Peter Curson says that 4 countries in Asia have negative population growth; China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

China has positive pop growth, at a rate of ~0.63% http://indexmundi.com/china/population_growth_rate.html

South Korea has positive pop growth of ~0.39% http://www.tradexpro.com/ks.html

Taiwan has positive growth of ~0.24% http://indexmundi.com/taiwan/population_growth_rate.html

Only Japan has negative growth, of ~ -0.14% http://indexmundi.com/japan/population_growth_rate.html

And besides, so what if China or any of these countries did achieve negative growth or higher negative growth in the near future? Wouldn't they and the world all be better off for it?

Good article. A contraction in numbers of people working means a contraction in the tax base. Less tax, less revenue for funding welfare and intrastructure - yet we've still got a large top end (60s, 70s and 80s) age cohort who will live longer. Major problem. Potential major tensions.

Some simple truths.

1/ If traditional Australians of AngloCeltic and Northern European background (those comprising the backbone of the population) continue to reproduce at a rate less than 2.1 or so.. then they are breeding themselves out of existence..they are dying race. literally.

2/ If any other group in Australia (or Sweden or Denmark or Norway or France or UK) is reproducing at a much higher rate.. and are identifiable by either ethnicity or religion.. then they are breeding themselves into an uncontested position of dominance.

What we do about that.. is our own choice. I just wonder how our great grandchildren would feel if they found themselves at the unjust "mercy" of a group which has
-higher fertility.
-strong cultural religious identity
-seeks to enhance the immigration of their own to Australia

and ultimately has values and principles which regard non them as worthy of scorn, disgrace and shame.

I rather think our grandchildren would hate their ancestors if that happened.

It may be worth considering China's "One Child" policy as a case study. Whilst many would argue it's not right to restrict the number of offspring a couple may have, one has to ask themselves what benefit is there in bringing a child into the world if they are going suffer. Admittedly the government graciously provides financial incentives for couples to have a child, e.g. baby bonuses, e.t.c, but for the average couple once that baby bonus is spent on booze and cigarettes, what next for the child. Personally, I think it should be mandatory for all couples considering having more than one child to consult a financial planner and most definitely a family planner counsellor. I'm sure if the government was willing to provide a Medicare rebates for Financial Planner services rendered pertaining to this particular issue, couples would consider it.

Dear oh dear. We've heard from the latter day Malthusans in response to this article. They're never far away anyway. But it's only a few short steps from the Malthusan fear of over-population through financial and family planning to a re-born set of eugenicist positions. We need to be careful here folks. This is a democracy and the best people to make decisions about having children are the prospective parents. Once we start actually believing that the baby bonus has mostly been spent on booze, we're not far from setting up criteria about who can have children and who can't.

“The world will be swept up in a demographic transition never before experienced”. Maybe so, and it could be a humdinger – though probably not as envisaged by Peter Curson. Hopefully it will not be as instantly horrific as that blip of a transition in 1348, although the change will be more enduring.
Major transitions in the rate of change of human numbers have occurred at:
1830 (1 billion total) – after a millennia of 1 billion per 1000 years (average), commencing with 0.25 billion humans.
1950 (2.55 billion total) - 1 billion per 75 years average following 1830
2000 (6.5 billion total) - 1 billion per 12.5 years after 1950, and the advent of antibiotics and disease control.
Now, world rate remains at 80 million a year.
For Australia, during the past twelve months there is change – instead of waiting four years for our additional million, following Howard’s inspiration, the Rudd Government insists we will have it in three.
Population and security will be further challenged, as we are already living beyond the capacity of environmental resources to cater for our expectations. That is far more worrying than the thought of grandparents having occasional responsibility for fewer ankle-biters.