Shorbe,

It looks like you and me to solve the problem. I wonder if Mr Eslake ever reads the comments or even knows they exist?

My view is from a very practical viewpoint. The analogies are simple: We can make a Concord and fly it for 30 years with no mishap but at what cost? We can desalinate as much water as we like....but at what cost? We can import 100 million people and make NO DIFFERENCE to the rest of the world at all; you can guess the ecological and social cost for Australia?

I suggest that it is obvious that growth economics works and works really well! Look at the benefits we have reaped in the past 100 years. The point is that it has NOTHING to do with the population at all. Unfortunately there are a few very powerful people in this country and the US who have absolutely NO regards for any other thing than the almighty dollar, and they make their money by raising the population and not raising our quality of life or amenities in any way.

I would love to debate Mr Eslake or any other economist to see if they have any clue to what is happening. It appears to me economists only describe the situation AFTER it has taken place and are positively clueless when predicting where their model will lead.

The writing is on the wall and you only have to open your eyes to see what is happening to our level of choice and where we are heading.

I will give you something to think about. List what you can do now that was not possible in 1975! You can send an e-mail and a fax but that is about all....and we all had plenty of water

Guy V: So, I have a few questions.

1. To what extent are these problems caused by factors outside our or our government's control? ie. changing times.

2. As far as growth, to what extent do you believe that's a natural desire of most people? From what I've heard, our declining birthrate is not necessarily because people want fewer kids, but because they can't afford to. Immigration may not be a solution in a sense, but it's a response to that. Maybe there's a deeper issue there.

3. How would you handle the ageing population/shrinking workforce base in this nation?

4. Could you be more specific generally about how you would get Australia back on track?

SHORBE go to http://www.population.org.au/ for some answers to your questions about population control.

shorbe,

(1) The Government has control over immigration. It let's in who it wants and how many. The trouble is WHO wants and why?

(2) The natural desire for most people is to be happy, well fed and have your kids grow up healthy. Most women I know say they are happy they have a CHOICE in the number of children they can have. In the old days and third world countries the infantile death rate is extremely high so they have to have many. These countries are also the ones where men are in control of fertility either by religious or societal means.

There may deeper issues but looking at all the wealthy countries where women are educated and have a life expectancy the natural population has stabilized or is falling slightly.

(3) I think the argument about the aging population is a blind. An economy appears to work by throwing money down holes. You just have to decide which hole you throw it down and how much. Do we throw it down the military hole, the road hole, the education hole or the aged care hole. The pulse of old people will pass relatively quickly once the baby-boomers fall off the perch. The only reason we are a problem now is that we are living longer.

(4) I would like to have lots of answers but that would be my view only. I would like to open the subject up for considered debate by people who may be far better informed than I. To do this we must set up a series of questions which will answer how we wish our country to be in 50 years. A desert like the middle east or a place where we can catch a fish, climb a mountain, play a game of footy and have a beer with your mates.

We are at the brink of having to make some serious decisions and I put it to you all that sitting in a traffic jam the same as I did 30 years ago is not progress as I see it.

VK3AUU: Thanks for the link. Interesting site. Consider the following article:

http://www.population.org.au/affluence/maxpop.htm

In particular, this struck me:

"A far more likely steady-state scenario than human population falling to 1.2 billion is...populations held constant by war, disease, hunger, suicide and genocide."

To tell you the truth, I don't want to reduce my standard of living and I'd like to have three children. Having negative population growth is unnatural in my mind, and in the minds of many others. I know I'm selfish, and I know that will have massive effects on the world, including inevitable wars and famines that are very destructive. I think our past sixty years have been an anomaly (our resource usage comes from the fact that we have had relative peace). I know there will be winners and losers on a grand scale. That's nature, and I don't regard humans as anything above and beyond other species that wax and wane according to how well they can control resources. Ultimately, I just want to be on the winning side. That's all.

Guy V:

1. So, to what extent would you get rid of immigration?

2. I agree that high fertility is usually due to oppressive (maternalistic) religions or cultures. However, I see countries countries in Europe (or Japan) as largely having lost the plot. There's something suspect about a culture that won't breed even to replace itself.

3. Are you saying there won't/shouldn't be a funding problem, especially once the Baby Boomers are gone (since they're a huge generation)?

4. I agree, but see my above solution. Let China, Europe or the U.S. cut their populations to 20 million or 10 million. I don't want to see it happen here. If necessary, let Africa kill itself off with AIDS or famine so we can move in and claim what's left. Let's use what we have here so we're on the winning side of history.

Immigration policy is in need of review through direct consultation with the community. Canberra should not be surprised if an overwhelming number of voters oppose the large scale immigration we have now. The following link (thanks to another correspondent) might help to explain why people should be concerned about population growth based on economic argument alone.

http://www.population.org.au/

In our acquaintance we have seen numerous examples where lax Australian immigration policies and administration have been abused by the wily. By way of example an Indian couple from Dubai befriended us some time ago. A common theme in their conversations with us and others was obtaining citizenship, which we took positively – outside of facilitating political and other government contacts which they repeatedly asked for. During this, the mother of the family and the three young children attended Preschool and early primary education, while the father continued to work full time in Dubai with regular visits.

Last year the family obtained Australian citizenship and immediately moved back to Dubai. We recently visited on the way to Europe and were told by the mother (who was a bit disappointed of leaving Oz so quickly) that obtaining citizenship was for convenience only firstly, to get a cheap tertiary education for the children when the time comes and secondly, to ensure they have another country as a home base if required, and thirdly to take advantage of Oz medical and pension if and when required. Apparently the husband will inherit the family assets in India in due course and that is where they will reside. We were told that Australia or the other preferred choice Canada, had no particular interest for them apart from satisfying the family’s economic and world travel interests, which were the driving force.

Of course there are abuses of immigration and the government should be open in discussing them. We should also be discussing the outcomes and goals of immigration to obtain consensus. Why shouldn’t there be public, measurable goals for immigration and a 'sunset' clause to ensure regular review of the relevance of policy?