Pericles,

Here is a link to the ABS page where they give the latest statistics. Our population growth rate is 1.5%, not 1.0%, higher than many Third World countries and much higher than all top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index, apart from the city states. It has been even higher in previous years, 2.2% in 2008. 1.5% means a 46 year doubling time, not something that I would like to inflict on my children or grandchildren.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0

That's why the UN figures are averaged over ten years, Divergence.

>>Here is a link to the ABS page where they give the latest statistics. Our population growth rate is 1.5%, not 1.0%<<

They do this in order to smooth out any undue weighting being allocated to any individual year. The high growth in 2008, for example, "coincided" with a very buoyant Australian, pre-GFC, economy. An economy that survived that global trauma pretty well, I thought.

If you go back to September 2009, the figure was 22,065,691. The ABS site tells us that October 2012's figure is 22,803,965, giving an increase of 1.1%

Piddling numbers, I'm sure you will agree. And, of course, nobody is for one moment going to suggest that a) this is a fixed number or b) that it is destined to go on forever.

It still seems to me that the most powerful arguments for population control are that a) growth can't go on forever (well, duh), and b) that if it has to slow down sometime, then that time must be now-now-now.

All this pandering to doomsday absolutism is becoming very wearying. I don't seem to be making any headway against the fixed notion that there are only two possibilities here, infinite growth or total standstill. Neither of which has the remotest connection with real life as it is lived in the 21st Century whatsoever.

Black Death, anyone?

Why does slowing down growth have to amount to the Black Death or living in caves?

What's wrong with moderation?...and we are mindful, I presume, that an unrelenting push for progress leads to breakdown - yes - no?

Pericles can I ask what brought you to Australia? Was it opportunity? Affordability? Open spaces? Quality of life? Or was it just to live somewhere different?

Either way, whatever brought you, do you imagine you'll be able to retain your quality of life at 40/60/100 million? Bob Katter would like 60 million here by 2030. Does that work for you? Or would you prefer Labor's more modest 60 million by 2050 a slightly gentler pace? The Libs are saying they'll drop the rate to 1.4% so business as usual there as well.

It's almost laughable that we are having this debate as though we have a choice. The Lib/Labs are all backed by donors who push for ever more population growth, so even if you had a change of heart e.g. the developers started telling you that they need to take half of your block of land, you probably won't get a say anyway.

The sky won't fall if our population stabilises or declines. For many, the quality of life would actually improve.

Perhaps you have vested interests in population growth?? I can't fathom a mindset that says Australians shouldn't be worried about more people. Is it that you're lacking a working knowledge of Australia's geography? Here's a good start: http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

You certainly may, Matt Moran.

>>Pericles can I ask what brought you to Australia? Was it opportunity? Affordability? Open spaces? Quality of life? Or was it just to live somewhere different?<<

I took an opportunity to live somewhere affordable, that had a reasonable quality of life, and was different. You can keep the open spaces, I'm a city person.

Since I have been here, I have started three businesses that have employed a modest but finite number of people, I have taken nothing from the public purse, paid taxes left right and centre to keep a myriad public servants in coin - in perpetuity, seemingly - and in the process, learned never to accept mediocrity, especially in thinking.

Typical immigrant, in fact.

>>The sky won't fall if our population stabilises or declines. For many, the quality of life would actually improve.<<

My guess would be that population stabilization or decline might well improve the quality of life for the well-off, and those who have benefitted from baby-boom prosperity, but the the impact on the poor and the young would be slightly less predictable, don't you think? Try modelling the impact of population "stabilization", and work out its effect on jobs, particularly in the sectors that are contributing most to the economy. (I suspect that won't include botanists employed by the government, Ludwig).

>>Perhaps you have vested interests in population growth?<<

That's just pathetic. We all have a "vested interest" in maintaining our way of life, and the prosperity that has been created. None of which requires a "vested interest" in either population growth or population decline. Merely a sensible and consistent view on what we can afford to do, and what we cannot afford not to do.

>>I can't fathom a mindset that says Australians shouldn't be worried about more people.<<

And I can't fathom a mindset that says Australians must be worried about more people, right now.

there are many reasons why we should be concerned with population growth, 2 million at or below the poverty line, 2 million illiterate, 17.5% un/under employment, in places 40% youth unemployment, growing waiting lists for hospital care, more and more user pay roads etc endangered Koalas, Numbats, Black Cockatoos for just a few.

But I guess things are ok for the moment with you so you're good with immigration levels of over 500,000 per year and Swan boosting Net immigration to over 200,000 per year.

Perhaps ponder this one. Australia has now sold more than 85% of it's wealth in order to grow it's population at 3rd world rates, yet you seem to think there will always be more resources to extract to pay for another 20+ million.

But what might future generations sell to remain in the first world?

Growth through endless population growth does nothing to encourage investment in real productivity or real industry and even the CEO of Gow hasn't caused any major mobilisation in the Australian business community.

When do you suggest we might have a conversation on population? We're currently growing at over a million every 3 years. Would another 10 million suite you? Bear in mind that it takes some decades for the population to stop growing if you stop pushing it up with immigration and it may be that we end up with a lot more illiterate people and as such, lose any chance of stabilising population without outside assistance (assuming there's a country who can help). Perhaps you'd prefer to leave it until the quality of life here is no better than anywhere else in which case, problem "solved".

On our current trajectory, we will be 3rd world in less than 20 years. Population growth gets out of control very quickly - ours has more than tripled since WW2.