We can all see that our population is going rather rapidly in Australia. No one can miss it. And yet our birthrate has been around 1.8 for years.

Not only have we had high immigration for a long time, but the effective birthrate has also been above replacement level.

This is due to the high proportion of young reproductive people. So while the average personal fertility rate is well below replacement level, the national fertility rate, if we can call it that, is above replacement level.

This means that even with net zero immigration, our population will continue to grow for about four decades if the current fertility rate is maintained, at which point the age structure will be evening out.

So concern about our 'low' fertility rate is unfounded and the whole notion of the baby bonus being designed to actually get our fertility rate up to replacement level is fundamentally flawed.

Then there is the question; if we can adjust population growth and composition with immigration adjustments, why do we need to worry about manipulating our fertility rate? And let’s face it, we can adjust these parameters far more easily via our immigration program than we can by even the most enormous baby bonus scheme, or baby-buying program, or parent-bribing system.

And then of course there is the really big question; why on earth aren’t we gearing the whole nation towards a stable sustainable population instead of a continuously growing one with no end in sight?

Ludwig,

Your last paragraph contains the really big question: one that no one wants to answer. I vaguely remember the Opposition muttering something about a population policy, but they are in such a mess, we can forget them. They are also into big immigration, so they probably cannot be taken seriously.

Just continuing to breed our own and import others without any consideration to our environment and recourses is, to me, plain stupidity. The current water situation should be enough for anybody (but a politician, industrialist or developer) to get the message, as should be the galloping increase in salinity and degradation of the land.

There are countries with half our population doing very well indeed. Whether or not they have smarter politicians and voters, I don’t know, but we see to be living in the past

Ludwig...I don't understand how the national fertility rate can be different from the individual.. are the not the same ? Can you provide further information on this please ?

Last night, at Bible study, the wife of the host, who has a daughter who benefited from the BB, told me that her daughter knows of friends who are now having babies just to get the baby bonus, and not for the child, but for themSELVES.. to have a big spend on something..... sad.

I think the encouragement of higher birthrates should continue though, until our fertility rate reaches at least 2.5 and we don't need to rely on immigration so much.
A rate of 1.8 is clearly evidence that we are dying out unless we bring in lots more migrants or start having more children. Unless I'm not getting the picture properly.
cheers

David

Our population age structure has more young people than it would have if it was typical of a stable population. This is largely because our immigration program has been skewed towards young people. It makes all the difference to our effective birthrate.

For example, if we had two people out of ten with an average fertility rate of 2, we would have 4 four children produced in the first generation. But if we had three reproductive people out of ten, we would get 6 children. So the number of people, or the proportion of the population, that the average fertility rate refers to is all-important in determining the total fertility rate for the whole population.

Exactly what the national fertility rate (or at least, that’s what I call it) is, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to appear anywhere in the literature. But it is obviously a bit above replacement level if our population is continuing to grow regardless of the immigration factor (net zero immigration). This so-called natural growth, rather than decline which you would expect if the national fertility was 1.8, is well-documented and expressed by numerous authorities.

“… having babies just to get the baby bonus, and not for the child, but for themSELVES.. to have a big spend on something…”

And isn’t this disgusting! There is NO requirement that the money be spent on the baby. It really is the most deplorable blatant bribe, and the worst piece of government policy ever to emerge in this country.

“I think the encouragement of higher birthrates should continue though, until our fertility rate reaches at least 2.5 and we don't need to rely on immigration so much.”

Implicit in this is your desire to see our population continue to grow. Why? And why should we favour our own children, from a diverse multicultural background, ahead of immigrants of the same sort of composition? What’s the point?

Ludwig,
You are right that the ‘natural increase’ in population (excluding migration) is positive despite the birth rate being below replacement rate, because an unusually large proportion of the population is of currently of child-bearing age. You are wrong, however, to say that this means we needn’t worry about a low birth rate.

Demographic changes take decades to unfold, and seemingly small differences - such as between an average of 1.7 and 2.1 births per woman – can have a large effect on our demographic profile in the years ahead. If low birth rates persist, the aging of the population will be much more acute, and the rate of decline in population excluding migration expected in the middle of the century will be much more rapid.

This will give us two bleak choices. We can suffer the demographic problems currently facing (for example) Japan – a massive increase in the aged population, a falling population of working age, and a declining total population - with all the social, cultural and economic upheaval that entails. Or, we massively increase migration in the middle of the decade to try to offset the decline in the resident population. Increasing migration to offset the effects of ageing is subject to rapidly decreasing returns, because migrants age just like everyone else, so the migration intake would have to rise to three or four times its current level to stabilise population - again, with potentially undesirable consequences.

Even accepting your goal of stabilising the population (which I don’t), sustaining higher birth rates now and allowing a more gradual transition to zero population growth is the least disruptive and costly way to achieve that end.

I think it is disgusting that both major political parties continue to maintain high levels of immigration. Recently the excuse has been we lack skilled workers. Nonetheless, the present 6 year drought in SE Australia and chronic water shortages demonstrate that the climate and soils of this continent cannot support even the present 20 million people. It is likely this year that Australia will have to import wheat. The baby bonus is therefore absurd, and financially discriminates against people who choose not have children and those who cannot have them. I heard that it tends to be the dumb that make babies, while the smart don’t. The smart tend to be richer and don’t need the baby bonus anyway. Do we want quality or quantity?

And what about the energy needs of an ever growing population? We apparently have about 300 years supply of coal. After that, what, nuclear? Uranium is not unlimited, and comes with the inevitable risks of ionizing radiation. Warming of our climate in recent decades is likely due to combustion of fossil fuels, though we don’t know for certain. However, we cannot afford to fool around arguing this point, we need to act immediately. So, why not spend the baby bonus on solar energy instead? After all sunshine is one thing we have in abundance in Australia. Unfortunately, Howard hasn’t the foresight to act responsibly. If he hasn’t done anything for 10 years, he’s not likely to start now. Labor never has and never will, while the Greens and Democrats carry too much weird baggage that is not even vaguely realistic. I will keep doing my bit to help: I use rain water for my garden in Sydney, I have a solar h/w heater and I am presently investigating solar cells for electricity. The latter are very expensive and wouldn’t be paid for in my lifetime, but nonetheless I feel I should do something.

Rhian

I guess you will agree that the immigrant intake is much much more malleable than our fertility rate. As you said, “demographic transition takes decades to unfold” when based on changes in fertility patterns.

So why on earth don’t we adjust our immigrant composition and just not worry at all about the fertility rate?

Worrying about the fertility rate instead of immigration seems akin to filling your swimming pool with a thimble when you have a hose right next to you!

It seems to me that you are wrong with the rest of your post because you have completely overlooked the enormous ability that we have to adjust our demographics with adjustments to immigration.

There is no way in the world that we are going to ‘suffer’ an actual decline in population, for as long as the powers that be are growth-oriented and can adjust immigration numbers pretty much at will.

“Increasing migration to offset the effects of ageing is subject to rapidly decreasing returns…”

Absolutely. And the same applies with increases to the birthrate. Increasing population growth is not the answer to our concerns about an aging population.

“…sustaining higher birth rates now and allowing a more gradual transition to zero population growth…”

But who’s planning on a transition to zero population growth? Certainly not Costello or Howard, or Beazley or ….or anyone!! If stabilising population was part of the plan, then a boost in fertility, in conjunction with a decline in immigration might almost be acceptable.

Ludwig

If all we cared about was the Australian head count, then I would agree that stopping migration now and reintroducing a large immigration program at some stage in future would be the quickest way to stabilise population without draconian anti-child measures (but not that this is a desirable goal to achieve).

However, the impact of migration on the ageing of the population is asymmetrical. Raising the immigration rate only reduces ageing a little, but cutting net migration to zero makes it significantly worse.

(see McDonald, Peter and Kippen, Rebecca. ‘The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia's Population’, DIMIA, 1999.)

This means that not only would you cause much more rapid aging if you eliminated net migration now; you’d also need to have a much increased migration program in future to ameliorate the effects - or have a much older age profile. Which is why I argue that a smooth transition is preferable to turning the migration tap fully off now, and fully on in future.

And while migration is certainly malleable from year to year, its impact on the composition of the population also takes decades to unfold – demography is not amenable to short-term fixes.

I’d like to know why you think that stabilising population is not a desirable goal Rhian.

The question remains, why bother with manipulation of the fertility rate if it takes decades for the results to unfold?

Surely if we are talking about decades, then we have GOT to be talking about the timeframe in which population stabilisation is absolutely necessary. Surely there are much bigger factors to worry about in that timeframe than an aging population or the effect of fertility rates on it.

Your concern about aging seems to be at stark odds with your apparent lack of concern about sustainability (ie the need for population stabilisation). Surely sustainability is vastly more important. Surely if we do not rapidly gear ourselves towards a balance between the number of people on this continent and the life-support systems that those people demand essential resources from, then we can forget about ANY support for the elderly or for the tax-payer that is burdened by an increasing cost of pensions and healthcare for retirees.

Let’s worry about sustainability first and foremost. Let’s not get hung up on this relatively minor concern about an aging population.

Ludwig, I don’t believe our current population levels and growth are unsustainable. We have one of the lowest population densities in the world, and our resources are more than sufficient to support a larger population.

Most of our water is used in agriculture, and most of our agricultural produce is exported. That’s fine by me. But if domestic consumption represents a higher value use, let’s use our water and food to service domestic markets instead. And let’s have governments with the courage to take decisions to match water supply and demand (prices that reflect costs, recycling where appropriate, the construction of infrastructure such as dams and desalination where necessary).

Many of our most pressing environmental problems are not going to be solved by changing population levels (within plausible bounds) – salinity, species loss and climate change will remain problems of much the same magnitude whether our population in 20 years time is 22 million or 28 million.

Greenhouse is a global problem requiring global solutions. Migration doesn’t increase the world’s population it just rearranges it, so cutting migration will have no effect on global greenhouse emissions.

I’m not denying that there is any relationship between population growth and environmental pressures, but I do believe that these pressure can be managed, and that our most pressing environmental issues are unlikely to improve much as a result of any plausible demographic policies.

I see the costs of population growth as manageable, and exceeded by the benefits. These are mainly social and cultural – the pleasure of living in a diverse, globally-linked, complex and evolving society – but also (secondarily) economic, as there does seem to be a positive link in Australia between population growth and real per capita living standards.

The real risk in blaming our environmental problems on population growth is that it diverts attention from the measures necessary to really address them.

Hopefully this discussion hasn't turned into a bickerfest between two people. It's a topic that matters to a lot of people and it would be a shame to exclude others by turning it into a private exchange even if that is the privilege of the author.

Hi , with a friend we have a discution going as follow
is the immigration being a replacement for a proper technical education
policy , when the country need some qualified manpower it is simpler
and cheaper to import it than to make it .
technical education in N.S.W. ( I don't knows other states ) is very
bad , immigration seems to be a device to put training in the "too
hard basket

.

Dear Rhian,

Quote: “We have one of the lowest population densities in the world, and our resources are more than sufficient to support a larger population.”

Not entirely true. Most people inhabit SE Australia within 300km of the sea. The effective population density is much higher, especially considering much of Australia is uninhabitable.

Quote: “there does seem to be a positive link in Australia between population growth and real per capita living standards”

This statement is nonsense. Look at data from the OECD. Analysis of per capita income to population increase over the 1970 to 2004 period shows absolutely no relation between the two at all. For example, from 1970 to 2004 Italy’s population rose by only 9% and per capita income rose 7.9 times. In Australia, population rose 61% and per capita income 7.3 times. In Mexico the figures are 100% and 6.3 times. In relative terms, you will see that in 1970 Australia was ranked 6th highest in per capita income. By 2004 we had slipped to 10th. Indeed the countries that have bumped Australia down the list (Austria, Iceland, Ireland and Norway) all have a substantially lower population growth. The conclusion then is that population growth has contributed nothing at all to individual wealth, but rather decreased our quality of life and made us poorer economically. In Sydney, thanks to the higher population, I can’t use a hose whenever I please. In the past, I could drive my car into the central business district or go to the beach and park free of charge. Now I have to pay. The harbour is polluted with dioxin such that we can’t eat the fish, let alone swim in it. Graffiti, vandalism, theft and unsolicited violence is far more likely now than it was when I was young. To me this represents a decline in the quality of life, which counts more than per capital income.

Quote: “… cutting migration will have no effect on global greenhouse emissions.”

This is also not true, as discussed over this article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=460

Rob

Many factors affect a country’s growth. From the 1970s to mid 1980s Australia slipped down the OECD rankings but has since clawed back much lost ground. This almost certainly has little to do with population policies and a lot to do with economic policies - especially economic reforms by Labor then the Coalition from the late 1980s and into the 1990s.

The link between living standards and population I cited was for Australia, not the OECD. Here, the States and Territories with the fastest population growth also have the fastest growth in real per capita GDP and consumption. Think SA compared to WA, or Tasmania compared to Queensland.

Much of Australia is indeed largely uninhabitable. But the inhabitable bits cover an area bigger than most European countries – the 5% of Australia that is arable is larger than Japan or Germany, or Italy, with populations 3-6 times ours. I don’t advocate their population levels and don’t think we’ll reach them, but the dry interior does not mandate quite such a sparsely populated fringe.

A cut in Australia’s migration might cut global greenhouse emissions if migrants emit more here than in their home countries or alternative destinations. But can’t be assumed because we’re relatively intensive per capita emitters. As with water use, the relationship between Australia’s population and emissions is neither straightforward nor linear, as a significant proportion of our emissions derive from resource industries whose output is barely related to domestic population. Furthermore, even allowing that global emissions might be higher if people move here, in the overall scheme of things the net effect will be negligible. We’re far better off focusing on long-term strategies to reduce global emissions, and on Australia’s proper contribution to that effort. Australian migration’s effect on global emissions is not enough for greenhouse to be a material consideration in migration policy, or for migration to be a material consideration in greenhouse policy.

This is why I think migration is a dangerous red herring in the environmental policy debate – there are other much more important and effective issues that we should be pursuing.

“But the inhabitable bits cover an area bigger than most European countries – the 5% of Australia that is arable is larger than Japan or Germany, or Italy, with populations 3-6 times ours.”

How arable is our land Rhian? When we consider total rainfall, reliability of rainfall and soil fertility, there is not much quality arable land around.

Australia’s population has grown pretty much proportionally to its resource base, most notably fertile soils and good rainfall, in just the same way that the population has grown in the USA for example, roughly in line with their resource base. But the US, with a slightly bigger land area, has a vastly bigger population; about 14.3 times bigger than ours.

There is no reason that Australia wouldn’t have had a similar population size by now if we’d had a similarly fertile regime to occupy. Our illustrious politicians have pretty much always tried their damnedest to grow the population. That’s how enormously different arid ancient Australia is compared to recently glaciated and hence edaphically renewed North America.

Would you advocate that the USA should continue to expand its population? Presumably not, given that you don’t advocate their European countrys’ population levels. So I can’t see how you can be advocating that ours should still be growing.

Again, it is well and truly time to come into balance with our life-support systems. And that necessitates population stabilisation (or perhaps reduction). Population stabilisation can only be approached gently, so that would mean stabilising at a level somewhat higher than at present. Then further adjustments can be made, either up or down. But it is essential that we head directly towards a stable population in the first instance.

It still is not clear why Rhian wants a bigger population. To add to the economic argument, the Productivity Commission report this April on immigration found that the economic benefits were negligible, although they ignored the extra pressure on the environment. A number of other such studies around the world have found that per capita economic benefits to existing residents are "close to zero or negative" (see column by Prof. Robert Rowthorn, Prof. of Economics, Cambridge University, in 2/7/06 (British) Telegraph). Of course some powerful groups in the community benefit handsomely from urban land speculation and cheap, exploitable labour.

Damage to the environment is not completely proportional to population, but all else being equal more people mean more energy and water use, more cars, more infrastructure, more sewage, etc. In the US per capita energy use has been flat for more than 30 years. With zero net immigration since the 1970s there would be perhaps 235 million people instead of 300 million and proportionately less emissions (see Numbers USA site).

To add to the lifestyle argument, in the 1970s an ordinary family could buy a modest house with a big back garden for the children to play in for the equivalent of 3 years median wages. Mothers could stay home with their babies and work part time afterwards. Now (for a much smaller block) it is 7 to 10 years wages. Is a greater variety of cheap ethnic restaurants for Rhian really worth a mother crying in a washroom because she had to leave her 3 month old baby to go back to work? In the 1970s when we had 13 million people, which was enough to support two major metropolis sized cities. Sydney had a symphony orchestra, an opera house, a world class museum, at least one world class university, all the diversity and ethnic restaurants you could want, and plenty of higher density housing. Rhian could freely pursue his chosen lifestyle, while other people followed theirs. Why does he want to ram high densities and diversity down the throats of people who would much rather do without them?

Divergence,

Have you considered this aspect of immigration: the vast majority of migrants upon arrival are, and for quite extended periods tend to remain, aliens. This applies also to the children, born overseas, of migrants. It is difficult at any given time to put a number to the people permanently resident in Australia who are Australian citizens. It is even more difficult to put a number to the people who are Australian citizens aged 18 or over. It is this latter subclass that constitutes the total possible size of the population eligible to enroll and vote.

Whilst ever there is a significantly large number of non-citizen migrants (currently believed to be well in excess of one million) it is difficult to know just how large the electorally eligible sub-class of the population is. It is consequently difficult to monitor whether the officially reported number of persons electorally enrolled at any one or number of times exceeds the theoretically possible, or even the statistically probable.

Was it ever to be that a mathematically and administratively skilled interest group took advantage of this situation in which it is difficult to audit true enrolment eligibility levels, it might be possible that such a group could get hold of what would amount to a massive bundle of proxy votes with which to covertly influence, or maybe even effectively control, national policy on an ongoing basis.

A "grey area" with respect to aggregate electoral enrolment eligibility numbers has existed in Australia since about 1950. Do you know of any studies that may have been done from this perspective? The sustained dogmatic adherence to high immigration policy in the face of nil net benefit in terms of other indicators needs some explanation. Could continued migration have been being promoted as a smokescreen for possible large-scale electoral enrolment improprieties?

Divergence - housing affordability is a problem, but population growth is not its cause. The Productivity Commission’s examination of home loan affordability for first home buyers concluded that “overall population growth has not been a key driver of recent rapid increases in house prices.” http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/housing/finalreport/housing.pdf, p.59).

Other recent analysis blames taxes and red tape rising prices (see for example http://www.ipa.org.au/files/MORAN Housing speech July 2005.pdf)

Migration's effects depend on circumstances. Even if migration does not yield economic benefits in the UK, as you suggest, that’s no reason to expect it wouldn’t here. Some Australian studies show the economic benefits are minor (e.g. the PC study you cite), others that they are substantial (e.g. Castles, Forster, Iredale, and Withers “Immigration and Australia: Myths and Realities”), but most independent and credible Australian studies show economic benefits.

Ludwig – I have no problem with Europe’s or the USA’s population densities, what I meant was that I don’t ‘advocate’ them here, in the sense of believing we should set a target of a much larger population and set policies to achieve that end. Advocates of much higher population in a short timeframe are as unrealistic and authoritarian as advocates of zero or negative population growth, in my experience. I don’t believe we should have any population target.

Resource constraints alone do not explain our population density being lower than the USA’s. Achieving higher population takes time, even for pro-growth countries. The Mayflower landed in 1660, and by the declaration of independence in 1776 America’s population was about 5 million. By 1830 – more than 200 years after the first white settlement – the population was 13 million, and by the civil war (1860s) about 30 million.

Adjusting for the fact that Europeans began settlement in the USA almost 170 years before Australia, our population growth since settlement has probably been a little faster that theirs.

Why do I support migration? Mainly because I enjoy the social and cultural benefits of membership of a diverse, dynamic, globally attuned society, which go far beyond the “greater variety of cheap ethnic restaurants” Divergence suggests is my motive

“Advocates of much higher population in a short timeframe are as unrealistic and authoritarian as advocates of zero or negative population growth, in my experience. I don’t believe we should have any population target.”

Mmmm interesting Rhian.

So you advocate a slow or moderate rate of population growth, presumably like we have now (if we can call the current rate slow or moderate).

“Why do I support migration? Mainly because I enjoy the social and cultural benefits of membership of a diverse, dynamic, globally attuned society…”

Well…. wouldn’t you consider a higher immigration intake to increase these benefits?

It seems that you are balancing this perceived cultural benefit with something that you are not telling us about. Could it be that you do see real environmental or societal problems with high immigration / pop growth? (I’m not meaning to be rude. Just trying to get to the nub of the issue)

I think Divergence is quite right. The cultural benefits are here and have been for a long time. I can’t see that immigration adds to them significantly any more.

“Adjusting for the fact that Europeans began settlement in the USA almost 170 years before Australia, our population growth since settlement has probably been a little faster that theirs”

Sure. But the enormous discrepancy between the US and Australian populations is first and foremost due to the enormous difference in basic life-supporting resources.

“overall population growth has not been a key driver of recent rapid increases in house prices.”

Fine. But neither does population growth lower prices, or raise income or increase average per-capita economic growth and quality of life, as we have been led to believe by various waves of pro-growth politicians.

So if this growth is not doing us any good in hard economic terms, quality of life terms, environmental terms, sustainability terms…..or cultural diversity terms, then it has surely got to be time to curtail it. By the way, a stable population scenario with net zero immigration, would still allow for a significant immigration program of 30 000 or more per annum.

Ludwig, I disagree, migration raises both average per-capita economic growth and (more importantly) quality of life. That’s what the balance of Australian evidence shows.

I’m not advocating any particular rate of migration - slow fast or moderate - but I do think that those who say (I believe Hugh Morgan did) that we should have 50 million people by the middle of the decade are as off-the-wall as those (from memory, Tim Flannery is one) arguing for a population of about 10 million.

You are right to say that we currently enjoy a diverse culture. But here again the inexorable long-term grind of demographics is at work. Even though our numerical migrant intake is almost back to the levels of the mid 1980s, in percentage terms these numbers represent a smaller proportion of our resident population. So the percentage of the population born overseas will almost certainly fall over the next few decades. Cutting net migration to zero will make that transformation deeper and more rapid.

“.. the enormous discrepancy between the US and Australian populations is first and foremost due to the enormous difference in basic life-supporting resources”. Then why did our population grow faster in our first 200 years than the USA’s? Once human societies move beyond subsistence, local life-supporting resources are decreasingly important in determining quality of life. Otherwise China would be super rich and Japan, Taiwan and Singapore dirt poor.

You conclude “So if this growth is not doing us any good in hard economic terms, quality of life terms, environmental terms, sustainability terms …..or cultural diversity terms, then it has surely got to be time to curtail it”. I would agree, but the key word here is “if”.

In fact, population growth is doing us some good in hard economic terms, and more good in terms of quality of life and cultural diversity. In environmental terms it causes some problems, but these nowhere near as bad as the alarmists claim, and can be managed. So on balance, it’s as good thing.

(there was a typo in my previous post – the Mayflower landed in 1620).

How can agricultural water benefit cities? Most is too far away from major populations, and very little is available all the time, which is a prerequisite for domestic water.

I realise that there is substantial theoretical research suggesting that immigration is beneficial, but a real per capita benefit has not been proven, and much research of late suggests the contrary.

The notion of an ideal population could be useful, as it would imply that immigration could be beneficial where a population was below its ideal. It could also provide an objective standard, as most proponents think Australia's water, environment and resources are capable of supporting a far greater population, which is in stark contrast to many opponents believing that we are well in the red now.

There is nothing wrong with stating that you enjoy a diversity of cultures, but the suggestion that immigration creates a superior society is blatantly racist, as it implies that one racial mix is superior to another.

“migration raises both average per-capita economic growth and (more importantly) quality of life.”

Rhian, we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree on this.

The overall size of our economic turnover continues to increase largely due to population growth, which generates ever-increasing demand for all sorts of stuff. But per-capita economic turnover just simply isn’t increasing. Have real wages gone up in recent years? Has our purchasing power increased?

What’s the point of having an ever-bigger economy if it is not leading to improvements in quality of life, or to things like better national security, better environment integrity and faster rates of repair, better management of our stressed resources and so on? It just seems to be more of the same with no gain, except for a few already rich and powerful people….and with a steady decline in a lot of parameters.

We've had the same sort of rapid growth for decades, always espoused by politicians as the answer to our woes. But the problems have steadily worsened. So what do they do? Espouse the same old solutions, or I should say; non-solutions.

The majority of the wealth that is generated by or in association with population growth is being concentrated in the pockets of a small minority, which means that for most of us the decline is considerably larger than the average fall in per-capita economic growth would suggest.

As far as quality of life factors go, what about all the diseconomies of scale such as increased congestion, increased demand on stressed resources, especially water, increased coastal development and the consequent decline in natural environment values, which affects us via tourism, recreation, fishing, etc...and heaps of others?

Alright, so you think that population growth is a good thing. Up to what point? Should our population reach 30 million? Should our growth rate stay as it is or be increased? Can you outline just exactly what scenario you want to see.

Rhian , one thing we do know is that population growth and industry are destroying our natural environment now , just as was occurring in the 1800's.
Major Mitchell while exploring Northern NSW and QLD with his typical large party in about the 1840's said in his diary he was embarassed in front of his "sable" Guide when the pristine water hole they were going to camp on was already badly polluted by cattle .
Believe me, speaking from experience it doesn't taste too good .
Why growth for growth's sake ?[kartiya].

Sorry, Forrest, I haven't looked at the political aspects of all this and am not aware of any claims of fraudulent voting by aliens. Paul Sheehan in 'Among the Barbarians' made claims about the Labor Party encouraging migration from certain areas to gain an electoral advantage, but presumably this would be after the migrants became citizens.

Rhian,
Some time ago the politicians essentially abandoned efforts towards decentralisation, so most of the jobs are in a few major cities. There is only so much land within reasonable commuting distance of these cities. In the 1970s the land was 30% of the cost of an average house, and now it is 80%, even if the house itself is more lavish. A number of more volatile factors act to increase demand, including a trend to smaller households and internal migration. If you pick a sufficiently short time frame, then it can look as if population growth is relatively insignificant. I note your use of the word "recent". A (pro-immigration) contributor to this forum called Foundation did the numbers over a longer time frame and found that population growth was significant in lack of housing affordability. No one would be speculating in real estate if he didn't think demand and prices were going to increase. Why else is the real estate industry lobbying hard for more and more population growth?

If you look hard enough you will no doubt find a study that says immigration has economic benefits. There are experts who will say that alien abductions are real and that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS. I notice that the 1997 US National Academy of Sciences Report
came to the same conclusions about population growth (negligible benefit) as the Productivity Commission, and also that it is causing increasing social inequality (see refs. to this and similar studies at the Center for Immigration studies site, www.cis.org). If you were right, the benefits of mass migration would be unmistakable, just like the damage to our environment and quality of life. You may be keen on permanent water restrictions, but I am not.

Divergence,

It seems I may have been slightly misunderstood with respect to those who migrate to Australia who remain technically, with respect to citizenship, aliens. I was not suggesting that in any way, or at any time over the last 60 years, improper voting BY ALIENS has been of significance. Quite the reverse. What I was questioning was whether the very presence of a significant number of people who fall into this category can act as a smokescreen against effective auditing of the Australian electoral administration and process. The fluid category of aliens simply collectively and unwittingly would fulfill a role of making the electoral enrolment statistics, should anyone be monitoring them, appear inconclusive.

I would hate to add fuel to the fire of any simplistic 'anti-migrant' debate through being inarticulate or misunderstood. This topic is about population growth misconceptions, and if I understand the seemingly well argued points of other posters, particularly Ludwig and Rhian, there does not seem to have been at any time an overwhelming case for pursuing, as a matter of national policy, migration as a means to achieving population growth. That is not to say there has been no benefit, either to migrants themselves or to the society that has received them. Again, quite the reverse. But the issue seems to be growth for its own sake. So I look for possible explanations to what appears, across the political spectrum, to be a dogmatic adherence to a sustained policy of encouraging and/or facilitating migration at any price. All I suggest is that perhaps persons uneasy about the implications of population growth in general, or migration in particular, may be looking in the wrong direction for explanations.

On this point, those administering the electoral process cannot audit themselves. Who does this job? How long has it been being done? More to the point, what sort of a job has been done? Does anybody know?

Forrest,

You might have a look at the Center for Immigration Studies site, www.cis.org, in the US where they have had similar issues. I am concerned about the possibility for election fraud too, but I think that what is driving both high immigration and the baby bonus are economic benefits from growth to the top 10% and more particularly, the top 0.5%. If you own some of the limited supply of urban land and have more and more people competing for it then you can get very rich, very fast. The corporate elite also get bigger captive domestic markets, and a cheap, cowed work force that doesn't dare complain about exploitation or unsafe working conditions. There are large savings on training costs. Take a look at the State of Working America graphs at the Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org, to track the growth over the years in the share of the economy going to the folk at the top while wages stagnated or even went backwards in real terms for the bottom 80%. The Edwin Rubinstein archive at vdare.com is also useful for this.

Upper middle class people also support the high immigration because they get a buzz from diversity and "global attunement". Their own jobs are safe, since they generally require recognised tertiary qualifications, good English, and often an intimate knowledge of the culture. They can usually afford to go private, so don't need to worry about crumbling public health and education, and to live in neighbourhoods that are too expensive for most migrants. In the US there are also benefits from illegal immigrant nannies and the like.

This elite controls the mass media and can afford to "donate" handsomely to politicians and reward them with investment tips. Once the politician leaves politics he can often expect a nice sinecure as a consultant or company director.

It could be even more sinister of course. The sorts of people we are dealing with are not above jailing political opponents, as with Pauline Hanson and earlier with Albert Langer.

Ludwig, asks “Have real wages gone up in recent years? Has our purchasing power increased?” The answer to both questions is emphatically “yes”.

In the past 15 years, average full-time earnings have risen by 85%, while the Consumer Price Index rose by just 46% - that’s real earnings growth of more than 25%. Over the same period real (after inflation) household consumption rose by 71%, while the population rose by less than 20%, so real per capita consumption increased by 43%. Even if some of this growth was accounted for by the super-rich, most of it benefited ordinary folk. It is growth ahead of Australia’s long-term average and of most other mature developed economies.

Other measures of our quality of like are also improving – life expectancy is rising, more people are going to university or experiencing foreign travel. Contrary to popular perceptions, we’re working shorter hours on average.

Divervence, the likes of the Productivity Commission are hardly equivalent to believers in alien abduction. Other studies that show a small but positive economic impact include William Foster’s “Immigration and the Australian Economy”, and ACIL Consulting’s “Impact of Migrants on the Commonwealth Budget”, and research by Econtech and the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research. Typically, independent and credible research shows a small but unequivocally positive improvement in average living standards (and in employment and unemployment and the budget bottom line) in Australia as a result of migration.

“The answer to both questions is emphatically ‘yes’.”

Crikey Rhian really? So why is it then that one-income households have been replaced to a very significant extent by two-income households…. that still struggle to make ends meet?

“so real per capita consumption increased by 43%.”

That’s a hell of a claim. Very rubbery figures I would suggest. Where did you source them?

“Other measures of our quality of like are also improving….”

So what about all the ones that aren’t improving? What is the net effect on our quality of life?

“life expectancy is rising”

Yes. But is that connected to continuous growth?

“more people are going to university or experiencing foreign travel.”

You presumably mean a greater proportion of the population?

What about our health system, education, law enforcement, etc? Despite considerable technological advances in all of these areas, you could hardly say that these services have significantly improved on a per-capita basis. And yet these are the core issues that a growing economy is supposed to be constantly improving.

Can you answer these questions from my last post…

‘Alright, so you think that population growth is a good thing. Up to what point? Should our population reach 30 million? Should our growth rate stay as it is or be increased? Can you outline just exactly what scenario you want to see.’

Thanks

Ludwig
All my data were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/viewcontent?readform&view=ProductsbyCatalogue&Action=expandwithheader&Num=1). Specifically, I used the spreadsheets of data for Average Weekly Earnings (catalogue 6302.0), the Consumer Price Index (catalogue 6401.0), real household consumption data from the National Accounts (catalogue 5206.0) and population data from Australian Demographic Statistics (catalogue 3101.0). You can easily check my numbers and do the math for yourself. I used real seasonally adjusted household consumption divided by population for real consumption growth, and average weekly total earnings divided by the Consumer Price Index for real wage growth. If you believe this methodology or the ABS data are “rubbery”, perhaps you could explain why.

You asked to what point I believe population growth is a good thing. But as I have said before, I don’t believe in population level or growth targets. The natural rate of population growth is determined by couples’ choices about how many children to have. I think that’s as it should be – deciding this is not a role for governments or policymakers (though for other reasons, I support some “family friendly” policies). The level and composition of immigration is varied by the government according to varying humanitarian needs, economic circumstances, and community expectations. These change over time, so I’m reasonably comfortable with the current scheme of annual population targets adjusting as circumstances change (though a bit more predictability and consistency in setting and applying the migration criteria would be a good idea).

How much improvement in average income or living standards from population growth do the studies show? I recall one suggesting a $700 improvement in average income over 20 years: How would this weigh against negatives like increased water charges, traffic congestion, Australia's balance of trade, housing costs, and environmental impacts?
Do the studies consider such things? Is "quality of life" given any consideration at all in the studies?

Harry Triguboff might want another 16 million people in Sydney by 2050, but going by the SMH reader response (the plug got pulled after less than 18 hours), this vision is considered abhorrent by an overwhelming majority. http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/006689.html

My concern is how population growth will impact on quality of life. Barrie Pittock edited a report on the environmental impact of climate change and its implications for quality of life: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/index.html#summary
The report was substantially misrepresented by Australian media, which trumpeted the finding that Australia could support 50 million, but ignored the proviso that this would entail serious environmental and social degradation. Attempts to have the media redress the misrepresentation were all but ignored.

Rhian, I’ll address the second half of your post now and try to find time to delve into the detail of those ABS figures later.

“I don’t believe in population level or growth targets.”

So you do believe that populations can continue to grow until they are physically prevented from further growth by one or more life-supporting factors, or by sheer lack of space?

Even if you do believe that our current population growth has real net benefits, you have surely got to believe that there is a point at which benefits and negative effects balance each other out. Surely then, it should be the role of governments to strive to stop the growth at that point or thereabouts, if not well before.

So then, shouldn't the federal, state and many local governments be planning for limits to physical growth now?

I guess you can see that Sydney is overcrowded and that further growth is pretty silly. Presumably you can appreciate some of the problems being caused by rapid pop growth in southeast Queensland, or at least you can see that the same rate of growth is bound to lead to lots of problems before too long.

So, aren’t limits to growth, whatever limits you might think appropriate, in order? Surely sooner or later we have to have limits. Hasn't it has been shown around the world that if the limits are generated directly via resource stress from too many people, ie approaching the ability for the life-support systems to be maintained, then peoples’ quality of life is going to suffer big-time.

Ludwig

You say “sooner or later we have to have limits”, but there is nothing near consensus on when that might be (one literature review found that estimates of Australia’s carrying capacity ranged from 10 million to 600 million – see Chisholm, A. “Resources and The Idea of Carrying Capacity” BCA Papers Vol. 1 No.2, October 1999).

There’s a very good chance we’ll never get to a point where we need to set a limit. We have already noted that Australia’s birth rate is below replacement, and without net immigration the population will start to fall within a few years. Most developed countries are in a similar position or already have static or falling populations.

The 20th century saw very rapid expansion of the world’s population, as death rates fell because of better health care, sewerage services and clean water, and improved nutrition. The birth rate also fell sharply, but less sharply than the death rate, so the world’s population rose rapidly. Even to optimists like me, who celebrate the falling death rate and rising life expectancy as marvellous developments, the resulting rate of global population growth appeared unsustainable.

But it won’t be sustained. A natural “demographic transition” from a world with high death rates and high birth rates, to one with longer life expectancy and low birth and death rates, is already under way. The world average birth rate is falling, and many projections now suggest global population will peak in the 2nd half of the century (e.g. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/9B-World-Population-2070.htm).

Australia will still need to manage migration issues according to economic, environmental and social priorities, but I don’t see national or global demography providing the imperatives for government-mandated population targets.

Philosophically, I suspect we approach this issue from different poles. I’m uncomfortable with command-and-control approaches to social issues, particularly affecting something so intimate and important as fertility. I enjoy living in a multicultural society, I’m proud that Australia takes a relatively large share of refugees and other humanitarian migrants, and I’m convinced that a sensibly proportioned economic immigration program benefits Australians.

Ludwig

I think you have hit a wall with "Go forth and multiply.". You can only hope that one day growth proponents will apply a fraction of the evidence based policy standard that they seem to demand of climate change projections. The thought that policy might be formulated by a "Bible" standard is quite scary.

‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’, rubbery figures and wrongly implied causality! Just some of the things I suspect are awry with the figures you presented, Rhian.

As much as I would like to fully respect the figures that a reputable organisation such the Australian Bureau of Statistics puts out, I have to question a lot of them.

Your figure of 43% real per capita consumption increase in the last 15 years seems totally over the top.

I am not and expert in this area and I’m not willing to put a huge amount of time delving into the nitty gritty of how these stats are derived, but I will express a number of concerns;

Firstly, I have no doubt that our per-capita consumption has increased, but whether that translates into a higher quality of life is highly doubtful.

Secondly, as you allude to, part of this is “accounted for by the super-rich”. Well, I think that the ‘ordinary’ rich probably also account for a great deal of it, to the extent that the average person has only seen a very small increase or as I suspect, a decline.

Thirdly, “household consumption rose by 71%, while the population rose by less than 20%” implies that population growth is not a causal factor. If the two figures were more closely aligned we might assume, rightly or wrongly, that there was cause and effect, but with them being so disparate, we really have to doubt it. In fact, it could well be that population growth has worked against the trend, and that the increase would have been greater with a stable population.

Fourthly, these figures are based on dodgy economic principles, where economic activity generated by things such as smoking-related illness and traffic accidents is added to the positive side of the ledger, and where stuff doesn’t have a value unless it is being exploited, which means that the size of resource reserves and the ability for them to last well into the future or to be sustainable doesn’t enter the picture.

continued

Fifthly, I wonder how much of this mooted 43% is expenditure beyond our means, that is placing us in personal and national debt.

For one thing, the Consumer Price Index doesn’t take into account a lot of housing costs. House prices have increased by an enormous amount – in the order of 300% in real terms and much higher in some areas. So how does this sit with the mooted 43% figure?

In fact, I reckon that if this whole arena was thoroughly explored, we would find some absolutely glaring problems with it.

“Other measures of our quality of life are also improving – life expectancy is rising, more people are going to university or experiencing foreign travel.”

Yes, but do they have anything to do with population growth, or are they happening in spite of it?

What about all the QOL factors that are declining, such as increased obesity, increased congestion, more restrictions on fishing and other recreational activities, increasing resource-supply issues, especially water, and so on….some of which have strong connections to, and at least partial causality from, population growth

RHIAN , interesting that you are quite happy with "command and control"in society .
I think the ONE CHILD POLICY in China is a sensible one ,but with their rising wealth no doubt you would think that it needs changing?

“There’s a very good chance we’ll never get to a point where we need to set a limit.”

But Rhian you didn’t disagree with my previous statement; “I guess you can see that Sydney is overcrowded and that further growth is pretty silly. Presumably you can appreciate some of the problems being caused by rapid pop growth in southeast Queensland….”

So if you can see that a limit is appropriate in Sydney and elsewhere, for obvious reasons, then why wouldn’t the concept hold for the whole country?

Even the most pro-growth people can see that population limits are necessary on small islands. This applies with the Townsville City Council in relation to Magnetic I, and with other north Queensland councils, which are pretty much rampantly pro-expansionist.

If we even suspect that our resource base is anything other than sustainable, then one of the first things we should do is stop increasing the pressure on it……surely!

In SEQ, there is a great push for people to reduce their water usage. But no attempt to stop the increasing number of people!

Across the country, there has been a concerted effort for people to get into recycling or to think twice about what they are buying, in order to reduce consumption and waste production. But no attempt at all to stop the number of consumers and waste producers from rapidly increasing!

We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So the push is on for everyone to do their bit… while the government continues on its merry path of increasing the number of fossil fuel consumers!

It is all just utterly schizophrenic!

Our society/government can see the need for sustainability or frugality, while at the same time condoning continuously increasing pressure on these resources, the very same resources that we are trying to protect by appealing to the individual to reduce his/her consumption!!

Can it get crazier than that?

The CPI does not include the cost of interest (think of those big housing loans). It includes building costs, which have not increased much in real terms over the past thirty years, but not the cost of the land the house is built on or the cost of purchasing established houses. It allows the sharply rising costs of health care, staple foods, and other necessities to be concealed by the falling prices of new cars and consumer electrical goods. A plasma television might cost $3,000 instead of $12,000, but a low income family still cannot afford one. This is explained in layman's terms in a Sept. 2006 Greens paper 'Let them eat cake: how low income earners are disadvantaged by the CPI' by Richard Denniss.

Rhian needs to apply a reality check to the idea that quality of life has improved. How do people benefit from now needing a 50 year mortgage, or from losing their garden, or from having their neighbours encouraged to report them for hosing their cars or windows off? How do we benefit from a slower journey to work due to the additional traffic and blockages because of roadwork or because someone has had a breakdown or accident? How do exhausted mothers of small children benefit from working all day and then coming home to the lion's share of the housework? If people just love living closer and closer together, why has the state government in NSW (and probably elsewhere as well) had to take planning powers away from local councils to ram through higher densities?

I haven't seen the figures for Australia - yet, but in the US, where they have also had mass migration, the median wage is essentially the same in real terms as it was in 1973, and the people at the bottom have been going backwards (see State of Working American graphs at Economic Policy Institute, www.epinet.org). All of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the folk at the top. Alan Greenspan, the head of the Reserve Bank, actually said that immigration was valuable for keeping wages low.

Ludwig, we can debate endlessly whether quality of life has improved because it is subjective and not quantifiable. But you asked, “Have real wages gone up in recent years? Has our purchasing power increased”. On these indicators there is credible, independent, verifiable information. As you now appear to accept, the evidence is unequivocal – they have improved. The 43% growth in real per capital consumption doesn’t seem over the top to me. As I said, you’re welcome to check my sources and methods and dispute them.

It is simply not credible that average spending could increase so fast but “ordinary” people see spending fall.

When quoting growth in consumption and population I wasn’t implying a causal relationship, just showing that spending had grown much faster than population and therefore per capita spending has risen, to refute your point that “per-capita economic turnover just simply isn’t increasing,” which is clearly wrong.

The point about “dodgy economic principles” is also mostly wrong. GDP as a measure of economic welfare counts as pluses a few things most of us would count as minuses, such as the cost of cleaning up pollution or fighting crime. That’s why I quoted real consumption per capita not GDP per capita, as consumption is a much better measure of spending on things people actually want, and is generally accepted as the best single measure of economic welfare. Not perfect, I’ll grant, but I defy you to name a better one.

I’m the only person arguing against population controls in this forum, so can’t respond to every point. Don’t take silence as consent. I don’t agree that Sydney is overcrowded, though I would agree its government has done a woeful job of providing the infrastructure and services its population needs.

Divergence, you’re right that the CPI no longer counts interest costs as part of the basket of expenses, and if it did, inflation would be a little higher. But not enough to change the basic picture I described.

kartiya jim, I said I’m UNcomfortable with command and control policies, and that would certainly include the one child policy.

Rhian

Would you care to respond directly to the “schizophrenic” points I made.

How does the strong push to reduce per-capita consumption of various stressed resources sit with the push for or acceptance of a continuously increasing number of consumers?

I do find it very strange that you would consider Sydney not to be overcrowded, and presumably capable of taking limitless growth.

Ludwig, I didn’t say I think Sydney is capable of limitless growth, just that its problems are caused by bad government not overpopulation. The alternatives you pose of a bureaucratically-mandated population policy and “limitless growth” are a false dichotomy which I have said repeatedly I do not accept.

You identify the core value of sustainability as frugality, I identify it as efficiency – making better use of resources, encouraging innovation to replace technologies and processes that are intensive users of scarce or polluting resources, and shifting further towards growth in living standards through ideas, services and technology. This means we can raise living standards sustainably. The task to me look pretty much the same whether Australia’s population in 30 years time is 30 million or 40 million.

Sustainability to me is much more about how we do things, than how many of us do it.

Rhian,

You accept that the CPI does not include interest, but have said nothing about the fact that the CPI does not include urban land prices either, whether on their own or as part of the cost of an established house. Even if you resist the idea that housing affordability is strongly related to population growth, these costs must still be paid. The growth in house prices in Sydney from 3 to 9-10 times the median wage for a modest house would have to wipe out most of the gains that you claim.

How will increasing Sydney's population make life better for the current inhabitants? What will they have then that they don't have now? Here is a letter to the Adelaide Advertiser:

DON Bursill may believe that Adelaide has sufficient water supplies to enable it to double its population ("City has water for growth”, 23/10), but the question surely must be: how will having 2 million neighbours make my life in Adelaide better? I will have less water, more traffic, more crowded beaches and so on – in general, less of what I need and more of what I don’t want. There is no plan behind increasing Adelaide’s population – just growth for growth’s sake and sod the inhabitants.
Michael Lardelli
Prospect, SA

You might also read up on some of the past societies that collapsed. Technologies don't always come along just because they are needed. Unlike the days of the Green Revolution we are now in trouble on a number of fronts, and, very often, the obvious solution to problem A is likely to make problem B worse.

Ludwig

You are forgetting that the Lord said "Go forth and multiply.", and since when is the Lord ever wrong? So you must see that no matter how many people are on this Earth we must obey the Lord until he tells us otherwise. I guess that this great wisdom of the Lord implies that technical solutions will always be found for the problems created by an increasing population. But who am I (or any man for that matter) to comprehend the wisdom of the Lord?

Just be thankful that we don't have the wisdom of the Easter Islanders' Gods.

Rhian, My apologies for missing your "un" in uncomfortable.
However I believe they have shown uncommon responsibility in bringing this law in, although it has had for some individuals, horrific consequences .
Fester ,I am far from convinced with your quote from the bible . Methinks it was when there was a severe shortage of sheperds for the family farm or a lack of canon fodder to defend the same.
One thing is certain the Good Lord ,being the World's greatest Conservationist tried to organise the perpetuation of ALL animals when he insisted that Noah take two of each kind.
What makes you think we can have your unbridaled population growth yet not continue to destroy all the species around us ?
By the time you put the brakes on the last 2/3rds of species other than manunkind will be nearly gone .
Then the Lord will get cranky - guaranteed.

Divergence, We’ve already discussed our differing view on the causes of the recent growth in house prices. If you check out the REIA’s home loan affordability indicator, you’ll see that in the past 25 years it has risen and fallen in cycles that bear no discernable link to trends in Australia’s population growth.

Of the letter you quote, why doesn’t the author move to on of SA's small regional centres. There he would find cheaper housing, more water (at a guess), less traffic, and emptier beaches. Of course, he’s also have fewer and less diverse employment opportunities, probably lower wages, a limited choice of schools and technical training or university study, few specialist medical services, fewer opportunities to attend concerts, theatres, sports events, arts venues, pubs, clubs and restaurants, and relatively limited public transport. In short, less of all the benefits of living in a major population centre. Then again, maybe that’s why he doesn’t move from Adelaide.

I’m not against small settlements – I’ve lived in them and loved it, and there are many benefits to living in such places that you don’t get in major population centres. But cities offer benefits that smaller population centres don’t, and for many people these benefits outweigh the inconveniences. Which is why most people in Australia live in cities.

“I didn’t say I think Sydney is capable of limitless growth.”

Rhian, you came pretty close to it. It’s a reasonable extension of your view that Sydney is apparently not overcrowded and must not be subjected to limits to growth.

“…its problems are caused by bad government not overpopulation.”

Its problems are caused by bad governance, overconsumption and overpopulation.

You haven’t addressed my “schizophrenic” issue. I assume that you see only too clearly how ludicrous it is to call for reductions in per-capita consumption while promoting and ever-increasing number of ‘per-capitas’.

You can’t help but agree that this business is indeed the height of duplicity and schizoid governance.

“You identify the core value of sustainability as frugality.”

No. Efficiency of resource usage is at the core of sustainability, which includes some reduction in average per-capita consumption (increased frugality if you like). But balancing supply and demand is the main factor.

There ain’t no point in us becoming 50% more frugal if the population is going to double, is there? So the balance aspect is of vital importance.

Technological advances are certainly part of improving efficiencies, but increasing population is part of ‘deproving’ efficiencies. Thus, a great deal of our improving technology is being diluted or cancelled out by population growth. Or to put it another way, technological advances are effectively facilitating population growth and thus keeping us away from sustainability instead of assisting us in moving towards it.

“Sustainability to me is much more about how we do things, than how many of us do it.”

It is very much dependent on both. The famous equation I = PAT says it all. I is impact on the environment, or our ability to be sustainable, P is population, A is affluence or per-capita consumption and T is technology or the level of technological efficiency.

“The task to me looks pretty much the same whether Australia’s population in 30 years time is 30 million or 40 million”

Aha! So does this mean that you consider 40 million to be an upper reasonable limit for Australia’s population in 30 years’ time?

Fester

‘Go forth and multiply’ is indicative of the greatest problem with Christianity (or all religions for that matter); its inability to adapt to changing circumstances.

Go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, or subdue the earth, was a fine ideal back then, but of course anyone who follows this creed with reference to humanity today is off their rocker.

Go forth and live in balance and harmony. That’s surely got to be the new creed.

Rhian,

I accept that there are other factors involved in house prices besides population growth, but the idea that house prices would go up in the longer term without any increase in demand for housing is ridiculous. Check out house price inflation in, say, German cities that are not experiencing population growth. Ultimately houses are bought because people want to live in them, and if the houses outnumber the people the prices will go down. However, my point in this case was that the extra money that has to be paid for housing is not accounted for in the CPI.

So far as the Lardelli letter is concerned, the man was clearly happy with Adelaide the way it was. If he were just a crank and the bulk of the population agreed that more people in the cities were better and better, then it wouldn't be necessary for state governments to ram through higher densities against the wishes of the inhabitants and for both major parties to collude on this issue. You haven't explained how Adelaide (or Sydney) would be even better with twice as many inhabitants, when (judging from the link to the letters on the Triguboff issue that Ludwig posted) a very large proportion of the population of Sydney thinks life is getting worse with more crowding. That is why the NSW state government has to over-ride their elected councils. Telling someone to move to a regional center where jobs are few and far between is akin to saying "let them eat cake".

Ludwig, I haven’t failed to answer your “schitzoid” point, just given an answer you don’t agree with.

You say “Aha! So does this mean that you consider 40 million to be an upper reasonable limit for Australia’s population in 30 years’ time”. No. In the past 100 years, Australia’s population growth averaged 1.6%. If we sustain that for the next 30 years, our population will be about 32 million in 30 years time. The fastest prolonged (10 year) growth we ever recorded was in the post war years (1946 to 1956), when population growth averaged 2.4% a year. Growth at that rate would see our population reach 41 million in 30 years time.

I think it extremely unlikely we’ll average population growth of that magnitude for the next 30 years. So 30 to 40 million is not a “reasonable” upper limit, just an extreme upper band of plausible population. As the trend has been for slowing growth, and this is projected to continue, I’d expect the population in 2036 to be less than 30 million. The ABS medium growth “series B” projection of Australia’s population is 26.5 million by 2036, rising to 30 million only in the second half of the century. Even its rapid-growth “Series A” projection would have a population of just under 30 million by 2036.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/73D26920772F929ECA25718C001518FB/$File/32220_2004%20to%202101reissue.pdf

Divergence, I didn’t intend that the letter writer should more to a smaller centre, only to point out that his choice of living in Adelaide probably reflects the fact that he enjoys the benefits of living in a large population centre. These benefits increase as population increases – larger population concentrations make better public transport viable, reduce the average cost of infrastructure, attract a deeper and more diverse range of services, and offer wider opportunities.

Talk to the residents on many regional country towns and they’d love a higher population.

“Ludwig, I haven’t failed to answer your “schitzoid” point, just given an answer you don’t agree with.”

Rhian, I don’t think so. Your response does not address the fact that allowing increasing numbers of people while at the same time pushing hard to decrease each person’s consumption is entirely nonsensical.

If we can see that certain resources are under great enough stress to impose strong restrictions on their usage at the personal level, as with water in SEQ, then how on earth can we condone an increasing number of consumers?

SURELY a moratorium (or at least concerted attempts to slow the growth rate) on population growth MUST accompany such a resource crisis……unless of course the authorities are striving to prop up growth at all costs, and are lying to us about any sustainability motives.

Your response is about technology and efficiency and not at all about increasing numbers of consumers. It just doesn't address the 'schizoid' issue. Technology and improved efficiencies are essential parts of sustainability and a healthy future, but not in isolation from population growth.

Fester writes; “Just be thankful that we don't have the wisdom of the Easter Islanders' Gods.”

Well, I think we predominantly do! It seems that the more resource crises come upon us, the more determined we are to appease the great growth god I the sky…..or in the minds of economists and politicians!

continued

Rhian, I appreciate your explanation of growth rates and population projection 30 years hence. But how can we accept a 50 to 100% increase in population, which all else being equal will mean a doubling of pressure on our environment and resource base?

OK so technological advances will no doubt reduce the per-capita effect quite a bit. But they are not likely to go anywhere near reducing the effect by 33 to 50% for all resources and environmental impacts. And even if by some miracle they did, we would only break even with the current situation!

SURELY we should stabilise population, and develop technologies to the point that we can be confident of increased efficiencies to the extent of protecting the viability of vital resources and repairing environmental damage. Then and only then should we increase population, and only if we are totally confident that it can be done without undoing the technological / efficiency gains.

Ludwig,

I’m happy to say no serious policy maker is pushing hard to decrease consumption. That’s your ideological hobbyhorse. The inconsistencies you see are between what YOU think policymakers should be aiming for and what they’re doing, not between what THEY think they should be aiming for and what they’re doing.

Apart from other options (water trading, build more dams, groundwater) SE QLD and any other major coastal population centre can get as much desalinated sea water as it likes for well under $1.50 a kilolitre – more that we pay now, but hardly prohibitive.

For other resources, see previous posts – I do not accept your assumed linear relationship between population and resource use.

"Apart from other options (water trading, build more dams, groundwater) SE QLD and any other major coastal population centre can get as much desalinated sea water as it likes for well under $1.50 a kilolitre – more that we pay now, but hardly prohibitive."

This comment is very misleading, as domestic water usage accounts for less than 10% of total water usage: From the rest is derived Australia's economic activity. Looked at from a virtual water perspective, e.g. "VIRTUAL WATER IN FOOD PRODUCTION AND GLOBAL TRADE
REVIEW OF METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Daniel ZIMMER(1) and Daniel RENAULT(2)
World Water Council, (2) FAO-AGLW" one quickly realises that desalinated water produced at 80 cents per kilolitre holds very little economic promise, and in any event is useless for agriculture.

Desalinated water might give people a drink, but it wont give them a livelihood.

http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/wwc/Programs/Virtual_Water/VirtualWater_article_DZDR.pdf

“I’m happy to say no serious policy maker is pushing hard to decrease consumption.”

Rhian I presume you mean that you are happy to acknowledge that no serious policy maker is pushing hard to decrease consumption, and not that you happy that this is happening.

“I do not accept your assumed linear relationship between population and resource use.”

Crikey, I just said in my last post that “technological advances will no doubt reduce the per-capita effect quite a bit.”

It is not a linear relationship!

Alright so you are not going to have a bar of the ‘schizoid’ issue. That is, you are not going to acknowledge that the increasing number of consumers works directly against efforts to decrease consumption and that population stabilisation or at least reduction in growth rate is eminently sensible in the face of resource stress. Well in that case, I think we’ve found the crux of the issue and need not continue this discussion.

Thankyou for a polite and interesting debate