Foxy
Too true well put.
The problem with governments is the donkeys that vote them in.

Ludwig
I think your last two posts were to the wrong topic.

Pericles
Spot on but what can we do about it without applying enlightened self interest World wide as inferred by foxy and clearly delineated by me in other postings? In short we need a mind set change.

“You seem to be placing an unrealistic limitation on the discussion, Ludwig, through two key assumptions. The first is that everyone already agrees with you.”

No Pericles, I’m not assuming that everyone agrees with me. I know all too well that there are at least a few on OLO that don’t. But I want to step past that discussion. I want to concentrate entirely on why our government doesn’t deal with the population growth issue.

Is there anything wrong with that?

“The second assumption is that population should be a significant government concern, even ‘the starting point in almost every policy debate.’ “

Well, bloody oath. I certainly do hold that assumption.

“Any ‘population policy’ would involve the grossest infringement of human rights our country has ever seen.”

Whaaat??

“Check out the impact of such government action on the ordinary people of China and India, before getting too gung-ho about such arguments.”

We don’t need a one-child policy in Australia, or a birth-control policy of any sort. All we need is to scrap the baby bonus bribe and reduce immigration to about net zero. That’s it, in order to head straight towards a stable population….which of course should be the cornerstone of any population policy.

Andrew McNamara: "Australia’s population at this rate of growth will pass 100 million by 2100. We will exceed 42 million people in 2050”

Pericles: “Using the same calculation, in 2100 the population of India will be 4.5 billion, and Indonesia's over 700 million. Shouldn't that come into the equation somewhere?”

Yes it should certainly come into consideration. So what would you recommend Pericles. How much difference do you think an Australian population of 45 million would make compared to 700 Indonesians and 2100 million Indians if it came to the crunch of us having to vigorously defend our country? What sort of enormous improvements in technology, resource use efficiency and quality-of-life reduction would we have to endure to accommodate 45 million people? Wouldn’t it be an infinitely better idea to live within our means, maintain strong social coherence and develop a high-tech defence capability?

I consider that a doubling of the Australian population in 100 years would be a suitable maximum aim or policy setting to begin with.

This indicates that a population growth aim of 0.7% +or - 0.07 % per year is a reasonable and not excessive aim. This is the rate for a doubling of population in 100 years.

I also note that Australia has a current growth rate of 1.6% which is greater than my parameter. (This is population doubling in 43.75 years). I am unable to agree with the Business Council of Australia’s population policy aim of 1 to 1.5% as that rate is beyond social absorption.

For immigration to be used as a macroeconomic lever (which both the current and prior National Governments have done) is not an acceptable act as it only defers responsibility onto future generations. Some could almost call it treason.

In addition, on a Climate Change prism any population gains for Australia since 1990, the base date for Kyoto emissions reductions, increases the national carbon load. This is due to most immigrants increasing their carbon footprint in the Australian context (I=PAT Impact equals Population Affluence and Technology).

Ludwig,
I think we need to divide this discussion into two sections, one being in relation to world population and the other being our Aussie population.

Aussie population. I agree that we need to do away with the 'baby bonus' and reduce immigration to net zero. Then assesment as to where we go from here.

For far too long we have let the politicians get away with not having a population policy. Out of no where they simply state they will increase immigration without giving reasons or stating what population goal they are aiming at. Not good enough. Its a bit like me telling my agent to buy stock for my property without giving him a number. That is insane.

We have to insist that the parties put forward population policy so we can appraise it and question it. We have to know where we are going with at least preliminary goals. Then re-evalueate.

Pericles, you say
"Any "population policy" would involve the grossest infringement of human rights our country has ever seen. Check out the impact of such government action on the ordinary people of China and India, before getting too gung-ho about such arguments".

That is plainly a ridiculous statement. There is no need to further reduce the birth rate, it is now below replacement level. The problem is if we take in too many and that can be adjusted by immigration intake.

World population. Some governments are talking about ways of reducing birth rates, like Pakistan, see link
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1246346024897&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Religions are the big obstacle in world birth control and that remains to be the largest hurdle to overcome.

You made that abundantly clear Ludwig.

>>I want to concentrate entirely on why our government doesn’t deal with the population growth issue.<<

But, as I pointed out, this excludes the most meaningful aspect of the argument. If it isn't a "problem", why should it be a government priority?

>>We don’t need a one-child policy in Australia, or a birth-control policy of any sort. All we need is to scrap the baby bonus bribe and reduce immigration to about net zero.<<

Scrapping the bribes - an action with which I totally agree, by the way, along with parental paid leave and all that fol-de-rol - will not have the slightest impact on birth rates.

After all, their introduction did not cause a baby boom of any significance, did it?

>>How much difference do you think an Australian population of 45 million would make compared to 700 Indonesians and 2100 million Indians if it came to the crunch of us having to vigorously defend our country?<<

The figures I mentioned were 700 million and 4.5 billion, and I put them in to illustrate how misleading simple extrapolations can be.

As Eric Morris of UCLA reminds us:

"The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan's third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed.

And no possible solution could be devised. After all, the horse had been the dominant mode of transportation for thousands of years. Horses were absolutely essential for the functioning of the 19th century city - for personal transportation, freight haulage and even mechanical power. Without horses, cities would quite literally starve."

A perfectly reasonable extrapolation, from all the available data, made by intelligent human beings with real concerns about the fate of humankind.

Where did they go wrong?

re the issue of eugenics based on the lie of finite resources furphy...we have barely explored one quater of the earths resources...

there are oceans of mineral recources out there...then there is the issue of recycling that we have allready harvested...those old enough will recall how aluminium/rubber etc were accumulated during the war shortages

there is more oil etc still in the ground than what mankind has been able to find so far...ie we have not reached peak oil[and never will..oil can be grown from algie..[just like how it was made in the past]

as for foods there are people who deliberatly create shortages[to keep the price up[for egsample milk production per cow has doubled in the past 20 years...we have not even explored growing food in highrises...or high rise cattle lots...the food and resources shortage is a beat up by eugenisists who will allways be wanting to murder those theyt deem..infiriour types

im sick of people in thisd age of plenty saying were going to run out of xxx...there is more than enough of everything to go round...the water shortage is a beat up as well..

[we still have so much water we cccrap in it...you just name any shortage and the capitalists will flood the market with it next year...all you eugenisists wakeup is your own petty fears...

poor blooming you..you been on your darwinian eugenics crusades for 100;s of years now ...just wake up to yourselves and off your self first...

nice people seem easilly taken in by your fear-mongering..but those wanting the big final solution..cant be as nice as they like to pretend...as jesus said...by their works will ye know them...well by your words are you lot revealed and reviled