There is a longterm technological solution to the water crisis which I feel compelled to raise. We are as you know the driest continent on Earth. Our population is steadily increasing and fresh water is a major priority for sustainable development. Where it cannot be obtained from natural sources, desalination of seawater or mineralised groundwater is now a viable alternative. Even on the scale of supplying an entire continent's needs.

Brisbane is on level 3 water restrictions and may soon be on level 4. We should have embraced nuclear energy decades ago. Now its not just the farmers who are going to be living in dust bowls. Whole towns are drying up and having to truck in water from elsewhere.

Most desalination plants today are powered by fossil fuels which increase greenhouse emissions. Clearly that is not a desirable option. We already produce far too much carbon dioxide. Desalination is an energy intensive process which can use a variety of low temperature heat sources depending on relative economic values. By far the most practical if controversial source of energy to solve Australia's water shortage is nuclear power. Nuclear energy has already been widely used for this purpose and has the potential for much greater use. Japan has ten desalination facilities linked to pressurised water reactors. Much relevant experience comes from nuclear plants in Russia, Eastern Europe and Canada.

Australia is practically the only developed country not using electricity derived from nuclear energy. A proposal to build a 500MWe reactor at Jervis Bay, NSW was shelved in 1972. Our abundance of cheap coal has previosly ruled nuclear energy out of contention. However, concerns about Global Warming have recently put it back on the table. Uranium is plentiful in Australia. In 2000 our Uranium exports fuelled the electricity production for 45 million people and saved the emission of over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide. We own 25-30% of the Worlds low cost Uranium resources, yet produce only 19% of World mining output. Canada by comparison has expanded its production to more than 30% of World output, on a lower resource base.

Wayne

You mention our steadily increasing population. If we put as much effort into stabilising and then slowly reducing overall population, in conjunction with all sorts of improved efficiencies in resource usage and the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, then we will on the right track. If we just sit back and accept that our population will continue to increase with no end in sight, then no matter how successful we are in with all the other stuff, we are just not going to achieve sustainability.

How on earth can our illustrious leaders still be allowing, if not outrightly promoting, rapid population growth directly into areas that have major water-stress problems?

The economics of nuclear energy don’t add up. A great deal of fossil fuels (and hence CO2 emissions) are still consumed with nuclear power, especially when we are starting from scratch and have to build the plants. Then emissions will fall, for as long as we use high-grade ore. Once that is gone, which won’t be long, efficiencies will fall considerably and CO2 emissions will steadily rise again, mostly in the processes of mining and refining the fissionable material.

OK so if we ignore the economics of a nuclear energy industry, as well as the intractable problems with the waste products, the chance of accident or sabotage and the worry about radioactive clouds sweeping across populated areas, and we use nuclear energy for desalination and we greatly increase water-provision as a result, and we considerably reduce coal consumption… what will we really achieve?

Without a major paradigm shift towards genuine sustainability, we will facilitate population growth, which will mean that the consumption of water and power will just keep on increasing.

Then we will run out of high-grade uranium and the whole deal will start to become much less economically viable and we will be back in the same place we are now – a state of stressed resources, but with a much larger population and hence a much larger problem

However there is perhaps one good reason why we should embrace nuclear energy. (please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4786#52914 and my subsequent posts under ‘Enriching Australia’)

Governments should be allowed to Govern many aspects of our lives which require action on behalf of everyone. But procreation isn't one of them.

Renewable energy research and development deserves more funding than it currently gets but only coal and nuclear are proven on this kind of scale. I have many doubts about the practicality of renewables for supplying the bulk of Australia's needs.

1) First of all there is the security aspect. It would be next to impossible to protect the many solar panels and wind turbines along the Great Australian Bight from aerial attack. They would cover too large an area. Even a fraction of them being destroyed would cause the energy grid to collapse. In the event of a major war the atmospheric dust content could increase to levels where solar energy collection was impossible.

2) Maintenance and establishment costs would be exhorbitant. Perhaps a government levy on solar panels for homes might help. But current panels only have a lifetime of 20 years and are still very expensive.

The economic and waste issues you describe are easily solvable if we recycle the spent fuel. This was always supposed to be a part of the nuclear cycle but unfortunately environmental pressure groups in the US achieved a ban on it over there. As a consequence the waste had to be transported at great cost to storage sites or recycling plants overseas. This made it uncompetitive with coal and now we have global warming as a direct result. In short the environmentalists and in particular 'GreenPeace' are responsible for Global Warming.

Chernobyl was over 20 years ago. The result of sloppy Russian safety protocols and an almost total disregard for the environment. There has never been a single fatality in the West despite all the hype from ecowacky groups to the contrary and hundreds of plants running 24/7 for up to half a century. Australia is ideal for the construction of newer and even safer designs. With recycling we would have enough fuel to last thousands of years and then there is Thorium.

“Governments should be allowed to Govern many aspects of our lives which require action on behalf of everyone. But procreation isn't one of them.”

Why Wayne do you see the area of procreation to be outside of the realm of governance?

Anyway, even if it is, we could still direct ourselves onto the right track towards a stable population and true sustainabiity in Australia if we reduced immigration to net zero or less and did away with pro-natalist policies like the baby bonus. If we did that, our current fertility rate would see us reach a stable population in about forty years.

OK so you mount some reasonable arguments for nuclear energy.

But you have completely bypassed the fact that if we are successful with this stuff, we will actually be taking ourselves further away from sustainability, because we will be facilitating continuous growth.

You say; “In short the environmentalists and in particular 'GreenPeace' are responsible for Global Warming.”

There is an element of truth in that.

But I’d say – in short those who strive only for technological improvements without understanding their consequences in relation to the dynamics of human expansion have taken us continuously further away from sustainability and will continue to do so, even though many of them have had the direct goal of taking us towards sustainability.

Thank you for your informed reply. The 350 word limit caused me to make some brutal curtailing of my text last time I'm afraid.

I simply believe that Governments should stay out of our lives except where absolutely necessary. The disastrous one child policy in China is a good example of how well intentioned political legislation in this area can lead to trouble. I don't think our situation warrants such interference just yet.

"...we could still direct ourselves onto the right track towards a stable population and true sustainabiity in Australia if we reduced immigration to net zero or less and did away with pro-natalist policies like the baby bonus."

Agreed.

"we will actually be taking ourselves further away from sustainability, because we will be facilitating continuous growth."

I don't see nuclear energy and sustainability as incompatible. Hydrogen cars for example. The major obstacle there is the cost of producing Hydrogen. If we embrace nuclear energy and include recycling of spent fuel then we can realistically bring down the cost of electricity. Then electrolysis of seawater becomes a viable option for making Hydrogen. Cheaper electricity would also help to popularise electric cars for city dwellers.

"...those who strive only for technological improvements without understanding their consequences in relation to the dynamics of human expansion have taken us continuously further away from sustainability..."

You make an interesting and poignant observation there. However, I would argue that nuclear energy is a sustainable power source. All technology is a two edged sword. Even the production of solar panels involves some rather toxic chemicals. Nuclear power has been driving the sun for 5 billion years. It clearly has huge potential as a sustainable energy source. Remember also that the technology is still in its infancy. Most great technology advances have come from hands on engineering. Australia is a world leader in nuclear science and we should be reaping the benefits of this research for ourselves.

“I don't see nuclear energy and sustainability as incompatible.”

Well, nuclear energy could help us onto a sustainable footing, by providing an alternative energy source to coal that has the ability to match the magnitude of current usage, and thus smooth the transition to sustainability.

But it isn’t a sustainable industry in itself, because the resource is finite….and not really that big all-considered, at least not the high-grade stuff.

I would much prefer to see us adopt a combination of alternative energy sources, energy-saving devices, alternatives to private cars, and general improvements in energy efficiency…. and leave the poison in the ground.

This will be a harder road in terms of developing energy supply at anything like the current demand. But that may not be a bad thing because it will make us all really work towards saving energy – and it just might help get the idea of population stabilisation, ie a halt to the continuously increasing demand for energy in all its forms of consumption, into the thick heads of our politicians.
.
.
But then there is the issue that I mentioned earlier - (please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4786#52914 and my subsequent posts under ‘Enriching Australia’).

I reckon this deserves much more serious consideration than the use of nuclear power as an energy source in Australia. I would love to know what you think of it.

Fossil fuels should have been abandoned long ago. We couldn't have had an industrial age without Coal, but now we are entering a new age with new challenges. We've used up the atmospheres ability to absorb CO2 without serious catastrphic climate change.

Not many people realise it but there is in fact Uranium and Thorium in coal beds. It gets burned up along with the rest of the nasty toxic elements present in this black muck and is then pumped directly into our air supply. That's right. Coal plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants do. In fact the waste from nuclear energy is actually captured and isn't all that much. Even without recycling the entire worlds nuclear waste to date could be stored in 40 gallon drums one high without any stacking and only fill one footy stadium.

The resource isn't really all that finite either. By re-processing the spent fuel we would have more than enough Uranium to last us thousands of years. When we are talking about durations like that then we might as well consider it an infinite resource. Already India is building reactors powered by Thorium which is even more plentiful. Long before these Elements run out on Earth we will be mining the rest of the solar system which doubtless holds millions of years worth of Radioisotopes. That's assuming we haven't tapped into Black Holes or something. Its impossible to guess what super high tech futuristic energy sources might be employed at such a distant date.

We don't really have much time to develop new and untested technologies today. Global warming and dimming is accelerating. I also dislike the idea of stabilisation. Stagnation is death in my opinion. Australia should continue to grow. We cannot plan out the future of the human race. Disease, war and unforeseen catastrophe's have always taken their toll on populations and always will in my opinion. Nature will have its way and those nations in the past who have stood still against the ravages of time always succumbed to more virile expanding nations.

“Fossil fuels should have been abandoned long ago.”

I disagree. Coal, oil and gas are fantastic resources. What we should have done long ago was to learn to use them much more wisely. And we should have been willing to tackle the huge increase in population and industrialisation that resulted directly from the opening up of these resources… and the resultant huge increase in consumption rates, and the resultant pollution problems.

That was the issue – the scale of consumption, not the actual use of these polluting energy sources.

“Not many people realise it but there is in fact Uranium and Thorium in coal beds.”

Yes but at inconsequential concentrations, or at least concentrations that are nowhere near viable to extract. The radiation emitted by coal-fired power stations is likewise inconsequential. Granite is a pretty high emitter of radiation as rock types go, especially the younger types. But that has never stopped us from living in granitic country.

Radiation of the radioactive decay types is everywhere. It’s the concentration that counts.

“I also dislike the idea of stabilisation. Stagnation is death in my opinion. Australia should continue to grow.”

Wayne, stabilisation and stagnation are completely different things. A dynamic system is still well and truly possible when the size of the whole system is constant. Australia should continue to grow in terms of technological advances, better efficiencies and the like. This sort of growth is good. But the expansion part of growth is not good. This word ‘growth’ really does hold two very different meanings, which are seldom differentiated.

“…those nations in the past who have stood still against the ravages of time always succumbed to more virile expanding nations.”

Interesting comment. Please see the link in my last post

Wood, Coal, Oil, Nuclear. That's how our energy consumption should have progressed. Instead we stopped at the Coal/Oil crossover point.

The scale of consumption is always going to increase. Societies depend on energy to survive and its an upwardly spiralling graph. Nothing wrong with that so long as we keep everything in balance. So far we haven't done so. It's no good telling consumers to stop wasting energy and expect a turn down in energy use as a result. Technology is taking up an increasing part of our lives. Today most families have a computer or several computers. Microwaves have nearly made ovens redundant. This trend is never going to reverse. Efficient use of energy might but that's easily countered by more gizmo's in the home.

I believe humanity should strive to find a technological solution to such growing pains and continue to expand. We have an entire universe out there awaiting us with challenges we can't even imagine. To diminish our growth is to diminish our potential in the great vast scheme of things. In some other Parallel universe right now we are building fleets of Starships to explore the Galaxy.

There was a time once when we were all about exploration, conquest and colonization. We can now be defined as a civilization that focuses on internal problems that will or can never be completely solved.

A cold shudder or chill goes up my spine looking at old black and white photographs of people, events, machines, inventions, proposals and visionary schemes from the early part of the last century.

To see what could have and should have been is sobering to say the least. That generation of yesteryear believed so firmly in science, technology and the progress of Man in all areas of life, that it is easy to see why they have been called 'The Greatest Generation'. They believed that science (understanding) and technology (application) would lead to a higher standard of living, which it did.

They believed in letting technology solve its own problems. They believed in grand projects of engineering.

“Wood, Coal, Oil, Nuclear. That's how our energy consumption should have progressed. Instead we stopped at the Coal/Oil crossover point.”

We haven’t “stopped”. We are just at a point in the progressive use of energy. Whether the next phase concentrates on renewable sources or nuclear or a combination of these remains to be seen. But I certainly wouldn’t consider nuclear to be an automatic next step in this evolution/progression of energy utilisation.

“The scale of consumption is always going to increase. Societies depend on energy to survive and its an upwardly spiralling graph.”

No no no!! We WILL learn, one way or another, that the scale of human operations just cannot keep on increasing…. and that if we let increasing scale take care of itself, we will always find that the mark will be well and truly overstepped and we will have to suffer a strong decline before we come into balance between demand and supply capability.

“Nothing wrong with that so long as we keep everything in balance.”

Wayne, consumption that is “always going to increase” is completely at odds with “balance”.

Yes we can probably continue to have an increase in growth in terms of technological advances for perhaps centuries to come. But we certainly cannot have consumption that is always going to increase. In fact, advances technology are supposed to decrease or at least stabilise our overall consumption of stressed or yet to be stressed finite resources, and of potentially infinite resources that are being depleted due to overconsumption.

“I believe humanity should strive to find a technological solution to such growing pains and continue to expand.”

Why? Why do you want us to continue to expand? Wouldn’t it be much better to stop expanding and live within our means? Isn’t the whole purpose of finding technological solutions to improve our lives, rather than facilitate unending expansion?

No energy source is ever completely shelved or ignored. I was speaking in broad terms.

Nuclear is the next step. Look at events globally. Asia is aggressively pursuing new plants. Europe is issuing new licenses. Africa has a new pebble bed design. Russia is producing floating reactors to supply remote regions. America and Britain are committed. The majority of Canadian and French citizens love it. The nuclear renaissance has arrived.

Our ancestors didn't worry about population and consumption. They realised that without a vibrant and strong population other countries would eat them alive. Nothing has changed. A third world war would wipe out billions of people. The only certain thing is this world is change. Planning for a stable future is naive.

Increasing consumption and balance may seem at odds but then life is full of such contradictions. You have to factor in the unpredictable.

Worrying about Uranium resources running out in thousands of years is pointless. The universe is full of energy sources. Our current energy crisis requires action..

Science is based on the truth. It is merely a tool for advancing and perpetuating our species. I believe it is our duty to reach out and explore this universe we inhabit. The Aboriginals once had a similar secular view of the universe as you.

Refusing to seriously entertain the value of anything beyond the horizon. From a scientific perspective it was a perfectly justifiable attitude. There was no evidence to suggest that anything of any consequence existed outside of Australia. Then strange ships arrived and aggressively colonised this land.

I firmly believe that we are not alone in this universe. Other spacefaring species not unlike ourselves already be colonising this Galaxy.

Many people regard our ancestors from the Chinese to the Aztecs as foolish. Why didn't they realize external threats must exist? Yet how are we any different? Eventually we will come into contact with somebody as clever and vicious as ourselves and I believe such an encounter will be devastating if we are not strong enough to demand respect. Just my opinion.

“Eventually we will come into contact with somebody as clever and vicious as ourselves and I believe such an encounter will be devastating if we are not strong enough to demand respect.”

Wayne, now you are touching on my concerns about national defence in a world of growing aggression and resource stress (have you seen my posts under ‘Enriching Australia’?)

Yes I do think there is merit in developing a nuclear defence capability for this reason. And if we do that, maybe we should develop nuclear energy on a broader scale.

But you do seem to greatly overplay the availability of uranium and to underplay the huge dangers involved with playing around with this stuff.

“Planning for a stable future is naive.”

It is really unfortunate that you believe this. Developing our nuclear resource is not at odds with the necessity to stop expanding and learn to live within the sustainable ability of our resource base to keep supplying all our basic needs

I'm new here and haven't read many prior posts at the forum. I'll try and find a moment to read your enriching Australia discussion.

I don't believe I ever mentioned a nuclear defence system but I'm in agreement that we should pursue one. Japan is now discussing that same option and have enough mox to build a thousand nukes. Technologically advanced as they are it would take them less than 12 months to develop it according to analysts.

Being surrounded by nuclear nations like Russia, China and N.Korea we would be well within our rights to withdraw from the nuclear proliferation treaty and build our own defensive arsenals.

"But you do seem to greatly overplay the availability of uranium and to underplay the huge dangers involved with playing around with this stuff."

Uranium is a common element. Thorium is even more common and would probably be used instead. The huge dangers are a myth. Only one accident resulting in fatalities over 20 years ago is not high risk. Only 29 people died. Over 10,000 people die every year from coal burning. Even cars kill over a million people each year. Do you want to ban automobiles? Nobody condones "playing around with this stuff". Modern reactor designs are very safe.

"necessity to stop expanding and learn to live within the sustainable ability of our resource base"

I find the notion of bottling us up abhorrent. We should instead green up the desert and expand into the uninhabited 90% of this continent. Build a trench from the sea to empty Lake Ayr which is below sea level and let it fill up. Then evaporation will create clouds and rain.

Wayne we seem to share a common concern about the possible procurement of a nuclear defence capability. Good.

Well I think it is good. I mean, I find this subject almost to awful to contemplate, and it seems that this is the way of it with others too. Only one or two people responded to my comments under ‘Enriching Australia’. It seems that it was too ugly for those who had already commented on that thread or had read the comments to formulate any response.

“The huge dangers are a myth.”

Yes, with all our technological improvements, nuclear plants and the whole industry is pretty safe when it comes to accidents.

But.... I think the real risks lie with major conflict, when plants might be bombed or sabotaged... or the possibility of economic decline due to the continuation of a chronically unsustainable lifestyle leading to corners being cut and plants becoming unsafe. Only one incident could have absolutely enormous consequences.

“I find the notion of bottling us up abhorrent.”

I find the way that you think about this very interesting. You equated stability directly with stagnation and now you equate the notion of living within the sustainable ability of our resource base as bottling us up.

So, would you want us to not live within our means?

If we can in the future feel confident that our resource base can sustainably support a bit of expansion, then fine. But that certainly isn’t the case at the moment.

If we overstep the mark and alllow basic resource provision to go into decline, we won’t be expanding but will be forced to shrink back to smaller-scale operations, will suffer an awful backward step in quality of life and will have our research and development capabilities severely restricted.

Carefully managing the scale of all things human is of fundamental importance to us being able to maximise our growth. Growth in terms of technological advancements and improved efficiencies, that is. So, limiting growth in terms of human expansion is of fundamental importance to maintaining or increasing growth in terms of good developments.

"plants might be bombed or sabotaged."

We should certainly factor that into our new plant designs. Currently the concrete domes over reactors can withstand a direct hit by a Jumbo Jet but there is no reason why we couldn't further reinforce them. I also believe that we should hand over the responsibility of protecting such plants to the military. This will ensure that theft and terrorism as well as aerial attack become virtually impossible. I'd set up a battery of anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems. I'd also give military guards orders to shoot trespassers. If GreenPeace members are stupid enough to ignore the warnings on the fence then they deserve to die.

"So, would you want us to not live within our means?"

I'd like us to increase our resources. There is no reason why we couldn't be the leading Space technology nation on Earth. I'm not talking about following NASA's backward methods. Our solar system has virtually unlimited resources and space. A determined investment in private sector space launch technology would allow us to expand into and colonise the solar system.

We should strive to expand by both greening up the hinterland of Australia and planning ahead by taking steps to conquer Space. Only political will is lacking. The technological capability exists and only requires application.

If we instead choose to stabilise and not grow then other nations will continue to expand and eventually threaten our safety. The only advantage America and other advanced nations have over the rest of the world is Nuclear Weapons capability. That advantage will be shortlived. The antiquated Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is nothing more than a piece of paper and nobody ever really intended to honour it. Secret developmental programs are going on worldwide. I foresaw N.Korea, Pakistan, India and Iran developing bombs long ago. They are just the tip of the iceberg. All the anti-nuclear treaties ever did was push research underground.

How long do you think it will be before this 1940's technology is successfully aquired by those who would gladly wipe us off the face of the Earth?

Wayne, I asked;

"So, would you want us to not live within our means?"

I don’t think you’ve really answered this vital question. Surely the most important thing of all is for us to live well within our means, with a big safety margin. If we don’t do that, we can just forget about having a dynamic technological / scientific / academic / research and development sector.

Sustainability comes first, end of story.

In securing sustainability we are also presumably securing a healthy science capability…. and all the things that you desire can proceed at a pace.

So why don’t we green up the hinterland of Australia? Because of the initial costs, the lack of sufficient returns and the long-term decline in productivity – all the things that we have learnt about pushing agriculture too far in the past on this continent. In short; economics that don’t add up. And this is the scenario coming from the pro-expansionist lobby!

When we also factor in the increased population that large-scale agricultural expansion would facilitate, and thus the failure to provide a bigger per-capita return after an initial boom, and then suffer a per-capita decline as soil-fertility declined, salinity increased, dams silted up, dry periods reduced productivity, etc, etc, I think it is a very good thing NOT to expand the greening of Australia, but rather to learn to live with what we’ve got, with minimal modification.

Exploring space is all well and good, but if you want to plan ahead in a meaningful manner and in an appropriate timeframe, then getting us off the insanity of continuous expansion and implementing sustainability is 100% definitely the thing that you need to concentrate on

"In securing sustainability we are also presumably securing a healthy science capability…."

The greater our population the more advanced we will become. Technology and science require ever increasing research specialties. The more population we have the greater the number of scientists we have. We can no longer live off the sheep's back. As the clever country we need to pursue all branches of science. Currently we have less than 20 million people in Australia. There are more individuals than that in New York! Either we expand or perish.

"So why don’t we green up the hinterland of Australia? Because of the initial costs, the lack of sufficient returns and the long-term decline in productivity"

I disagree. There are cost effective long-term solutions to reversing the climate change which has gradually turned arable land arid in Australia's inland area's.

Space exploration is an egotistical enterprise. I'm talking about space conquest. Colonisation and engineering enterprises on a scale which would make the builders of Titanic faint.

Short term? How about mirrors between the Earth and Sun to increase evaporation in certain areas and increase rainfall? That's just straight off the top of my head. Solar shades could achieve opposite results where needed. There is no reaso why we can't take charge of our destiny and go into the weather control business.

“The greater our population the more advanced we will become.”

Oh dear!

Looking around the world we see a very poor correlation between population size and advanced society. The correlation is more negative than positive. This is also the case with population growth rates.

It is certainly not size that matters; it is affluence, or standard of living.

Australia has done pretty well on the world stage in terms of scientific, sporting, artistic, etc achievements. And when you consider these achievements on a per-capita basis, we have done extremely well. This is very largely because we have been a young nation that has been able to exploit a large resource base and develop a highly affluent society.

“The more population we have the greater the number of scientists we have.”

Well, if we could maintain the same level of affluence, yes. But we can’t. Things are in general decline, and our scientific / adacemic / research and development sector is declining accordingly, as progressively bigger slices of funding are redirected into more immediate issues.

Indeed, this decline is one of the really tangible symptoms of our unsustainable society.

“Currently we have less than 20 million people in Australia.”

Our population is now pushing 21 million. The main reason why we have a population that is far less than that of the USA on a similar sized area of land is because of our vastly poorer life-support systems. This is most apparent in reliable rainfall and soil fertility. If we possibly could have, we would have gained a population similar to that of the US by now.

Even with huge new water schemes and the like, we could perhaps increase our population by 50%, and perhaps even do it sustainably if we all learnt how to properly utilise our resources. But we would still be tiny on the world stage – if you judge nation size by population size.

“As the clever country we need to pursue all branches of science.”

Yes. So let’s secure our basic life-support systems and sustainability ethic. And then we will be able to do this.

Wayne I am happy to continue our discussion, but I will now be offline for probably a couple of weeks, out in the wilds doing what any good botanist and geomorphologist should be doing!

Looking at the real world that is, instead of being stuck in front of a computer screen!

Hello Wayne

Are you out there?

Do you want to continue this discussion?

"Looking around the world we see a very poor correlation between population size and advanced society."

Depends on where you look. The third world was never advanced to begin with.

"It is certainly not size that matters; it is affluence, or standard of living."

Its both.

"The main reason why we have a population that is far less than that of the USA on a similar sized area of land is because of our vastly poorer life-support systems. This is most apparent in reliable rainfall and soil fertility. If we possibly could have, we would have gained a population similar to that of the US by now."

So why not put effort into improving the soil and rainfall levels. Build desalination plants. Flood Lake Ayre. Sign the Kyoto protocol. Embrace nuclear energy. Go forward. Not back. Expand. Not diminish.

"Even with huge new water schemes and the like, we could perhaps increase our population by 50%, and perhaps even do it sustainably if we all learnt how to properly utilise our resources. But we would still be tiny on the world stage – if you judge nation size by population size."

Even 50% would be a vast improvement. More skilled labourers. More trained professionals. More doctors. More scientists. More engineers. A greater reservoir of talent.

"So let’s secure our basic life-support systems and sustainability ethic. And then we will be able to do this."

I'd rather use technology to solve the small problems you've mentioned and allow the Australian public to mutiply as they please.

Thanks for responding Wayne

“So why not put effort into improving the soil and rainfall levels.”

So why not simply learn to live within our means. I think that you will find improvement of rainfall and soils a task beyond us, at least to the extent that it could support a population anything like double our current level, let alone 14 times as big as with the US! Crikey, even if were enormously successful, we would only be able to support a few million more people, and no doubt not in a sustainable manner.

“Go forward. Not back. Expand. Not diminish.”

Why do you automatically equate expanding with going forward? Surely stabilising our population and learning to properly live within our means is the best way to move forward as a nation.

“I'd rather use technology to solve the small problems you've mentioned and allow the Australian public to multiply as they please.”

Why do you place such faith in technology? Hasn’t technology been shown to be a mixed blessing? Don’t you think that one of the main problems with technological advances is that it allows us to get further and further out of balance with or life-support systems?

Don’t you think that there are major problems with uninhibited multiplication of ourselves? At what point will the population be big enough? Will you then agree that we would need to stabilise it?

Wayne, I think you are missing a pertinent point.

It is statistically proven that there are more idiots than scientists in any given population centre.

These idiots consume disproportionately vast quantities of a nation's resources and generally either squander them frivolously or direct them into producing even more and bigger idiots.

If you could find a way of ensuring such useless and wasteful portions of a nation's poulation were culled while retaining the intelligent 5 - 10% of a population intact we could solve all the world's problems in one fell swoop! ; )

In his address to the National Press Club today, David Suzuki made the point that Australia has the best or near-best scientific community and quality on a per-capita basis.

Surely it is this per-capita basis that is important, not the total number, especially when procuring a larger number via population growth would mean far more non-contributors to science, society and environmental wellbeing and far bigger problems created by all sorts of increased pressures on our resource base and environment.