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.