An excellent article Malcolm.Dr Rima Laidbow the wife of Major General Stubblebine said that the best way to reduce population is to give women an education and control over their fertility.

The West with its debt based system of money enslavement has spent $ trillions on weapons,created enormous poverty, kept people ignorant and procreating.

Now the billionaire elites want drastic reduction in population via food reduction,wars and disease.The "eco-terrorists" are at the forefront of this oppression.

Advocates of sustainable population for Australia want to “Reduce Australia's rate of population growth to zero as rapidly as possible. If the resulting stable population is still environmentally unsustainable then work to reduce the size of the population until we achieve environmental sustainability.” This sounds like common-sense, not "eco-facism". It's about being "sustainable" - a word that has become over-used and devoid of any real meaning. How can we address climate change, food security, environmental conservation, the oceans, pollution, our coasts, the liveability of our cities, and economic viability without a sustainable population in the real sense of the word? Humans are NOT rabbits, of course, but some people seem to think that when it comes to human numbers, the limits are infinite, and Nature will just be subdued and compliant and provide for human needs and infinite growth! Population growth is "good" for the economy, but it's only one dimension of our existence. However, it's become an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. We must survive the economic, environmental and ecological threats of global human overpopulation - due to our "success" on the planet.

Cheryl, the huge problem with your article is your amazing anti-people and eco-fascist rhetoric!

It destroys your argument right from the outset. You just can’t help yourself in profusely expressing how intensely and irrationally you hate anyone who espouses a stable population or an end to continuous rapid growth.

Your attempts at logical analysis are highly compromised by this absurdly illogical and emotive style of expression.

You wrote:

<<<< The SPNG’s aim is to “Reduce Australia's rate of population growthto zero as rapidly as possible. If the resulting stable population is still environmentally unsustainable then work to reduce the size of the population until we achieve environmental sustainability.”

This astonishing statement means they want to use individual consumption data to determine one’s sustainability on the earth. So if you have an open fire, drive a six-cylinder car and have a high power bill, you’re in line for a visit from the eco-fascist police. The SPNG are hit men for Mother Nature.

The appeal of the SPNG is emotional, visual and psychological. The SPNG ask us to envision humans as vermin ravaging mother earth, much as the Nazis depicted Jews as rats. >>>>

So… who’s making an astonishing statement here?

SPNG’s position sounds sensible to me. And even to most who may not agree, it would surely appear to be a fair viewpoint. It is certainly a whole lot more sensible than the current philosophy of both major parties; of continuous very high immigration, big lump-sum payments for babies and rapid population growth with no end in sight.

Again, tis you who makes the astonishing statements:

<< … you’re in line for a visit from the eco-fascist police… >>, << …envision humans as vermin ravaging mother earth… >> !!

I wonder, how is it all working for you?

This article is such a bizarre ad hominem rant that I won't waste time refuting its "arguments", and I'd suggest other readers don't waste theirs either It looks rather like the propaganda put out by the (so-called) "Citizens Electoral Council".

Most readers will soon twig that this article is full of fantasies, like the opinion poll that the author invents:

Q1. Are you in favour of population control if we sterilize immigrants from non-Anglo Saxon countries? You bet.

Q2. Should we select females under 30 by lottery who earn less that $35,000 a year for sterilisation? That would fix the single mothers defrauding welfare.

Clearly this person lives in an imaginary world.

Wow - this article started with lies and then it was all downhill from there. There is no such thing as the "Sustainable People Lobby". Sandra Kanck is the president of Sustainable Population Australia that has patrons Bob Carr, Paul Collins, Mary White, Ian Lowe and Tim Flannery.

Malcolm says that "SPGN wants to stop all immigration". This is a lie. SPGN wants to reduce NET immigration to zero. Since about 85,000 people emigrate from Australia each year this allows for the same number to immigrate in Australia.

Malcolm tries to pretend that Europe's population growth rate is somehow representative of Australia when, at 1.6-2%, ours is more similar to many developing world nations. SPGN has no influence over Europe, Africa or other nations - it is an Australian political party.

Malcolm is a Labor Party media advisor and the Labor Party is seriously concerned about SPGN's activities in South Australia. South Australia recently changed it political party registration laws to make it very difficult for new parties to register or for parties without a parliamentary representative to remain registered.

It is disappointing that OLO allows unsupported lies to be published when the slightest bit of fact-checking would reveal them. This should be an embarrassment for OLO and is definitely one of their lower moments.

We are dealing with an elite of billionaires,scientists and Govt Officials who believe that the only way forward for the survival of the planet is for them to have total control via this New World Order.

Just google Agenda 21 of the UN where they want a socialist state to Govern the planet whereby the individual counts for nothing, ie has no rights of property or democratic freedoms.Bob Brown in the past has said he believes in Global Governance.Gillard has dedicated 10% of the Carbon Taxes to the UN which will be the centre of the New World Order.This will be the eco-terrorist's Global Nevana of absolute oppression run by billionaires.

The great human cull is high on their agenda.The eco-fascists have yet to realise that they too might be victims because the extremists want a 90% reduction in the human population ASAP.Just google Maurice Strong ex-secetary of the UN.

Why do you think China,Russia India,Pakistan, Brazil etc are now forming alliances in trade, money,and Military under the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation and the BRICKS nations? They know that since they have the huge populations,they will bare the brunt of this oppression.They don't want Bush's or Obama's New World Order that destroys civilisation.

As a member of SPGN I would like to thank the author for drawing the attention of the OLO readership to our party. If readers go to our website http://stoppopulationgrowthnow.com/ they will see for themselves what we stand for. Clearly we are seen as a threat by the ALP for since we made clear that we are planning to ru n candidates in seats where they have run roughshod over the local communities by allowing development that favours no-one other than the developers they have changed the rules for party registration. Making it extremely difficult for us to gain registration. (Initially the reason was given on the groounds that people like Pauline Hanson made gained a financial benefit by running as a candidate - odd argument since there are no public funds given to parties here in SA.)

So if you agree that filling Australia to overflowing is a problem, if you would like to see SPGN on your ballot paper why not join us?

There are no flies on Baygon. He's like the Monty Python knight on the bridge who wants to fight even though he's had his hands and legs cut off.

I doubt the anti-pops will recover from this but I hope they do as it gives me an excuse not to do serious work.

I checked the claim that the SPNG would drive population down to 'sustainable levels'. It's on their website. Oh dear.

This is what happens in public debate when an organisation doesn't have all of its 'ducks lined up' and someone goes for the jugular.

Isn't it ironic that BAYGON is a chemical used to exterminate insects.Is it a seething hate of our own humanity that spurs us on to self destruction?

BAYGON makes excellent sense. We can rationally limit our numbers to the earth's capacity to sustain us or we can let the traditional remedies of pestilence, war, famine and death do the job. Either way population will not expand indefinitely, and our numbers will be limited.

No species of life can expand indefinitely. That applies to humans as well as any other species.

Implicit in this essay is the presumption that the human population can keep on increasing for forever and a day.

Such a proposition is obviously completely absurd on a finite planet.

In the weekend paper there was an item re the growing political tensions between India and Pakistan re the damming, and thus control of the major rivers in the Indian sub-continent.

But that poltical tension re access to and the control of water is not limited to India and Pakistan. It is now being felt and dramatized all over the planet. Such WILL be the case and even more so in the near future, including in Africa. And of course here in the land of Oz too.

I agree that public discussion of contentious issues is important, but this article doesn't come close to OLO's past standards. This alarmist and deliberately divisory Dumbbell politics does nothing but provide short term gain to people of a particular political persuasion.

As an environmental biologist, and former state and federal candidate to the (self-destructed) Australian Democrats - and now a proud card carrying member of SPA - who has never been and never will be a member of the Labor party, I would like to suggest the author is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

There are two words that none of us - not even the pro growth economists - can ignore: carrying capacity.

The author writes as though it will all go on loverly.
Nowhere in his article does he mention energy.
It is clear that he simply does not understand that the population will be limited by energy availability.
The world population climbed to its present level on the availability of cheap oil and coal.
Its population will decrease on the depletion of oil and coal and will
not give a damn about authors who do not understand the function of
energy in our civilisation.
We are already at zero growth and you may have noticed how in Europe
and the US they are all chewing their fingernails looking for growth.

Australia will have very little growth for a while, but sooner or
later we will find ourselves limited directly and indirectly by world
depletion of energy sources, and the more we export the sooner it will be.
Political population parties may well only be spectators in the fall of world population.

From about now. +- a few years, the depletion of old fields will
overwhelm new finds and new sources. This will signal a fall in world
food production and via women's malnutrition a fall in fertility.

Humans are not rabbits, Cheryl, but given the right circumstances,
they breed and live like rabbits. If you want overcrowding, go
and live in Bangaladesh or Rwanda. They bred like rabbits there
and we can see how they landed up.

Daffy Duck
You say “Implicit in this essay is the presumption that the human population can keep on increasing for forever and a day.” Wrong. Explicit in this essay is that population levels have stabilised or are stabilising on every continent except Africa.

No draconian measures are needed to slow or reverse population growth, because it’s already happening. And while there may be an overpopulation problem in parts of the world, there isn’t one here, nor is there likely to be at any realistic population growth rate over the next few decades.

Bazz
You say energy is the factor that will limit population growth. Makes a change from food and water. Are you aware how much energy Australia has – coal, conventional gas and unconventional gas, as well as uranium and renewable options?

Yabby
Australians are not breeding like rabbits; in fact, our current fertility rate is already below the replacement rate. So why should be introducing policies to discourage people from having babies

<So if you have an open fire, drive a six-cylinder car and have a high power bill, you’re in line for a visit from the eco-fascist police.>
That’s ok, if they hit those with the biggest footprint first, they won’t get to the rest of us for ages!

This article is an impressive rant indeed—and I’m glad the baddies are right-wingers for a change—though it's a bit short on evidence:
<Their ‘meta’ thinking – of rolling psychology, sociology, biology, climate analysis, Marxist economics and mathematics in to one discipline to explain everything - is an embarrassing nonsense> Who are “they”? References please? And can the author name one government that is acting or is planning to act on the anti-pop agenda?
It's all talk and nothing will come of it.

<Humans create schools, plant crops on terraces, make their own fertilizer and grow food to ensure survival. Humans have memory, technics and planning skills to maximize crop productivity>
So why shouldn’t they also husband their resources and live sustainably?
Since I gather you’re in favour of population growth, may I ask why? Isn’t 7 billion and counting life enough? Does increasing the number increase the quality of human life?
What the author and all these population-growth enthusiasts ought to make clear at the outset is that they’re economic fundamentalists. Economic growth is the answer to all our ills; indeed that humanity can only endure in a state of perpetual economic growth, that is by keeping capitalists prosperous.

*And while there may be an overpopulation problem in parts of the world, there isn’t one here*

Well no Rhian, but its a global problem. All it needs is for an
entrepreneur like me to charter a few old sheep ships and bring
asylum seekers here by the hundreds of thousands, direct from Africa
and the ME and there is not a thing that you could do about it.

Fact is that the global population keeps increasing by about a
quarter of a million per day and they will all go somewhere. As
things become more overcrowded elsewhere, we'll be taking our
ever increasing share, like it or not.

Rhian said;
because it’s already happening.

Surprise, surprise and so is cheap energy depleting.
What a coincidence !
There will probably be 1/2 a generation lag.

You also said;
Makes a change from food and water.

Exactly, food requires large lumps of energy, and the cost of
fertilisers made from oil and gas and the tilling, harvesting and
transport of food are all oil based, and in the subsidence farm
areas they cannot afford the fertilisers.

Water is another problem, but often requires pumping and that requires
lots of energy.

If and when we slow down to living off human labour, or some animal
energy, our food and our population will be as it was in the middle ages.
With any sort of luck we will get ourselves organised to have a large
amount of electrical energy to maintain a reasonable industrial
level that may provide us with enough energy to stabilise the world
population around two or three billion.

Don't worry Cheryl, it will happen faster than any political party
could get its programs off the ground even if they got elected.
It does not matter how dire any problem is the politicians have
already shown that they are unable to act on any major threat to
which it means telling the public bad news.

Malcolm, Yeh OK, it’s just that you are about 30 years too late. Whilst those of us who can read, research and assess the UN related pontifications, get slam dunked as heretics, you sit on he sidelines until it is “safe” to offer an opinion.

Statement from IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer before Cancun :
“… we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...”

The term "sustainable development" was popularized in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development. It refers to a systematic approach to achieving human development in a way that sustains planetary resources, based on the recognition that human consumption is occurring at a rate that is beyond Earth's capacity to support it. Population growth and the developmental pressures spawned by an unequal distribution of wealth are two major driving forces that are altering the planet in ways that threaten the long-term health of humans and other species on the planet.

As a result we see the Chinese demonized recently for their persecution of dissident Chen Guangcheng for opposing the forced sterilization of Chinese people. Yet we, the western democracies, participate in Agenda 21 dictates to support and pay for the precise opposite.

<< Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. The Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control. --Gethin Chamberlain, The Observer, 15 April 2012 >>

And the hypocrisy is where? In the bloody box as normal!

@Squeers first time I have been labelled a right winger - but you raise a key problem with engaging in any meaningful discussion about population growth:

the way neo nazis in Europe have tended to use it as a trojan horse for their exnophobic rants.

@Rhiann we do have a population problem here - we are effectively living in a desert enjoying a lifestyle with an ecological footprint that takes aprox 6 earths to sustain it.

It is true that natural replacement rate is below zpg but we have a government that continues to use migration as a means of boosting population.

SPGN is opposed to migration but not to migrants. Migration is a policy that is pursued by governments - if our government iisues an invitation for people to come here then we can hardly hold migrants responsible for accepting that invitation.

Likewise SPGN is opposed to our refugee policy - both parties are more than happy to bring in migrants but are opposed to so-called 'boat people' If we limit our migrant intake to refugees regardless of how they get here we will still slow down our population growth.

SPGN is about challenging the conventional paradigm that economic and population growth is necessarily a good thing. Judging by the comments to the extraordinary rant in the article the majoirty of respondents share our concern. In an ideal world there would be a biparisan agreement that we need to stop population growth and live within our means. Until that happens there will be a need for parties like SPA and SPGN to offer an alternative point of view.

Baygon,
I didn't label you anything. I was referring to the title of the piece and this kind of thing: <I am more concerned with the right wing ideology buried within their systems thinking. Their instrumentalism heralds the rise of a right wing green theocracy.>

Usually it's a "communist" menace. I can't get my head around a "right wing" green "theocracy"?

Long time reader, first time poster.

King's article is a first class demolition job on those who favour cutting the population. I worked with him in the early 90s.

He worked for Kernot, Keating and Bracks in the mid 90s. Too long ago now to stick him with the ALP tag. He just doesn't like you.

Be sure that this article will go viral in the next week or so. It's his style. It will hang around the necks of the 'pop cutters' right up until election day.

Remember the killer from No Country From Old Men? That's King. Apart from that, quite a nice chap.

Australia does not have an over population problem.We have the lowest density of any continent on the planet.

These eco-facists support Agenda 21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM

Objectives;
*End to national sovereignty.
*Abolition of private property.
*Restructuring of the family unit.
*Limit/restrict mobility and individual opportunity.
*Expand national parks and put more people in stacked housing.

Listings of what is not sustainable.
*Private property
*fossil fuels
*golf courses and ski lodges
*consumerism
*irrigation
*paved roads
*commercial agriculture
*herbicides and pesticides
*farmlands and pastures
*family unit

This is all about a fascist one world Govt to give absolute power to the few over the many.Their agenda is massive depopulation under a single totalitarian Govt.

Ever heard of peak oil?
It is a forgone conclusion that the world population will tumble as peak oil increases but it will be very painful for those that are not in a position to have a “soft” landing, such as those we see on TV, starving in Africa.
The people who are in denial about the fact that humans are not all powerful and able to break natural laws are also the ones that are condemning the unfortunates who will starve to death, to a painful end, instead of working towards a “soft” solution.

<< King's article is a first class demolition job on those who favour cutting the population >>

Haaahahaha! Gentle Giant, it is very much the other way around, surely.

It's a first-class demolition job on the pro-growth lobby!

I get the very strong impression that King is actually on the side of the population stabilisation lobby and is putting up absurd articles and comments on OLO pretending to be on the other side in order to embarrass the pro-growth lobby and make them seem completely loopy!

He is actually helping the cause of SPGN and SPA quite a lot by doing this.

Just one thing doesn’t add up though: he puts up articles on other subjects on OLO and apparently wants to be taken seriously there!

Maybe Ludwig is right, and this whole article is a classic mis-direct?

I can't see how the article could really be taken seriously, it is just so full of misinformation, like the graph on page 2 of the article, which is actually a projection of population to 2095 - and did others notice the slight upward blip at 2010-2015? Curious, that's about now!

And, what might be the undisclosed causation for the projected population decline? Couldn't possibly be that it finally hit the fan, or sunk in? War, global famine, oil and fertilizer depletion (no, can't be that with all the human excrement 'mobilized'), or an extended global epidemic (with the development of general resistance to all vaccines, antibiotics and antivirals)? Or, massive pollution from mass industrial expansion - or even Global Warming and Climate Change? (Surely not radiation poisoning?) Shades of 'Soylent Green'?

No, of course not, as the article indicates - the projected population reduction is simply because of better education and family planning. Right? (And everyone living in clover all the wee while.)

Rhian, we in Aus may not yet be overpopulated, but at 7 billion the world is looking more than a little stressed, and, as with the Carbon Tax, if we don't lead the way to a better world how can we expect anyone else to follow? Or, as Cheryl seems to suggest, should we just go ahead and populate to our supposed 60 million capacity - based on our current (not no-holds-barred or projected) food production capability - and just let the rest of the world struggle along as best it can?

The three 'R's, do the Right thing, have Respect for all life, and take Responsibility for all you do. Who mentioned Carrying Capacity?
Can we yet teach the rabbits a thing or two? (Or, they teach us?)

>>We have the lowest density of any continent on the planet.<<

No we don't. Antarctica is about twice the size of Australia and only contains a fraction of the population especially during winter. Problem solved: ship all the excess people in the world down south and the overpopulation problem will disappear as if by magic.

Some naysayers might argue that Antarctica is largely uninhabitable because it is mostly desert. And they'd be right. But that applies to Australia too and uninhabitability doesn't stop pro-growers from wanting to cram thrice as many people as we already have into our narrow coastal fringes.

We'll just all have to budge up a bit. And learn to drink less water. And eat less food. And not have much in the way of space or natural environment. Small price to pay for an increase in GDP when you think about it. Because the warm fuzzy you get from seeing a large GDP trumps all other concerns like personal happiness and wellbeing. Or maybe not. Maybe some people get their warm fuzzies from things other than economic indicators.

>>These eco-facists support Agenda 21.<<

Too right Arjay. And not just that: an eco-fascist was the second gunman on the grassy knoll. And an eco-fascist wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was the eco-fascists who faked the moon landing. And the WTC attack - Saudi Arabian Moslems copped the blame but it was the eco-fascists who packed the twin towers with explosives then faked the hijacking of four planes then flew two military jets packed with high explosives into the WTC before blowing up the Pentagon with a Cruise missile. To this day eco-fascists are still poisoning our water supply with fluoride which they claim strengthens our teeth. They're wily buggers those eco-fascists.

Cheers,

Tony

Salpetre

The author did not make those population numbers up – they are from the United Nations, the most authoritative source of population projections globally. And they are consistent with most demographers’ expectations of global population change. The cause is the decline in birth rates already evident around the world. These lower birth rates take time to filter though to population stabilisation, as a significant proportion of the population is of child-bearing age. But they will.

We don’t need overbearing governments or natural catastrophes to slow population growth. It’s happening anyway, through billions of individual choices.

Not does the author “seem” to suggest we’re heading for 60 million – he points out that Australia’s population growth is slowing anyway, just like global population growth.

That’s what is so offensive to those who think the way to save the world is to dictate how other people behave in the bedroom.

If is a false dichotomy to say we must either support population control or “big Australia”, however defined. I don’t support population control or manipulation because I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t care whether Australia’s population in 2099 is 25, 30, 40, 50 or 60 million, because these and all other likely numbers can easily be accommodated

*That’s what is so offensive to those who think the way to save the world is to dictate how other people behave in the bedroom*

The only ones wanting to dictate how other people behave in the
bedroom, are the Catholic Church. The rest of us support family
planning. The Catholics want to force ever more kids on anyone
who does not cross their legs for Jesus.

Rhian,

>>I don’t care whether Australia’s population in 2099 is 25, 30, 40, 50 or 60 million, because these and all other likely numbers can easily be accommodated<<

I can't believe you're serious - "can easily be accommodated"?? In whose judgement, and in what conditions? (You may not care, but I and I'm reasonably sure a great many other Aussies certainly do!)

I'm not espousing 'breeding control' in Aus (my quip re 'leading the way', as per our insane Carbon Tax, was very much tongue-in-cheek); but, I have a very real concern about total world population - as it is now, and without any further increase - there is already enough strife and conflict now, as people in so many parts (outside Oz) fight for control and exploitation of resources (including using slavery, child slavery, torture, rape and child soldiers). Somehow, dog-eat-dog has to stop! (Or, be stopped.) And, while so many starve or rely totally on foreign aid. A very vicious cycle is in play, and it will not easily be corrected - and increased population is the last thing anyone needs.

Now that Iraq has been 'liberated', is all hunky-dory? (ie, all luvvy-duvvy?) Or in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya? Or in Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Ireland, UK, US, Myanmar, Argentina, Sri Lanka, West Papua, Congo, Sudan, Tibet, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Yemen, or Sth Africa .....? And, Syria and Afghanistan?? (And even Pakistan?) Oz stands out, does it not, in our freedom, security, relative affluence and lack of civil strife?

And, is life just great for all the people in China and India?

What then? More boats? More immigration? Bring all the problems to Aus? Realistically, that would solve nothing, except to make Aus a total basket case.

Arjay argues against a 'world order', but surely some form of sanity must prevail, and we, and all free and responsible nations, need to try to be part of a solution - a world solution - and that means introducing our sort of freedoms to all the world's trouble spots.

Rhian, you wrote:

<< We don’t need overbearing governments or natural catastrophes to slow population growth. It’s happening anyway, through billions of individual choices. >>

It’s not happening in Australia, due to one factor; extremely high immigration, imposed upon us by successive overbearing governments of both persuasions.

<< …he points out that Australia’s population growth is slowing anyway, just like global population growth. >>

But it’s not, due to immigration, and also to the baby bonus.

<< That’s what is so offensive to those who think the way to save the world is to dictate how other people behave in the bedroom. >>

But no one is suggesting that there be government control over what happens in the bedroom in Australia. That is; restrictions on the number of children we can have.

Without the stupid baby bonus, our fertility rate would be just fine. No impositions or even any financial disincentives to have kids would be needed. Again, immigration is the overwhelming factor.

<< I don’t support population control or manipulation because I don’t think it’s necessary >>

So this means that you don’t support the baby bonus then?

It also means that you don’t support the current very high immigration rate, which is a direct manipulation of our population growth rate and overall population size?

<< I don’t care whether Australia’s population in 2099 is 25, 30, 40, 50 or 60 million, because these and all other likely numbers can easily be accommodated >>

Wow, that is quite extraordinary!

So you don’t think it should be the responsibility of government to plan for a national population size that is in line with optimum quality of life, environment and the ability of our resource base to provide all that is needed in an ongoing sustainable manner?

Michael Lardelli assembled the statistics on Australia's food production in an article for Energy Bulletin (an abridged version also appeared on OLO)

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52706

The most important point is that we export about 60% of the grain we grow in an average year and 40% in a drought year. These maps from Dr. Chris Watson of the CSIRO show the distribution of rainfall and good soil in Australia

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

Apart from a few alluvial areas and areas over old volcanic hotspots, the average quality of our soil is low compared to Europe or North America, as it hasn't been renewed by mountain building or glaciation. Water is also very deficient, and global warming is a wild card in its future availability. Clapped out old soils can be made "unnaturally" productive by adding enough fertiliser, but fertiliser and other farm inputs are getting scarcer and more expensive.

The real issue is not how many people we could feed in a good year or even an average year, but how many we could get through a long, worst case drought. Nor can we rely on the world market. See the UN FAO food price index and analysis by Donald Mitchell of the World Bank

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

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf

Mitchell blames high oil prices as the main factor, directly, by making farm inputs more expensive, but primarily by encouraging biofuels. Oil prices have just been predicted to double over the next 10 years by the IMF. The phosphate rock situation is also critical, and Australian soils are particularly low in phosphate. See the following links for prices and analysis of the situation.

http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/phosphate-rock/all/

http://www2.gtz.de/Dokumente/oe44/ecosan/en-impact-of-supply-and-demand-on-the-price-development-of-phosphate-2009.pdf

Those high food prices have been responsible for land grabs around the world, as food importing countries start to panic, and also for the buying up of agricultural land in Australia by various foreign interests.

Saltpetre

Do you think there was no famine, war or conflict when the global population was a few billion less.

How much difference will it make if Australia’s population reaches 40 not by 30 million by 2099?

Like you I hope, our sort of freedom can be brought to the world’s trouble spots. I just don’t think we’ll achieve it by global coercion, or by changing Australia’s birth rates.

Ludwig
Migration doesn’t raise global population, it just rearranges it. And changing tax and benefits to discourage children IS government meddling in people’s choices about their families. I agree with you about the baby bonus, though, for the same reason.

There is a world of difference between governments adjusting migration and controlling fertility.

No, I don’t think government should plan for a particular population size. No-one knows what population would deliver the “optimum quality of life, environment and the ability of our resource base”. And citizens should be free to make their own choices about fertility without government inducements or penalties. The only part of the demographic equation government should manage is the immigration flow. And what its does with migration is what you advocate – trying to balance economic, social and environmental costs and benefits.

Divergence
Australia could easily import food in the extremely unlikely event that we produced less than we eat. Globally, many countries rely on imports to top up domestic food production. The idea we cannot have a population higher than could be supported “through a long, worst case drought” is silly.

Your grain production stats are also misleading. In a drought year grain exports might be less than domestic consumption (we still export 40% of production), but most domestic grain consumption is animal fodder, and much of our animal products are destined for exports. Presumably in the eco-apocalypse you anticipate we wouldn’t be feeding grain to cattle and then shipping them to Asia.

It’s true that China is looking to improve its food security by buying agricultural land. But I can’t think of any war or “land grab” that can be attributed to food shortages.

Rhian,

I wonder whether you even looked at my links or bothered to think ahead.

People may not be rabbits, but they have shown a remarkable ability to collapse their own societies, often because they overexploited their environment or let safety margins get too thin. A good source on this is "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" by Prof. David Montgomery (Soil Science, University of Washington).

Do you seriously think that a doubling in the (already very high) price of oil or skyrocketing prices for phosphate rock and potash (supplying elements essential for every living cell) will make no difference to our agricultural production? Are you prepared to bet your children's future that the scientists are wrong about the possible disruptive effects of all the greenhouse gases we are dumping in the atmosphere? You say that "we could easily import food", but you do realise that we would be competing with the world's poor so that we can keep more people at an Australian standard of living?

From Lardelli's article, we do export about 70% of our red meat, but this is mostly from grass-fed sheep and cattle. Only about 30% of cattle are grain finished (for a relatively short time). Grain is fed to pigs (50% consumed domestically) and to chickens (95% consumed domestically). Our food exports are important for necessary imports, such as the oil and phosphate rock that we need for our agriculture. We could, of course, support a larger population if we forced the lower orders onto a limited vegetarian diet, but why should they put up with it without revolting?

Land grabs are a very real phenomenon, motivated by high and volatile prices of food and concerns about food security. (Otherwise, why not just buy what you want on the world market and let others take the risks?) They have led to riots and revolts. There is good evidence that the civil war in Rwanda was over food security, as arable land holdings declined towards the minimum necessary to survive. See Prof. E. O. Wilson's article in the latest Discover magazine.

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

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3955006.html

Why do the Pop-growthers keep harping on about food production as "The" measure of capacity for Australia? Food production is just one input into Australia's balance of trade, and offsets the value of goods and services imported. With more people, surely more of the food production is consumed locally, thus reducing its contribution to the trade balance? Perhaps the growthers envisage a future for Australia where everyone grows their own food on little plots of land Pol Pot style? But this view would contradict Cheryl's weird view of population growth as an essential component of Capitalism.

I am treating this article, and most of the resultant comments, as a joke. (Funny, if it wasn't so serious.)

Please do whatever you like in your own bedrooms and cesspits, as long as it is between consenting adults (physical and mental age 18+ preferably), and leave the principles which are the foundation of genuine marriage alone. This is Australia, not Sodom and Gomorrah. Thankfully.

Prefer some other 'libertarian' culture? Please, feel free, don't let any decent folk hold you back. Well, what's stopping you?

>>Secretary of the "Family Council of Victoria"<<??

This must be one very strange organisation (or just very badly misnamed) - perhaps like the 'Forest Protection Society' (or some similar title), which is actually the lobby group (or spokesperson) for the loggers of heritage listed old-growth forests.

Please excuse my above comment - it was meant for another thread, on 'Greens' Discrimination'.

My apologies.

Divergence
There is not the remotest possibility that Australians will be forced to become vegetarian because we can neither produce nor import meat. And buying land isn’t “grabbing” it.

Food exports certainly help the balance of payments, but food is a small and diminishing share of Australia’s total exports, swamped by resources. Food, wool and cotton combined accounted for just 8.6% of Australia’s exports in 2011, down from more than a quarter in the late 1980s

Fester
Food and food self-sufficiency is an obsession of the anti-population lobby. So is the pol pot agrarianism you speak of.

Rhian

All I do is question the sense of government pursuing high population growth policies. That is not an anti-people stance as far as I can tell. But which is the more humanitarian stance:To have as many people as possible and have no prospect of providing all the resources to develop, or to provide people with free access to family planning and consequently have fewer people, but with more resources to develop?

The idea that high rates of population growth leads to accelerated development, while once popular, is no longer so as it tends to be contradicted by reality.

Fester
I agree that access to free family planning can help to alleviate poverty in poor countries, as can improving education (especially of women) and, if affordable, better health services.

Australia is a rich country with plenty of land and resources and a very low population density, and can easily accommodate more people if it chooses. Arguments that may hold true for developing countries are not relevant here.

Here in Australia there is a strong positive relationship between per capita economic growth and population growth. States like WA which have comparatively strong economies have the fastest population growth, and vice versa. One can argue the direction of causation, but “the reality” as we experience is the opposite of your hypothesis.

Rhian,

Australia does indeed have a low population density - because it is mostly desert. Agricultural exports may be small now in relation to minerals, but the minerals are a nonrenewable resource.

<Here in Australia there is a strong positive relationship between per capita economic growth and population growth.>

The Productivity Commission disagrees with you. From their 2006 report, p. 154:

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrue 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. The economic impact of skilled migration is small when compared with other drivers of productivity and income per capita."

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

From their 2010-2011 annual report:

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite
mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
• immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
• immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing."

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."

So for no economic benefit, population growth gives the average person a deteriorating environment, deteriorating infrastructure, and more competition for jobs, housing, public services, and amenities.

It was interesting to see the author mention Maths... perhaps he might like to view this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e_VpyoAXpA8

Migrants at the very least do contribute demand for goods and services. Aside from introducing new skills and perspectives to our fair shores they also (at least those from South East Asian backgrounds) tend to be hard working and studious.

Rhian

< One can argue the direction of causation>

Exactly, which is why you wouldn't expect Tasmania to boom as a result of massively increasing immigration. All that would result would be huge infrastructure costs to cope with the extra people.

In WA, immigration might be a quick fix for resource projects, but permanent migrants will incur an infrastructure cost. How would this compare with the cost of training Australians?

Surely the best mining tax is to force the mining companies to source their labour locally?

Did others hear Ockham's Razor this morning: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/
It's a talk about a new film called "Growthbusters".
It answers my question above: "Does increasing the number increase the quality of human life?"

My position has long been that of course shrinking populations are desirable, but untenable in our capitalist paradigm.

Oh Malcolm!

You are a stereotypical booster resorting to the favourite strawman arguments that those who oppose endless growth are nazis, opposed to immigration, racists and dicatators blah blah blah.

All utter bl00dy rubbish!

Of course you have no vested interests in the status quo do you Malcolm, e.g. substantial share and investment property portfolios and close to retirement.

Like bl00dy hell your don't!

population.org.au/petition

“We the undersigned are concerned at the rate of population growth in Australia. In this, we join the 72% of the Australians surveyed in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, who agreed that Australia does not need more people. We request that the Federal Government take all necessary steps to stabilise the population at close to the current level.”