out, but in practice, the place would go to rack and ruin. Towns would empty, businesses would leave for a more conducive climate, infrastructure would fail, and be irreplaceable through lack of money.

The final achievement of Green policies. Empty streets.

Pericles

No, not empty streets but what we want are enough humans living happily with their basic needs met in a dynamic steady state (not growing) economy, one that does not change the climate through excessive greenhouse gas emissions and one that does not drive other species to extinction.

I am perfectly well aware of what you *want*, popnperish.

>>...what we want are enough humans living happily with their basic needs met in a dynamic steady state (not growing) economy, one that does not change the climate through excessive greenhouse gas emissions and one that does not drive other species to extinction<<

That is the destination.

Unfortunately, what you lack is the very first clue as to how to make the journey.

You cannot simply wish nirvana (your version of nirvana, by the way, not mine) into existence. You need to understand just a little of a) human nature, b) economics, c) the political system and d) the laws of cause and effect.

Requirement #1, "enough humans living happily with their basic needs met" founders on the rock of human nature. Because one person's "living happily" is bound to be another person's horrorshow. Because one person's idea of having "basic needs met" is another person's hell on earth.

Furthermore, it sinks on the reef of economic reality, since you haven't the first idea how to ensure that those "basic needs", whatever they turn out to be, can be met. Who will work? What will they work at? How will their product be priced? Because quite simply, a "steady state" is fundamentally unachievable. Ask the architects of the Soviet five-year plans, if you don't believe me.

Then of course, comes the stuff you have no control over. South Australia can have no impact on climate change, for example. Nor, in any discernible sense, can the continent of Australia. So any pious hope that reducing South Australia's population will have any impact on anything except the people of that State - who will be poor and miserable as a result of your policies - is just that: pious hope.

There isn't a political system alive in the free world today that could bring about the results you seem to crave.

Of course, there's always Juche.

Good luck with that.

Real examples give credibility to an idea. Going into the 1990s, Queensland had no debt, low taxes, good services and well maintained infrastructure. Twenty years and another 1.5 million people later the State has poorer services, higher taxes and charges, crumbling infrastructure, public asset fire sales, and is thus far over 60 billion in debt and racking up more debt rapidly. This calamity over the past few decades fits well with the 300 billion dollar infrastructure cost that such population growth is predicted to incur.

In light of this it is astonishing to see calls for population growth to combat the supposed “ageing catastrophe”. How is Queensland now better positioned to deal with an ageing population with all the growth?

What positive examples of the value of population growth are there? Calling for SA to follow in the footsteps of QLD seems more the act of a lemming.

Pericles, what do you want to see – continuous growth of the scale we have now in Australia for ever more, for the next 20 years and then stabilisation, a slower growth rate ongoingly, or what??

Growth-wise, what do you think would provide this country with the best possible quality of life, environment and economy for the next, say, 200 years?

You keep asking the same question, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, what do you want to see – continuous growth of the scale we have now in Australia for ever more, for the next 20 years and then stabilisation, a slower growth rate ongoingly, or what??<<

As I have tried to explain on numerous previous occasions, this is - to me - entirely the wrong question to ask.

As far as I am concerned, the question is "how far are you prepared to let your government rule your life, and make laws about what you can and cannot do?"

The act of planning for a specific population cannot avoid answering these questions first. You need first to decide whether you are comfortable living in a State to whom you have given the freedom to make these decisions on your behalf. And before that happens, a bunch of electable politicians need to present themselves to the Australian people, and declare their "Ludwig" policies: limits to procreation, and limits to immigration. And to be able to follow up those central-control policies with some concepts on how their economy will run in such a society.

Hence my reference to Juche. Is that what you want for Australia?

If not, what?

Pericles

I differ from Juche in that I don't believe that man is master of everything. Nature will decide our plight in the end. On the other hand, the North Koreans "reliance on Korean national resources" is quite a good idea. We are too dependent on trade to keep us going yet each nation state really needs to be able to feed itself in case there is no food to buy on international markets in the future.

As for basic needs, we in the rich world need to reduce our consumption/standard of living because there simply aren't the resources for everyone in the world to live like us. At the weekend, Graham Turner of CSIRO suggested that a 1950 life-style (one car, one TV per family) for Australians may be the way it has to be. It was also suggested a shorter working week to spread the work/income around may be what is needed as well as the economy inevitably contracts.

I don't have all the answers for the problems that confront us but I do know that we are approaching the end of growth (economic, material, population) and that we had better adjust to it.

You certainly don't give that impresssion, popnperish.

>>I differ from Juche in that I don't believe that man is master of everything.<<

Unless I am mistaken, you are constantly heckling for a) population control and b) the rejection of fossil fuels in all its forms. This is at the opposite end of the spectrum from, shall we call it, laissez-faire, and suggests that you believe that we humans actually have the answers.

Sounds like Juche to me.

You are, of course, absolutely right when you say:

>>Nature will decide our plight in the end<<

Scientists have already mapped out what will inevitably happen to our sun, and therefore what will happen along the way to lil' ol' earth, in the fullness of time.

So we are only talking when, not if, are we not.

But in the meantime, we have some choices to make. And you and I will continue to differ on the range of those choices, and their implications, if you are genuine when you say...

>>the North Koreans "reliance on Korean national resources" is quite a good idea<<

Here's what I think. If we were to elect a government on policies designed to make Australia "self-sufficient", we would all become very poor, very quickly. That's simple, basic economics.

Not only that, but because we actually do have a lot of what other people need, particularly by way of primary produce, we would suddenly find ourselves with a large number of enemies. Enemies whose idealism stops short of feelgood slogans, and appeals to the spirit of the 1950s.

Nor do we have a standing army of 1.1 million trained soldiers to protect us from those enemies.

We are a developed country, comparatively. You wish us to become undeveloped again. Why?

Pericles

I don't want Australia to become undeveloped, just to de-develop to some degree such that we consume no more materials and energy than is equitable. I have always had a commitment to ending world poverty but that can only be done if we share resources and try and stop population growing much more - because the bigger it grows, the less there will be for each person. There is only so much pie, so to speak. Technological advances may mean we can overcome shortages of oil and move to other forms of energy, but in the end we will be 'done in' by shortages of nonrenewable natural resources. We are using 1.5 planets of resources at the moment and driving the 6th extinction, so humans simply have to contract to at least that point where we are only using up one planet's worth of resources. You can't expect the very poor to reduce their consumption. It has to be us.

<"how far are you prepared to let your government rule your life, and make laws about what you can and cannot do?">

Um, remember these words, do you Pericles?

"We will decide who comes to this country..."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s422692.htm

So how is letting people determine their own population an act of government control, and conducting a mass immigration program an act of government non-involvement? A greater distortion I have not heard.

Um, what, Fester?

>>...how is letting people determine their own population an act of government control, and conducting a mass immigration program an act of government non-involvement?<<

They both involve government decisions, surely?

"Letting people determine their own population" - I presume you mean numerically, in the first instance - can become an act of government policy only when the country votes to be represented in that way. As I pointed out in my response to Ludwig, in order to institute population control...

>>...a bunch of electable politicians need to present themselves to the Australian people, and declare their "Ludwig" policies: limits to procreation, and limits to immigration<<

Similarly, if and when we give a government a mandate to allow "mass immigration", that is what will happen.

However, I suspect that we will continue our "dribs and drabs" approach to immigration on the one hand, and refrain from mandating mass sterilization on the other.

<They both involve government decisions, surely?>

Since when does the decision to have a child involve consulting a polly? That's nuts. But even as government policy, one decision entails huge infrastructure and administration costs, and the other decision merely entails inaction. You have similar situations with other policy, notably conscription.

Qld provides a clear example of the folly of using high population growth as an economic driver. Yes, it gave a big boost for a few years, but then all the costs began to mount. Services declined, taxes rose, infrastructure crumbled and debts soared. Ultimately these effects curtail the population growth, which in turn hits the industry predicated on population growth. It is a set of circumstances common to any place pursuing such policy.

Alternatively, you have places like Thailand and Kerala, which have seen dramatic improvements in circumstances by offering their people the option of family planning. Where is the coercion and calamity in those places?

<< You keep asking the same question, Ludwig. >>

Ay?? Pericles, for starters, we have scant little dialogue these days compared to what we used to have a few years back on this forum. I’ve hardly asked you anything in the last couple of years. Secondly, if I’d asked you before and you’d given me a straight answer, I wouldn’t need to ask you again!

And erm…. you’ve completely avoided giving straight answers this time (?again). So no doubt I’ll need to ask them again somewhere down the line.

So this is your bottom line:

<< how far are you prepared to let your government rule your life, and make laws about what you can and cannot do?" >>

Well, that IS very telling.

Surely our future as a nation and the quality of life of us all therein and the quality of our environment, are a WHOLE lot more important than the extent to which governments might impinge upon our personal freedoms.

Obviously, as we become further out of whack with our life-support systems, the more strongly governments are going to have to intervene to get us onto the right track towards an ongoing demand and supply-capability balance.

Crikey, if you are that concerned about increasing government intervention, then you should be on our side!! You should be lobbying for the constantly increasing demand on our resource base and pressure on our environment to cease forthwith!

When we have a balance between demand and ongoing renewable supply capability with big safety margins to get us through tough times, then we’ll have a whole lot of personal freedom with minimised government intervention, compared to what we would have if we overload our resource base and degrade our environment and FORCE governments to take a much stronger regulatory approach to all sorts of things.

Surely you can see this Pericles. So how about it? Just admit that Popnperish and John Coulter and old Ludwig are RIGHT….. and come join us in the fight for a healthy future!!

Get real, Ludwig

>>And erm…. you’ve completely avoided giving straight answers this time (?again).<<

As ever, your question was a rework of "when did you stop beating the wife"

>>...what do you want to see – continuous growth of the scale we have now in Australia for ever more, for the next 20 years and then stabilisation, a slower growth rate ongoingly, or what??<<

Since you did tack "or what" on the end, I guess you kinda sorta earned a fuller response.

But not really. Because unlike you, I have no specific ambitions for population growth in Australia. I do believe we have plenty of room to grow, but there is also a "limits to natural growth" equation that needs to be observed. That means, we can continue growing, so long as that growth stays within our capability as a country to absorb it, and maintain an overall satisfactory standard of living. The evidence of the last fifty years or so says that we are pretty good at this, since we a) support more people and b) are wealthier.

As I said, I think you are asking the wrong question, because you frame it in the light of your own campaign to control the population numbers. I don't see the problem that you see, so I don't consider population control to be an appropriate government task.

You pose another wife-beater. (You're good at this, I grant you).

>>Surely our future as a nation and the quality of life of us all therein and the quality of our environment, are a WHOLE lot more important than the extent to which governments might impinge upon our personal freedoms<<

The problem with this is of course that you pose the two sides as being mutually exclusive. According to you, either we have quality of life, OR we have personal freedom.

From my perspective, personal freedom is a major component of quality of life. And the only possible implementation of your policies is through a command-and-control structure that subjugates individual will to your particular interpretation of "the common good".

Ugly.

And unworkable.

Pericles, THANKYOU!

You’ve directly addressed my question! Wonderful!

Mind you, it started in paragraph 6! Really coulda done without the first 5 paras!

<< As ever, your question was a rework of "when did you stop beating the wife" >>

What's with this ugly wife-beating analogy stuff?? Please!

You wrote:

<< …there is also a "limits to natural growth" equation that needs to be observed. That means, we can continue growing, so long as that growth stays within our capability as a country to absorb it, and maintain an overall satisfactory standard of living. >>

OK. Now I can see that there is actually some common ground between us.

<< The evidence of the last fifty years or so says that we are pretty good at this, since we a) support more people and b) are wealthier. >>

Yeah but what about the copious evidence that it cannot continue? What about the sensibility of erring on the side of caution if we are not sure whether this country can support a growing population?

continued

I wrote:

< Surely our future as a nation and the quality of life of us all therein and the quality of our environment, are a WHOLE lot more important than the extent to which governments might impinge upon our personal freedoms >

You replied:

<< The problem with this is of course that you pose the two sides as being mutually exclusive >>

No, not at all. I could have levelled the same criticism at you when you expressed your bottom-line question: “how far are you prepared to let your government rule your life, and make laws about what you can and cannot do?"

I’m surprised that you level this obviously incorrect criticism at me. Of course government intervention in our lives is not mutually exclusive from quality of life / sustainability / population policy.

<<…the only possible implementation of your policies is through a command-and-control structure that subjugates individual will… >>

Really?? Absolutely not at all.

The greater the population becomes, the more out of balance the demand and supply-capability will become and the more agitated the populace will be. It is under this scenario that governments would have to move decisively and implement ever more restrictive laws.

You see Pericles, you attribute a mean highly restrictive world to me if I were to get what I want – a stable population within a sustainable society. I completely can’t see that.

It is surely exactly the opposite – if we continue to get what you apparently want; rapid growth until it is blindingly obvious that it can’t continue, we will end up with a highly restrictive governmental regime…for sure!!

You are still looking at it through your population-control-at-all-costs lens, Ludwig.

You ask:

>>...what about the copious evidence that it cannot continue?<<

Your "copious evidence" is no such thing; it is just speculation. Speculation that starts with your assumption that population must be controlled at all costs. And the reason for that assumption is that you continue to insist that there are only two options: enforced population control or "rapid growth". You cannot accept that, just as we have done in the past, we can grow our population numbers organically in line with our ability to support them. Which is a purely economic equation, and one that we can measure daily.

>>What about the sensibility of erring on the side of caution if we are not sure whether this country can support a growing population?<<

Why is that a sensible course of action? If the cure turns out to be worse than the disease - which is my principle concern with your ideas - there will be no turning back. The sensible approach is to wait until there is genuine, irrefutable evidence that we are exceeding our carrying capacity as a country, before imposing draconian legislation to stop people breeding.

Because I'm afraid that is what it amounts to. The only weapon you have to control the population numbers in this country is to apply legally-enforced sanctions.

Which, I notice, you avoided to address. Your argument seems to be limited to "highly restrictive governmental regime now, or later".

I'll take my chances on "later", thank you.

Pericles,

From the ABS figures, approximately half our population growth is coming from net immigration. The rest is from natural increase, although a fair few of those births would be to recent migrants. I haven't been able to find the exact figures. The natural increase is entirely caused by demographic momentum, as our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976.

Demographic momentum occurs when a population that has been rapidly growing moves toward stabilisation. If the young adult generation is much bigger than older generations, then there will still be more births than deaths, even if family sizes are small. Here in Australia, the natural increase is predicted to continue at a decreasing rate until some time in the 2030s, after which the growth will stop and the population will begin to slowly decline without net immigration or measures to encourage a slightly higher fertility rate.

The bottom line is that we don't need to do anything about fertility or restricting people's right to have children in any way. Fertility is taking care of itself. Unless you believe in open borders, however, governments must set immigration numbers.

Australia probably could support a much larger population, at least for now. Just force the average person down to a Bangladeshi standard of living, don't worry about the environment and long-term carrying capacity, and accept that large numbers of people will starve if we have a really nasty long drought. We on the other side are concerned about the environmental and quality of life issues, and feel no compulsion to cram in the maximum number of people on the minimum standards of living. You are a confirmed city person and don't see how much many of the rest of us dislike the deterioration in quality of life that has been occurring as a result of population growth - crowding, paying a fortune for housing, losing our gardens, etc. We are also concerned that future carrying capacity could be a lot less - if we can't get the phosphate to put on our clapped out old soils, for example.

<< You are still looking at it through your population-control-at-all-costs lens, Ludwig >>

Pericles, you’re wildly off-track here.

Firstly, my bottom line is the achievement of a sustainable society. Population stabilisation is but a part of this.

Secondly, you are hung up on the notion that in order for us to achieve a stable population, some enormously draconian and restrictive policies would need to be introduced. This is entirely wrong.

I’m not chasing population control in the way that you are thinking about it. And indeed for us to achieve it in this country, very little in the way of government intervention would be needed.

The most important thing can be done with the stroke of a pen, without any new laws being introduced – simply reduce immigration to about net zero. And it doesn’t have to happen I one hit, it can happen progessively over a series of years.

Beyond that, some financial incentives/disincentives to slow down pop growth in Sydney, SEQ and perhaps some other resource and infrastructure-stressed cities / regions would be in order. But this is just an extension of the control that governments already exercise by way of approving urban developments in some areas and making sure other areas remain undeveloped. It would not involve more laws restricting our freedom. At least, not to any significant extent.

And it is TOTALLY within the role of government to control population size and distribution in this manner.

Hey, I’m with you when it comes to fighting against unnecessary government intervention and restrictions in our lives.

But again, I think you are completely misfocussed if you are worried about governments imposed significant new restrictions upon us in order for the country to reach a stabilised population.

And again at the risk of rerepeating myself (but it is such a vitally important point); if we remain addicted to rapid continuous growth, THEN we will DEFINITELY be suffering a much more restrictive governmental regime… and a much more lawless one as well, as governments will really be struggling in vain to control a much-increased level of discontent in our society.

Ludwig
You're spot on in your last paragraph. The more people, the more restrictions. And what we have to face in a world of diminishing resources is the prospect of social breakdown as people fight over food, water, petrol etc in order to survive. And that kind of fighting brings on repressive policies from government/police/army.

Cost of living increase the symptom of ever increasing taxes (ie GST, carbon tax, compulsory superannuation etc). These have and are being introduced constantly to raise revenue and keep everyone in the rat race, thus perpetuating the system.
The system initially consisted of income tax, however the wider community started to open their eyes to concepts like fiscal creep so government had to find other ways to rob you of your money.

Phooey, welcome to OLO.

<< Cost of living increase the symptom of ever increasing taxes… >>

Yes, but why are taxes and charges and the general cost of just about everything increasing?

We don’t have this ‘fiscal creep’ for no reason. We don’t have it because we have an inherently mean or greedy government. We have it because of a highly unbalanced demand versus supply capability ratio for our entire resource base…. and ever more stressed infrastructure, services and environment.

That is; we have a constantly and rapidly increasing demand exerted by population growth. THIS is the biggest causal factor.

John Coulter is spot-on with this article.