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.