Perseus has ignored the fact that as we increase the Australian population, the overseas population we can support decreases accordingly.

1200 scientists wrote the report summarized as...

"A landmark study released today reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation, and the regulation of regional climate, natural hazards and pests – are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years."
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/about.overview.aspx

Perseus, you can grow the population here, arguing that we already support X million people over "there". It does not matter. Try to think globally as you act locally.

A little growth here and a little growth there... and you have arithmetic progression with the deadly doubling time. We are in the last doubling period the earth can sustain. The proverbial 24 hour bacterial bottle is somewhere between 50% and 100% full. It's after 11pm — and we are still growing.

Do we want to leave addressing this right up until "midnight?"

Excellent posts by Ludwig, Eclipse, Thermoman, et al, and thank you, also, Jenny for your excellent article which ties together the looming threats of enrgy shortages, global warming and population growth.

Just one small bone of contention to pick with Ludwig, where he wrote (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4163#34608):

"Creating new cities or 'state capitals' or ‘boosting’ regional towns in order to relieve congestion is just dumb for as long as rapid pop growth continues."

You are, of course, correct, but a strategy to deal with the terrible mess, already created by the population boosters, particularly in South East Queensland, the Sydney Basin and Melbourne will be needed once Australia adopts a long overdue policy of population stability.

We will need to utilise space in regional and outback Australia in order to relieve the horrible congestion in the major urban areas.

In the longer term, it will be essential that people live closer to where food and other necessities can be grown, when oil shortages make it impossible to sustain our current energy-inefficent system of food production, storage and distribution. When it occurs, those now cramped (sorry, 'consolidated') into the ghastly high rises of the major capital cities will neither be able to obtain food from their local supermarkets nor be able to grow it for themselves.

Instead of waiting for the inevitable crisis which will condemn many of our fellow citizens to death by starvation, we need to begin now the task of reorganising our society to become sustainable. That reorgainisation will have two facets :

(1) Where there is still adequate land in suburbs which have not been 'consolidated', retrofitting those suburbs so that adequate food can be grown to feed their inhabitants as advocated by David Holmgren (http://www.energybulletin.net/5104.html), and

(2) Decentralisation to allow people, now in crowded areas of the cities, to move to somewhere on our largely dry and infertile continent where, hopefully, it may still be possible to establish sustainable agriculture as a basis for self-sufficient communities.

Of course, the necessary precondition to this is an immediate cessation to the relentless Government-driven growth in our population.

Daggett, I don’t have any disagreement with that.

As you say, significant decentralisation should only occur upon the necessary precondition of a halt to the continuous growth paradigm and the implementation of a population policy based on sustainability.

It seems to me that you have totally agreed with my statement; "Creating new cities or 'state capitals' or ‘boosting’ regional towns in order to relieve congestion is just dumb for as long as rapid pop growth continues."

Cheers.

.
Perseus, oh Perrrrseaars, I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence that is ‘on the record’, re: your statement; “And Ludwig is on record of discouraging innovation for the express purpose of bringing the population "day of reckoning" closer.”

>>Perseus, oh Perrrrseaars, I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence that is ‘on the record’, re: your statement; “And Ludwig is on record of discouraging innovation for the express purpose of bringing the population "day of reckoning" closer.” <<

LOL!
Ahhh, Ludwig... I needed that laugh.
It's been a very disappointing and very hard day.

Now, I note that neither Perseus or Pericles have responded to the 600 scientists from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" yet or the 1200 scientists of the MA. Maybe one day they will try a substantive engagement with the facts.

Ludwig made it perfectly clear in the trail from "More Crops per drop" by David Tribe that he regarded any effort at improving yields to be wasted if population were allowed to increase.

He said, "how people can put their life’s work into more efficient and higher productivity while never putting the slightest bit of effort towards stopping the demand from continuously increasing", and, "I maintain that it would be an enormously better idea for us to put most of our efforts into stabilising the demand on our resource base rather forever trying to increase the supply rate".

And this can only be interpreted as Ludwig urging a person working on practical means to improve the lot of ordinary people to down tools and become an anti-population blog zealot. And lets face it, that is all you do, put words in space with zero impact on anything beyond wasting other people's time.

You are the classic ideologue who, when confronted by the fact that no-one listens to you, starts seeking out scapegoats amongst those making a positive contribution to mankind, to censure them for insulating people from the pain that you think they need to be put through to agree with your gonzo logic.

And as Candide rather politely put it, "that is all very well but there is work to be done in the garden".

My goodness, eclipse, aren't you the cheeky one!

>>I note that neither Perseus or Pericles have responded to the 600 scientists from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" yet or the 1200 scientists of the MA. Maybe one day they will try a substantive engagement with the facts.<<

I fully support their right to hold their opinions. They all seem to agree that at some point, we will have to seriously consider the impact of our lifestyles on the ability of the world to sustain us. I have no problem with that, as I have said on any number of occasions.

What you, however, have failed to respond to is the need to think through the practical implications.

I asked:

"What incentives do you consider would be helpful in persuading i) the USA ii) Iraq iii) Nigeria iv) Indonesia and v) China to join your programme? What would be your fallback position if some, or none, came to the party? Do you believe that i) bribery or ii) threats would be more effective in getting your message across?"

It is utterly pointless to moan and bitch that "someone should really, really do something" if you don't have a plan. That simply puts you in the category of background noise, marching up and down with your simplistic slogans and holier-than-thou posturing, firmly believing that by spending your entire life whingeing about something you can do absolutely nothing about, you are actually being virtuous.

I suppose that if it makes you feel somehow useful, I shouldn't knock it too much.