I think the crux of the problem is that neither current not future generations will be able to recapture the middle class lifestyle of the late 20th century. Hallmarks included personal mobility in terms of owning a car and overseas travel, a rich varied diet, leafy inner suburb housing or an affordable commute from the hobby farm, lavish use of appliances like air conditioning and income security. I suggest that Gen Z can look forward to none of that. With such recent memories of 'what it used to be like' I think there will be discontentment at accommodating ever more people. Kids today may look forward to irregular employment if any, not owning a car, a bland diet, water and electricity rationing and generally less fun than their parents and grandparents had.

In the case of populous countries like India and China we are talking about over a billion people who may see the middle class dream slip away. As to the drop in oil price the law of supply and demand says it must go up again due to inevitable supply cuts whatever the demand. Remember that when there is no diesel or synthetic urea fertiliser for dryland wheat crops we will have to turn increasingly to local organic farming. Driving your big Aussie six cylinder petrol car to the well stocked supermarket will become a distant memory. Therefore I think the future will be very hard and an unfair legacy bequeathed by the current selfish generation

Actually, not a bad essay, even if it dismisses population concerns. However, it is easy to refute many of its supporting arguments:

“Australia’s annual immigration intake is now more than 1 per cent of total population, which is more than the proportion achieved during the great migration waves of the 1950s and 60s.”

- Indeed!

“Despite economic circumstances, there is little apparent community interest in changing this”

- Yes, the developers donate large amounts to Liberal and Labor alike to ensure they get the continued high immigration they want.

“Unless voters can see the ocean creeping over their front gardens, or they can’t get water from a tap, then radical policies such as removing family tax concessions or limiting the numbers of children per family have no chance of general acceptance in Australia.”

- Tragic but true

“Faced with this deep seated preference for growth about the only possible option, for those who consider growth a problem and want to make a difference instead of being ignored, is to push for adaptation.”

- The trouble is that adaptation will only work temporarily. Resources ARE finite. The system DOES reach a limit where it can no longer support the population.

“Some commentators have suggested that the production of easy-lift oil (that is, cheap oil in big reservoirs) should have peaked last year, with that peak likely to prompt a hurried switch to other types of oil (petroleum locked in sands and shale and the like).”

- “Easy lift” oil (conventional crude oil) actually peaked back in 2005. All oil production peaked in July 2008. Note that EIA and IEA price predictions have about as much value as those of ABARE – very little! Also, ABARE statistics on food self-sufficiency have recently received withering critique for massively over-estimating the proportion of food that Australia exports. Listen to this report on ABC’s Bush Telegraph: http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2009/s2526814.htm

(continued in next post)

(continued from previous post)

“ a glance at temperature records since the turn of the century - about when people started taking the forecasts seriously - show that temperatures have been trending down since then, not up. “

- Tell that to the food-growers in the Murray-Darling basin.

“This particular brand of doom-sayers would be better off pushing for adaptation, or finding other windmills to tilt at.”

- It IS possible to limit population. Because resources are finite, adaptation will ultimately fail. This is not just some amusement for bored green activists with nothing better to it. It threatens all of us. If we do not stop population growth then all other measures to stop environmental degradation are futile.

If there was a point to this article, I missed it. It seemed to read like "Please stop going on about the population. Its getting you nowhere, and besides it is annoying."

It also didn't acknowledge where the anxiety about population comes from. He seems to say, "Look we have double our population since 1960, and everything is more or less OK. Yes, the price of petrol spiked, and yes water is a problem, but it wasn't the end of the world so stop worrying." The problem isn't the population now - besides we can't do much about it. The problem that keeps me awake at night is what happens if we double our population again by 2050, as we will if we continue on our current course. It seems likely the downsides of the first doubling will be minor compared to the downsides of the second one.

One problem with this article is the definition of "growth", it's basically the old 'guns and butter' argument, growth in what goods for which purpose. Some people regard the environment as a good in itself, others as a source of raw material,so the claim that greenies are necessarily anti-growth is an attempt to create a straw man,some consumers value the public good of the environment over 4x4s for example. When some individuals extoll the virtue of "growth", they refer to increased production in those goods they value( or any "goods") for instance. Part of the justification for increased immigration is that increased population makes us "richer", certainly the GDP increases, however the real test is the change to per capita GDP, not aggregate GDP. What is the increase there? Is the increase due to immigration or some other factor?

The limited time horizon of some of Mark Lawson's comments is amazing, an increase in oil prices was projected some years ago,but look they have collapsed recently, so don't worry. "Next year is the distant future" is, unfortunately, typical of the mentality of our capitalists.

Whatever the realities of climate change, Australia is basically a desert it is not the USA or Brazil, how many people could Australia realistically support without enormous expenditure in order to obtain water supplies, 25 million? 50 million? 100 million? 10 milion? That question must be answered before the advocates of "growth" can present a plausible argument.

Despite the author’s “…deep seated preference for growth…” immigration to Australia and the global population increase is the biggest threat both to Australia and to the world.

It is true that the population is not interested in the subject; so why does the author claim that “…all the proposals by the anti-population push are sure fire election losers”?

There is no evidence that the wider population WANTS high population growth; that is the proven choice of the powerful building industry and other big business lobbies who stand to gain financially from high immigration and population growth. The latter also have the ability and wealth to make huge donations to politicians.

Rather than being a vote loser, lower population “proposals” are a money loser for big business and, therefore, a money loser for the politicians who obviously have not put the proposals to the electorate for that reason.

The apathy of the average punter exists only because the true horror of over-population has yet hit to them, as it surely will in time.

Knowing that people are apathetic, the author tries to ensure that they stay that way by telling them that the economic system is “ simply not set up to contract”, and that, “no amount of berating by those concerned about a growing economy putting strain on resources is about to change that.”

There are several impolite words to describe the author’s claims, but we must as least ask ourselves what change might occur if voters weren’t so apathetic. And, is Mark Lawson trying to keep them apathetic as a supposed authority (although there is nothing in his biography to say that he has any authority to say the system cannot be changed, and that Mr.& Ms. Average would not take an interest in our burgeoning population growth if knew the truth; the truth that is being kept from them by big business and politicians; the truth about the countries that do very well for themselves with populations smaller than ours.)

Mr. Lawson’s ‘greenie’ bit is a red herring. I am a conservative and free market advocate.