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.