rc, I wouldn’t call our rate of population growth minor. Our population growth most definitely increases pressure on our resource base. This very much includes mining and agriculture. A lot of our produce is exported, but not for the good of those who utilise the resources; for the good of those who benefit from the profits. An ever-greater population demands an ever-greater return from our export industries, just to maintain the same average standard of living. Continuous population growth exerts very real pressure to quarry Australia at a faster and faster rate and to push the limits of agriculture beyond what might otherwise be a sustainable level of production.

Obviously we have had massive agriculture and mining in Australia with major environmental problems, with a relatively small population. So the relationship between population size and environmental damage due to mining and agriculture has been small in the past. It has been due primarily to really bad practices. But even though these practices have been very considerably improved, the overall scale of operations continues to increase. This is very closely linked to population size and growth rate.

What had previously led to large-scale real improvements for the whole populace (the development of iron-ore mining in the Pilbara for instance) now really struggles to, as I said earlier, maintain anything like the same standard of living for ever-more people, with no real gains for the whole community.

You ask of Shonga; “Would you rather the government spend the money now whilst things are comparatively good or the next recession, when they are bad?”

The government should be using a large portion of this windfall to direct us towards sustainability and buffer us against the forthcoming resource crisis and consequent recession that will in all probability be triggered by stiflingly high fuel prices.

Ludwig : I think that mining and agriculture expansion, whilst correlated with population growth, isn't caused by it. As far as I'm concerned, these resources are basically exploited to their maximum possible capacity, irrelevant of population growth. If there was no population growth, I wouldn't expect that the expansion of mining would slow down, and nor would I expect agricultural land to be given back for other purposes. I doubt whether the money goes for good or evil (or whatever else) has any affect on this expansion. In any case, I think we agree that economic growth, if measured in a meaningful way that takes into account negative factors (like environmental destruction) not neccesarily accounted for in measures like GDP, is good. The fact that Australia is a rich country gives us far more options as to what further development might be pursued than many poor countries have.

On another note, I think it is generally believed that the relationship between between economic growth and population growth (at least in industrialized countries) is pretty weak, since people that move to new countries like Australia typically bring skills with them (often to Australia's great benefit -- like medical staff and so forth). One can imagine that such a relationship might potentially change given the new demographic structures that most industrialized countries are going to bump into (presumably it is going to be more beneficial to import young well skilled people), although since the rate of growth is slowing anyway (you can see the projections on the Aus Burea of Stats webpage), and immigration always seems driven by political pressures, I doubt it makes much difference

Plerdsus,

You continue to refer to population growth. My understanding is that economic growth and development tends to be linked to a lowering in population growth. So Kyoto-backers, for instance, who want to hinder economic growth, and thus the capacity to develop innovative technologies, are inadvertently contributing to high population growth, particularly in poorer countries, which already struggle to sustain their people. I admit I do not have a solid understanding of these complex issues, but this seems to be logical and borne out by the evidence. Perhaps you could comment or point me to where you have discussed this elsewhere on these pages.

Richard
The world is capable of taking care of itself. If the human race becomes too much of a burden I am sure that we will be removed.

It is sad that we have access to so much information and technology and then come up so short in the Wisdom department which would allow us to make good use of all the knowledge.

While we continue to spend so much in both money and effort in developing more and more weapons I do not see a lot of hope for us little humans being around for much longer.

hehe, good opening dude...1970! :)

“I think that mining and agriculture expansion, whilst correlated with population growth, isn't caused by it.”

I don’t think we have too much disagreement here rc. My point is that with continuous population growth we are hooked in primary production just to struggle to maintain the same standard of living, whereas in Australia’s formative years, these activities did increase per-capita economic turnover and income and did lead to real improvements in standard of living.

Back in the 60s we were in a position to pull back from marginal agricultural land and to moderate mining activities without it really hurting us (if we had only had the presence of mind to do so), but now, when the need to do these things is much greater, it is going to sting us directly. Thus population size and continuous growth is very closely linked to primary production, overexploitation of potentially renewable resources and environmental degradation, even in areas with very low population densities, which includes most of our mining, pastoral and most agricultural areas.

“…although since the rate of growth is slowing anyway…”

I don’t think our population growth rate is slowing. Projections show a decline in birthrate for the next three or four decades as the age skew evens itself out, but with high immigration this isn’t going to mean anything. And let’s face it, our political masters aren’t going to reduce immigration in a hurry