What our politicians need to do is to:

1) Slash our immigration intake further and establish a policy of zero net population growth.

2) Establish an enquiry to determine the population level on this continent that is sustainable long term. This should be based on science and not just economics and should take into consideration climate change.

3)Prepare Australians, our culture and our economy for the post growth era where economic stability is the goal rather than endless unsustainable growth.

...I'll vote for you Boylesy! But since politics gets in the way of sense, what is the alternative "way", other than to rely on Politicians to achieve the logical aims (you mentioned), so necessary for future sustainability of Australian society, as we now know it, outside of the short-term thinking of our current Political establishment?

A curious article which seems to confuse net population with interstate flows or migration of people within the nation. Probably fair to say that there has been some pull to the mining regions but overall, not much.

The big growth area is providing healthcare in our cities. Population is part of the equation but is only one factor in a range of factors important in determining how people-friendly our major cities will be.

In Australia, the main problem isn't inter-state population flows (although try telling that to people on the Gold Coast), it's urban design.

32 million in 2050 sounds about right. Of course considering that's about 40 years away, it gives fodder to the nutters who want to destroy the Australian economy, slash immigration, embark on mass sterilisation programs and Pol Pot style, force people to work in the field.

Isn't it amazing that the only people who ever talk about mass sterilisation are Cheryl and her cronies who want to have endless growth.

David

Well, actually, no VK3, even though your moniker has a nasty Big Brother room 101 ring about it. I'm pretty much in favour of the status quo.

I'm not too happy about the ZPG policies of the Unsustainable Unpeople Lobby and their various degrees of doom and gloom factions/fictions.

Although Australia is almost at ZPG now - but that's another story. The anti-pops under Kanck want to drop Oz's pop to about 7 million people. It's silliness of course and something one thinks up spending a Sunday alone in Adelaide.

What I am against is the bearded gnomes from engineering, IT and crazed ex-Democrats from Adelaide wanting to meddle with women's health and fertility. I'm against people who know bugger all about economic theory telling me we'd be better off with seven million people. But I will fight to the death for your right to keep me amused for an hour or so a day.

"I'm against people who know bugger all about economic theory "

I am against scientific illiterates like you Cheryl who believe, hand on heart, that economic considerations are the only imperative that should determine population levels.

I am also dumb founded how you can possibly believe that the economy is not a subordinate component of the global ecosystem.

If allow dumb $%&*C like to you trash the global ecosystem with growth and large populations your precious economy and our civilisation will eventually be trashed along with it.

Cheryl, you and those like you are a clear and present danger to our global civilisation and our global economy.

Mmmmm.. the article makes no mention of the increasing death rates, the peaking emigration or any real data projection.
Well in the next 25 years our death rates double and our natural growth may drop to zero or even negative.
1/3 our our growth in real numbers is our demographic momentum, or more people living longer, so focusing just on net migration or biths is just plain nuts.
By my claculation we will peak at approx 28 million by around 2035 and then start to decline. Having our fertility rate below replacemnet for the last 35 years and having an ageing nation that turns anti-immigration will ensure this happens.

Cheryl

People are a wonderful asset, but what allows the human asset to realise his full potential is infrastructure and education. Without such, all those valuable humans can only aspire to Pol Pot's agrarian dream.

Places like Kerala demonstrate that a nation's prosperity is derived primarily from the development of the human asset, not its mass production. People are more than industrial fodder.

All I was saying Boyszone, was that the anti-people lobby needs to brush up on economics before they talk about productivity, trade, technology and almost anything to do with the operation of the modern state and the global economy.

The anti-people faction are very weak on biology but strong on sociobiology and all of its intrumentalist aspects. They conveniently ignore that global population will start to fall in 2050 and will settle at between 6-7 billion people. It's an inconvenient truth.

They ignore the fact that population growth in most western nations is slowing and in Europe, Russia and America, the combination of an ageing population and smaller age cohorts born in the 80s, 90s and 00s is creating major problems for organisations and economies.

Their remedy for everything is less people, like me and you. If your cat is stuck up a tree - it's over population. Got a flat tyre? Over population. Poor marks at school? Too many people!

This is single lens theory in action. Their prescription for everything? Less people. Less people like your family. Less people like your neighbours. It's a recipe born from hatred.

The anti-people lobby are eco-fascists and proud of it. They don't care a fat rats for mineral resources - they wouldn't know a smelter if they fell over it. They live in comfy houses in Adelaide with trendy postcodes. They are a club of mental club foots.

Their manifesto is based on a hatred of people and I suspect a hatred of women. They want to save us from the apocalypse (they like those) by getting rid of the people.

"They conveniently ignore that global population will start to fall in 2050 and will settle at between 6-7 billion people. It's an inconvenient truth."

References please Cheryl dear!

All the estimates coming from the UN are for a global population of 9-10 billion by 2050.

So what the hell are you basing your estimates on?

"They ignore the fact that population growth in most western nations is slowing and in Europe, Russia and America, the combination of an ageing population and smaller age cohorts born in the 80s, 90s and 00s is creating major problems for organisations and economies."

Well then Cheryl dear, why are folks from you camp arguing that Australia's population will grow to 30 million or so even if we have zero immigration from now on and that Australia has no choice but to plan for population growth?

Seems like you folks are so desperate to get your way that you roll out polar opposite arguments when you consider them convenient to furthering your own self interests.

Their remedy for everything is less people, like me and you. If your cat is stuck up a tree - it's over population. Got a flat tyre? Over population. Poor marks at school? Too many people!

"This is single lens theory in action. Their prescription for everything? Less people. Less people like your family. Less people like your neighbours. It's a recipe born from hatred."

Actually more densely packed people means more competition for limited resources and service, more tension and more hatred.

Less people means less competition, less tension and less hatred.

Limiting population is a people friendly, community friendly and civilisation friendly initiative.

Increased population also pushed up prices particularly for water, electricity, property and rent as we are discovering the hard way at present.

It pushes inflation and cost of living up for the vast majority of people, except of course you are one of the minority who own a large porfolio of investment properties!

"The anti-people lobby are eco-fascists and proud of it. They don't care a fat rats for mineral resources"
No I don't because it in no way benefits me tangibly and in fact just pushes up the cost of living for me. So no, I would give a fat rats if the mining sector imploded tomorrow!

"They live in comfy houses in Adelaide with trendy postcodes. They are a club of mental club foots."
I think you are confusing us with the minority of mining magnates who live in comfy houses in trendy postcodes as the dollars roll in from their mines.

"Their manifesto is based on a hatred of people and I suspect a hatred of women. They want to save us from the apocalypse (they like those) by getting rid of the people."
No one wants to get rid of people Cheryl dear, they just don't want morons like you encouraging population growth solely to increase the value of your investment property portfoli at our expense!

Ok, it seems some here need a lesson in demographics.

On an island the birth rate is 2.1 (replacemnet) and the population is 60,000 and everyone dies at 60. Now, for some reason the age of death increases to 100 and the birth rate stays the same. Guess what happens to the population? Really not understanding the basics of demography is a falw for most.

Cheryl is quite correct as many long range UN projections have the global population at 3 billion by 2100. The fertility rate has decline not only in Western countries but also sub Africa quite dramatically and the global population growth rate has been decreasing for some time. Do some study, wise up and understand the actual data.

“The anti-people faction are very weak on biology” (Cheryl).
By any reasonable assessment, “the anti-people faction” are those who foster a continuing escalation of numbers of humans as their deteriorating environmental resources (and therefore their social wellbeing) diminish under human pressure, and prospects for all of society become increasingly bleak.
Weak on biology - who?
There is no shortage of concern about excessive, and increasing, human population pressure among genuine biologists. Among their number, over many years, can be listed: winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology; the man who signed off the declaration on eradication of Smallpox; the “father” of the agricultural “green revolution”. There is a great heap more - fine, compassionate folk, all. Those “weak on biology” are the genuinely anti-people campaigners - such as Cheryl

Cheryl

Your belief in the ZPG apocalypse would suggest that you are the one with a single lens train of thought. Perhaps you should back up your claims of the ZPG apocalypse with real examples? My concern with the high rate of growth in Australia relates to the large government debt and infrastructure shortfalls which have developed concurrently. The reality seems to contradict the pop-growth zealot's single focus that population growth is a prerequisite for prosperity.

The problem with current economic modelling; is it it enslaves people, when in fact it ought to be the people's slave. We do need to start thinking about ZPG and a genuinely sustainable economy? In fact, we now have a minister for sustainable economy.
We have to stop thinking about Australia as this big wide brown empty land but rather; the rather narrow green coast hugging green belt, which supports most of us and around 70% of our current if fundamentally flawed economy.
I don't believe we need ever do anything about our fertility rate, which is inclined to fall with every economic contraction, and has only risen recently on the back of baby bonuses?
Gone forever are the days when a single breadwinner could support a household and or a large population boosting brood.
It is interesting to know where internal migration patterns are heading? Could it be that a few of us have decided we want to move some way inland ahead of the climate caused ice melt currently under-way, which is likely to see much of our coastal cities regularly inundated and or largely uninhabitable.
As for migration and refugees? We need to insist/mandate that they settle in small hamlets or towns, where the housing is relatively limited and where they will simply have to merge with the dominant culture rather than; create clan controlled tribal ghettos, which perpetuate a completely alien culture/cultural attitudes and lifestyle; or indeed, much of the crime wave currently besetting our major population centres? Rhrosty.

On the charge of indecently tampering with demography, perhaps dempografix should also stand in the dock and be judged. And if I were allowed to nominate the beak at the bench, it would be Professor Albert Bartlett; specious data would be thrown out of court.
According to UNFPA, Sub-Saharan Africa now accounts for 12 per cent of the world’s population, and has an annual rate of growth of 2.2 per cent.
We can only guess what lies ahead as population increases - disease, warfare, starvation, and migration will continue to intervene, but to what extent? What evidence is there to assume a lessening growth rate while the more-developed nations continue to minimize aid in the matter of lowering fertility (fundamentally education and emancipation of women in reproductive issues for the region). They are already incapable of educating and fostering their young towards this necessity.
At 2.2 per cent growth rate, their numbers will double in one generation. But wait, “they will have an aged problem” if fertility rates declined to 2.1. At this stage the judge can be expected to mention mathematics and the absurdity of continuing an exponential approach towards infinity; as the centre of world population slides slowly from one part of the planet to another. Inattention to fundamental mathematical detail in demographics, fostering a “she’ll be right mate” won’t enhance wellbeing of society.
This unique green orb won’t be unbalanced by a shift of population centre from northern hemisphere to the south; nor is the Australian continent going to suffer an orogenic disaster by shifting populations. But we will continue going down the gurgler if we continue with the demographic transition of the past two centuries. Demographic stability is a necessity - at numbers enabling social cohesion and the necessary environmental resources to be maintained

Mmmm... where did I say that an increasing population is a good thing?
Have a look at two of the three projections on the UN chart on this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
And below it the peak in global population growth was in the 1950's, It has been reducing every since.

Anotherf view on the decreasing growth of global population.
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg

I stand in the dock with some data.

In God we trust, all others must bring data.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, America is still enjoying a major population boom. After all, Japan's population is shrinking. So is Germany's. Europe as a whole is still growing, but not by much. And after 2020, it begins to shrivel up too.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/the-growing-shrinking-us-population/2012/04/20/

Thank you Colinsett for at least mentioning Africa.

Africa has a population problem or rather a lack of education problem. As population growth trends down across most of Europe and industrialised Asia, Africa's population will still grow.

Why don't the anti-people lobby talk about Africa?
Why do they want to cut foreign aid to Africa?
Why to they keep thinking that Sydney has the same problems as Nigeria?
Why do they want to sterilise people?
Why are they against the technological research to develop medicines?
Why are they against technology per se?

The end of the world is not nigh. The end of the world is not even close to nigh unless of course the anti-people lobby keep spreading their catastrophist agenda.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Long_range_report.pdf

Please read this UN document.

The UN does not specifically predict that the global population will reach stability any time soon.

It merely specifies 3 predictions based on different assumptions about average fertility in future decades.

The more likely scenario is that the global population will crash long before it hits 9 billion due to resource depletion, climate change and particularly oil depletion since our current global food production is heavily dependant on cheap oil.

But the UN conveniently leaves that tangible out because it is unpopular. No one wants to face bad news no matter how imminent.

"Why do they want to sterilise people?
Why are they against the technological research to develop medicines?
Why are they against technology per se?"

Oh dear Cheryl! The same old clap trap from imbecile boosters!

No one is advocating sterilisation. That is a blatant slurr on your part!

*Why don't the anti-people lobby talk about Africa?
Why do they want to cut foreign aid to Africa?
Why to they keep thinking that Sydney has the same problems as Nigeria?*

We talk about Africa all the time, Cheryl. The more foreign aid
that we send, the more babies they have, because we don't send them
family planning help, it might upset the Catholics. Sydney will
land up with the same problem eventually, because under the Refugee
Convention that we signed, when they are all fighting over there
because of tribal conflicts etc, they can all seek asylum here
and we'll let them in to keep the Kumbayah crowd happy.

I'll try a different tack.

So you both believe that the highest projection - that population will go spinning wildly out of control over the next 50 years? And that the cause of this will be African birth rates?

Yet so far, apart from Yabby's comment just then, there has been no mention of Africa in any anti-pop rhetoric. From the anti-people faction (although it's hard to tell which faction) the talk has been fundamentally about reducing Australia's population. I include the link from Frau Kanck about the Sustainable Population Lobby targets.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/democrats-reject-kanck-one-child-plan/story-e6freo8c-1225701581801

So all of the end of the world hocus pocus /sea levels rising/comets/scorpions popping out of the ground/Book of Revelations stuff, is about Africa?

Yet we're all doomed anyway because the resources on the earth is finite, right? All we can do is eek out our final miserable days until we run out of everything at the same time, everywhere all over the world, without a hope in technology, capitalist ingenuity, science, progress or any of the stuff.

Is that the line you guys are going to use to win over the voters?

You guys are wasted on us here. Honest. Africa needs you.

Cheryl, your new tack is as flawed as your old tack.

Fact is that population is a global issue. Its taken us 12 years or
so to add another billion. We can't just keep adding billions, as
we can't even feed the present 7 billion sustainably.Note the
fish population, compared to what it once was, an an example.

The massive global population explosion has happened on the back
of cheap and easy to mine resources, but those days are nearly over.
Rather then all this amazing technology, we're simply stealing
ever more resources from other species and wiping them out in the
process. I personally think that they have a right to a bit of this
planet too, not just ever more Cheryls

Why are we against technology?

Well Cheryl dear perhaps it is because growing numbers of people are beginning to instictively understand that technology has brought us to this crisis in the first place.

E.G. the Technology of the green revolution that failed to eliminate poverty but rather caused the global population to tripple from 2 billion to 6 billion in a mere few decades in fact making poverty more wide spread in the end.

E.G. There would be no global warming if oil was not discovered and if scientists had not devised ways to use it as an energy source.

E.G. There would be no multiple antibioitic resistant bacteria if scientists had not developed antibiotics.

More precisely it is not technology per se but rather the irresponsible expolitation of that technology at a society level.

And scientists share some of that responsibility for doing very little to ensure that their technology is used responsibly by society and particularly governments and companies.

What is needed is a global scientific body to which all scientists must be a member in order to gain employment in science and to have their work acknowledged.

That body would have the power to instruct scientists not to work on any technology if it is deemed that the governments and companies concerned are intending to use it irresponsibly. And the power to revoke the membership of scientists who choose not to comply with their governing bodies decisions.

It would have characteristics of current unions that can place green bans on given projects and the medical regulatory boards that require medical practitioners to comply with accepted scientific and moral standards and that can revoke the right to practice medicine of those standards are not adhered to.

We need to get rid of this idividualistic wild west attitude by indivual scientists, that has contributed to our current predicament, and forge the scientific community into one or more carefully regulated organisations, that all scientists must be a member of one, and with significant political power that rivals the business/economic lobby.

Two ants on an ant hill were witnessed by myself to mull "if these tall two legged giants are so miserable with their lot in life , why do they continue to breed?"
Answer = education.

Carnivore
Increased education of femailes and fertility drops.

It is not over-population that is the problem, it is over-consumption.

Many countries have declining populations, Russia, Japan and Europe as a whole soon.

As a nation ages, it becomes anti-immigration, anti-change and that is why we will have at least 20 years of conservatives running the show.

Really Mark did not even mention that our death rates have already started to increase. 4300 people over the age of 100.....

In God we trust, all others must bring data.

Decentralise or perish.
You don't move the mountain to mohammed.

"It is not over-population that is the problem, it is over-consumption."

What utter rubbish dempografix!

Over population AND over consumption are of EQUAL importance.

Except that at pesent, both are so out of control that consumption and population must be drastically reduced for the foreseeable future.

I will point out the obvious mathematical fact that:

collective consumption = average individual consumption X population

So it is entirely possible for the collective consumption of India to hugely exceed the collective consumption of the US despite the fact that average individual consumption of Indians is smaller than that of amercians.

Collective consumption is the only thing that matters in the end.

<After all, Japan's population is shrinking. So is Germany's. Europe as a whole is still growing, but not by much. And after 2020, it begins to shrivel up too.>

Shrinking? Shrivelling up? Isn't that just more of the pop-growth zealot mantra, where everything about a growing population is Nirvana, and all else is Apocalypse? Surely the best World possible is one able to realise the full potential of its human resource? And how can such potential be realised without infrastructure?

Frankly it is weird to see the pop-growth zealots claiming the moral high ground when their only condition for this seems to be their faith. If I were to bet on a prosperous future I'd take quality over quantity any day.

I agree Fester.

What the Cheryls of this world will have to sacrafice, or be forced to sacrifice, is any possibility that they will be the next Gina Rhinhart, Clive Palmer, Frank Lowy or Harry Triguboff etc

And we will also undoubtedly have to all sacrifice, at least for a generation, the notion of total retirement after age 65 or what ever.

After all the entitlement of total retirement is a recent western invention born of the cheap oil era.

Most people throughout history did not have the luxury of total retirment and had to work in some capacity, according to their ability, throughout most of their old age. Those currently living in the developing countries still do not have the luxury of total retirement.

OK. I've got it now.

You're for Kanck's one child policy in Australia but against any form of technology to help us escape the day of reckoning which must surely come because of the earth's finite resources.

You fly the flag of Marx but goose-step like eco-facists and green neo-ascetics.

You've taken the 'end of history' thing literally and now, using in almost incomprehensible fear campaign, you want to destroy capitalism in Australia even though you admit the real problem is in Africa.

Actually, that's not quite right. You want to destroy global capitalism while creating a society of scientists who are forbidden independent research and free speech. You're for contraception but not the technology to develop it.

You don't believe Australia can feed itself even though we EXPORT $46 billion of food every year and import $6 billion through reciprocal trade agreements.

You're against foreign aid because the food makes people breed more. Anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of 'thought crime'.

For the Sustainable People Lobby and their agents, humans are just like rabbits - without any form of determinism or agency.

You reflect the intellectual poverty of our times. You are part of the problem - not part of the solution. You enjoy the benefits of living in an affluent and democratic country but you are doing everything in your power to undermine it.

Go Cheryl... Keep telling the truth, although the ignorant are far more likely to just ignore it.

66% of our NOM are temporary VISA holders. International students, who are here longer then 12 months and who must return home, are counted in our official population growth numbers. Peaking emigration is ignored and demographic momentum is not understood at all it seems.

I can rest in the knowledge that my kids will most likely see a global peak in population and then its decline. They will start to look out the front window, instead of all this rear view mirror policy suggestions by the ignorant.

The real issues for our population are more about our lone occupancy rates. Now 22% and projected to rise to 32%. How sad. The increasing cost of living for our youth. What a terrible legacy to leave them with. The fact that our nation will become dull as it ages and personal feedoms diminished.

It seems those who do not really understand demography are the most scared. Weird...

demografix you may or may not have an understanding of demographic trends, but you clearly have little understanding of ecology and resource limits. Or at least you just choose to ignore them.

That is a whole different level of complexity that overlays demographic trends.

The course that human demographics might chart in a world of limitless oil energy WILL be very diferent to the demographics will chart in a world of constrained energy and food production etc.

It is population growth and increased competition for limited resources that reduces personal freedom demografix, not reduced population.

Reduced population means lkess competition and therefore more personal freedom.

For example 200 people per square kilometer means that collection of firewood from the bush must be tightly regulated lest all the trees be stripped from the land in a short space of time.

1 person per square kilometer means that that person can collect firewood to their heart's content with minimal impact on bushland.

You can peddle your booster nonsense about large population increasing personal choice and freedom, but the 70% of Australians (who are obviously capable of critical thinking) realise that, beyond a certain sweet spot, population growth reduces their freedom and increases their cost of living.

Boylesy
Did I say I was for population growth at all costs? I must have missed that statement.
Have you heard of Thorium?
I do have a very good unstanding of ecology. I started that jourtney after reading Sir Edumnd Hilarys Book, Ecology 2000, in 1984.
I do not accept that you know what 70% of Australian think. That is bs.

What I have stated are just the facts. It is not over-population that is the real issue, it is over-consumption. Those that talk about decreasing the fertility rate have no idea and those that talk about unlimited growth, also have no idea.

I certinaly did not say that an increasing population limits personal choice. What I said that as a nation ages, it becomes dull, conservative and personal freedoms are restricted. I certainly did not see any "Keep off the gass" signs in the sixties and why do you think we now have six foot privacy fences as the norm?

Demographics may not be completely destiny, but they do map our future in terms of how many people will be around in the future. That is the point you seem to miss.

"You want to destroy global capitalism"
I will make you feel a whole lot better Cheryl dear.

Yes I would like to see global capaitalism destroyed......at least in its current form that looks more like a plotocracy than democracy to me.

"while creating a society of scientists who are forbidden independent research and free speech. You're for contraception but not the technology to develop it."
Not forbidden to conduct independant pure scientific research Cheryl dear. Merely constrained in their development and implementation of applied technology much as medical practitioners are constrained in how they practice medicine.

What's the matter Cheryl?

Are you afraid of scientists gaining any form of real political power?

Are you afraid of scientists being on a position to put the brakes on big business and governments?

"You don't believe Australia can feed itself even though we EXPORT $46 billion of food every year and import $6 billion through reciprocal trade agreements."

I suggest you review the import/export figures Cheryl.

Australia is a net exporter of grains at present, but we are a net importer of fresh produce and processed foods.

Our status as a net exporter of grains will however be questionable if and when our population reaches 30 million or so.

"You're against foreign aid because the food makes people breed more."
I am against food aid being provided in the absence of comprehensive provision of contraception and family planning in order to compensate for the increase in infant survival rate.

"Anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of 'thought crime'."
Any one who disagrees with this is nothing more than a poorly science educated cretin!

"For the Sustainable People Lobby and their agents, humans are just like rabbits - without any form of determinism or agency."

Sadly Cheryl, collectively, we are just like rabbits and we will collectively suffer the same inevitable fate of an exploding rabbit population if people like you do not become adequately science educated and see the light!

Dempografix,

Please take a look at the latest atlas from the Global Footprint Network (GNP). They are an international thinktank that has actually done the math on resources and consumption on the basis of government and UN statistics, as well as other sources. They convert the results to environmental footprints that express the average consumption and production in terms of notional hectares of land, so that comparisons can be made.

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

If you look at consumption footprints in the tables starting on p. 28, you can see that the US is responsible for about 15% of consumption and the top billion people in the richest countries are collectively responsible for about 38%, so you are simply wrong that consumption is the main problem. Most consumption is in poor countries, just because of the sheer numbers.

The graph on p. 21 plots environmental footprint against rank on the UN Human Development Index. The only country providing high human development without using more than "its share" of global resources is Cuba. In general, giving everyone a modest Western European standard of living with some democratic freedom would currently require the resources of three Earths.

GNP also say that we are globally in about 40% environmental overshoot, essentially because we are using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. Think of the aquifers being pumped dry under the North India wheat belt. Considering overshoot, we could probably sustainably give 1-2 billion people decent living standards.

We actually have 7 billion people going on 10 billion (from the latest UN medium projection), with the projected increase largely due to demographic momentum, not just Africans having lots of babies. India's population could nearly double before it stabilises, even if the fertility rate drops to replacement level tomorrow and stays there. Their government estimates that 42% of the children are malnourished now and 59% stunted due to past malnutrition. See

http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-hungers-for-rupees-while-its-children-go-without-food-20120316-1vamm.html

Dempografix is worried about a relatively few countries that have declining populations. In some cases, this reduction is a wise move because they are currently grossly overpopulated. Japan is only 40% self-sufficient in food. There are land grabs going on all over the world because food deficient countries don't have faith in the global market to supply them. See this graph for the UN FAO Food Price Index

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/

It is like worrying that a morbidly obese person with type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure is going to die of anorexia if he or she loses a few kilos.

Nor are they being harmed economically or in terms of people's living standards. Germany (population growth -0.2%) and Japan (-0.077%) are in the top 10 on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index. This list also includes other low population growth countries: Switzerland (number 1, 0.20%), Sweden (0.17%), Finland (0.065%), and Denmark (0.24%). All of these countries also rank high on the UN Human Development Index, where Germany and Sweden are 9 and 10, Switzerland is 11, and Japan is 12. Norway (0.33%) is number 1.

Divergence
All good points. So the US is only 330 million and it consumes 15%. That means that if the world consumed like the US, then the global population should be approx 2.1 billion?
1 billion consume nealy 40%? Wow, as I said is is ovber-consumption that is the real issue. Thanks for the numbers and links as they do support my argument.

Yes the demographic momnentum will see 1/3 of the global population growth and yes, we may peak at 10 billion and the strat to decline.

I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to make. As I said, I do not ssupport popluation growth that is unsustainable, however from my sociological studies, I do think the global population will peak and then decline.

<So the US is only 330 million and it consumes 15%. That means that if the world consumed like the US, then the global population should be approx 2.1 billion?>

No, you have to look at the question from the perspective of infrastructure and technical development. US consumption reflects this, but to imply that US consumption impedes the development of other parts of the world is absurd. Primarily this is because it ignores technical development, and technology is crucial for providing large populations with a high standard of living. Yes, the world could support a very large population in Pol Pot's Nirvana, but what a miserable aspiration that would be!

<The fact that our nation will become dull as it ages and personal feedoms diminished.>

Yet more doom and gloom, but will the Pop-Growth Zealots cure-all work? The huge national infrastructure debt would suggest the great panacea is killing the patient, not making her better.

"You reflect the intellectual poverty of our times. You are part of the problem - not part of the solution."
And you reflect the ongoing scientific ignorance of our times.....with respect to the place of humans and our civilisation on this finite planet!

You are the problem sweet heart!

"You enjoy the benefits of living in an affluent and democratic country but you are doing everything in your power to undermine it."

On the contrary Cheryl I don't want to see and end to it for myself or my kids. Although I am perfectly happy for the whole capitalist system to be downsized considerably so that there is more likelihood of it continuing.

But if we do not succeed in puting people like you in an appropriate cage, all of us in this forum could quite possibly live long enough to see the beginning of end of our current enlightened civlisation.

Many enlightened civilisations before us have self destructed in similar ways - over population and over exploitation of limited resources.

Our children may not appreciate what our enlightened western civilisation is replaced by, e.g. a hard line islamic state under hard line sharia law originating from Indonesia.

My heart bleeds for you demografix......having to live in a more boring Australia with a higher proportion of older Australians.

But don't you worry about it mate......you'll survive!

For you Demografix....

QUOTE

NEARLY three-quarters of Australians do not want a bigger population, a recent survey shows.

The result appears to back up the decision by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to switch from Kevin Rudd's ''Big Australia'' argument to her own ''sustainable Australia'' rhetoric.

The Australian survey of social attitudes, which canvassed the views of 3200 people, found those in rural and regional areas were more strongly opposed to a larger population, with up to 86 per cent of those in country Queensland rejecting the notion.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html#ixzz1smMBUtCf

END QUOTE

The fact that there is only yourself and Cheryl on this 'growth is good' band wagon being pelted of several different forum contributors is undoubtedly a reflection of the above poll!

Boylesy
Once again you are proving my arguments. Yes, as a nation ages it becomes anti-immigration, while ignoring our peaking emigrations and falling natural growth.

I AM NOT FOR POPULATION GROWTH!

I am for dealing with the data and facts. As pointed out before, the demographic momentum is 1/3 of our growth in real numbers. We can not stop that.

Our fertility has been below replacement for over 35 years now and had it not been for our NOM, we would now be in population decline.

4.1 million boomers born here and now we have to support 5.2 million in retirement. We just kicked the can down the road.

I agree 100% with a sustainable population, but the main difference is that I know the global population will peak and then decline.

Boyzone and cave clan,

You guys are so 2010. My little fact alert stung didn't it re the pop growth in decline across most of Europe and Russia? It makes a mockery of your claims in one fell swoop.

Now you're throwing two year old Fairfax polls at me which say that untutored outback Queenslanders don't want more people. Hard to reckon with people who have one person per 10,000 acres saying they don't want more people.

You guys are instrumentalists. You don't give a fat rats for democracy. You have no idea how to implement any of your bizarre Dr Strangelove fantasies.

You'd do anything to cull the number of people down to the magic Kanck figure of one per family. Maybe get some outback Queensland roo shooters?

The reason why you're so cranky is that your precious issue has slipped off the news agenda. That's why Michael-in-Adelaide and Coulter decided to crank out some more crank.

On the contrary, Dempografix

What matters in resource and environment issues is total impact, not fair shares or per capita impact. You seem to have the attitude that we should take all the resources, including the capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes, and divide them equally among all the people. Anything else is unfair. If you want a bigger share for your family or your group, that is easy. Just have more babies. If it makes everyone poor, strips the environment bare, or puts people in danger of a collapse, that is just too bad. The aspiration to have a large family trumps everything else.

Why not divide by share of biocapacity, rather than people? Then people in the individual countries could make up their own minds about the balance between numbers and quality of life. If a country is living within its biocapacity, why should it owe a living to other countries, whose people, after all, were not forced to procreate at gunpoint? Even so, I am no apologist for wasteful consumption and recognise that it is certainly part of the problem. Even without the issue of responsibility to the world's poor, eliminating senseless waste is still a worthwhile goal, because it uses up resources and puts unnecessary pressure on the environment.

Hi to all the school kids who read these posts to pirate for school essays.

Now lets have a recap of what we have gone through here:

Population growth is falling in Europe but it's rising in Africa.
The anti-pops/Sustainable People Lobby want to cut funding to Africa because our food aid creates babies.

The anti-pops don't believe population growth will steady and then start falling over the next 50 years. They believe in case A - the worst case scenario. That means we're all doomed.

They are against capitalism and technology, which means we need to invent a car made out of mung beans. This will be your job kids.

But kids, we're all doomed anyway because sooner or later we're going to run out of oil, food, minerals, etc. And don't forget the Mayan Prophesy which still has seven months left to happen.

Remember children, the anti-people lobby are big on cutting the population in Australia. The population of Australia is currently about the same as New York City - 23 million.

The hydra-like head of the anti-pops in Australia is Sandra Kanck and John Coulter - they supported the GST which killed the Democrats.

The anti-pops are instrumentalists. That means they believe they can measure how much energy a baby will consume over its life time and accordingly, tell the mother how many kids she can have per square foot of energy/land. I can tell you she will be allowed to have between zero and one. That's Kanck's Law.

Who is going to enforce that kids and how? Also do you think that method is valid and scientific as it involves averaging the averages to come up with a number - say 5.

But kids, you can't take for granted that you will be allowed to have kids - not if this pack of wallies get their way. Why? Because humans are evil food eating rabbits. Kids, please don't start your essay off with that last sentence.

"You guys are so 2010"

That suggests to me you are under the age of 30.

A little young and naive perhaps?

So according to you and demografix the 2010 poll is totally irrelevant and in 2 years there is been seismic shift in the attitudes of that 70% of Australians towards 'big Australia'.

Yeah right! In your and demografix wildest dreams.

As for the rest of your posts Cheryl, you are getting rather hysterical aren't you love?

As for old farts and red neck rural QLDers Cheryl........in a democracy the majority rules.

And it is clear from your hysterical posts you KNOW you aint on the majority side!

Boylesy
What part of "I do not support population growth" do you not understand?

Demografix you are happy to allow the global population to follow its natural course and peak at what ever when ever, regardless of any undesirable consequences.

That effectively means you support population growth, no matter how you 'spin' your position on this forum.

From my perspective you are an enemy as equally dangerous as those who can see no limit to the human population.

Boylesy
Do you understand demographic momentum?
I would have liked for the population to not grow to perhaps 10 billion and then decline for many reasons, not the least being the ecological costs and also many of the reasons Divergence outlined.
What do you want to do? Kill people? You are nuts calling people enemies and simply show your ignorance.

<Do you understand demographic momentum?>

Even Nostradamus wasn't so coy. What you and Cheryl are warning about is a prediction of what things will be like in decades time. My understanding of such forecasts is that they become useful when you print them out then recycle them as bog roll. So why use a dodgy long range forecast to avert imagined future problems, when those desicisions are creating such real and present economic harm?

<Even so, I am no apologist for wasteful consumption and recognise that it is certainly part of the problem.>

My view differs here, Divergence. The reason India wastes so little reflects the extreme poverty there as compared to developed countries. You might note that in developed countries, the minimisation of waste is seen as a moral choice, and is a decision which is more costly and time consuming. So reducing waste in developed countries becomes a matter of increasing living standards and developing new technologies.

Cheryl

What I support is giving people autonomy over their fertility. How can that possibly be an act of interference?

"What do you want to do? Kill people? "
I will not bother dignifying your idiotic and childish statement with a response!

Demografix I regard you as a political enemy on this issue and I do not resile from stating that.

And I know exactly what demographic momentum and acknowledge there will be global population growth to some extent regardless of what we do about.

But the difference between you and I on this is that you appear to be happy to allow that growth to occur while doing little about it.

Presumably because you do not acknowledge it as a grave risk to our western civilsation.

I advocate that the west do everything in its power to slow that demographic momentum and reduce the peak of the global population as much as possible.

Primarily by mass provision of contraception and family planning service along side food aid etc.

There are many woman in the third world who would love to have the reproductive freedom that western woman enjoy.

However I would not oppose enforced one or two child policies, similar to China, in those countries that deem it to be their best option. For as long as it takes for that demographic momentum to be turned around.

"And I know exactly what demographic momentum and acknowledge there will be global population growth to some extent regardless of what we do about."

Q.E.D.

The anti-pops and their various fifth columns are enemies of the state. Come the next election these anti-family/anti-capitalists will face a far more concerted attack than a blog. I will enjoy their immolation.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/money-as-debt/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/money-as-debt-promises-unleashed/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/money-as-debt-3-evolution-beyond-money/

Demografix and cheryl, I strongly recommend you view this documentary series.

After watching them I would like you to comment on them in here.

It it explains in detail why our money/banking system has locked us into perpetual growth (economic and population) and why eventual catastrophic economic and population collapse is built into this system.

Similar to a game of musical charis where there are no losers while the music is playing. But it is undeniable that eventually the music will end.

<The anti-pops and their various fifth columns are enemies of the state. Come the next election these anti-family/anti-capitalists will face a far more concerted attack than a blog. I will enjoy their immolation.>

Does this mean I will see well reasoned arguments for the benefits of population growth and the calamity of population decline? I welcome such arguments C. The strength of argument is what matters: The character of the participants is of no relevance to me at least. Look at Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s. They pulled no punches in criticising communist regimes, but their best argument was the demonstrated economic superiority of capitalism.

Comparatively C, you issue forth ad hominem against population growth sceptics which is unmatched on the forum, but where are your examples of the economic superiority of rapidly growing populations over other growth scenarios? Without evidence your stance is unsupported.

Everything you see around you Fester was built by people = population. The health system that you want to destroy was built by people and a large number of people born over four generations.

Roads, farms, bridges, airports, the whole infrastructure of Australia was built by people or as you like to call them 'population'.

For you Fester, the best argument for population is that our society didn't abort you at birth due to the Stop Population Growth Now mob of loony tunes forcing their anti-birth agenda on Australian society.

Actually Fester, I just noticed that Westpac Bank is bank rolling the Stop Population Growth Now by Any Means mob. Do you find that interesting? I do.

Cat stuck up a tree? Population
Sore back? Population
High power bills? Population
Low power bills? Population

I relish the day when your mob go public.

Cheryl

I dont advocate population growth as either panacea or curse. I consider myself a population growth sceptic. What I do believe in is free choice. Extended to population, I would like to see the population determined by the decision of people to have or not have children as they see fit.

What is your position? I see the argument as an offshoot of the nature vs nurture debate, with growth advocates taking the nature stance, believing that civilisation advances due to the random occurrence of gifted people. Hence more people = more gifted people = faster development. Alternately, those taking the nurture stance advocate that you get a better civilisation if the potential of a population can be fully developed. I take the latter stance, and you might note that such a position is independent of advocating a particular population growth rate. However, I find it hard to believe that the mounting infrastructure debt from Australia's current high growth policy is improving living standards.

The World provides a myriad of societies with different rates of population growth, and surely they provide the best justification for a particular stance?

I advocate the status quo in Australia. Population growth here is about right.

There are major problems in Africa with population.

You are the enemy and will be treated as such in this debate.

See you at the barricades before the election.

I will be wearing the tricolour.

Cheryl you have lost the argument!

You just wont admit it!

http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/make-room-state-population-set-to-soar-20120424-1xi6l.html

http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/bendigo-population-growth-continues/2533386.aspx

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/03/population-growth-review/

I could go on and on posting comments on articles in various online publications.

The majority of reader comments are against population growth, particularly due to lack of infrastructure provision to cater for it.

And it is not restricted to online publications but talk back radio etc.

Dick Smith, Sir David Attenborough and Kelvin Thompson and other prominent Australians and non-Australians have done a wonderful job at dissolving the fear that the public previously felt about expresing views against immigration, re-colonisatiom (passed off as multiculturalism these days) and population growth in general.

Cheryl you would be one of a very small group at those baracades at the next election.

Cat stuck up a tree? Population
Sore back? Population
High power bills? Population

LOL! Oh you make me laugh Cheryl dear!

Not enough money to pay for extra infrastructure - population growth (more tax revenue)
Aging population - population growth (more tax revenue and aged care workers)
Rising unemployment - population growth (stimulate housing industry)
More technology needed - population growth (more Einsteins)
More environmental restoration needed - population growth (more tax revenue)
Urban sprawl - population growth (to make high density living economically viable)

<There are major problems in Africa with population.>

That means that you are not a pop-growth zealot, so I apologise for repeatedly describing you as such. So what makes a society prosperous? I would venture it to be the acquisition, dissemination and application of knowledge. Of course, for the application part you require a physical infrastructure. But even where infrastructure is lacking, the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge can still make a difference. Such is the case with Kerala.

<Population growth here is about right.>

Well, that is very encouraging, but it raises the question of how things might change with a higher or lower growth rate? There must be some things that you wish to avoid in either case. What might they be, C?

<You are the enemy and will be treated as such in this debate.>

Yes, I enjoy a pantomime as well.

"That means that you are not a pop-growth zealot, so I apologise for repeatedly describing you as such. So what makes a society prosperous?"

Fester our population was growing at about 2% per year in 2008 or so under the Howard Coalition government and is still growing at roughly 1.4% now according to the latest Bureau of Statistics figures.

That gives population doubling times of 25 and 50 years.

That is a third world level of population growth and Cheryl thinks it is 'about right'.

She is every bit a population growth zealot as far as Australia is concerned!

There can be and should be no compromise with the Cheryls within Australia on that basis.

Zero net population growth (NOT zero immigration Cheryl) is what Australia needs ASAP, both for the sake of our own country and our own childrens' futures and for the sake of setting the example on the global stage.

That will require radical reforms to both our banking and economic systems in order to prepare for it.

It may even require, for a time, withdrawal to some extent from the global economy, re-instatement of trade barriers and re-building of economic (particularly manufacturing) self sufficiency in Australia.

Self sufficiency is a major defence strategic and internal political stability issue.

Let's remember that peak and declining oil will be upon us in the coming decades and it will be increasingly difficult to sustain the global economy any way.

Australia may not always be able to source our reqired manufactured goods and defence assets from overseas at all or at a price we are able or willing to pay as a result.

So kids when it comes time to vote in the next election remember this about the Stop Population Growth Now Party and their agents of decay.

Population growth is falling in Europe but it's rising in Africa. The anti-pops want to cut funding to Africa because our food aid creates babies.

Their sole economic theory is to raise trade barriers which would throw Australia in to deep recession and throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

The anti-pops don't believe population growth will steady and then start falling over the next 50 years. They believe in case A - the worst case scenario. That means we're all doomed.

They are against capitalism and technology and for a Pol Pot future. Boyszone will be Brother Number One.

But kids, we're all doomed anyway because sooner or later we're going to run out of oil, food, minerals, etc. And don't forget the Mayan Prophesy which still has seven months left to happen.

The anti-people lobby are big on cutting the population in Australia. The population of Australia is currently about the same as New York City - 23 million. If the anti-pops get their way a quarter of the people will starve to death.

The hydra-like head of the anti-pops in Australia is Sandra Kanck and John Coulter - they supported the GST which killed the Democrats.

The anti-pops are instrumentalists. That means they believe they can measure how much energy a baby will consume over its life time and accordingly, tell the mother how many kids she can have per square foot of energy/land. I can tell you she will be allowed to have between zero and one. That's Kanck's Law.

Who is going to enforce that law and how? Also do you think that method is valid and scientific as it involves averaging the averages to come up with a number - say 5.

They are against civil society, democracy and capitalism. Their idiotic and grade three understanding of economics would destroy the economy within months.

Cheryl,

The global population will certainly stop growing. The issue is whether people will stop it themselves in a humane way or whether they will solve the problem in the time-honoured human way - by killing each other to make room for themselves and their own people, however defined. In assuming that everything will be hunky-dory, except possibly in Africa, which can be cordoned off, you are ignoring environmental overshoot (see my previous link to the GFN Atlas) and demographic momentum. If 42% of the children in India now are malnourished and 59% stunted, while the environment is being degraded, do you seriously believe that conditions will not get worse if the population nearly doubles due to demographic momentum?

So far as Australia is concerned, a society goes through stages of development. In the first stage, people start settling a previously uninhabited island or a continent where a sparse native population can be easily dispossessed or killed. (Malthusian trap societies such as 18th century England aren't big on the rights of outsiders.) Every new resident, of course, demands a share of the infrastructure that has already been built, puts pressure on the environment, and dilutes the per capita stock of natural resources. But at that stage, there are enormous natural resources per person, and the the people are far more at risk from the environment than the other way around, apart from the issue of introduced pests. Prosperity is limited by the labour supply, and it is good for everyone (apart from any hapless natives) to grow the population.

Eventually a point is reached where prosperity is limited by resources, not by labour, and further population growth does not make the average person any better off. We have reached this stage in Australia already (see the 2006 Productivity Commission Report and their 2010 annual report for the lack of per capita benefit). People become aware of negative impacts on the environment and quality of life that are not easily quantified economically.

(cont'd)

Divergence, what ever the anti-population movement is, it is certainly anti-immigration.
I am for immigration.

The report Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, Productivity Commission Report (2006) could not make a definitive finding on whether immigration benefited GDP (a measure the anti-pops hate without understanding it)

"Any analysis of the labour market adjustment arising from immigration needs to accommodate a relatively high degree of labour market segmentation (for example, labour differentiated by skill and occupation). This is especially the case for Australia, where migration policy targets immigrants in specified occupations and skills."

This is currently what is happening now with Government policy.

Instead of population growing, it is levelling off in many European nations as well as some developed Asian nations. Africa is a different matter but even then, the UN isn't using single lens theory, ie, the sum total of our critical faculties revolves around the notion of population. There are colonial factors, corruption, tribalism, etc.

The finite resources argument is specific to non-renewables. The earth is an open system with energy being driven by the sun but that's another issue. When we run our of zinc, iron ore and about a dozen other metals, there will be universal rooning but glee on the part of the anti-pops.

The finite world argument on metals is right. No doubt about it. It's strange that the anti-pops preclude technology from addressing some of the problems of energy use (alternatives), or development of synthetics, or restocking our fish stocks ...They blame technology like Pol Pot blamed education.

In Australia, the various anti-population movements will probably get a few votes as they will run a fear campaign. But they will be targeted as racist throwbacks. They are Pauline Hanson with a beard and a science degree.

(cont'd)

People become aware of source of the problems, as shown by Boylesy's link to the poll. Even those who haven't connected all the dots are still unhappy about the crowding, high housing and utility costs, and crumbling infrastructure and public services, unhappy enough to throw out governments.

The problem is that the people at the top still benefit from population growth, even though the ordinary person receives no benefit and may even be made worse off. This is because more people still mean a bigger total economy, and the distributional effects associated with the growth benefit owners of capital at the expense of everyone else. Land near jobs and infrastructure becomes extremely valuable, for example. So we are indeed "enemies of the state" for opposing population growth, if that state is run by and for the top 1%, but we are friends of the people.

In the final stage, the society is approaching collapse. The elite start to realise that further population growth is a threat to them and not just to the average punter. If that growth is coming from natural increase, you then start to see really nasty population control measures such as forced sterilisations. Far from promoting such things, we are trying to avoid the need to have to choose between such brutality and a collapse that will kill enormous numbers of people.

Hehe Cheryl. Restocking our fishstocks :)

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/massive_outbreak_of_jellyfish_could_spell_trouble_for_fisheries/2359/

You don't seem to understand how things interlink in that natural
world out there, you should get outdoors more.

The Japanese are learning the hard way. We'll go out and plunder
those fishstocks. Next the fish which used to eat the small jellyfish
are gone and whole villages had to stop fishing as all they were
catching was ever more Nomura jellyfish! Only a lot of pain will
ever wake up some of you, so learn the hard way.

In the final stage, the society is approaching collapse"

Well Divergence, why don't you and Yabby get together and re our depleted fish stocks, use market capitalism to not only renew them but make a few bucks at the same time. It'd stop your whinging and with a mate like Yabby, he's bound to know a few things about aquaculture.

Because both of you know bugger all about economics or Marxism.

As it happens Cheryl, I know a fair bit about aquaculture. As they
say, if you want to make a small fortune in aquaculture, start with
a large one. So all I'd need is a few dopey investors such as
yourself and I'll enrich myself, whilst helping you lose your shirt.

But now you want me to take grain from those starving African
and Indian babies, which we cannot feed now and feed it to the
fish. You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole here, Cheryl.

Have you ever thought of a bit of family planning for the third
world? You just need to convince the pope. Not even he will use
his billions tucked away in the Vatican Bank, to feed the starving
babies.

Cheryl,

As far as I know there is agreement that more people do mean a bigger GNP, at least in countries such as Australia. But why should you care if the pie is getting bigger, if your own slice has stayed the same size, or even shrunk, and no longer has a cherry on top.

This is from p. 154 of the 2006 Productivity Commission Report, where they modelled the effects of a big increase in skilled migration.

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grows more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages."

This is consistent with the findings of other reports around the world, such as the 1997 Academy of Sciences report in the US and the 2008 House of Lords report in the UK. Prof Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) writes in the (London) Telegraph 5/7/06:

"As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

When I discussed tough population control measures, I was thinking of places such as India and China, not Australia, because immigration and thus growth could just be cut off here if necessary. The Chinese certainly believed that they were averting collapse.

Zhao Baige, vice minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission - "The one-child policy was the only choice we had, given the conditions when we initiated the policy."

Geeez....the more I read Cheryl's posts the more convinced I am that she is a deciple of Craig Isherwood of CEC: http://www.cecaust.com.au/

Her conspiracy theories and and sluring of any one who opposes immigration or population growth sound just like the manifest of this pack of nut jobs!

Take this for example:

"Divergence, what ever the anti-population movement is, it is certainly anti-immigration.
I am for immigration."

Classic CEC/Craig Isherwood bull$hit!

No Cheryl you are wrong! Just because we are against population growth does not mean we are anti immigration!

A low level of immigration CAN be entirely consistent with zero NET population growth and entirely consistent with any of our social concerns about high immigration. All depends on the average fertility of the local population.

Boylesy,

Not that gender should make any difference, but...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5887&page=2

< Their idiotic and grade three understanding of economics would destroy the economy within months.>

As Divergence points out, scepticism of immigration as a driver of prosperity comes from a number of economic studies. Yet C thinks the current rate of population growth about right. But what problems is C avoiding with growth that is slightly higher or slightly lower?

Russia provides an interesting example. Since its population started to decline per capita gdp has increased about two and a half times. Does that sound like a nation imploding?

http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=russian+population+growth

Fester, I have missed you. Russia? Thought we were talking about Australia.

Russia's improved economic performance has everything to do with the finding oil and ramping up their dormant heavy industries post communist control and nothing to do with population decline. Good that you spotted that though. Check out declines in Italy, Spain, most of western Europe, Japan, Singapore etc.

God only knows what Boyszone is on about with CEC - you guys want local referenda, not me. Best of luck with that.

Economic decline in Ireland and USA in particular was caused by residential property speculation and population growth that is to drive demand in it.

If there was no population growth the speculators would not have been able to inflate the property bubble, it would not have burst and there would have been no GFC.

Economic decline in Italy and Britain etc was related to this due Wall Street off loading its doomed mortgages on those countries as secure investments.

Sure your not one of Craig Isherwood moles cheryl?

Okay C, you think a declining population has nothing to do with Russia's progress. So why should stabilising Australia's population cause such calamity? You accuse pop-growth skeptics of lens vision, yet what is your forecast of wide ranging calamity from reducing immigration in Australia if not lens vision?

Perhaps you could make your position clearer by stating what you fear from growth rates higher and lower than the "about right" level we have now?