The answer is simple, Maximillion. All other things remaining equal, countries with a higher population density tend to have higher GDP per capita (ie more income per person), are better able to defend themselves and are more stable politically. These are very good reasons for a country to grow its population.

In the last 200 or so years, all other things have remained equal. That is something like 6 generations - a long time in human terms. If you assume what happened in the past is the best guide to what will happen in the future, then you are going to believe we should still be growing our population.

But, and it is a big but, those advantages disappear when the population hits resource limits. To put it another way, while it is possible to make the land yield more by adding people, the formula works. However, if you for example run out of water so that bringing in a new person ultimately means we all the rest of us have to make do with less water, you hit trouble. Ditto for arable land.

The situation gets worse if you are living off stored "fat reserves" - like fossil fuels. This allows the population to grow way beyond what the land can sustain. If we can't find alternatives for the "fat reserves" when they run out, the population crashes. Most of us have seen what this looks like on TV - starvation, death, war, flies and stuff. All very unpleasant. Unfortunately, the most populated places on the planet - China and India, are living on fat reserves. They rely on underground water to feed their populations, and their water tables are dropping.

Here in Australia we produce roughly 4 times more food than we need. So just looking at food and water, we could easily grow our population. For the me the argument is about what will happen when oil, natural gas and coal peak. We are about to find out I guess, as oil will almost certainly peak this decade if it hasn't already done so.

"Although an immigrant myself I was following a simple strategy of moving from one densely populated and resource depleted island (Britain) to a less densely populated, resource rich Island (Australia).

However, now that I am here, I would agree with your question.." (Quote:TB)
________

Nicely put.....

"So just looking at food and water, we could easily grow our population"
Sorry, I was under the impression we were in a loss situation in regard to arable land, salt, and development are consuming it at a rate of knots. Water is already short,and drying up fast, so I wonder at your claim. Other than that, we agree, I think.

Maximillion: "Water is already short,and drying up fast, so I wonder at your claim."

We produce about 4 times as much food as we consume. As you say, water is short, so we probably can't produce much more. However as it stands we could grow our population and export less food. If our current food production is indeed sustainable in the long term, my guess is we would be better off by doing it. The big question is whether it is sustainable given the other resource limits we are likely to hit this century.

My guess is that it isn't. But it is only a guess. Australia is pretty unique in this regard. Most countries are already very close, if not over, the limit of what is sustainable now.

It is because of capitalism's insane obsession with permanent growth of everything. Businesses must grow bigger every year. Economies must continue to grow bigger every year. Look at the current situation to see the rabbit in the headlights look of fear on all of the big capitalist players over a possible recession.

Growth at all costs, never mind the consequences is the mantra of capitalism and in so many ways (including unsustainable immigration) it is destroying all of us and the societies we have spent centuries building up. Not to mention the fouling of our own nest.

You guys are funny, no one asked the aboriginals this question.

I thought countries needed new people, pay tax, sweep the roads clean in the morning before you all travel on them?

Why are you telling your young women to go forth and multiply and paying them if you don’t need more people?

You got all those British boys in the forties to up your white immigrant numbers, you get them when needed aye and now you want to close the doors.

This goes back to affecting your perceived lifestyle?

NZ let the Islanders in, whites and Maoris all had jobs so didn’t want to clean the toilets anymore, had to find someone to do the dirty work.

This is land and humans should be allowed to live on it, countries shouldn’t stop people moving.

Where is this “she’ll be right” attitude.

There is a big lake by me, most boring lake in the world… should let the water Asians come and build jetty’s and have markets and stuff.

Everywhere I look there are big empty malls and new roads and developments with no people in them.

I was told, havn’t googled it or anything that after WWII Aussie predicted that the country would have many million more people in it by now?

You still going to let those people that bought land here come when their islands sink?