Aussie eagle,

“To try and prevent growth is simply a easy (which is hardly easy at all anyways) way to fix the problem, just because of bloody expense, cant be bothered spending on things that matter, cant be bothered doing anything”

What gives you the impression that any of us think that curtailing growth would simply be the answer to all our woes? Of course we still need to address a host of other things.

“You anti-growthists have no sense of patriotism or pride in national greatness…”

Now why would you make such a statement? The maintenance of a decent quality of life, reasonable environmental integrity and a resource base that can provide all of our needs both directly and through trade in an ongoing manner are all aspects that are under threat due to constant population growth and the perceived need to have ever-bigger economic turnover. They are essential components of true national pride, are they not?

I’m not sure just why you place such importance in Australia growing as a world player, especially if you perceive that we need to be much bigger in terms of population and economic clout in order to do that.

Firstly, thanks for being so patient with my style. Some would be quite irritated by now I imagine :P I am not saying that these things you mention shouldn't be priorities, but I am just saying that naturally those nations that are developed or developing at a big rate (eg. China) will achieve their world influence partially through their sheer size, in China's case both population and economy. Before you say, so you want Australia to have 1 billion people, absolutely not. China itself is struggling it seems with this sheer population, and thats while a few hundred million are still in poverty therefore not actually using much of the resources, or not as much as you'd expect for that number. Rather than implementing some great national ideal of growth which is doomed to fail as it wouldn't be controlled enough, I am suggesting that regional centres strive and are provided support (capital cities need no such assistance) to grow to become cities that cen contribute more evenly to their respective state's economy. I would in the long-run like Australia to achieve the big 3-figured-million population milestone but only through very rational and regulated and environmentally friendly infrastructure improvements (at or probably beyond european standards of effeciency). This at the very most would just put us into the top 10 most populous nations. This growth is ambitious and seems impossible without totally destroying our land, but things once thought impossible have been achieved on several occasions, and many of those occasions involve innovation and technology which has greatly improved effeciency in various areas. I am not influential at this point therefore I do not need to be sure these things can work, but it is one of my big life dreams for Australia to be a nation of the great powers not for the great powers. The only other alternative would be for us to be a nutural nation, this however cannot be because of our position as a strategic goal for any future imperial or expanionist power.

aussie_eagle, do you really wish to see Australia become a veritable Brazil of the South Pacific? Because that's precisely the direction in which this country is presently heading.

Leaving aside the compelling environmental argument against a larger population, do you understand that Australia would need to import tens of millions of people in order to reach a "big 3-figured-million population"? I ask because you claim to be a 'patriot'. Yet, what you're proposing would not only result in a staggering increase in the size of our population, but also a radical revolution in Australia's national identity and culture and the gradual submergence of our current population by foreign peoples and cultures. Simply put, the Australian nation as we currently know it would be rendered unrecognizable.

I'm not entirely sure how extinguishing the existing culture and identity of a nation through massive immigration can be considered patriotic. If current trends continue, Australia will resemble a new China or India rather than the 'new Europe' imagined by previous generations.

1) A recent article in the SMH Re Burma wailed "Borders must be opened to save lives" – it is a sentiment we are going to hear a lot more of .

Highly moral people often see solutions in terms of everyone reducing their quality of life , rather than reducing the numbers of everyone

It would be a sad joke if we establish an environmentally sustainable oasis in Aust ,only to have it swamped by the hungry & homeless of other countries – at the behest of opinion leaders crying "Borders must be opened to save lives".

A recent story on Deutsche vella radio examined the case of Morocco .About 10% of Moroccans live overseas, principally in Europe. Each year, many returned home with stories of opportunity & gifts which entice yet others to follow –usually the young & most enterprising. The loss of such people helps to defuse pressures within Morocco , which would otherwise lead to political
& economic change (such countries become, effectively, baby factories – they export their excess each generation –but the home numbers are replaced by natural increase )

2) While agreeing with the gist of Ludwig's post I feel we need to be caeful of what we mean by "growth".

The type of growth that always seeks to produce a new model just to be different to last months , or built in obsolescence is wasteful.

But growth in terms of finding new things, doing things more efficiently is necessary.

Sustainable must not mean marching on the spot

“…we need to be careful of what we mean by ‘growth’ “.

Yes indeed Horus. We want to encourage good development. That is; technological advances, value-adding, alternative energy sources and a bunch of other things, that would add to economic growth. The sort of stuff that we don’t want to add to economic growth are; a greater rate of exploitation of our non-renewable resources, a greater extent of agriculture at the expense of the natural environment or a greater rate of economic turnover that results simply from a greater number of people contributing to it.

Economic growth IS somewhat complex.

A steady-state economy can still be highly dynamic, because all the ‘good growth’ factors would still be there, and indeed would be focussed on more effectively once the ‘bad growth’ factors are eliminated. In fact, we could still have a considerable rate of economic growth without the bad growth factors, if we really put our minds to it, which would be fine by me.

Population growth is much more straightforward. I want to see an end to the increase in our population.
Well….I’d be happy if we had net zero immigration and a pre baby-bonus birthrate, which would mean that our population would still be growing slowly for about another 30 years before it evened off of its own accord, given the birthrate remaining about the same (~1.76). But I’d prefer to see a below-net-zero immigration rate and perhaps incentives to lower the birthrate further in order to take us quickly to a stable population.

If we got ourselves onto the right track of population stabilisation, I’d be happy to let ‘bad-growth-factor’ economic growth continue for a while, to be curtailed some time later (or slowed right down with the removal of the bad growth factors), if it led directly to a real increase in quality of life and a more equitable distribution of wealth for the ordinary people of this country, and was used to develop sustainability-oriented alternative energy sources and industries, and to repair some of the chronic environmental damage we have wrought on this continent.

I would much rather stop the influence of immigration and instead promote a consistent and steady birth rate to keep the growth rate at about 1.5%. You are right, constant influx of foreigners will only see what we value and how we have built this nation largely reversed and broken apart to dust in the wind, we would likely become a satellite state of China or India, or a Islamic Republic. To hold our position and maintain our nation as a unique identity in the South Pacific, we must understand the importance of holding large reserves of manpower both for defence and economic reasons, and constantly upgrading infrastructure to handle this growth and insure the extra population do not become social outcasts.