With all other things being equal, you are better off with a large population. A few reasons spring to mind:

- It is easier to defend your territories.

- A larger population means larger enterprises. Some enterprises are more efficient when done on a large scale. For example it is no accident that aircraft design and building only happens in countries with huge financial resources, which can only be generated by large populations.

- A large population means more new ideas can be tested. So, although the percentage of people willing to give new things a go is similar in Australia and the US, the 15 fold population difference means the US market for new things is 15 times bigger. Since everything else is the same, (investment, sales required to support the investment), the literally means the US innovates 15 times faster than we do. Since we are fairly innovative people, in practice this many of our innovations move off shore.

So yes, there are substantial benefits to having a large population. The fly in the ointment is "all other things being equal". In economic terms means the marginal cost of adding a person is fixed, meaning adding people won't drive up the cost of food, water and energy. In essence this means there aren't resource limits. In other words there is plenty of water lying around to be dammed, plenty of spare arable land for food, and mining rates for coal, oil and minerals can climb without effecting the price overly.

For 200 years, we didn't have resource limits. But now, we must reduce CO2 emitted, oil and gas is running out, and we appear to have hit a limit on sustainable water usage. So, for the first time, the answer to "should we grow our population" isn't an unqualified "Yes!". It appears the current crop of pollies haven't yet realised the game has changed.

As for the optimum population, I vaguely recall it was thought Australia could hold 20M comfortably. I am constantly amazed how accurate some of those back of the envelope calculations turned out to be.

Steven,

I too have seen conflicting estimates and hence my options.
Clearly what is needed is a comprehensive one with less 'self interested' rubbery assumptions in their mix.

Equally clear is that because we don't have a working crystal ball and modelling is based on precise numbers subject to GIGO any number will be rubbery anyway. Logically informed faith is required too.

As alluded to by Grim the key factor of profligate self interest which is necessary to support the arguably dubious economics that is predicated on infinite growth in a finite world.

The clear implication of this is that there currently *is enough resources* physically to support the the current population and then some. However, the problem is also that economics is based on profit based, (uneven) profligate consumption.

To address the water issue one only needs to drive through the 'better suburbs' and note the elaborate gardens/bowling green lawns (for example) to see where a large part of our water goes. There is a huge industry built around encouraging us to replicate the notion of high water usage life style.

If one was to compare the the per head per capita water usage of say the 60's with today one would see my point. Pools, spa's, twenty minute showers to wash hair and add all the cosmetic concoctions, washing cars etc.

My point is if the world continues with current profligate water consumption, the world is rapidly running out of clean water (including fossil. Therefore the worlds ( yes and Australia's) population supporting capacity. The inevitable conclusion in the west it's all about lifestyle (wants).

NB 20% of the population uses 70% of the worlds resources. where as the bottom 50% it's about survival.

Simple maths show that if we spread the resources more fairly we would all survive comfortably.

The flow on to the environment/ water quality etc. are obvious if one thinks about it.

NB This doesn't mean socialism (we're all the same etc. BS) it simply means less differences between the extremes. Nor is it Nirvana.

I see little sense to the current thinking paradigm.

Ludwig,

What policy was Steven referring too in your post?

He was referring to the how many and water resources not political policies per se.?

Might I suggest that the Liberal party are pro big business and they are pro development (unlimited growth in a limited biosphere)read Steven's posts.

It seems to me that your short focus is blinding you to the reality....it doesn't matter a twopenny damn how many people we have here if those who are's consumption is increasing exponentially.

Tell me how it helps our water supply to those that exist now, if we are growing food etc for the profligate?
NB we export 50% of the primary industry O/S consumption.

Remember the old Indian saying after the last tree is cut down and the last fish is caught and the last water is drunk. TRY eating money (profit/lifestyle.).

Common sense and facts tell us that industry agriculture and profligate water consumption are denuding our supplies of water. Once it's gone, it's gone and desal etc will will sender our products too expensive. Clearly the old economic arguments are the cause not Rudd's views on immigration.

PS They are similar to the previous governments in their intent.

Stopping immigration now would not solve anything only open Pandora's box of other issues.

This is a WORLD problem and needs to be addressed that way.
Again we need a new economic paradigm. Grim's post is apt.

We needto arrive at an acceptable number of immigrants we should take. This should be left to the scientists and experts.

The MOST IMPORTANT POINT is that we should be very vigilant and quite dry-eyed about who should be accepted. Those who have a bad track record of creating racial and religious violence should be KEPT OUT. Those demanding their own country within Australia should be KEPT OUT as well.
Let us learn from the experiences we have had with Sri Lankan and some sorts of Muslims.

socratease

examinator: "This is a WORLD problem and needs to be addressed that way."

The would would be a nicer, safer place if all countries addressed the population issue. But that is about it - for the most part our fate is in our own hands. If we double our population a few times we will run out of water and food - regardless of what the rest of the world does. If we keep our population stable, we won't - again regardless of what the rest of the work does. Well, we won't until peak oil, or peak phosphorus or something knocks us for 6.

Another way of saying the same thing is this isn't a CO2 emission issue. With CO2 we can't fix the local problem unless the rest of the world pulls the same way. With population - not so much. Which is just as well, as most countries don't like having foreigners laying down the law on their breeding habits.

Oh, and here is an interesting data point. For a short while last year Victoria's was a net food importer - something unheard of in Australian until then. http://www.theage.com.au/national/call-for-action-as-state-food-security-at-risk-20081101-5fxr.html?page=-1

The suggestion that Australia can/should raise its population to
35 million is a "Business as Usual" proposition.
It won't happen !

Aside from the water problem, there is the growth problem.
Growth means an increase in energy expenditure.
That is where the limitation lies.
It will not be possible to find the energy to produce all the extra
housing and infrastructure.

It was suggested that Sydney and Melbourne's population will rise
to seven million each. This will simply be impossible.
If we stopped all export of coal and natural gas we could perhaps
approach those figures, but do we want to do that ?
By 2018 it is expected we will be importing some 95% of our oil use.
That is, provided we can source one million barrels a day by then.

All this will be complicated by the ETS charges which may prevent the
needed increase in fossil fuel usage.
It seems we must remove the government, but what is the Liberal
and National parties attitude to this problem ?