Mr Right,

You’re not very bright are you.

>” The Australian population is replacing itself”

A minimum fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman is required to maintain a countries population at a stable level, That is, to replace itself. With 1.71 births per woman Australia’s population will start declining as soon as the baby boomers are gone. There is NO doubt about that. “Population projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that continued low fertility, combined with the increase in deaths from an ageing population, will result in natural increase falling below zero sometime in the mid 2030s”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia

That means negative population growth. It’s a really simple concept. If you start out with 4 people, 2 women and 2 men, unless the women have two children each then the population will eventually start going backwards.When a population is falling that means fewer people are being born than are dying. This in turn leads to a greater percentage of the population being older. This will kill off all gov’t funded welfare ( ie free health care, free education, free babysitting) as the ratio of workers to benefit receivers reaches tipping point.

> “In your great wisdom, haven’t you checked the countries with half the population of Australia who have always done very well?

Population size isn’t the issue at all. It’s the fall in population and the related aging of the population that is the problem. If Australia had only a 1/2 of the people it now has but they were at the very least maintaining their numbers then Australia would be in a much healthier situation. In the history of the world there has never been a civilization that survived a prolonged period of population decline. The societal problems which such a scenario raises have always been overwhelming and irrecoverable.

“There is no evidence that future generations will be long-lived.”

Oh you have evidence for this do you? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
Currently the ABS has life expectancy at birth of .
Male: 78.5 years
Female: 83.5 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia

Eric,

The ABS thinks that we will have zero population growth by the 2030’s. That’s just over 20 years away. After 2030 we will have population decline with the population halving every 50 years.

“We’ve had an increasingly ageing population for the past 60 years” This is true, its getting worse and only helps make my point. Those people have until now been productive members of the community. However these people will be entering retirement soon, placing massive strain on our economy. A society that continues to become older by its very definition will start to shrink as old people start to die. Population growth doesn’t need to go on forever. I’m certainly not arguing for neverending growth, however there is real danger in population shinkrage.

I agree that there is nothing liberal or progressive in strip mining the poorer countries of their doctors, engineers and teachers. However your understanding of economics is somewhat lacking. If there is a shortage of software, lowering the price will make that shortage more acute, by increasing demand and lowering production.

BTW, we don’t run out of water, we can’t destroy it and all water is recycled. What is in difficulty is the infrastructure through which we supply ourselves with water. The disappearance of cheap fossil fuels will be good for the environment.

How about technology coming to the rescue? It always seems to be just around the corner to solve any population growth problem. And why make out that all the oldies are a useless burden? I mean, really, aren't human beings under 20 years far less useful and far more capital intensive than human beings over 60 years? And when is this "grey catastrophe" likely to hit? In ten years? In twenty?

Global warming zealots could learn much from the grey catastrophists. All this extrapolation will surely test their eyesight.

While our children are being educated they are a cost to society as we pay for their schools, their teachers etc for 20 years on average. An elderly person is a burden on society if their last few years of life when they are no longer capable of independent living, on average about 2 years. In those last 2 years of life will use most of the health care dollar spent on them through out their life.

Research has shown that 1950s immigration was very beneficial to the large factories that employed the migrants especially the car plants at Broadmeadows, Elizabeth and Geelong. Society paid for the migrants by constructing government housing, building schools and educating their children. Because the migrants took the lowest paying jobs, the existing [white] Australians benefitted from improved social status.

Today's skilled migration pushes existing Australians down the socio-economic ladder. Increasing migration levels is being pushed by large retailers, like Jerry Harvey, and the housing industry who want to keep up demand for their product by increasing the numbers of consumers.

China has become an economic giant 30 years after implementing their one child policy. Both China and India restrict the number of babies a woman has, both have negative population growth.

PaulL,

Replacement level fertility (or below) will stop or reverse population growth over the long term, but only if there is no significant net immigration. Currently, from ABS figures, approximately two babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every death. You are worried about something that isn't going to happen for more than 20 years from now, and even then only if we eliminate net immigration. Where is your evidence that the politicians will do anyting of the kind? Rudd is increasing immigration numbers. No numerate person thinks that either population or consumption can increase without limit on a finite Earth. Why not call a halt while there is still something worth saving?

Take a look at the Measures of Australia's Progress reports for the damage we are doing to the environment right now with the existing population. Quality of life has deteriorated in many important aspects over the past 30 years as well, with inflated housing costs, crumbling infrastructure and public services, shrinking open space, more congestion, declining personal freedom, etc., etc. On a global scale, it would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone on the planet a modest European standard of living, even if all the wealth were divided equally. (See the Redefining Progress site or the graph on page 10 of the Oct. 6, 2007 New Scientist.) Why add to our contribution to climate change and other global problems?

Paul.L,

"The ABS thinks that we will have zero population growth by the 2030’s. That’s just over 20 years away. After 2030 we will have population decline with the population halving every 50 years."

The ABS thinks what?

While it's certainly true that the domestic fertility rate has dropped below replacement level, Australia is set to reach 30 million by 2050, with about 80 percent of this population growth due to imigration. To suggest that Australia is facing outright population decline when the most recent demographic trends indicate we are in the midst of a population explosion is a stretch — even for an immigration enthusiast.

"Population growth doesn’t need to go on forever. I’m certainly not arguing for neverending growth, however there is real danger in population shinkrage."

Population 'shrinkage' would only occur if net immigration was permanently cut to zero. Even then, it would take some time for the population to stabilize and then gradually go into decline.

The real demographic challenge facing Australia is population aging — a problem which cannot be solved by immigration for the simple reason that immigrants also grow old. More immigration simply means a larger dependent elderly population in the future. Ever-increasing, unsustainable levels of immigration would thus be required to maintain a stable ratio of workers to pensioners. In other words, never-ending population growth.

"The societal problems which such a scenario raises have always been overwhelming and irrecoverable."

Using mass immigration from the Third World to reverse an imagined population decline because of lower birth rates is a temporary and highly dangerous expedient, with irreversible and potentially disastrous consequences. In the history of the world there has never been a civilization that has survived a prolonged period of mass immigration on the scale you're advocating. The societal problems caused by mass immigration have always been overwhelming and irrecoverable.

Displacing a nation's existing population and culture through mass immigration is societal vandalism at its worst.