On the bright side, people will at least get a say in the coming election. Do Australians want the big Australia and ongoing population targets of liberal and labor ranging historically from 1.4 to 2.1% of which the a growing proportion (for many recent years over 50%) is coming from immigration.

I suppose the question people should be answering is do they want the big Australia of 35-60-100 million that we are heading rapidly towards? If you say you don't care, believe it's inevitable, then that is basically agreeing with these population targets. As Peter has pointed out, population growth is not inevitable, it's dependant on many factors and stabilising of population is very possible - and for the majority of Australians, very desirable.

I favour stabilising our population now, for those who don't or are ambivalent, just be sure a big population is what you want as it's not something you can turn the clock back on.

Cheryl clearly wasn't listening when her teacher told the class about exponential functions, or maybe she didn't study math at such a high level. Given our current population of 22.6 million and a population growth rate of 2%, a little work with a scientific calculator will show that it would take 189 years to reach a billion, close enough to 2200. Perhaps she could check this with a numerate friend.

Is a 2% growth rate realistic? It was 2.2% in 2008, but this was a high point. Currently, Australia has a 1.5% population growth rate, mostly due to immigration. This would bring us to a billion in 2265.

Before deciding that we are the nutters rather than the growthists such as Cheryl and Pericles, it might be informative to have a look at the ultimate thermodynamic limits to growth and the time frame involved from the Do the Math blog by A/Prof Tom Murphy (Physics, University of California, San Diego).

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Divergence,

I stand pretty firmly with you and Ludwig with regard to the need for some sort of population control-- and even population reduction.

However, I tend to think that projections of the type made by Tom Murphy in your link, are on a par with earlier predictions that due to the growing popularity of horse-drawn transport the streets of New York would be three metres deep in manure by the end of the 19th century.

They are little better than guesstimates and cannot foresee future developments.

And, although Murphy gave it a cursory glance --he failed to give due credit to future energy sources like this:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112423632/orbiting-solar-power-plants-technically-feasible-within-30-years-study/

Or, the growing efficiency of/in energy usage.

AND, he didn't factor in this biggy:
http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o645/TheRealSPQR/Graph.png
which is likely to suggest solutions that none of us mere 21st century mortals could conceive of.

Neatly put, SPQR.

>>...projections of the type made by Tom Murphy in your link, are on a par with earlier predictions that due to the growing popularity of horse-drawn transport the streets of New York would be three metres deep in manure by the end of the 19th century.<<

This kind of doomsday thinking undermines any sensible proposition that might be relevant to the situation. The entire case seems to rest on the supposition that we will be three metres deep in people by the year 2200, or whatever.

It also leads to other silly assumptions. Ludwig makes his share of these.

>>...the baby bonus and all the other financial assistance that parents get, and the extremely high rate of immigration, are ok by you<<

Typically, there are two issues conflated here.

No, I do not consider the baby bonus at all appropriate. And no, I don't think our immigration rate is out of balance with our economy or our ability to absorb new faces.

To me, the baby bonus is just another piece of muddle-headed thinking by governments keen to involve themselves in our lives in every possible way. There may be a case for financial support for the poor, and obviously having children when you are poor is a tougher decision than for public servants living by the beach in Northern Queensland. So as a social measure for the disadvantaged, it has some validity. But as part of middle-class welfare, it is plain dumb.

Interestingly, with our replacement rate the way it is, I cannot see it as being particularly effective in boosting numbers anyway.

Which leaves immigration.

A topic that, from the copious evidence on this forum, seems to have very little to do with any genuine arguments about population growth.

Very interesting Pericles.

So your great hatred of government intervention overrides your great love of population growth!

You are actually totally against the baby bonus. Wonderful. But not because of it’s absurdity in encouraging a higher fertility rate when it is the last thing we need, but rather because it is government intervention in our lives!

Well.... what about immigration?

Don’t you think the policy of very high immigration amounts to a very strong example of government intervention?

And yet you don’t seem to be against this at all.

Like so many things you write, it doesn’t add up!

We are lucky enough in this country to need NO government intervention at all in relation to our fertility rate. And this is just what I would wish to see. No baby bonus and no financial assistance at all in relation to couples wishing to have kids. They should be on their own, and not in any way drawing on the taxpayer.

But when it comes to regulating who comes to this country, there absolutely needs to be strong government intervention with strong policies that are properly regulated, which keep the number of permanent arrivals right down and keep tight control of all those who are visitors and non-permanent residents.

This is so basic and obvious. It is such a fundamental role of government. But it would seem that you would be strongly against it and much more closely aligned to an open-border policy and absolutely minimalist input from the state. Am I right?

Pericles,

perhaps it might help if you understand that our population is growing as quickly as it is because of population targets set by the Lib/Labs?

The target population growth rates have historically ranged from 1.4-2.1% - last year it was 1.5%. This is an exponential curve such that our current target of around 320,000 per year by 2030 would need to be around 500,000 per year.

Currently, around 7 million of the nigh on 23 million people that call Australia home were born overseas of which over 2 million have arrived in the last 10 years. It is a bit difficult to separate permanent residents to long-stay visas (some of which are valid for 8 years) so we'll just look at NOM for simplicity.

NOM last year was about 197,000, our births over deaths were around 145,000.

According to Bob Birrell of Monash University, we'd easily meet skills shortages with 30,000.

As such, the immigration policy is purely to ensure we meet population targets - what we don't breed here, we import.

But this policy is an economical and even more importantly, ecological disaster. But economically (since you mentioned this as a benefit) it makes no sense - have a read of this: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3889118.html

I suppose in layman's terms, GDP growth has roughly tracked population growth, yet since around 2006 GDP per capita has flat-lined yet the cost of living keeps increasing (because of population growth) - as such, people generally have less disposable income which is why our growth policies of endless population growth are choking the economy.

cheers
Matt