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.