Her we go again with the usual litany of half truths and falsehoods.
1 While the total immigration intake may be 175,000 pa you forgot to deduct the number of Australians settling overseas. This is circa 60,000 pa but whats a 33% exaggeration to an ideologue.
2 Yes, there is an overconcentration of people in the major cities and the immigration program has been biased towards people who will settle in cities, but this is due to a lack of a decentralisation policy, not a general population problem.
3 The shortage of water in the cities is due to a lack of water tanks in the cities. 20% of Australians regard a water tank as a normal household outlay. But the city population think it is their right to take water from someone else up stream without making any attempt to take all reasonable steps to help oneself before holding one's hand out for a community service.
4 If the population nazis had their way in 1950 then our current population would only be 10 million. And this sounds fine until we realise that our GDP would only be half of what it is today. And it is unlikely that we would have any sort of industrial base in those circumstances, certainly no automotive plants nor much local IT.
5 If population was only 10 million (Flanery wants only 4.5 million) and our GDP was only half then our defence budget would only be half. And we would not be able to maintain our technological edge in the region, we could certainly not have liberated East Timor, and we would not be building our own submarines, ships and equipment. And every tin pot regional "Mahatir" would treat us like a dish rag.

In short, history would repeat itself. A small, inward looking local culture would merely mind the continent until a much more aggressive and populous culture decided it was time to take the opportunity presented to them on a platter.

We may not need "cannon fodder" anymore but we still need "tax fodder", and more of it.

... And here we go again with more socialist-inspired twaddle.

If Gosling’s theology was correct, then how could the US, with a population 15 times ours and total rainfall only about 35% higher, possibly have such a high standard of living (GDP about 35% higher per capita)?

In regard to water, Australia has probably the highest per capita rainfall of any country. It’s about 210 gigalitres per person per annum, compared to a world average of 18 gigalitres per person per annum. (Source data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/cty/obs/TYN_CY_1_1.html ). It is ridiculous to talk about a shortage of water as due to anything but central planning and government-regulated water monopolies.

Agree with Perseus on a few things

2. Decentralisation - If I remember correctly 40% of rainwater in Australia falls onto the top northern part of Australia. We need to get the population "demographic" to shift.
3. Why in this country it is NOT mandatory to have water tanks in all new houses to flush the toilet which I think (please help) a large proportion of household water goes into is beyond me.
4. Start to restrict population growth too much and the country starts to die. Older people live longer and the health and social burden becomes too much. And as much as we might not like to admit, a vibrant young culture has much less chance to stagnate

Perseus says:

"If the population nazis had their way in 1950 then our current population would only be 10 million. And this sounds fine until we realise that our GDP would only be half of what it is today".

So what - why is GDP the holy cow, which provides the only measure of a country's success.

Perseus says:

"And it is unlikely that we would have any sort of industrial base in those circumstances, certainly no automotive plants nor much local IT."

So what? Automotive plants are closing down all over the world. IT equipment is almost totally imported from overseas.

Perseus says:

"we would not be building our own submarines, ships and equipment. And every tin pot regional "Mahatir" would treat us like a dish rag."

Ah, so the hidden agenda is that we need lots of people to protect ourselves from the Yellow Peril, and so we can invade other countries on flimsy pretexts like WMDs.

Perseus says:
"In short, history would repeat itself. A small, inward looking local culture"

Haven't you noticed? We've already got that.

Tom, utterly brilliant piece.

Perseus, your points on the need for decentralisation and water tanks are indeed valid, but the 33% oversight (if true) doesn't devalue the remaining 67%, and your other points, they are founded on half-baked assumptions. Re: GDP - What advantage is a growing taxable population, when most of it makes no contribution to the value of goods exported from Australia? The majority of us just exchange goods and services amongst ourselves, and import everything else we might want from overseas. Simply, if our population increases and those people don't generate exports, the 'value of exports per capita' decreases.

Consider also, our failure to invest in educating our young generations in fields that will enhance our nations wealth, whilst burdening them with HECS debts and unaffordable housing. We end up with a young generation spending their income repaying huge mortgages, instead of having spare cash that could be used to invest in R+D. With investment in R+D instead of new homes, I'm sure we could maintain our tech edge. Then imagine further, if those employed in the home building industry, were instead trained to be employed in fields that actually generated export income for Australia.

Readers should not overlook the significance of the following points made by Tom:

>> "Those who stand to benefit from population growth are investment bankers, real estate agents, property developers, and construction companies..."

>> "They are the same people who give generously to support the re-election of the Howard Government and buy influence with the Opposition parties and the State Labor governments"

>> "population growth has to be turbo-charged for easy economic growth - developing properties is so much easier than coming up with clever new products, like Finland and its Nokia mobile phones".

I recall Andrew Bartlett's recent article calling for politicians to justify their position on high immigration (27/11/06) and the many reader comments that followed it calling for ecologically sustainable population levels. Hopefully this article will build pressure for those justifications, and also, a national debate on the broader issues of ecological sustainability and population growth.

Perseus,

The only half decent argument you make against stopping population growth is defense. However there are examples of small countries that have been able to defend themselves against large aggressors (such as Israel). We also have the advantage of having an ocean dividing us from the rest of the world not to mention some friends such as the US and even the UK and Europe. If an aggressive China, Indonesia or India wishes to invade us, it will make little difference if we have a population of 10 million or 25 million.

Your other arguments make no sense at all. It is not the GDP but the GDP per person that matters to the economy and there is little evidence that indicates that you need a growing population to have a growing per capita GDP. Further, most of our exports are minerals, energy and agricultural products not manufactured goods or motor cars. These exports are produced by a very small part of Australia’s workforce, and almost exclusively outside our big cities. If you made a country by drawing a line north of the tropic of Capricorn you would have a fabulously rich nation with a population of a million working in the minerals, agricultural and tourist industries. A larger population has not made any difference to our major export industries.

As far as water is concerned, I suggest you do some calculations on the amount you can store in a rainwater tank. It is a tiny fraction of the average water allocation to the average suburban house. Rainwater tanks might provide you with a decent supply of drinkable water, but does very little for the overall supply problem unless you have massive tanks.I cannot see why it is so difficult to see that a growing population will have an adverse influence on water supply.

Australia’s lifestyle is based on a small population and a beautiful clean and relatively unspoiled environment. Why do we want to throw that away?

Peter Ridd

Whether because of its obvious effect on Australia’s water supplies or the environment in general, all immigration apart from that beneficial to Australia itself and the people already living here, should be stopped. Figures provided by the author, and previously by Ross Gittins in the SMH, show that the ‘benefits’ are now far outweighed by the problems caused by immigration.

Today, Australia’s population is 5,000 off 20.5 million; almost double the scientifically suggested optimum of 12 million.

We have been badly served by both sides of politics: both refuse to even discuss a population policy.

Tom Gosling tells it the way it is. He has correctly identified the greedy minority groups who benefit from high immigration, at the expense of the rest of us who have to pay for their greed and make do with less of everything as quality of living drops.

We don’t need a large population to defend ourselves, thanks to modern weapons, and we don’t need a large population for prosperity as is shown by Sweden and other countries with small populations. We need to be smarter. Unfortunately we seem to be getting dumber, particularly the drones we keep putting into parliament. These timeservers find it easier to line the pockets of anti-social developers whose only interest in Australia is how much they can get out of it before it goes under

people should realise that once the water is gone, it's gone. it's not coming back.so use the water sparingly.

If market forces are wreaking havoc on the Australian environment and on our social structures then the majority of Australians who are clearly opposed can do little. It is well known Australia is a token democracy, a small 'd' Democracy.

However, real Australians have been outsmarting the world on all levels of endeavour for the last 100 years or more. We are not bereft.

The way to get at the perseus petes who wish to ride on our backs like sheep is to give 'em what they want. Gold-Girls-and-Glory.

Now any Australian with half a brain and who has any dignity left knows that multiculturalism has failed to create a cohesive Australia.
Most multicultural allegiances and MONEY leave Australia anyway you cut it. We can use that to divide and conquer.

We also know that an Australia with more than 23 million people all packed into the capital cities and their hinterlands is unsustainable at all levels due to the impossibility to kick start satisfactory infrastructure. Besides, no immigrants will EVER want to live anywhere else.
Big Banks and their zombie runners know this as well. They're in it for the short term high density populational profits. Bless their little souls.

Put these two together and hey presto, you realise that NO ONE loves this sh$t hole of a desert land, Australia, except us die hards. You also realise that like in the Philadelpheia Story, all you have to do to rid yourself of vandals is to present them with a more attractive option.

Hello! ... New Zealand is destined to become a major regional power with 60 million people. This is in line with the island nations, Japan and Britain, in similar global latitudes.

Additionally, Tasmania has a similar geographical bounty and is capable of up to 25 million people. This could be stretched to perhaps 40 million if some environmental carnage is pushed through with Big Bank MacDollars. Line a few political pockets and who knows. Tasmanians are not noted for being as canny as real Australians, so The Bank's MacChances are extremely good.

Hellooo, Tax-Fodder, gold-girls-Glory!

Where do these 'water experts' get their hypothesis from? It seems the same irrational arguments are constantly put forward to justify the backward attitude held by the left and the Greens in particular in relation to water management, water storage and associated environmental issues.

Firstly more than enough water falls in Australia to support a population in excess of that today. Tully in North Queensland measures yearly rainfall in metres put there is no major dam within 200 kilometres of the largest rainfall concentrations. In fact there is a distinct lack of large dams in North Queensland. How can Townsville for example have 'a water shortage' when it is a tropical region subject to fringe monsoons?

Secondly money is not spent on sensible, ecological infrastructure. Sir Joh for once had it right when he suggested building large scale pipelines from NQ to SE Australian metropolises. Rain tanks are another neglected area. But what about the huge amounts of 'grey water' that go down the drains instead of being used in agricultural ventures? The problem is that the Greens have everybody so stymied by endless feasibility and environmental studies that no decisions are ever made-yet the left has the gaul to complain about river and water table problems in farming areas.

Oooops,

Did I say the Philadelphia Story. It was 'The Philadelphian' of course.

In the Meantime, there are ways to make Australia SUSTAINABLE for a final 23 million people carrying capacity.

It involves the science of Thermodynamics and the study of Demographics (aka Human Geography). And don't believe those of little or no vision. There ARE magic bullets that can solve Australia's persistent drought problems.

I suggest that people who know nothing of these subjects do some Googling. It is entirely fair that as citizens of this nation we are all asked to contribute our time and hard study to understanding any topic, these two in particular, that can benefit our country.

What Winston said. Australia has plenty of water, the problem is that most of it does not fall in Sydney, but everyone still lives there anyway.

The reason this situation comes about is because people do not pay for the water they use, and the forces of supply and demand are not regulating the market.

When government subsidises industries that use 80% of our potable water so they only pay about 1% of the actual cost of the water they use, there will always be a shortage of water.

Let them pay full price and you will quickly find these water-intensive industries relocating somewhere where water is cheap and plentiful (Tasmania, Far North Queensland, North West and South West WA). If you give them free water, of course they are going to stay in Sydney and Melbourne, they have no reason not to.

Most of Australia's highest rainfall areas are virtually uninhabited because of water subsidies. End the subsidies and you end the problem.

Most water in Australia is used by agricultural industries, not urban populations, so population is not the major component in water usage. Whether Australia's population is 15 or 20 million doesn't make much difference, as long as the population is living in cities.

In addition, if the government took Yobbo's rather sensible suggestion, all the people planting crops that are stupid to plant in Australia, like rice, would soon go out of business. In addition, water would be saved from the smaller component of water usage that city people are responsible for, as people might start planting less water intensive gardens and so forth -- as already happens in Perth where water is much more expensive.

Excellent article Tom

Top responses from Stuart, Peter Ridd and Leigh.

.
“Her(e) we go again with the usual litany of half truths and falsehoods.”

Perseus is wrong on each of his points:

1. He is the chronic exaggerator with his c60 000 per annum emigration rate. It is more like 35 000.

2. Decentralisation is not the answer, especially while the immigration rate remains absurdly high. If immigration was reduced to net zero or close to it, then some decentralisation might be appropriate. But at the moment, there is merit in keeping the issues of massive population growth, overcrowding and resultant resource stress confined to a few centres, instead of spreading it to many.

3. Shortage of water in our cities is due to chronically bad planning, the worst aspect of which is the facilitation of continuous rapid population growth. Lack of sufficient encouragement for improvements in efficient usage and home-collection and storage are also part of this bad planning, but are certainly secondary factors.

4. Ha haaaaa! Population Nazis! Now that’s funny! Perseus has personally called me a veg Nazi about 20 times on this forum. Now I can proudly announce that I am also a Perseus-approved pop Nazi as well! So what if our overall GDP had been about half of what it is today with a population half as big? Per-capita economic turnover is what really counts. GDP is a terrible measure of any sort of well-being. Anyway, with a much smaller population, the per-capita GDP would have been much larger and the ability for our resource base to keep supplying that level of wealth would have been a whole lot greater.

5. The defence argument doesn’t stack up either. What earthly difference would it make if we had 10 million or 50 million, when you consider the population of Indonesia – about 300 million? With a smaller and much richer population, the defence budget could well have been similar to what it is now, if need be. High tech defence is what counts, not the number of foot-soldiers

“In short, history would repeat itself. A small, inward looking local culture would merely mind the continent until a much more aggressive and populous culture decided it was time to take the opportunity presented to them on a platter”, writes Perseus.

I appreciate this concern. But my main fear is that if we keep stressing our society the way we are, we will become much more vulnerable. The greatest stress factor of all is our ridiculously high population growth rate.

I push sustainability on this forum all the time. It is as relevant to defence as it is to just about every other Australian domestic issue discussed on OLO.

We need to maintain a healthy society in order to maintain an effective defence system.

Let’s face it, if we stress our resource base by continuing to increase the demands placed up on it, then we are going to see lots of already existing simmering divisions really open up. When things get tight, it will happen in a very uneven manner. Some will really feel it, while others will be pretty well immune. This will lead to chronic disillusionment and the promulgation of the ‘us-and-them mentality’….. and more people expressing real hatred for governments, bureaucrats and various others, such as Perseus with his “population Nazi” and “veg Nazi” type quips (and a considerable array of others in his 225 posts on OLO to date).

He is a prime example of what happens when people feel highly disaffected, in his case by genuine efforts to reign in massive tree-clearing and environmental destruction. We really have to prevent people feeling this aggrieved…. by addressing sustainability with all our effort. One of the major prerequisites is to lower immigration to net zero, if not put a moratorium on it for ?five years.

We must with the greatest of urgency reduce population growth as much as we possibly can, so that we may save our society and hence maintain a half-decent defence system.

As usually, my suggested solution is diametrically opposite to that of Perseus.

Not that long ago one Pauline Hanson proposed tighter immigration quotas under the banner "Australia for Australians".
Her intent was to restrict immigration to english language proficient candidates and to reduce the overall intake. This proposal was put into the wacky extreme right please ignore bin.
Now I read these comments and find those arguing for tighter immigration (sans racist overtones) are labelled leftist whackos and, not withstanding this, 'population nazis'.
I'm confused.
If you argue for lower immigration these days, are you on the left or the right?

Leigh/KAEP,
Agree with your posts, Winston Smith, yea another Communist plot, to all other posters, I see your arguements, however don't agree with them, maybe someone will post something convincing.

Yes big business and their large donations to Governments tend to make Governments make decisions which is not in the interests of the majority of voters, which is why I think all donations to Political Parties and individual Politicians should be banned seeing how we are there employers and are paying them from the taxes they take from us.

Ultimately it boils down to the fact that Governments have been taking taxes, and increasing taxes over the years and more so in the last 10 years or so, from us to provide the essential infastructure that is and will be required in the future, yet as we are starting to see nowdays we are not getting what we have paid for.
We now have kids leaving school who can not read or write properly, we have people dying while waiting for life saving surgery, we have electricity problems, water shortages etc, etc.

What we really have to ask is where has all the money that they kept taking from our pockets gone to, as it quite obviously seems it has not gone in to the essential services that it was suppossed to go to.

Most of all if Governments are not able to forward plan and provide what will be needed with the ever increasing amounts of money they take from us maybe we need to look at the whole system of Government and change it to ensure that they will be able to provide the services they are suppossed to, rather than them constantly giving us lies and excuses they currently feed us in bucketloads to cover up their mistakes.

Then we might actually get a proper standard of accountablity from our employees and maybe get the services we pay for.

Just think how accountable our politicians have been in the last few years when their mistakes have been made public, especially when they claim the buck stops with them.

I say bring back the Westminster System of Government we are suppossed to have in the first place and stop the politicians from hijacking the system in the future.

All the posts on the merits of a smaller population are grossly ignorant of the fact that the threshhold populations for a wide range of industries is continually expanding due to the impact of technology. Only 50 years ago every small town in the country had its own softdrink manufacturer but these have all gone, in part due to "market forces" but in main part due to the constant increase in minimum populations required to support increasingly complex technology.

And I would be the first to agree that Sydney has a population problem but that does not mean the entire national economy must be consigned to a "vallium holiday". The problem in regional areas is that the population threshholds for a range of businesses is growing faster than the local population and they become increasingly unviable. They actually have significantly underutilised infrastructure so their population can increase at minimal infrastructure cost. They have also had serious shortages of experienced agricultural workers and the best the current government can do is load us up with backpackers who are overpriced, underperform, are maintenance intensive, and spend most of their earnings on their ticket back home.

And the clear message from all these areas is that even a steady, no-growth, population is a recipe for economic decline.

And the real challenge for the population limiters is for them to provide a single example of a developed country that has deliberately set out to reduce population, has done so, and has survived with an enhanced quality of life for it's citizens. It is all very well to point out some small country that appears to be doing OK but show me where your policy has actually worked. At the moment it is all idle theory of people who have probably never created a single job in their life. Ludwig certainly hasn't.

An interesting post and comments containing, as usual, facts, figures and fantasies.One quick point - as far as Brisbane is concerned there was a plethora of home water tanks until the Brisbane City Council made them illegal for whatever reason, mosquitos I think, at the time.

The time for academic discussion is now past as is the laying of blame, a lot of it well earned. A society can only support as many people as its resources and infrastructure will allow and you cannot safely exceed that nor really compare one country with another. The fact is that urban and sub-urban Australia has outgrown its present resources and infrastructure (yes, blame God for not sending enough rain and our City and State 'fathers' for not enough visionary nouse!)

The fact is that Brisbane, with only approximately 27.9% USABLE WATER available, will, unless sufficient replenishing rains fall in the catchment areas (and our rainy season is fast running out) be in dire straits by the end of the year (perhaps Level 5) and should the next rainy season fail will be in an evacuation mode. At the present moment both the City Council and State Government are failing to set in place WATER REPLENISHMENT projects,such as drilling in the Nambour Basin or looking into desalination plants, and very soon it will be too late. Certainly academic discussion won't alleviate the situation. Help!!

Tom

Thank you for a very interesting article. You have provided an interesting twist. You have given me heaps to think about

Great post Leigh - as usual - and you too Ludwig.

And thank you to all other posters - something to think about from all participaants.

Cheers Kay

Thanks Kay.

.
“All the posts on the merits of a smaller population are grossly ignorant of the fact that the threshhold populations for a wide range of industries is continually expanding due to the impact of technology.”

Someone appears to be grossly ignorant of the fact that the upper threshold population for the maintenance of our very society is perilously close to being reached on this continent, if not already exceeded. Obviously this is vastly more important than the supposed threshold for some industries!

If we look at the economies-of-scale issue in a somewhat broader perspective than Perseus, we will see very clearly that with an ever-growing population or ever-increasing demand on a stressed resource base, the viability of many industries is being placed under threat.

He is confusing the local or regional scale of operations with the national scale. Yes it is true that in many small towns, more people would improve economies-of-scale for many businesses, but nationally diseconomies-of-scale generally prevail.

Towns in the size range of Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton are somewhere near the balance between economies and diseconomies of scale, given our lifestyle and inefficiently exploitative nature. Our capital cities desperately need to stop growing, while lots of smaller towns could do with a bit of a population boost.

So should we implement decentralisation policies? As I said earlier, only if we plan for limits to growth first. Otherwise we will just see more centres grow too big. Decentralisation would mean people going to the centres that are of a good size now at a greater rate, rather than to small towns, generally speaking.

Rather than anyone having to “provide” anything to Perseus, how about he show us some indication that he has even a rudimentary understanding of sustainability?

However, I cannot resist answering his ‘challenge’. Will do so next post.

“And the real challenge for the population limiters is for them to provide a single example of a developed country that has deliberately set out to reduce population, has done so, and has survived with an enhanced quality of life for it's citizens. It is all very well to point out some small country that appears to be doing OK but show me where your policy has actually worked. At the moment it is all idle theory of people who have probably never created a single job in their life. Ludwig certainly hasn't.”

Well I don’t know what planet Perseus has been living on for the last 30 years, because every Earthling knows that none other than the world’s biggest country; China, fits his ‘challenge’.

China is not exactly an undeveloped country, having been much more developed than your average third-world country for many years, since long before it opened up to the west, if not always. As soon as the government saw that their country was in danger of heading the same way as many other countries with rapid pop growth, they did something about it.

The one-child policy in China has worked to a fair extent, in enabling them to develop rapidly. They would have had a population at least 25% larger without it.

Of course, Perseus limits the criteria for his challenge, because he knows that there are plenty of examples of developed countries that have stable populations without going into decline or stagnation. Scandinavian and some other western European countries fit this bill.

And he knows that there are plenty of countries that have failed to significantly slow pop growth which have suffered the consequences.

Now will he address my challenge to show that he has any understanding whatsoever of sustainability, or ecology for that matter?

That’s gotta be simple. Presumably he can. But he certainly hasn’t to date.

Killing Two birds with one stone

Or someone has been reading up on their Thermodynamics.

BHP and the South Australian government have agreed to investigate a $300 miilion desalination plant on Spencer Gulf and a $400 million pipeline to supply the extra 120 million litres of water a day (presumably at Port Augusta). It will provide the water needed for BHP's $5 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in the state's Nth.

"One of the greatest benefits of such a plant is that it secures the long-term sustainability of the Great Artesian Basin," Mr Rann said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/BHP-to-investigate-SA-desalination-plant/2006/02/17/1140064230414.html

Comment:

1. The desert heat in that part of Australia is unbelievable. Why not use a solar boiler concept as an adjunct to osmosis technology.

2. Mr Rann should consider using some of the water to create an Engineered Wetland Network (EWN) throughout Lake Eyre and other salt lakes to further bolster the Great Artesian Basin and to attempt to cool parts of SA enough to attract coastal rain bands inwards and towards Victoria and NSW. Such a network would be based on a few thousand 5-10 acre designer wetlands that could cover up to 10,000 squ miles. This would also have enduring benifits for local stakeholders in the area.

3. The EWBs would need a design that was highly specialised for the dry environment. Specialised tiers of vegetation would be needed in and extending out from the EWBs to control water loss to a pre designed level. Additionally when L Eyre does get seasonal flooding, the EWB network will maintain water levels for much longer periods through the new growth vegetation available in the EWBs.

What a half-baked lot of critics you lot are !

FACT 1 - Australia is the DRIEST CONTINENT ON THE PLANET. Forget about per capita rainfall. A substantial proportion of the water falls north of the "Brisbane Line". The population would have to start moving to Darwin and spread out from there.

FACT 2 - Australia has been losing it's intellectual capital since the late 1960's. We were at the FOREFRONT of computer technology in the late 1950's. (Sydney University built one of the first few mainframe computers in the world - SILLIAC: built 1955, dismantled 1968). In the early 1980's we built designed and built a laptop computer - the DULMONT. The main peripheral chips were designed at UNSW and were fabricated at AWA Microelectronics chip fabriaction plant in Sydney (Yes we did have one!)

It was Bob (Pig Iron) Menzies who urge us to dig it, shear it or grow it. Now that's all we can do!

GDP growth should be based on intellectual capital, not MacJobs to build MacMansions.

In case anyone is interested.... Here's a link to see the DULMON Magnum

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=764

Read and weep :-(

Facts in a knot again, Ludwig. You have the timing out badly on China. The chinese economy was not developed, the population continues to grow, the economic take-off was a result of free market reforms, not the partial population restrictions, and the jury is still out as to what will happen to their economy when the excess of single males impacts on demand for family goods.

So lets get back to comparing like with like, shall we. Australia has a developed economy. Two advanced countries with stagnating population growth are Japan and Germany and both have stagnating economies and high unemployment. So I will ignore your repeated boorish sneers and repeat the earlier request for you to provide an example, with realistic implications for Australia, of a successful policy of population decline.

Good article Tom. However I don’t like some of the comments, this country in the main is different in what it produces per given drop to most other places regardless of the technology. If the ACT and its region is the test then the answer is not much. We have only recently discovered we need to strap our rivers together to overcome variations in flows and storage to maintain what we had in reasonable community expectations and that’s without significant agriculture.

Economies of scale are so important. Installing hundreds of tanks is not the answer.

If we must look at other developed areas for a comparison, a few can grow by using other people’s resources. The US for instance must be way out front on this score.

Close to home, we can build a five star home but half the young couples can’t afford one.
Let’s look at some issues around this ‘sustainable’ home concept with extra rainwater tanks, a grey water recycling plant, some solar panels, and perhaps a swimming pool for good measure. I have learned to think though, just by watching our supermarkets and chain stores grow that big is best, i.e. what’s wrong with regional water and energy services growing too other than general consumerism is much harder to check.

The fact is growth continues to drive us and we can’t expect many to suddenly go back to basics or living hand to mouth literally. Stop using credit, stay at home and develop the garden into producing some nutrition season by season. It’s hardly likely to become the norm, so get used to a rough transition to the next equilibrium.

Tom, that was a really good article.

Perseus, take a look at Finland in the CIA World Factbook. This country was rated number one on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index and number two on their good environmental management index. It only has 5.2 million people, who don't even have English as their first language, and a population growth rate of only 0.16%. The net migration rate per thousand people is 0.89 as opposed to 3.91 for Australia. The fertility rate is 1.73, as opposed to 1.76 for Australia. Their median age is 41 as opposed to 37 for us. GDP per capita in US dollars (in terms of purchasing power parity) is $US30,300 as opposed to $32,000 in Australia. Australia looks slightly better here, but one of the things that all of our population growth does do is increase social inequality. If you take the ratio of the share of total household income going to the top 10% over the share going to the bottom 10%, it is 5 in Finland compared to 12.7 in Australia. Much better to be in the bottom 10% in Finland.

Your local problems are really due to government policy. Lack of training opportunities = later lack of skilled workers. Unemployed city people who move to the country lose their benefits. There are confiscatory effective marginal rates on low income workers, so that it often doesn't pay to work. There is no shortage of workers per se. 16% of the working age population gets all or most of their income from the welfare system, as opposed to 3% in the early 1960s when there really was full employment. As has been described in the Guardian, the British government has been able to greatly reduce the number of disability pensioners by reducing taxes and claw back of benefits when they got jobs and by allowing them to go straight back on benefits if the job did not work out or turned out to be too much for them.

Well lo and behold… Perseus makes absolutely no attempt to address my sustainability ‘challenge’.

My reply was not good enough for him! Well, now how could it ever be?

Now if he really wants to entertain any sort of debate with me, it is going to have to be a two-way street. When he answers my challenge and shows even the slightest bit of knowledge let alone interest in sustainability, then he can put forward another challenge and expect me to answer it.

.
“The fact is growth continues to drive us and we can’t expect many to suddenly go back to basics or living hand to mouth literally. Stop using credit, stay at home and develop the garden into producing some nutrition season by season. It’s hardly likely to become the norm, so get used to a rough transition to the next equilibrium.”

Yes Taz, growth continues to drive us towards this rough transition. But stopping or lowering growth doesn’t mean that people will have to go back to basics and become self-sufficient, nor anything like it. Just the opposite – as growth pushes us over the edge of societal coherence, people will have to go and make their own living, independent of supermarkets and cars.

We are just so profoundly hooked into continuous growth that I don’t think we have any chance of voluntarily weaning ourselves off it. We just need to look at China, which has made the most concerted effort of any country to deal with continuous population growth. For all its advantages, it has led to a forthcoming major issue with a highly discrepant sex ratio, and it has contributed to a different sort of growth – massive fossil-fuel-based economic growth, which has its own enormous set of problems.

I think it is just beyond us. The rough transition is inevitable. And it will be upon us very soon, triggered by ever-rising fuel prices

Population is one variable that shouldn't be considered in isolation from others. Namely, people who insist on lovely, lush green lawns, people who 'need' hour-long showers twice a day, and then... livestock! Over 1 third of the nation's fresh water is spent on raising cows and other water-draining animals. We raise plants, then feed them to cattle, then eat the cattle. Why not cut out the middle-man? I, for one, don't eat meat, or have long showers, and my grass is dead. So if you're talking about numbers (population), you can count me out.

Tom Gosling:

After trying to digest the impact of his depressing views on Immigration, water shortages, unsustainable growth etc poor Tom evidently misses the mark by a freight train ? Thankfully, there are more optimists in Oz viz:

Most of his arguments are taken from research that are outdated - worst preliminary discussion papers that have not reached conclusions. The PC Report ( Jan 2006 ) scheduled it's final assessment Apr 2006. Caution is ALWAYS advised when interpreting and extrapolating modelling analysis .

The ABS Data advises Airport new arrivals must be balanced with departures. The nett gain to long term resident status is tricky ? As for delving in Economics, the 700 words severly limits the scope of exploiting macro/micro strategies, Industrial relations. Trade policy. GATT. US/Aust free trade agreement. GLOBALISATION.

As for ending migration just because of insufficient water in Capitol cities, the call is as myopic as the ' piece de resistance ' population explosion !!

Fortress Australia mentality went out with John Curtin. FA has never been a viable option. ADF torpedoed the concept after WWII. With a population of 20.2 M, we rigidly bind ourselves in the Anzac Treaty, SEATO, and anything in between. Without conscription there is no conceivable way ADF could function, much less afford Iraq, Afghanistan, Solomon, Sudan, Sinai etc. With an ageing population, burnout servicemen, mass resignations, we are flat out recruiting kiddies to serve in the Reserve and Cadets ? Who will repel the ' yellow hordes '- Dad's Army ?

In the real world of supply and demand, limiting growth stifles demand and suffocates investment. As the Nation ages and more opt for early retirement, where are funds to finance infrastructure, welfare etc Less tax in the coffers - a prelude to stagnation, inflation, ruination. Recipe for Third World Status coming up > Dont bet on it.

The water crisis is a hoax-spin to raise revenue and line the pockets of Government and Council's. For decades, water municipalities have bungled, mismanaged, squandered resources. They have only just kept Dams functioning - the toll for repairs, cracked

continued..

"Water is the gift of God, beer and whisky are concoctions of the devil". Furphy, from Tasmania, engraved this in Pitman's shorthand on his water tanks about a century ago. Fairly spartan sentiments, but more appropriate than Tubley's plea on behalf of vegetarianism as the solution to all problems arising from ever-increasing human numbers.
More Brazilian rainforest is currently being cleared for Soya-bean than for meat prouction. In South-east Asia pressure for forest clearing is being lead by the drive for palm oil production. And in Australia the scale of broad-acre clearing of native vegetation, to complete and final minimisation of natural biodiversity, has had more to do with grain and cotton production than with "water draining animals", no matter the extent of their guilt.
"One third of the nation's fresh water" is spent on raising such animals? I doubt it! On the very edge of Australia's eastern coastal margin, rainfall equates to evaporation on exposed surfaces. But, for most of our agricultural land, rainfall is about one third of such evaporation rates; and, for most of Australia, it is about one twentieth.
In fresh water consumption rates, evaporation, not animals, is king - regardless of how careful we are in husbanding the water we harvest for agricultural prodction of any sort. It deserves recognition, as do the needs of the biota endemic to our landscapes and estuaries.
"Population - - shouldn't be considered in isolation from others". What a twist in logic: It is not "just one variable" - it is impossible to be honestly isolated from any debate dealing with society's needs. Our present numbers over-consume available water in the cities. Those in the cities also pressure agriculture to stretch water-resources beyond availability in providing them with food, clothing, and revenue from exports. "Not talking about numbers" is, at best, a default position calling for greater efficiency in the manner of continuing efforts to screw the country.

and leaking walls are a closely guarded secret. The public are kept in the dark where flood modelling in a 1:100 event reveal how whole townships downstream, would be inundated, with possible loss of life ! Water loss to evaporation, seepage and maintaining the eco-sys (fish/eel population) account for cost's slated to the too hard basket. Council's leakage rates in suburbia are as high as 30 % yet, little priority is spent on refurbishing antiquated pipes/pumps/fittings or tracing leaks.

Added migration - boosts Economic development, vocation and higher Education, skill levels, R&D, foreign investment, health, defence, industry etc even Philantrophy !

In an expanding Economy we need a growing population to manage, develop and service this Nation. It is one of the Fed's major goals. In the past decade, migrants have had higher levels of Education and qualifications (ABS) Levels have increased with successive waves of immigration. Having a skilled work force enhances living standards, broadens Community expectations, fosters competitiveness, creates independence.

In the short term, it is unlikely they will ever be a burden on the taxpayer. Professional's some, they earn more, live in better housing,send their children to Private schools - to repeat the cycle. Their contribution overall fuels the Economy, creates jobs, investment and value added. If anything they bring wealth, innovation and expertise - the blueprint that built US's and Canada's colossal $12 trillion, $ 1.07 trillion economy's - both significant subscribers to migrant intake !

Here at home, we rely too heavily on our Primary Commodities for survival. Minerals to China and Japan. Where prices fluctuate and exchange rates surge, our standard of living suffers. Globally, a minnow - we have a weak manufacturing sector - depending on the whims of Foreign Investment - which incidently is driven, mostly by exmigrants with International connections ! Our Imports exceed our exports and short sighted Business leaders prefer to buy overseas when once we manufactured in Oz. Shifting Companies off shore at the expense of local labour markets exacerbates the growing problem. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means.

Cheers

Looking at Dalma's argument for higher immigration leads to one conclusion - high immigration is for the greedy. Immigration for greed is bound to have consequences on society as a whole. The U.S may have a robust economy yet it is one hell of a tough place to live. One cannot deny the social problems that exist in the U.S, and should not be duplicated here with irresponsible immigration policy.

Brazil is built on immigration, has a large economy, and is a dysfunctional society all in one. Japan has a robust economy, and one that is not built on immigration. So, we are being fed a load of bs it seems.

If water is not an issue, how come large cities don't exist in central Australia?

Dilma,

Having an outsourced/immigrated skilled work force enhances living standards only for migrants who do not assimilate except in lip service, broadens Community expectations for migrants but not Australians in whom their elected leaders lose interest, fosters competitiveness that leads to race riots on Cronulla beach, congestion in all services and gridlocked roads, creates independence for Politicians who at liberty to keep increasing migrant intakes till they can hear the back of the Australian people break.

Problem is Dilma, ALL migrants will come to Sydney and Brisbane as first choice and to a lesser extent the other capitals. No self respecting migrant will get stuck out in the boondocks, on the wrong side of the tracks. Life isn't like that. So what we have is a situation where Australia is effectively FULL UP now. The back has already broken over riots and desal debacles and the only reason John Howard can't hear it is because he must be senile or deaf.

What John Howard must do is put a 5 year moratorium on immigration until we can evaluate the REAL benefits of migrant intake to ALL Australians and remove HECS fees on all higher education that leads to SKILL upgrades for Aussy citizens. Minorities like yourself just want to ride average Australian's backs like sheep, crying "tally Ho, its good fer ya", all the way to the kill room. You must find out and probably the hard way that immigration has done a good job but has run its course. Investors who do not heed the warning signs, like tunnel funnel CEOs for example will find the Australian people have ways of putting the monkey in their wrench, the fly in their profit shares, the Big Mac in their big macbanks and the Kerry Packer up their rich versus poor gap.

Ludwig & Tom; Apart from the odd constructive comment, don’t expect solutions to appear here. However I have faith in fellow man. I am certain a few will climb out of their holes and do something about their predicament as we watch. But in picking winners and losers we have to be certain about what we want.

Hot tip, part of the solution lies in finding another good crop of practical folk like engineers who with bit of experience not science can get on with the job.

"Problem is Dilma, ALL migrants will come to Sydney and Brisbane as first choice and to a lesser extent the other capitals."

This is indeed the biggest problem with increased immigration. But the solution is not to restrict further immigration, but rather to work out WHY everyone goes to Sydney and Melbourne rather than anywhere else, and move to correct that problem.

The rest of Australia has plenty of room and water for people, especially the far north and the far south. With government subsidies on water and schemes like the first home-buyer's grant, why would anyone want to live anywhere except the city?

A house in a country town still costs under $100,000, and there is much more water in Darwin or Albany than there is in Sydney.

Well, Colinsett I suppose we cannot do too much about evaporation. But for the water that is not evaportated (usable water) I am sure we could put it to better use.

Whether you like it or not, all cows do is drink, eat and sh_t. They don't do a hell of a lot else. They eat crops that are FARMED by using WATER, lots of it – because cows eat a lot. Get it? Then we eat the cows.

My point is very, very clear... why not cut out the middle man (or cow). Yeah I know about the rainforest clearing for soybeans and other plants but hey, at least humans get to eat such things, not cows, which we end up eating anyway.

I don’t think it’s too extreme an idea to think that a reduction in livestock farming would save us a fair bit of water.

As for my comment that population should not be seen in isolation from other variables. All I was referring to was the simplistic title to the accompanying article: “Water shortages: It's the population stupid!”, and my suggestion was that there is a lot more to it than that. I also said that people love their lush, green lawns, long showers etc. So when we talk about population I think it’s more of an additudinal problem than simply a numbers one.

We need to take a qualititative approach rather than looking just at numbers, since some people are more wasteful than others.

Yobbo,

"The rest of Australia has plenty of room and water for people, especially the far north and the far south."

You're dreamin!

If migrants are sent to places like Orange, then no matter what the incentives, they end up on the coast, most likely Sydney or Brisbane. The problem with immigrants chosen on skills, hat they have High IQs. They easily outsmart luddite government regualtions and rules. I do not believe the Howard government has ever factored that in. They live in Canberra dreamland, dreamtime.

As for the far North, the tropical climate is not suitable for predominantly temperate zone dwellers like ourselves. The extreme climate, diseases and the thermodynamic constraint of having a high quality heat source but a poor heat sink, mean that first rate economic activity is not possible in these places. They can be used for tourism, but this is not sustainable in terms of large populations because of fierce competition.

Tubley,

The problem with smart, skilled immigrants entering a free market economy is that they WILL find a way to get the luxuries that make life worth living. No legislation can stop them as the Federal doctrine is free market, free enterprise. You would have to abandon your 1984 minimalist approach to life or abandon free enterprise and go Big Brother.

What is possible, is to have a 5year moratorium on immigration, then use the information from it to carefully build our population to 23 million and then restrict child numbers to 1 per couple. This has worked in China and WILL work here. Then, Free enterprise can continue whilst maintaining a vibrant economy and a sustainable environment.

As an adjunct, HECS imposts on skills education will need to be abandoned to allow Australians the freedom to renegotiate their skill sets in a swiftly changing workplace. In most cases the skill sets of immigrants are based on rather superficial overseas courses anyway, so Aussies will quickly fill the skill shortages gap. Also, older generations are hell bent on working till they drop nowadays. They are not going to be a burden on the economy.

tubley and others

I get really p66ed off when people target farmers and gardeners with regard to our water shortage.

I live on the Sunshine Coast of Qld. Seems it is OK for resorts to use water ad infinitum for washing down pathways - and to use ++++ water every day to top up swimming pools for elite Japanese and other visitors. I can say this because my husband worked for an elite NOOSA resort in 2005. He came home every day concerned about the water that the staff were required to use on a daily basis.

Cheers
Kay

KAEP – a minimalist approach to life? I live quite well thankyou very much. But not wastefully I would like to think. Luxuries that make life worth living? Well I suppose some of us are softer than others and need extensive luxuries to enliven their otherwise boring existence.

Kay. I was not targeting farmers as a whole. I was stating my opinion that the livestock industry is not a particularly water-wise one.

Now let me define pasture: a field covered with grass or herbage and suitable for grazing by livestock.

Kay, did you know that out of all the irrigated water from the Murray River, 47.6% of it is used for pasture? I guess my one-third estimate was grossly UNDERestimated.

Please check this information for yourself at the Save the Murray Website. There is a section there on the Facts.

And Kay, I have as much concern for those other wasteful individuals you mentioned as I do for cattle farmers. I have no doubt that these resorts you speak of are very much a part of the problem.

Tubley,

If you advocate others living as you do, no matter how well meaning, that is BIG BROTHER.

That concept is OVER. The Australian populace will rip you to shreds if you say "live as I do" when you really mean, "live as I say".

Article:
...Half of voters believe Australia is a meaner place under John Howard, but most approve of his economic management.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/meaner-under-howard/2006/02/19/1140283949213.html

Comment:

This is a quandary that must be better managed by a 5 year moratorium on immigration and a removal of the meanness of HECS fees.
We don't want meanness but we want aggressive free market economics. We can't have both. To solve this quandary we must stop immigration and have a 1 child per family policy. There is no point in poorer people raisinig 6 or 7 kids from poverty to juvenile detentions or rich people getting child care assistances for future Australians who will waste resources, including water, because they have no connection to stable, unimmigrated communities and thus no true purpose other than a Dyleski-meanness in order to survive.

One child per family is not big brother. China has excelled with it. It will give Australians and our environment, the opportunity to live the fullest life in a SUSTAINABLE manner and with economic vibrancy. If 23 million people are too many or too few after a moratorium on immigration, then immigration can balance the numbers.
The immediate upshot of this will be a stabilisation of communities in Sydney and Brisbane with more money going to luxury suburban housing and better lifestyles with more choices for as many people in the community as possible. And It will cause green projects like engineered wetlands to become a boost to economic activity.

But first, the government has to show us that it
is not just interested in hearing our backs break out of economic RESTRAINT, forcing us to have more kids as a breakwater. They need to show that we all can and must have luxuries within stable communities where there is an expectation that the economy is working for US.

Tubley,

My sympathies. It is difficult for most people to understand what you're saying. They can only see the world, and your arguments, through the filter of their culture and personal experience.

You said . . . "So when we talk about population I think it’s more of an additudinal problem than simply a numbers one" . . . and I agree.

Our culture operates with an attitude that says "we must have more people, to make a larger economy so that we can all be richer". The fundamental, but unspoken, assumption is that humanity can continue to grow in number: unabated, ad-infinitum. The reason why we believe this is because we haven't yet experienced the consequnces of it (Diamonds warning). We think that we don't need to live within the world, but to control it, because 'technology' will overcome every ailment we create. Its like saying "oh well, if we stuff up this planet, we'll just use our technology to find another one and then to get us there and start all over again". Of course, we would have the same problems with food, water and oxygen there as we're creating now. But no-one seems to point that out when the media talks about travelling to other worlds.

The point is we're supposed to be living on this world. And that's why the original article was correct, as are the supporting arguments that followed. The solution is not in technology, but in changing how we understand humanity's place as just another species, and its need to control its population - as it had done for millenia, until 'civilisation' arose - and to share the world with all the other species.

At least we (supposedly) have the intelligence to realise it and do it. If only we could overcome our egos.

"As for the far North, the tropical climate is not suitable for predominantly temperate zone dwellers like ourselves. The extreme climate, diseases and the thermodynamic constraint of having a high quality heat source but a poor heat sink, mean that first rate economic activity is not possible in these places."

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why does this population debate always bring out the idiots?

Did you ever hear of a place called Singapore? Economic activity there is a lot more "first-rate" than anything in Australia. No? How about Hong Kong, you must have heard of that place? Kuala Lumpar?

How about this new fangled invention called "air conditioning". Have you heard of that?

"One child per family is not big brother."

Ok, so the first guy wasn't the dumbest.

And if you decide to defy the policy and have more than 1 child, what will "kindly-government-agency-who-in-no-way-resembles-big-brother" do about it? Put you in prison? Kill the child?

"China has excelled with it."

If you could explain how the one child policy has helped a single person in China, feel free to have a crack. And do you realise that due to this policy China now has a gender imbalance approaching somewhere like 20%?

Don't worry about the water supply.
Just call it a threat to national security and John Howard will fix it up in no time.

Thanks for your useless contribution.

I’m with you Davo

.
Yobbo, harking back three posts of yours (if you can consider the last one a post!)….

“This is indeed the biggest problem with increased immigration”.

The main problem is not that most migrants go to Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne. The scale of immigration is the main problem. Transmigration is also a huge problem, especially in Brisbane, coastal Qld and coastal SW WA.

“But the solution is not to restrict further immigration”

It is an essential part of the solution.

“The rest of Australia has plenty of room and water for people, especially the far north and the far south.”

No they don’t. Cairns and Townsville for example feel the pinch like many other places.

Anyway, why would you want to encourage people to go to the far north (or south)…. and further pressure small or medium-sized communities or open up whole new areas to human expansion and environmental destruction?

What would you achieve if high immigration is maintained, thus not leading to significant alleviation of stress on our water supplies or other resources in our major cities?

Water is not the only resource threatened by population growth. We are in danger of losing our hold on this continent completely. You may not want to believe it but think about it.

Yobbo,

Singy and the other Asian ports are close enough to large mountainous systems that provide continual cool breezes as a heat sink. They are thermodynamically efficient and economically viable. Australia has no such mountainous terrain. You might as well be in Nth Africa as nth Australia. There are many similarities.

Air conditioning is NOT SUSTAINABLE unless you have an overabundance of cheap electricity. That will never happen in Nth Australia. Where will the energy come from to drive power hungry ACs.

One child policy, like in china, requires and abortion component and a demerit component if people are adamant. In return for economic advantage most people will opt for one child families.

Show us the link to a 20% gender imbalance in China.-- puhlease.

China was considered a third world country befor the one child policy due mainly to congestion. Since its introduction China has become a first world country and threatens to become the world's major superpower.
Public living standards have increased across the board commensurate with this. They even have rave parties on the great wall!

How do you like them apples?

My suggestion? Listen and you may learn a few things about the danger of overpopulating a desert island with insufficient temperate zone space to house the millions of immigrant voters that power hungry prime ministers dream about when they sleep at night.

And while you're at it, consider New Zealand in the light of Britain and Japan. It is destined to have a population pushing 60 million. If you intend to make a killing as an investor in Oz, you might need to have a rethink.

"For every 100 girls born in China, about 16 more newborn boys came into the world, according to national census statistics in 2000. In other countries, usually only five to seven more boys are born."

http://www.china.org.cn/english/MATERIAL/73229.htm

"Air conditioning is NOT SUSTAINABLE unless you have an overabundance of cheap electricity. That will never happen in Nth Australia. Where will the energy come from to drive power hungry ACs."

Perhaps they could build a power plant there like they do everywhere else in the world?

"China was considered a third world country befor the one child policy due mainly to congestion."

No, It was because of Communism. The one child policy has done nothing to help China. Its development is purely a result of stable government, industrialisation and freeing of markets.

"Since its introduction China has become a first world country and threatens to become the world's major superpower.
Public living standards have increased across the board commensurate with this. They even have rave parties on the great wall!"

Thanks for the lecture, smartarse. For your information I spent 2 monhs in China last year and know very well about how things are developing there. You must be insane to think that China's development has anything to do with the one child policy. Literally I cannot imagine how you can come to that conclusion without eating my own face off in craziness.

And I also can't believe you think its "too hot for business" in Northern Australia. Surely you need some kind of psychiatric evaluation. The mind boggles.

If anyone is interested,

Yobbo stated that, "China now has a gender imbalance approaching somewhere like 20%".

This is pure BS. He is either attention seeking or just lying, hoping no one checks.
The article he lnked gave no information about a QUNTITATIVE nation wide gender imbalance. The only information relevant is his claim (no link again) that 16/(100+100) =8% more boys are currently being born. This of course will change with the stresses and strains of market demands.

There is no point dealing with his other knee jerk claims. He is out of his depth here. If he wishes to learn about how thermodynamics influences EVERYTHING in the Universe, including exploding stars, rock stars and even human Demographics, including water shortages, all he has to do is ASK.

In the meantime it is incumbent on all who enter this debate to understand that the efficiency of any society is dependent on how fast energy can be injected into it and how fast waste heat and waste products can be permanently eliminated from it.
It is also worth noting that 90% of human wastes stagnate in plumes off coastal cities, farms and mines. Just because we no longer see it does NOT mean its thermodynamic gravitas is not being felt. These stagnant plumes (Sydney has its own plume registered with the U.N. as a DEAD ZONE) attract low entropy heat from a variety of REGIONAL sources by a very simple thermodynamic law. Because these plumes control vast heat souces like heat from the Australian outback, these shifts in entropy are an AMPLIFICATION phenomenon. The resulting climate changes and their impacts on social and economic parameters are often mistaken for global warming. Further, the current trend of mass migration of much of humanity to coastal areas for greater opportunities is accelerating the development of coastal waste plumes.

Yobbo,

Why do you think that you know more about the one-child policy than the Chinese government? They claim that if they hadn't introduced it there would be 300 million more people in China today, all of them poor. Why not make themselves popular, if the facts support what you are saying, by announcing that there is no more need for the policy and abolishing it?

Back in Australia, if we have all this water and potential for development in the far North, why is our government angering people by overpopulating the existing capital cities instead of encouraging investment there? As you have seen from this forum, arguments about overpopulation find a ready audience because people in the cities are living it: More crowding and congestion. More long, stressful commuting. The cost of a modest house rising from twice the median wage in the 1960s to 7-10 times the median wage now, even though block sizes have been shrinking dramatically. Permanent water restrictions, with people encouraged to spy on their neighbours. More social inequality. Casualisation and other exploitation at work. Lots of crime, social pathology, and ethnic tensions from a growing underclass. Crumbling infrastructure and public services as resources are diverted into growth. Shocking neglect of our disabled and other disadvantaged people...

I live in the city and I don't feel overcrowded. I've also lived in New York City (population 10m+) and felt quite comfortable there.

If you don't like living in a city, why don't you move? Nobody is forcing you to live there.

Well said, Yobbo. The people who think China's one child policy was the key to the economic success should explain how come India is achieving a similar economic takeoff without a one child policy. Ditto for Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand.

Perhaps Ludwig would like to visit one of those numerous mountain gullies where unwanted newborn baby girls are left to die of starvation, thirst and/or predator attack.

The one thing all of these economic take-offs have in common is the fact that they all stopped listening to ideological nutters who put their own extreme and abstract objectives before common sense, justice and equity, and basic human rights.

Yobbo and Perseus,

My personal preferences about crowding or the cultural advantages of cities are irrelevant. It isn't good for anyone to spend most of his/her income on housing or to put up with substandard hospitals, crumbling transport systems, or underclass gangs. Apart from retired people, the problems of getting jobs outside the cities keep most people there. Unemployed people will have their benefits cut off if they leave. Staying in the city or starving is not a genuine choice.

Some countries have done fine without a one-child policy. South Korea obviously doesn't need one with a fertility rate of only 1.26, too low even if they want to reduce their population size. In the 1950s India and China were on about the same level. Right now (from CIA World Factbook figures) India has a fertility rate of 3.04 (China 1.72, lower than Australia's). It has a GDP per capita of $US2,200 (purchasing price parity), as opposed to $US6,200 in China, where I suspect you and Perseus would much rather be average citizens. Even though India has never had a one-child policy, it also has serious gender imbalance and female infanticide problems. (Why waste resources on raising a girl, who will have to be given a dowry and handed over to some other family once she gets big enough to be really useful?) The availability of ultrasound and cheap, safe abortion is what matters in both countries.

Yobbo… oh Yohhbbo

What about my questions of 20/2. They are pretty highly relevant. Have you just overlooked them or are they too hard to answer?

Here are some more facts that should speak for themselves:

- Human population of Australia: 20 million
- Number of humans that can be fed by the grain and soybeans eaten by Australian livestock: 93 million
- Percentage of corn grown in Australia eaten by livestock: 75%
- Percentage of corn eaten by humans: 15%
- Percentage of oats and wheat grown in Australia eaten by livestock: 85%
- Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90%
- Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 99%
- Percentage of dietry fibre wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 100%
- How frequently a child dies of starvation: Every 2 seconds
- Amount of potatoes that can be grown on 1 hectare: 12000 Kilos
- Amount of beef that can be grown on 1 hectare: 85 kilos
- Percentage of Australian agricultural land used to produce beef: 49%
- Amount of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 kilogram of beef: 7.1 kg
- Amount of protein fed to chickens to produce 1 kilogram of protein as chicken flesh: 2.3 kilos
- Amount of protein fed to pigs to produce 1 kilogram of protein as pig flesh: 3.4 kg
- Number of children who starve to death every day: 40,000
- Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed on the amount of land needed to feed 1 person consuming meat-based diet: 20
- Number of people who will starve to death this year: 60000000
- Number of people who could be adequately fed by the grain saved if Australians reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 60000000

I think this was an extremely good article.

A well written article. It is very refreshing to see the courage demonstrated by the author to write about a topic that for some reason almost seems taboo. It lets me know that at least are few people are awake in the 21st century and not still sleeping in the dark ages. It is disappointing that there is not more discussion on the topic of population. The organisation Sustainable Population of Australia (SPA) - is an organisation that promotes such intelligent discussion. Any attempts to promote debate on the topic of sustainable population in the media has been without success to date. Well done author Tom Gosling

Well done Tom Gosling,

I have not seen a more succinct, relevant and better thought out article anywhere. I hope you put it in a letter to the PM and hope he has the savvy to read it and, more importantly, to understand it. A holistic view of the problem is what was needed and who are the cause of the problem and you certainly hit all the major nails bang on the head.

If I can add anything to what you have said to make the message sink in it is this: Evaluate all the things Australians use as markers for "quality of life". You will find they have ALL been static for the last thirty years and for the last ten years many of them have been deteriorating rapidly. I do not consider a "Game Boy" and a television in every room an improvement in quality of life. I do consider being able to take my kids fishing, climbing, surfing, walking and having plenty of water and I nice house to live with the attendant trimmings representing a great quality of life.

From now on that quality of life will rapidly diminish as the population rises. Do the sums and consider the other poor beings that live here, what are they going to do when we humans have used all their replenishable resources as well.

Great article and I am also elated that so many of us have similar sentiments and a grasp of what is really happening. Keep up the flow of good work.

Guy Vickerman