This is a problem attached exclusively to poverty! As national populations become better educated and affluent, this corrects itself automatically.

Making do with less is a recipe for more of the above and extremely ill-conceived by brainless morons, i.e., green fundamentalists.

The single solution other than genocide, is economic development. And as that occurs the better off nations prosper even more so as well.

It's a win, win all round with no down sides. But impossible as long as extreme capitalism sees these groups as populations to be exploited by them for, ill conceived, financial gain.

If it were not for illegal migrants crossing America's southern border the crops would not get harvested.

And the clock is ticking for the conservative republicans who continue to support this practice, all while screaming about border security.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too! These folks are part of the problem and never any part of any solution, as are tinpot dictators and green fundamentalists!
Alan B.

To make matters even worse, it’s the stupid who are the majority !

Don't tell us, tell Albanese, who's engineering 900,000 immigration, in 24 months, putting Australian population growth north of 2%.

In his woke thinking, you can have United Nations open borders, and United Nations "net zero" will fix it.

So far, no has challenged him. Political parties, state premiers, the public service, bishops and billionaires, industry, ACTU and Universities Australia, media and “think” tanks, myriad lobbyists. They're all on board.

The current Australian government appears to believe the delusion of 'green growth'. They promised to reduce power bills instead they went up year on year. Somehow Australia's rivers are supposed resemble a century ago with minimal irrigation yet we get half a million more mouths to feed every year. You'd have to think Australia's problems would be easier to solve with say 15m population rather than 26.5m. Japan is coping with an ageing population we could learn from them.

High migration could be both a scam and a cruel trick. It's clear to me that most 'temporary' migrants (students, farm workers etc) intend to seek permanent residence and perhaps bring out family. Yet they cannot afford Australia's house prices on entry level jobs. I'd like the Australian government to announce a Plan B in the event that prices for rent and electricity do not decline but remain prohibitive. If we can aspire to net zero for carbon emissions we could have net zero or negative for population growth.

Yes Taswegian, the only solution with a snowflake's chance in hell of reining in energy costs and energy created prohibitive cost of living challenges, is nuclear.

Top of that list is MSR thorium via perfected Chinese technology. Which is for sale! We should buy what we need, knowing that we cannot do it here for anything like their price to us.

Later, when our tech heads have studied the perfected item? Maybe we could mass produce our own improved version.

All this is currently undoable due to the sheer bloody-mindedness and rigid intransigeance of the (holding a nation to ransom) current idiots on the hill.

Who if they shared a fully functioning brain between them, would find it an extremely lonely one!
Alan B.

Imagine the average Australian waking up to Labor ? Imagine the Nation being run for five terms of Coalition Govt & uninterrupted by nonsensical woke civil servants ?

Almost all of us have a biological need to procreate.
This exceeds any thought of consequences.
I doubt people ever think of over-population as they set about generating offspring.
But the world is just so big.
There is a limit to the number of people it can support.

Fortunately, there are natural occurrences which limit population.
Lack of food, and disease, are two examples.
However, we do our very best to defeat these.
So the population grows and ages.
And the world is full of older, less productive, persons.

But it won't go on forever.
Eventually, there must be a major contraction in numbers.
The swathe of humans will shrink.
Balance will be restored.
Whether it is the mentally or the physically fit who then predominate will be significant?

I agree that population is a key problem- but the authors of this article appear to be all "Eco-Socialists" perhaps Communists- so we should be careful "not to" follow their suggestions for the solution.

Patrick Deneen writes in his book "Why Liberalism Failed"- because it was based on the fallacious assumption of the unlimited bounty of the Earth.

http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/the-death-of-liberalism/9380788

Population is mainly a problem in non-western nations. The west consumes more resources because we are higher in the hierarchy of nations- linked to production and value. There will always be dominants in the hierarchy pray that they are at least as sane as in stable times of history. The wider the base of the pyramid the higher it is.

Write to you MP. Write to Ministers.

An alternative to actually doing something and writing to your MP and Ministers - just shut up. A handful of people ruminating here are not go to change anything.

The wider the base of the pyramid the higher it is.
Canem Malum,
Great analogy ! And, when one considers the makers vs the takers situation it’s even more poignant in the inverted example !

Not ruminating ttbn, that's your thing.

I'm talking about factual circumstances that have happened and proven what I report! I didn't make this economic rationale up. The Chinese were once the poorest and most overpopulated nation on earth.

The one child policy dealt with some of that, but economic growth was all that was required and saw the end of the one child policy. And Chinese leaders begging parents to have more.

Similarly, Malaysia, Hong Kong and India, to name some of the most obvious used economic growth to achieve similar outcomes only EFFED by Muslims, who just wanted to be top dogs without the Entreprenurial genius of the resident Chinese.

And only succeed in stuffing it up because they thought all they need do was take over. And not have to do the hard yards that are needed in all successful enterprise.

I get that you like most commenting here are an economic illiterate.

Most of what you contribute is highly opinionated verbal vomit.
Alan B.

Alan

You can talk about whatever facts you like. There is absolutely nothing you can do about any of the things you ruminant about here. No matter how much you, I and others, bang on and express opinions, nothing has changed, and nothing will change. Only people with power and influence can make changes, and they are not taking any notice of us, particularly now, with the worst PM and government since the Whitlam days.

Unless you use the internet just as a therapy to get things off your chest, you will be permanently disappointed.

The tardiness of the human race is at least interesting.
The collective view is slow to change.
It was slow to accept the ideas put forward by Copernicus?
More than forty years ago we knew about global warming, but only now is there a stirring in the ranks.
And with the problem of over-population?
Will we wait till there is standing room only?
Whatever happens, I am sure that 'tardy' humans will deal with it.
Eventually.

Kudos Indyvidual

Malthus and Galton?

Australia's 'best demographer' Jack Caldwell outlined a generation ago 'He worked on many areas of demographic theory, including the importance of education and the status of women in determining demographic change'

This was promoted further by Prof. Hans Rosling ie. longevity of older generations, staying in the data longer, hence, driving population growth.

Well documented in science journalist Fred Pearce's (2010)'The Coming Population Crash and our Planet's Surprising Future' http://tinyurl.com/mrsfuch7

Focus on fertility, but only two nations with +ve trends Georgia and Israel (WB), larger nations' rates are declining, and like China well below replacement and India following; Indian demographer Sanyal saw this over a decade ago, but UNPD still saw growth for high end of century headlines?

Locally Tanton Network NGO SPA focus upon NOM (UNPD) net OS migration described as 'immigration' suggesting permanence, but not. It captures all border movements, expanded without notice to 12/16+ month rules 2006, more international students, who then sometimes spike both NOM and population.

It's temporary churnover of net financial budget contributors to support more oldies in retirement, becoming the fastest growing cohort; not permanent migration program of 190K p.a.

Bricker & Ibbitson in 'Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline' claim mid century peak, followed by decline; commented about UNPD & Paul 'Population Bomb' Ehrlich as being 'conservative'; 'The World's Shrinking Population' https://youtu.be/SYZPTaV-RcQ?si=QCO5KCl2tsf5N5U1

Why is population growth such an issue? Because it's a dog whistle via Tanton Network (shares donors with Kochs in US).

Dec. white nationalist John 'passive eugenics' Tanton colleague of Ehrlich at ZPG (using faux science constructs like 'limits to growth'), admired the white Australia policy, visited and hosted by SPA.

For a recent potted history see Binkowski of US KPBS in (2022) 'Eugenics, Border Wars & Population Control: The Tanton Network'

https://unicornriot.ninja/2022/eugenics-border-wars-population-control-the-tanton-network/

I am less concerned with the material or even the environmental aspects of the problem - they do exist but science can probably find answers to those.

My main concern is about the resulting reduction in the value of life due to the ensuing regimentation.

In order to sustain larger numbers of humans, one must arrange them in tight rows, columns and levels, one must make more and more rules so they don't step on each others' toes, one must turn them into numbers.

So even if there is enough air, water, food and living quarters for everyone, even of reasonable quality, life cannot be worthwhile when everyone has to be practically the same.

Sure, if you listen to US &/or UK RW conservate ecologists following Malthus & Galton, but humanity has managed till now, and now across the world we have fast declining fertility rates, so what's the problem?

You have presented what one finds problematic, as do many genuine environmental types & libertarians, using unspecified 'population growth' &/or 'immigration' to demand authoritarian policies for 'law and order', but masked by supposed libertarian 'freedom & liberty'?

Both a contradiction and a form of 'corrupt nativist authoritarianism' e.g. fueled by old fossil oligarchs with antipathy towards science, progress and the 21stC

Dear Andras,

I'm not clear whether your last post is in response to my post or otherwise.

In case it is:

«if you listen to US &/or UK RW conservate ecologists following Malthus & Galton»

No, I present my own thoughts.

«but humanity has managed till now»

Materially it has, and may possibly continue to manage like that for millennia ahead. My concern is of the social regimentation required to keep it going.

«and now across the world we have fast declining fertility rates, so what's the problem?»

That human population numbers have been exceedingly too high for many centuries. Fertility rates are indeed declining because the demands of civilisations on parents trying to raise children in cities are draconic, but they do not decline fast enough to bring human population numbers back to reasonable levels, that's around 100-200 million people.

«using unspecified 'population growth' &/or 'immigration' to demand authoritarian policies for 'law and order', but masked by supposed libertarian 'freedom&liberty'?»

The last thing I would advise is to have more 'law and order' and authoritarian policies, as this is the problem to begin with.
Also, I didn't mention 'immigration', and since you did, I support the free movement of people.

Isn't it obvious that freedom/liberty is not possible when population numbers are so big, that there is simply no space for it where everywhere we go we have to step on the interests of others?

«Both a contradiction and a form of 'corrupt nativist authoritarianism' e.g. fueled by old fossil oligarchs with antipathy towards science, progress and the 21stC»

Where is the contradiction?
I do not support authoritarianism of any kind.
I am not aware of any oligarchs.
I do not oppose science as such, but the social price of the technology that comes with it is too high.
Sure, ever increasing technology is a must in order to sustain high population levels, I'm not that naive to think that billions could continue to survive without it, but technology no longer serves the individual, it only serves regimes to control and mitigate the material and environmental effects of overpopulation.