This article acts as a timely warning for Australia to not overpopulate, particularly as we head into a global era of (probably unprecedented) food, water and energy scarcity. There are serious demographic consequences. Exhibit A and B: Japan and China. If they had their time again I'm confident they would act sooner to ensure a stable population.

The article seems to be saying two contradictory things:

1) The average age of people living in many developed countries will go on increasing.

2) Many people from less-developed countries will move to developed countries.

While both of these may be true to some extent, clearly the average population age of Australia, say, could easily be brought down to whatever figure we regard as desirable simply by allowing preferential immigration by young people from countries where these are still in the majority. To mope and moan about the 'problem' of an ageing population without considering the simple means by which it could be avoided or reversed seems futile.

Let's not forget too that the ageing population is largely due to people enjoying better health for longer. There's no reason why a healthy 70-year-old today can't fulfil the roles that were carried out by a 55-year-old thirty years ago -- and of course many of them are doing just that.

Interesting article. However, if fertility rates continue to DECLINE why are the authors concerned about resources shortages? People may live longer but with an older population there will be an eventual plummeting of numbers due to increased mortality associated with advanced age. As Africa's prosperity increases their fertility rate will drop. The future of the planet is surely one of low population?

Atman, I think the issue is more before there is (possibly) less.

Coincidentally had this open in another window

http://www.fool.com.au/2012/08/investing/global-food-prices-jump-10/

"And just three days ago, leading water scientists predicted that there will not be enough water available on current croplands, to feed the expected 9 billion people on the planet in 2050, unless we change the current trends towards diets common in Western Nations."

Dr Ian Frazer was commenting in an ABC Radio National debate last year about the unsustainability of the health budget if it keeps rising and consuming larger portions of the GDP, much of this is due to the costs of looking after the elderly. Perhaps we should bring back smoking :) It actually costs less having people die earlier, rather than aging.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=smokers%20and%20the%20obese%20cheaper%20to%20care%20for&st=cse&gwh=D3EA757B12F86C83B4D97FE3866A29A1

Valley Guy:

...Yours is a flawed argument: The cost of healthcare is paid for by the productivity side of the economy. Obviously, healthy people do live longer, but at the same time they are more productive and more contributive than the long term chronically-ill.

Vally Guy - Fair point about there being more people before the population declines, however I wonder what the graph of population over time actually shows? I think it will be very temporary population spike followed by a sudden decline. Someone must have done the figures?

"Will we have to consider major immigration programs to main a viable and ‘healthy’ labour force?"

Despite what the pro-immigration crowd might say, immigration is not a fix for an ageing population. The reason is simple: immigrants age too.

A 1999 Australian parliamentary research paper, entitled "Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives", looked at the claim that immigration could offset an ageing population. It found that in order to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at present levels "enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200 000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost one billion."

The paper concluded:

"It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young. No reasonable population policy can keep our population young."

The UN has also examined this issue. Its report, entitled "Replacement Migration: Is It A Solution to Declining and Ageing Population?", often cited as proving the case for replacement migration, actually came to the completely opposite conclusion. The authors concluded that the scale of immigration needed to change the demographic profile of a whole country is so large as to be “out of reach”. For example, to combat the effect of aging population in South Korea (a very rapidly aging society) almost the entire population of the earth would have to move there by 2050!

Jon J wrote: "While both of these may be true to some extent, clearly the average population age of Australia, say, could easily be brought down to whatever figure we regard as desirable simply by allowing preferential immigration by young people from countries where these are still in the majority."

Firstly, what happens when these immigrants themselves get old? Should Australia just keep importing an ever-increasing number of immigrants ad infinitum? Given that every country has a finite carrying capacity, does this really sound feasible to you?

Secondly, rather than handing over our country to foreign peoples and cultures, why not encourage Australians to have more children?

@drab:

Let's get your numbers right first. South Korea has a population of 50 million and an average age of 38. Assuming an absolute worst-case scenario, where nobody has any children, the average age in 2050 will be 80. To reduce that to, say, 30, would require the immigration of about 300 million twenty-year olds -- well short of the seven billion population of the planet. I've seen this claim made before, and it was just as silly then. You really need to check things before you quote them.

However, I never claimed that massive immigration was not disruptive. It's extremely disruptive. But so is an ageing population. My point is that neither one is inevitable; either one can be avoided by adopting the other. If you regard them both as undesirable then you have to choose the lesser of two evils. I don't know which that is yet; and neither do you.

As for encouraging Australians to have more children; well, that's also disruptive and it puts an enormous moral responsibility upon parents. I personally would much rather welcome people from overseas who want to be here than coerce people to have and raise not-really-wanted children. That seems to me to be exploiting innocent victims in a cruel and barbaric way. Eugenics, anyone?

< It's extremely disruptive. But so is an ageing population.>

Really? Really truly?

Please, start by giving an example of an ageing catastrophe, and then give an example of a youthful Nirvana. Yes, and real examples only. Now compare the economic parameters of the two. See where this leads?

Inevitably, the youthful Nirvana might be an RSA shanty town; the ageing catastrophe a Japanese village. To be frank, it seems beyond moronic to think the former a model to be emulated so as to avert a transition to the latter.

Poverty stricken, ignorant, savage, violent, dirty, diseased, corrupt, overpopulated shithole, or peaceful, wealthy, provisioned, educated, quiet and picturesque township?

Boy, that's a tough choice.