Philip from NZ is so wrong that it is hard to know where to start. He takes a tiny slice of human history and assumes that it is typical, but numerous past societies in the historical and archaeological records collapsed due to overpopulation and overexploitation of the environment, or only maintained some sort of balance due to attrition from unending tribal warfare. As just one example, this is what Prof. David Montgomery (Soil Science, University of Washington) says about the collapse of the Sumerian city states in his "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations (p. 39):

"Preventing the buildup of salt in semiarid soils requires either irrigating in moderation or periodically leaving fields fallow. In Mesopotamia, centuries of high productivity from irrigated land led to increased population density that fueled demand for more intensive irrigation. Eventually, enough salt crystallized in the soil that further increases in agricultural productivity were not enough to feed the growing population."

Yes, we got lucky with the Green Revolution, which is why Ehrlich et al., being unable to predict its success, were wrong about famines in the 1970s, but it is just foolish optimism to imagine that we can go on pulling technological rabbits out of the hat and ignoring our growing global environmental problems, world without end. Even Norman Borlaugh, the "father of the Green Revolution" often said that he was only buying time to stop population growth (see his Nobel Prize acceptance speech). For Julian Simon's hopelessness with mathematics and the hopelessness of Cornucopian thinking generally, see this review of his book by economist Herman Daly

http://www.mnforsustain.org/daly_h_simon_ultimate_resource_review.htm

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

So far as infrastructure is concerned, it is the rate of population growth that matters, not the particular number of additional people, because it determines the percentage increase of infrastructure spending that is required. 2% population growth requires that it be doubled, assuming an average infrastructure lifetime of 50 years. Each new migrant immediately requires $200,000 to $400,000 worth of infrastucture, mostly from the public purse (according to Labor MP Kelvin Thomson) - roads, schools, power lines and power plants,dams, ports, sewers, hospitals, etc., etc., but it is likely to be decades before he has contributed enough to pay for his share. Infrastructure Australia has estimated that we already have a $770 billion infrastructure backlog.

I would like to see decentralisation too, and it would certainly defuse a lot of the anger, but the government has no doubt already looked at it and decided that it can't afford it. Borrowing the money to fix the infrastructure problems would require cutting down on population growth in the future to allow the loans to be repaid. Taxation at the necessary level would provoke a revolt. The government is already taking a bigger share of GDP than it did in the 1970s when tertiary education was free and the aged pension wasn't means tested. Ludwig was right about the main source of the problem. although there are no doubt also examples of poor planning.

The question is: are we seven countries, or one?
scribbler,
if federal Labor gets in again we won't be a country at all let alone seven. We'll just be contractors to China or any other mob which wave a fistful of Dollars at what they call a Government.

Scribbler, you wrote:

<< Of course, the downside is that smaller population = less income tax revenue. >>

We are never going to have a smaller population. What we might get, with the right sort of government strategy, is a considerably lower rate of growth which eventually reaches a stable population many years down the track.

So we are not going to get less tax revenue.

What we would get is less demand for the taxpayer dollars to be spent on services, infrastructure and everything else that a rapidly increasing population degrades, and hence a much better ability to make our taxes to really count for something in terms of real quality-of-life improvements.

<< But it's not the number of people that is the problem. It is how they are managed and moved. In essence, it is a logistical problem, not one of density. >>

I totally disagree. It is very much both. And the number of people and rate of growth sits right at the core of logistics and planning. If a government can’t plan properly to cater for this without it causing significant negative factors for the existing community, then they are being critically irresponsible if they keep up the same population growth rate.

They can’t plan properly for it. And they ARE being critically irresponsible….big time!!

I find it absolutely amazing that you are very critical of government planning and yet not at all critical of them for upholding ever-increasing population pressure on exactly the services and infrastructure that they can’t get into proper order! This really makes no sense at all.

Surely the most obvious thing to do is to stop heaping on the pressure! Stop or greatly slow the immigration rate so that the myriad of problems cause or exacerbated by population pressure can be fixed. Then maybe we can increase immigration somewhat again.

Ludwig,

My comment about smaller population = less tax revenue was in comparison to other, more populated countries. Not for an instance was I saying that Australia’s population would decrease. I think you read it out of context, or I did not make it clear.

You will not stop the pressure of increasing population, Ludwig, no matter how you might want to. Whether it is because of international agreements leading to increased immigration or our own population expanding with higher birthrates, etc, population will always increase (except, of course, in the event of a major epidemic or catastrophe). I agree the rate at which it increases can be influenced by government policy but, again, it is not as black and white as high numbers vs. low numbers.

My point is that the infrastructure we have and have put up with for so long is woefully inadequate and has been for some time. It is not the number of immigrants who make this worse. It is the fact that we are buying and installing already outdated systems from discarded overseas models, we are not thinking outside the square when it comes to urban planning and transport. How is it that cities like Tokyo, London, New York and any number of European cities all manage to provide not just adequate (well, maybe in Tokyo) but superior transport for their citizens, accommodating far larger numbers than you are touting? It is not just because they have underground systems – that is merely an excuse put forward by us. It is because they adequately planned for future generations - unlike our policy makers who plan for the next decade, knowing that after that it will no longer be their problem. It is also because many of the workable systems are owned and operated by governments rather than private enterprise.

This thread is about congestion. Congestion is caused by many factors. Over population is just one of them – it is not the main contributor. This is where our views differ, and I suggest we agree to do so.

<< This thread is about congestion. Congestion is caused by many factors. Over population is just one of them – it is not the main contributor >>

Scribbler, YES population is one of them, and it is a big one, if not the main factor.

You acknowledge that is a factor and yet you wish to do nothing about it. You are happy to address anything else at all that might help, but you won’t even consider lowering the population growth rate at all. Sorry, but this is just completely nonsensical!

Ok, so you reckon our planners could do a whole lot better. Well, I’m not so sure about that, given how comprehensively our cities are built around road transport and how much Australians love their cars.

Hey, no expense has been spared in recent decades to build new roads and to try and implement rail, bus and cycleway components, as well as to decentralise, encourage working from home, etc.

Given the amount of protest from the general community about city congestion and the political ramifications of this, I would say that our politicians and their associated urban planners have pretty well done their damnedest to deal with the issue. And they’ve failed!

continued