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".