Our government has recently started handing out money to new mothers to encourage a baby boom, then crowing over the increase in birth rates. This was largely at the request of the business community, but did they stop to ask themselves whether it was even a good idea? Why is it that 'business leaders' want Australia's population to go up and insist that it would be good for the economy, while most scientists think we should try to halt population growth? Do the business leaders have it wrong, or is this a case of competing goals? I think it is the latter.

more:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html

I would rather the current populace increase naturally than outsiders be brought in to prop up our skills shortage. The larger our population the stronger it is. We need to increase the gene pool and enlarge our workforce. Indonesia has more adult men of fighting age holding guns in the security, police and military fields than we have population. Longterm survival dictates growth. This country is huge and resource rich. If we had an effective Government we'd be putting our scientists to the task of greening our desert regions rather than preaching overpopulation doom and gloom.

Besides, the next big war will doubtless cull away most of us.

If we keep increasing the population then war will be inevitable.

Having lots of men for cannon fodder does not make you more able to defend yourself. Compare the US to Indonesia. What makes the US so strong is their wealth, not their population. Look at China - not long ago they were all starving. Now their economy is booming. Why? Because they can feed themselves because they brought population growth under control. They got the fundamentals right.

Greening the desert sounds like a good idea and occasionally one of our politicians suggests it. Then quickly regrets it. It is not feasible. It would cost too much. We don't even have enough water for our east coast cities. The power required would be prohibitive, and now there is the added problem of greenhouse emissions - which will make the power requried even more prohibitive in the future.

There is plenty of food to go around. Lets keep it that way, rather than relying on grandiose schemes just to keep us fed.

Freediver, I’ve said this many times on this forum – the baby bonus is rotten to the core. It is the most disgusting piece of governance we have ever seen in this country.

I curse Keating for introducing it and I curse his political opposites, Howard and Costello for embracing and increasing it.

It runs totally counter to the fundamental principle that governments should be upholding: sustainability.

It is a blatant baby-buying and vote-buying exercise. It is a full-on bribe.

The money does not have to be spent at all on the child.

The money would be much better spent on improving child education, or a host of other things.

Adjustments in population growth can be very easily made via immigration, whereas adjustments via the birth rate are much smaller and longer-term….and totally unnecessary. We should be celebrating our low fertility rate.

It is so bad that we have to ask ourselves what has happened to democracy here. Who wants a boost in the birthrate? Why? Why are we being basically repeatedly lied to by Costello with the false message that our population would go into decline without immigration? What has happened to the fundamental role of government to balance the vested-interest push for ever-greater growth from the business lobby with the responsibility to protect our future, stop overstressing our resource base and direct the country onto a sustainable basis? In short, why do successive governments pander to the continuous growth ethic, which has now been shown to be fundamentally counter-productive to our future well-being?

I suspect it is just a type of 'cultural momentum.' For many generations it has always been about growth and the limits were well over the horizon. It is taking our society a while to get it's head around the new concepts.

When the baby bonus first came out, my first response was 'why don't they just reduce our taxes instead of taking it and handing it back'. This is why I don't get the approach from the 'business community.' Maybe they assumed the money would be wasted on something else if not this. The baby bonus is a lot of money and the high taxes that are funding it are slowing down our economy far more than the low population.

Unquestioned growth was a “cultural momentum” until fairly recently. But we can hardly argue that it is any more. It has been strongly questioned for at least a couple of decades now. I’ve personally been banging my head against the proverbial continuous growth brickwall since the late 80s.

It has become patently clear to me that the vested-interest big-business lobby has prevailed, with the assistance of vested-interest governments at all levels. If this hadn’t been the case, I reckon we would be applying the final touches to a national sustainability agenda about now, rather than barely just initiating it, if indeed this is happening.

The ‘new’ concepts are not hard to understand, the core of which is balance between demand on our resource base and the ability for it to supply the goods in an ongoing manner. ie; sustainability.

The really crucial indicator that big vested interests prevail here is seen with the continuous push for rapid growth even in the face of massive water-supply problems in our cities and with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions now very high-profile concerns. I mean, if we can’t see fit to take the most obvious step towards sustainability in the current resource-stress environment, then it is blatantly obvious that there is a lot more to the story than just common sense or responsible government. And the easiest and most immediate move towards sustainability would be to reduce the rate of growth in demand for stressed resources by cutting immigration right down, to about net zero (~35 000 per annum) or lower (and abolishing the disgusting baby bonus [and sending Costello off to a nice little ice-cave in northern Greenland]).

Rather than our governments undertaking their primary duty of care of protecting our future quality of life, they are just kowtowing to their financial supporters.

Sooner or later big companies will develop greener agendas. We’re seeing that to some extent now. But the problem is that it will be too little too late. It probably already is.

Australia's population should be reduced, not increased.

Even in the current drought conditions, and even with the threat of climate change, people are still streaming in at the blatant instigation of our idiot politicians who want more votes and more business for their rich mates.

If Wayne Smith would like to organise a revolution, population is one area to kick off on. Trouble is, the average Australian is too bone-headed and lazy to get involved.

The international economic system is based on constant growth in production – and that requires an increase ofconsumers, because without growth there can be no profits; and we all want to make a profit. The flaw in this model is that we live on a planet of finite dimensions, with finite reserves of everything we need in order to survive. Therefore, a time will come when there isn’t enough to go around and wars will be the solution. Water wars, land wars, food wars…
It’s the way humans have always operated. No human society has ever planned ahead in any meaningful way – they’ve always lurched from crisis to crisis – as we are doing now. We’re just cunning animals – not much cleverer than hens – and you wouldn’t expect them to plan ahead; would you? For every human who can see danger looming, there are a thousand who can’t, so eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die

"The international economic system is based on constant growth in production – and that requires an increase ofconsumers, because without growth there can be no profits"

Where did you get this from? It is not reliant on constant growth, or based on it.

Australia is in dire need of a population policy, so that we know where we are heading. It is ludicrus to keep importing 100,000+ people every year without any sort of a plan. It is now obvious we are not keeping pace with the required infestructure.

Those advocating high population need to prove this can be done without affecting our living standard, and I don't believe they can do this.

Big business wants high migration because it garantees a growth in consumer goods sales. This is why they give so generously to both major parties and the major parties appease them.

The first thing that should be dropped is the baby bonus.

Big business does not care if it costs more and takes longer for you to get to and from work, whether emergency services work, long queues getting longer, the price of food or any other aspect that effects our living standard. Their sole motive is to sell more goods to consumers.

It is past time that we sat back and looked closely at what is best for Australia and its people. Think about what sort of a life we want for our children and Grandchildren.

Just before his demise, Kim Beazley was saying some pretty interesting things which reflected comments that I had put on this forum urging Labor to address sustainability issues and really be seen to be different to the Libs. He seemed to be initiating a change in the right direction.

Now I’d love to think that KevtheRuddygoodbloke will continue with this momentum.

The momentum I refer to is basically the placement of genuine sustainability right at the core of our society, and the gearing of the economy and everything else to it. Of course this means weaning ourselves off the absurdity of continuous growth.

We DESPERATELY need a Federal government that actually strives for a steady state population, a fosters genuine per-capita economic growth by separating the good technological-advance and improving-efficiency side of growth from the bad continuous-expansion component.

Support is welling up in the general community, and would probably be sufficient now to win a well organized sustainability-oriented major party power at the next election, or the one after.

The Greens and Democrats have been dead losses when it comes to real environmentalism. The only real hope is Labor.

We should start with the message that one of the most fundamental purposes of government is to protect our future and to effectively mitigate the many and varied forces that threaten to severely degrade it. If a government fails to strive for this, then they should be hounded out of office and never forgiven.

Come on Kevin. As a highly principled Catholic, you cannot possibly tow a line that is in any way similar to that of Howard. Set Labor up as a highly distinct alternative, with genuine sustainability at its foundation.

The problem of Australia's over-population will never be solved. Immigration will cease only when Australia is reduced to a desert, and people will no longer wish to come here.

Why? Because the only two groups of goons able to form a government are both big immigrationists. I don't know why Ludwig wants Rudd (if elected) to carry on with Beazley's mumblings. Beazley often said, proudly, that he was a big immigrationist!

The problem is, unfortunately, Australia is a country of poorly educated, poorly informed people who, for the most part, are comfortable in their present lives and see no need to involve themselves in politics. We have no press independence or freedom; no independence of either TV or radio. We have permitted a presidential style dictatorship to develop as the preferred political system, and in their ignorance, 90% of Australians simply vote for more of the same because they are not given any useful information that might enable them to hold informed opinions.
Only one other so-called democracy is less democratic than Australia, and that is the U.S.A.
Until…
1. political donations are limited to individuals and capped at, say $1,000.00, and made transparent,
2. no politician may campaign outside his/her electorate
3. professional advertising companies are prohibited from running campaigns for individuals.
4. a limit of, say, $100,000 be placed on political advertising
5. all political parties are banned
6. parliament is the government and decisions are arrived at by consensus
7. civil servants are independently employed and their independence is strictly guarded
8. all government business is transparent
9. a total ban is placed on political advertising
10. no politician may hold any sort of political office for more than seven years – i.e. no professional politicians…
then we have no hope of achieving any sort of democracy in which intelligent people have a say.

I'm going to be putting up an article on OzPolitic with some electoral reform ideas for QLD and Australia soon.

Ybgirp,

I don’t believe that Australians are more “poorly educated” than any other nationality; nor do I believe that they are “poorly informed”. I do believe that the average Australian is a non-starter when it comes to interest in politics but, again, are Australians any different from other nationalities?

What do you mean that we “have no press independence or freedom”, “no independence of either TV or radio”? Compared with other countries, how much more freedom and independence could the media have? Freedom and independence from what, exactly?

Which countries do you believe are more democratic than Australia?

Your ideas (10 points that you say will lead us to democracy) are a little hard to follow. No 1 is fine. Can’t see the sense in No.2 or No 3. With No.4, you have limited political advertising to $100,000, but in No. 9 you want ALL political advertising banned! Which is it?

No. 10 is good. Politics was never meant to be a life-long career, but the other points I don’t refer to seem to be pretty strange, as does you last remark about “intelligent” people having a “say”. What about fact that you think most of us are not educated enough?

“The problem of Australia's over-population will never be solved. Immigration will cease only when Australia is reduced to a desert, and people will no longer wish to come here.”

You are probably right Leigh, but gee, we’ve gotta believe that there is a ray of hope, otherwise people like you and I who are concerned to the core of their being about this sort of stuff will just go completely bonkers.

“I don't know why Ludwig wants Rudd (if elected) to carry on with Beazley's mumblings. Beazley often said, proudly, that he was a big immigrationist!”

Beazley was a Howard clone, with growth at all cost as his mantra. But my interpretation was that in the last weeks of his leadership he was exhibiting genuine moves away from that.

I would dearly love Rudd to continue the momentum of change…. and certainly NOT just carry on as Beazley did throughout the majority of his reign.

I hope you won’t go “completely bonkers”, Ludwig. I don’t intend to. I think that we have to accept that there are things that we can change and things that we cannot change. All we can do is express our concerns, and hope someone who can make changes listens. Currently, there seems to be nobody who will listen, and I can’t see Rudd being any different from the average Australian politician if he becomes PM.

It is inconceivable that the people who are responsible for our downward run are suddenly going to make things right.

I’ll take your word that Beazley, in his last moments, started to talk about change. I stopped listening to him long ago. Probably he was desperate to hang on, and tried something else.

All politicians are becoming more and more irrelevant. It is pointless to rely on any of them. It’s the nature of the beast I’m afraid

I suggest the Leigh's and Freedivers in this thread who oppose new children set an example for the rest of us by not producing any offspring.

And I, Wayne, suggest that you leave the silly remarks out. Nobody has suggested "no new children". Nobody has opined against natural increases in population. We have been talking about ridiculous baby bonuses and immigration.

Seeing you want to make it personal, I merely replaced myself with two daughters about 40 years ago and, as I have now forgotten what to do, I won't be producing any more!

Leigh;
It is widely accepted that even university graduates now have a poor command of English, logic and history. Our schools and universities are now seen as prep schools for industry, instead of places to broaden students’ minds with philosophy, history, reason and logic. There’s no cultural curriculum – unless you think pop ‘culture’ suffices. By the age of about fifteen a student’s subject list is reduced to four or five topics – often closely related. Try discussing poetry, art, music, philosophy, morality, literature with any randomly selected group of Australians. German truck drivers can quote Goethe. Most Arabs are vitally aware of their culture, art, music and can discuss moral and philosophical issues with ease. Travel to north Africa and it is difficult to avoid being drawn into a political discussion.
You reckon we have independent media! 70% of all Australian newspapers are controlled by one rabid right-wing internationalist, and the other 30% by someone similar… there is no chance of being informed. The ABC has been gutted and blackmailed to silence by political intervention – as are journalists who oppose the government. SBS has had it’s funding drastically reduced. Surely you know of the nadir to which Foxtel has reduced news reporting? European media, by contrast, are independent and it’s possible to get a balanced view. New Zealand, all of Western Europe and Canada are more or less democratic. Australia has followed the U.S.A. to become a presidential style dictatorship. No one knows their local representative, because they have become irrelevant, thus the only person who campaigns is the party leader. By political advertising, I mean ‘selling’ policies, as opposed to electioneering spending. The present govt. is the largest advertiser in the country, ‘selling’ its unpopular policies.
A lack of a broad education does not preclude intelligence, as your posts demonstrate.
As for Warren Smith’s silly comment. Two children per couple will not increase the population.

As with such issues as climate change, overpopulation cannot be properly addressed unilaterally.If Australia high-mindedly, or with foresight , decides unilaterally to reduce/control its population -It will mean BUGGER ALL unless the rest of the world makes similar commitments.

While we are living in a world where some cultures allow, or even actively encouraging population growth on the flimsiest of economic foundations. And we having a ruling ethos in much of the west
which proclaims our responsibly for all corners of the globe & the need for sharing -regardless of input & responsibility. We are sitting ducks -or suckers waiting to be had.

Either some future “high minded” Aust govt , egg-on by bleeding hearts , or some outside (world) body faced with major natural or manmade system failures will open the doors & all our conservation will mean ZILCH.

It has parallels to someone going to see the new-years eve fireworks display by the harbour - you get there early, take time to case the place finding a spot with a fine view,close to amenmities- you set out your rug/mat/chairs on patch which you deem is a right & proper size for your group , not being greedy you only take minimal space -then last -minute-Freddie & his mob arrive -they haven’t given it half the planning but they are satisfied with less space - & squeeze-in around & in-front of & perhaps overtop of you. So much for unilateral foresight & planning !

Leigh an Ludwig shouldn't feel despondent. At least OLO provides a public forum to air concerns. What I look forward to are some new arguments supporting the status quo. It would be nice to see an advance on the following:

1. Australia needs more people to support a manufacturing industry and a strong economy (don't mention the current account deficit, per capita debt or competition from foreign workers on $2 a day for 16 hour days; pretending that countries like Finland and Sweden don't exist will also help).

2. Australia needs more people and harsher conditions (e.g. a war or two) to slow genetic degradation (i.e. it weeds out the inferior among us).

3. Australia needs more people to offset the effects of an ageing population (pretend not to understand the concept of exponential growth).

4. Australia needs more people so it can raise armies to defend us against greedy foreign powers (the degradation of living standards from a large population will also make Australia a less appealing invasion target).

5. The whole world is stuffed so what difference will an optimally populated Australia make? Anyway, what can you do about it? Shoot people?

6. We will all be killed by an epidemic or asteroid soon, so why worry?

7. Australia can sustainably support a much larger population (only to be used by successful poker players).

8. There are many reasons why high population growth is fantastic for Australia but I don't have the time to write them down at the moment (my favourite).

Notice that I haven't mentioned supporting high housing costs and the associated industry, undercutting wages, and saving on education and training costs by poaching skilled workers from the rest of the world. These of course are the real reasons for Australia's population growth ethos.

Ybgirp

I agree with you re the idiots turned out of universities. Most of the duds should never have been there in the first place. It will get worse if Labor attains office: they think all poor people should go to university no matter what.

However, you don’t have to go to university to be educated and intelligent, so none of the above has any bearing on your previous claims.

Unlike you, I do not know anything about most Arabs “awareness”, but your reference to them certainly does not support your previous claim, either. Name the Arab countries which are democracies! What good has “political discussion” in North Africa produced for the average person?

Your claims about the media are, again, invalid. What about the left wing papers, the left wing ABC etc.?

There is no chance of being informed? Are you uninformed? Unless people really don’t want to know, there are many ways to become informed, the internet being just one. We don’t need to rely on traditional sources any more.

I note that you have dodged the question on political advertising. There is no difference between “selling policies” and “electioneering spending”.

As you say, electoral representatives are nobodies these days. That’s because they do not represent us; they represent their party to us. We should be voting for a leader and cabinet, not for some drone who is totally irrelevant. We have public servants, ombudsman etc to deal with our individual needs at state and federal levels. We don’t need a politician as well in each electorate.

Are you going to advise us which countries you believe are more democratic than Australia? Where would you prefer to live and enjoy the things you find lacking in Australia?

“As with such issues as climate change, overpopulation cannot be properly addressed unilaterally. If Australia high-mindedly, or with foresight , decides unilaterally to reduce/control its population -It will mean BUGGER ALL unless the rest of the world makes similar commitments.”

Horus, I think this is a real furphy (Festers furphy No. 5!). As with climate change, if Australia was to set a really good example, the pressure would on the US to follow suit, and if the US did so even to a limited extent, then the rest of the world would be much more likely to seriously take up the issue.

Australia could and should set an example.

Our borders are completely pervious to climate change, but they certainly aren’t to global population growth. So we CAN develop a population policy based on sustainability in this country irrelevant of the burgeoning world population.

Not only would we be setting an example of how to live sustainably in a country that has constant growth pressure, but we would save ourselves from future decline, or very likely from economic and ecological collapse...or we would at least lessen the decline.

Besides, it is pretty crazy to think that we can’t deal with our own population pressure problem because this problem pervades much of the world. What a cop-out! Of course we can. And of course we should.

Overpopulation or overgrowth of population in this country can most definitely be addressed unilaterally. And in doing so, we would be doing a great deal for the global cause by way of setting the example.

Ludwig,
I couldn’t disagree with you more.

Sustainability could probably fairly defined as the ability to support a certain number of people, at a certain living standard, long term,-without (significant) degradation of the environment.

The fly in the ointment is ‘the ‘living standard’ you or I may consider essential would be seen by many in the third world as extravagant

If Australia unilaterally cuts it population, all it will succeed in doing is providing living space for others who are not so fussy & whose birth control measures were not so prudent.

When faced with major diasters which displace millions of people
( as the climate change Jeremiahs predict)and a relativley sparsley populated continent , what govt would have the backbone to seal our borders?
When faced with available cheap labour- which will work for half the wage -and easy access under economic liberalism/rationalism - what employer would forgo the windfall?

And as for setting an “example“:
The population growth of Japan , Italy & the Scandinavia countries has been at zero to declining & that of the rest western Europe hasn’t been far behind, for a decade or more -but it hasn’t done one iota to halt the surging population growth of the Arab world & much of Africa.-so much for the power of role models.

Leigh,
Education should be universal and free. What’s important is the curriculum, and criteria for advancement. Elitism is to be avoided if decency is to prevail. Intelligence is not dependent on formal education at any level, however, a good education will assist individuals to develop natural intelligence – along with life experiences.
Voting for political Parties does not guarantee the provision of quality education or government. Informed Americans agree they have probably the worst education system in the so-called developed world – despite having the best universities. A broad education does not necessarily lead to democracy. It’s time to investigate claims that our form of ‘democracy’ is any better than the rule of a benign despot who listens to expert advice. Most of the present world’s woes stem from unfettered development instigated by modern dictatorial ‘democracy’, in which the ‘will of the people’ is restricted to one vote every few years, that will probably not count. When a party that receives 2.5% of the votes gets a senate seat, while another with 15% doesn’t, then things are desperately wrong.
North Africa is not the uncultivated wilderness your comment suggests, despite the predatory religion. Western ‘democracies’ have not provided their citizens with anything intrinsically valuable – they can’t, because politicians have to tout for re-election every few years. We may live longer, but we are not happier, and it is the unfettered growth promoted by our ‘democracies’ that is causing the imminent demise of life on earth. My claims about the print media and TV are correct. You are correct that we don’t need to rely on traditional media for information, but unfortunately most people do.
We should be voting for a local representative in a government of independents, who arrive at decisions by consensus and who are committed to the separation of church, judiciary and state. I live in Australia because I’m Australian. New Zealand and Western Europe are more democratic but too cold. No place is perfect – although Australia was well on the way during the 70’s and early 80’s. Recent governments have destroyed that hope.

Horus, let me start with really basic questions, and maybe can we develop a good debate… because I am interested in an apparently heart-felt opinion that Australia can’t address sustainability issues in isolation.

Do you think Australia should not bother to even try to deal with sustainability issues in this country, given the state of the world and the rapid momentum away from sustainability?

Do you think Australia should open its borders and let population find its own equilibrium?

Do you think Australia should not bother trying to set a good example for other countries?

Ludwig,
Should bother about sustainability? -Yes, but on our own terms.
We need to adopt the approach whereby we don’t provide foreign aid except to those who practice sustainable industrial practices & maintain sustainable population levels. We need to ensure that the Tim Costello’s & Bonos who shape public opinion advocate family planning in the third world as vigorously as they do aid issues

Should Aust its borders to find a pop equilibrium?-No - our population growth should come from within - we should not accept economic refuges & employers should be required to train locals rather than import employees ( & their inevitable entourage of dependents & associates).

Should we bother to set a good example? Rather than set an example, its likely to be ultimately self sacrificial .If the example of virtually all of Western Europe (with heavy weights like Italy, Spain ,France Germany ) & European Russia, & Japan all with negative or zero population growth, have not had the affect of setting an example the Arabs & Africans want to emulate .
(Rather all it has done has been to act as a magnet to thousands of illegal immigrants who eventually by hook or by crook gain resident & then provide social problems)
How on earth would Australia’s EXAMPLE prove otherwise?

I note we are currently being conditioned to accept a new wave(s)of “economic refuges’ under the pretext of atonement for being a major contributor of global warming .Thus we have societies throughout the world on marginal environmental /economic bases-that were marginal before they chose to live/expand in certain localities e-who when faced with an adverse turn, cry wolf, & expect the rest of the world to repeatedly bail them out, & they & the west, are being conditioned to believe we are responsible for their plight.

Horus I agree with most of your points;

sustainability practiced on our terms,

our international aid geared towards those countries who are helping themselves by way of sustainable industrial practices and population levels and

our aid being provided first and foremost for family planning and population stabilization.

As far as setting an example goes, whatever we do sets an example. If we set a bad example as we are doing by allowing continuous rapid population growth, escalating environmental problems and shortages of basic resources, we can hardly complain too loudly about other countrys’ actions or lack of actions.

Of course we should be setting the best example that we can, and if other countries then fail to heed it, well that’s their loss. But setting an example should just be one positive spinoff to achieving genuine sustainability, it certainly shouldn’t be the main goal.

Yes Australia will look very inviting if we set the right example and that could well lead to increased illegal immigration issues. But we CAN deal with that, as was demonstrated by the Federal government’s actions that ensued from the Tampa incident in August 2001…. which slowed an impending hugely escalated rate of offshore asylum seekers down to a trickle.

I don’t think we have too much disagreement afterall.

Leigh said: "I don't know why Ludwig wants Rudd (if elected) to carry on with Beazley's mumblings. Beazley often said, proudly, that he was a big immigrationist!"

I also recall shuddering at hearing Beazley proclaim he was "a big immigration man!" If Ludwig could provide a link demonstrating this change of heart, I'd be very grateful. Unfortunately, Beazley's public musings are probably not official ALP policy as his prolix proclamations rarely translated into reality.

Interestingly, the ALP National Constitution claims: "Labor recognises the need to plan for a sustainable population and in government will develop a formal national population policy." It also promises that "Labor will establish, as a matter of priority, a new Office of Population to advise on a range of desirable population options, and ways of achieving them." Yet, it does not unequivocally promise to REDUCE immigration to sustainable levels - meaning a zero net immigration policy. I wonder how long it would take such an "Office of Population" to come to the obvious conclusion that Australia is already overpopulated based on its limited carrying capacity.

Oligarch

Woops I only just noticed your request above.

No I can’t provide a link to the mumblings of one measly Beazley.

It was just an impression I got. Maybe it was wishful thinking. I dunno. Anyway, its all pretty irrelevant now.

Discussion transferred from http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=392#7657

“But that just means that any discussion on how to deal with increasing available resources ends up being a discussion about limiting population.”

Interesting comment Bugsy. Most people would not agree I guess, because they don’t even consider the population-growth / continuously-increasing-demand factor. But I would say that you should be right – any such discussion should end up talking about population, because this is generally the biggest factor in just about all resource issues, and the most ignored or maligned factor.

“Can you direct me to the posting where you plan for the effect that limiting our population will have without foreign cooperation in stabilising global population size?”

Sorry, I’m having trouble interpreting the question. Hope I’m on the right track:

If we can limit our population when the easy thing is to just let it keep growing, then we would be demonstrating to the world that it can be done. We would be setting a good example. If we don’t do this we really can’t pressure any other country to take up sustainability, can we? We’ve got to be seen to be making very solid advances towards sustainability before we can be taken seriously on the world stage. And as I have said ad-nauseum on this forum; even if we are really successful in developing new technologies and considerably reducing the average per-capita consumption of resources and production of waste, but we just continue to allow the number of consumers to keep increasing, thus greatly diluting or canceling out or completely overwhelming our technological and efficiency gains, then we are deluding ourselves and the rest of the world that we are really addressing sustainability.

“birth rates in western countries are already decreasing due to education and high living standards”

Yes. But per-capita consumption in western and developing countries is increasing. And we always have to look at population in tandem with per-capita impacts. The decreasing rates of population growth in many countries are good, but it is hardly enough. The world is grossly overpopulated and the rate of growth is still high.

continued

“how will we be treated by the international community when we refuse to take refugees and immigrants of countries that are total warzones”

We should take our share of the world’s most needy refugees. I advocate reducing our immigration rate down to about 30 000 per annum and within it doubling the refugee intake to around 25 000. Of course, we should be boosting our international aid effort as well. In fact, that is by far the most important thing – addressing refugee issues at their sources. We should increase our international aid effort to at least the UN recommended 0.6% of GDP. Currently our expenditure is a tiny fraction of that. 0.6% of our gross earnings is hardly a big amount to put towards improving the world. And again, if we can’t see our way clear to do that, we can hardly preach to other countries how to conduct themselves.

Our failure to put in a fair and reasonable international aid effort is another flaw in Australia’s responsibility to be a good global citizen.

“No, it's all very simple isn't it?”

On the national level it is, at least in theory. On the global level it certainly isn’t.

“Globally, I would suggest that population stabilisation is more likely to occur when a higher standard of living is enjoyed by people with less children.”

Absolutely. And our international aid efforts should be geared towards improving education and family planning. But yes it is difficult. I agree with you that on the global level there are enormous difficulties, especially with entrenched cultural and religious beliefs and practices and an inherent distrust of aid workers from developed countries.

But in Australia we don’t have to worry about these factors. We don’t have to worry about lowering the birthrate at all. There is only one national factor to deal with – immigration. And then there are some internal distributional issues, but overall it is vastly easier here than in most third world countries.

Now we are getting somewhere.

"If we can limit our population when the easy thing is to just let it keep growing, then we would be demonstrating to the world that it can be done. We would be setting a good example. If we don’t do this we really can’t pressure any other country to take up sustainability, can we?"

I put it to you that this statement is approaching the realms of fantasy (not in a bad way, just a mistaken hypothesis). That whatever measures we take to stabilise will be taken up by the rest of the world because we did it, I think is folly. Other countries with religious and cultural backgrounds that encourage population increase will ignore us. This has been seen time and time again in other policies that are unfavourable to domestic politics in those countries. We will of course be accused of hoarding a virtual paradise while the rest of the world goes to hell.

"All politics are local politics" - Tip O'Neill

The reaction from the Catholic Church and other religions must be factored in to your policies.

And now if I can hypothesise freely (I may be wrong of course). The "cultural shift" you have previously referred to that would allow population stability would most likely be under a banner of secular humanism, enlightened self-interest that would allow us to keep our lifestyles and let only a select few in to share. Good luck with affecting that. One major question when this immigration policy is enacted: The select few that would be allowed in to augment our stagnant population would be from which religious demographics? Hopefully not from those that do not promote birth control or the sanctity of fecundity...you'll be hearing from the discrimination commission in the UN before too long.

Even locally the population issue is much more complex than you seem to think it is, that is my major issue really. When planning, it is much easier to organise people when they are numbers until they turn up on your doorstep with flaming torches and a noose.

To understand humans, it is necessary to look at animals in similar circumstances – the most obvious examples are poultry in more or less ‘free range’ enclosures. Left to their own devices they will breed until there is no more food, then fight until enough are dead to permit more breeding. At the same time they will scratch and destroy their environment until it is a desert wasteland. Then most will die of ‘war’ and famine. Only the intervention of a farmer to allocate resources, cull excess birds, lock up land so it can recover and thus maintain an artificial ‘balance’ will prevent annihilation.
Humans live in a similar environment; the finite ‘cage’ of planet earth with very little arable land. We are breeding ourselves into war, famine and extinction with no ‘farmer’ to stop us before it’s too late. ‘Nature’ will eventually stop us through catastrophe. There are a few humans with the wisdom to prevent the impending ‘apocalypse’, but they do not hold any power, thus we are doomed – and perhaps rightly. We are behaving exactly like a virus – entering new lands and destroying them, then moving on to other ‘cells’ and destroying them, leaving behind ecological deserts. We’ve had our day, so should accept our fate gracefully

You do that ybgirp. Then, you can leave the rest of us alone.

Feelings of impotence and inability to address or understand problems lead to cynical reactions that are no help whatsoever. At least we know we cannot rely on you, since you've already given up.

"Interesting comment Bugsy. Most people would not agree I guess, because they don’t even consider the population-growth / continuously-increasing-demand factor. But I would say that you should be right – any such discussion should end up talking about population, because this is generally the biggest factor in just about all resource issues, and the most ignored or maligned factor."

Seriously Ludwig, that is getting a bit old. It's like you've got yourself a hammer and now every problem is looking like a nail. Are you seriously suggesting that we stop bothering to think about how we might reduce our impact on the planet and focus on one solution only - population? What do you think of the IPAT equation?

"And we always have to look at population in tandem with per-capita impacts. "

Says who? Are you saying it is not possible to focus on one problem without getting distracted by all the other problems?

“I put it to you that this statement is approaching the realms of fantasy”.

Bugsy, presumably you agree that Australia should be doing its bit on the world stage to deal with population and sustainability issues. You did afterall say;

“Ludwig, really I do agree with you in principle on the ideal population/sustainability issue.”

And presumably you agree that we should practice what we preach and that we would be downright hypocritical and dismissible if we didn’t.

Whether other countries follow the lead that we should be setting is secondary. The effort we put in is the first concern. The bigger the effort we put in, the more likely some other countries will follow suit and the more the international pressure will be on those that don’t. This is really just a very basic principle, and not in any way fantasy.

Do you think Australia should not bother putting in the best effort we can, or at least a half-decent effort, to secure global sustainability?

“And now if I can hypothesise freely….”

You seem to very clearly be able to see the worst possible scenario resulting from attempts to stabilize population in Australia, but still apparently can’t even begin to visualize the consequences of not doing this.

Your language indicates that you really don’t like the notion of population stabilization at all (“secular humanism”, “enlightened self-interest that would allow us to keep our lifestyles and let only a select few in to share”, “stagnant population”)

I previously asked:

“Bugsy, what is your problem with stabilizing the demand on stressed resources rather than just blindly letting it continue to increase?”

That went unanswered. So let me try this:

How do you think the consequences of continuing to get further and further out of step with our life-support mechanisms compare with the consequences of bringing our whole society into balance with our essential resources?

Well said ybgirp.

.
“Feelings of impotence and inability to address or understand problems lead to cynical reactions that are no help whatsoever. At least we know we cannot rely on you, since you've already given up.”

Bugsy, my impression is that it is you who feels as though there is an overall inability for us to deal with population issues…and that you have all but given up on sustainability, or can see a thousand reasons why we shouldn’t be addressing it.

“Are you seriously suggesting that we stop bothering to think about how we might reduce our impact on the planet and focus on one solution only - population?”

Freediver, why on earth would you think this?

It appears that you have not seen any of my other copious posts on this subject on this forum. I am a great exponent of I = PAT, and of putting the population factor into context with other impacts on environment, quality of life and future wellbeing.

Then you quote my statement that indicates that I do consider population along with the A and T factors:

"And we always have to look at population in tandem with per-capita impacts. "

What gives!?

Never mind if that's the case. It's just that it always seems that when people are discussing practical ways to help the environment you come along and say 'never mind, what we really need is a lower population'.

Why can't I access this thread by browsing? I tried listing the threads by most recent post. Now I have to go to my email account and follow the link that got emailed to me. There is something seriously dodgy with this forum. Is there a regular forum view that I haven't stumbled across yet? Anyway, if I don't return, you can take it up here:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164956379

"my impression is that it is you who feels as though there is an overall inability for us to deal with population issues…and that you have all but given up on sustainability, or can see a thousand reasons why we shouldn’t be addressing it."

On the contrary Ludwig, I wish your "simple plan" to succeed. To give you an idea of where I'm coming from I will quote Carl von Clausewitz, "In war everything is simple but the simplest thing is difficult."

As it is your plan for population stability is a good one and ultimately necessary, however the best of plans often fail because of a "deconditionalisation", that is the planners have not factored in some of the small (or even major!) conditions that will make the plan difficult to implement. If you can factor in and address some of the major obstacles that I have talked about, eg. Religious traditionalism on birth control and population expansion, then you may have a plan that will succeed. Until then, I fear that your optimism is misplaced.

Deconditionalised plans are good for one thing though, and that is providing hope and optimism, however a conditionalised plan that addresses at least the most obvious hurdles will have a much greater chance of success.

I am not here to be your cheerleader. And I really do hope it can succeed and before the looming population catastrophe.

That being said, what are you actually doing about it? More than blogging I hope?

You ask what Ludwig is doing apart from blogging. What can anyone do? I refused the pleadings of two women to have children with them, solely for the reasons of population unsustainability and the destruction of the biosphere... do I get any credit for that?
Surely, the question is now academic? The end is nigh and I consider my refusal to breed to be one of the best things I've done in my life. To bring a child onto this poisioned planet appears to me to be an act of great cruelty.

For any child of yours, I'm sure it is. ;)

“On the contrary Ludwig, I wish your ‘simple’ plan to succeed”

Very pleased to hear it Bugsy.

I’ve had plenty of experience with apparently simple things turning out to be bloody difficult, but I will maintain that the issue of population stabilization in Australian and of redirecting the nation onto a basis a hell of a lot closer to sustainability than at present would be relatively simple, given the right leader and the right approach.

But at present we in Australia are not ‘conditionalised’ into even starting to address real sustainability. And as for third-world countries with entrenched religious / cultural practices and beliefs, and intractable poverty, well I say we may as well forget it.

It is easy in Australia, but next to impossible on the world scale to address population growth, at least in the short or medium term, and that basically means within a meaningful timeframe.

“I am not here to be your cheerleader”

Well why not Bugsy? If you agree with me about this whole issue and you can see the magnitude of it, how can you not be out there championing it? How can you possibly be concerned about important issues such as water recycling or whatever and not be concerned and active about the bigger picture?

Anyway, I thank you for your in-principle support.

“…what are you actually doing about it? More than blogging I hope?”

Bugsy, you ask questions of me, but you just don’t answer the questions I ask of you.

Anyway, I’ll answer:

More than blogging? Nope, not any more, apart from continuing to harp about the issues at work and at occasional public meetings….and boring the couple of friends I’ve got left sh!tless on a regular basis (:<()!

But since 1988 when I first started to address sustainability issues, I have pushed the message as president and long-time committee member of the North Queensland Conservation Council, president and long-time committee member of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Townsville branch, president for twelve years of Sustainable Population Australia, North Queensland branch, prolific writer of letters to the editor of various newspapers for ~13years before internet forums came along, producer and presenter of an environmental radio program on community and indigenous stations for three years, presenter of many talks at NGO meetings, presenter of occasional conference papers and university lectures, and long-time professional environmentalist, ecologist, botanist and geomorphologist with the Queensland Government, starting off at a lowly rank nearly twenty years ago. And I haven’t had kids and I ain’t gunna.

I’m inclined to think that I have achieved as much on the Online Opinion Forum in the last year and a bit that I’ve been on it than I did in the 18 years before it. I don’t feel the need to broaden my activities. Anyway, my studies with plants, birds and related things take precedence these days.

So what about you? What issues are you into?

Well, I said i'm not here to be your cheerleader and I meant it. There are many problems with just banging on about population levels, real solutions to stresses already felt need to be addresssed, otherwise you run the risk of people just ignoring you. However, by addressing the potential failings of any plan, can we not make it stronger? Population may be the root of the problem, but trying to cut immigration in the short term won't be the solution. Local shortages are already putting pressure on cities and large townships affected by lower rainfall. To reduce local pressures means at least 2 measures can be taken, as I see it. 1) Redistribution of the population, which won't happen easily since houses already built tend to get lived in. 2)increasing resources.

I think recycled water has a great advantage that if people are afraid of it, then they can move to an area not affected by water shortages. If water recycling can repel people from moving to areas under water stress (as Clive Berghoffer from Toowoomba seems to think it can), then I'm all for it! It's one of those win-win situations. The cities need to be less attractive, that at least can help.

For sustainability's sake there are a whole mess of measures that can be taken from water and food production to energy. And many of them are applicable with or without a population policy. They are very do-able, especially since one can avoid theological and philosophical entanglements when trying to get them working. Thats what I'm interested in.

You are perplexing Bugs.

And still you don’t answer the direct question that I have put to you.

I’ll just address one of your statements and give a more comprehensive response tomorrow:

“Population may be the root of the problem”

Well no, it isn’t necessarily the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the frigging lack of regard for sustainability, and the absolutely insane push to keep on expanding our economy, rate of resource consumption and waste production, and population….. and pretend that we can maintain this full-on wank indefinitely!!

Population growth is just part of it. But it’s the bloody part that gets left out all the time… that’s what makes it so significant.

Ludwig... I am wordless with admiration - seriously. What beats me is how you sustain your optimism. Another thing I find perplexing is that all except one of the serious, practical environmentalists, conservationista and worriers about sustainability I have contact with are childless couples in late middle age who will probably avoid the worst of the troubles to come. The breeders are carrying on as if there's no tomorrow.

Bugsy, you asked; “what are you actually doing about it?”

I gave you a full and frank answer and you have given absolutely no response. Some sort of response would have been nice.

“There are many problems with just banging on about population levels”

Hells bells – my posts on this forum, and my input over many years has been all about putting population into context with other factors that impact on our environment, quality of life and future wellbeing.

“trying to cut immigration in the short term won't be the solution.”

It is one of the biggest and most easily addressed factors. But of course it won’t be THE solution.

“Redistribution of the population”

I would be in favour of that if it was of limited and well-planned extent and conducted within an overall sustainability policy. But if it is just going to lead to new areas being opened up for settlement, or the conversion of sleepy fishing villages to Mcmansion avenues, ad-nauseum, then no thanks.

continued

“I think recycled water has a great advantage that if people are afraid of it, then they can move to an area not affected by water shortages.”

Yeah, move to areas that are not under resource stress now and put them under stress. Again, within a sustainability paradigm some redistribution would be appropriate, but outside of it, redistribution basically means just stressing more and more areas.

“If water recycling can repel people from moving to areas under water… then I'm all for it! It's one of those win-win situations”

It’s not going to stop people from moving into an area unless it is bad enough to strongly affect the quality of life of current residents. That’s not a win-win situation.

“The cities need to be less attractive, that at least can help”

I don’t believe it! This is entirely the wrong way of thinking about it. You are saying that if we let the overall quality of life decline or resource stress increase to the point that the whole caboodle looks much less attractive, then we won’t have to worry about population growth and its effects of lowering quality of life and increasing resource stress! Wow!

“….many of them are applicable with or without a population policy”

No they aren’t. Not in cities and regions with strong population growth pressure.

Thanks ybgirp

“What beats me is how you sustain your optimism”

I don’t know if I’d call it optimism. I just can’t imagine being a serious environmentalist or advocate for the maintenance of a half-decent quality of life without being involved in the big-picture issues and without being fundamentally concerned about at least the medium-term future if not the whole sustainability bit.

I’ve been involved with all sorts of ‘subissues’ for longer than I’ve been an ardent sustainabilityist, such as land clearing, weeds and feral animals, fire, water, rare & threatened species, etc. But I realized pretty early on that there’s not a lot of point in being passionate about those sorts of things if you can’t see the big picture and put at least a fair portion of your efforts into it.

One of my main gripes when I was president and committee member of the North Queensland Conservation Council was this very strong tendency for people to be totally absorbed in particular issues or campaigns and just not interested in the big picture. The tendency was to be highly reactive and not very proactive at all, or perhaps proactive within very narrow parameters. That’s the main reason why I left. And it has become my main point of contention when I detect it on this forum.

I found a much broader level of concern in Sustainable Population Australia (Inc). http://www.population.org.au/

I should add that NQCC has changed and is highly supportive of population / sustainability issues now.

Climate change may well provide the catalyst for the implementation of a sustainable population policy here in Australia. As the CSIRO has outlined, climate change will reduce Australia's capacity to sustain a large population even further as the continent experiences extreme weather events and less rainfall in the southern parts of the country. Our current water shortages are merely a preliminary symptom.

Blind Freddy can see that Howard and the States need to curb the immigration-fuelled population explosion if they are serious about addressing the nation's water shortages. Sadly, the new Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has announced there will be no reduction in migrant intake levels for 2007-2008. Even with the looming spectre of climate change, our cretinous leaders are still completely acquiescent to the rapacious demands of big business. How sickening.

As Tim Gosling stated in his OLO article from 2006:

"The only reason Australia should ever grow its population is to make life better for the people who are here now. A growing population is terrific if you are a property developer worth $300 million and are intent on becoming a property developer worth $500 million. But for the average person, water “shortages” are just one of the many signs of life getting WORSE with population growth."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4154

Historically, humans have always only responded to catastrophe – and always too late. The planet is littered with the remains of civilizations that waited too long and were annihilated by climatic changes. We’re the same species, there’s been no evolution, and we’re softer both physically and mentally, so it’s silly to expect modern humans to react differently from their ancestors. Just make sure you’re on high ground, far from centres of dense population, with plenty of drinking water and a few years supply of food, and a couple of packets of sleeping pills and a large plastic bag for when it gets too tough, and you’ll outlast just about everyone else – for a while.

Ybgirp

Sorry to say something really disturbing – but if you are one of the tiny minority who sets themselves up properly for the impending crash, you will one of the tiny minority that will be overwhelmed by the desperate majority demanding a slice of what you’ve got for their very survival.

Setting yourself up with self-sufficiency is one thing. But holding onto it when the crunch comes is something else entirely.

Here’s something worth a read - http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/surviveourbrain/

You're correct, Ludwig -- which is why I stipulated 'far from centres of population.' Thanks for the link... interesting.