Oh, and just for a bit of maths assistance, 100Mil is roughly a 60th of the present population- by equal proportions, Australia's ENTIRE population would only be 300K- which is roughly a twelfth of Sydney's current population.

I speak as someone who thinks overpopulation is a big problem- but when the author starts drawing huge catastrophies and silly estimates I'm afraid criticism is all they will recieve.

The earth CAN support a gigantic human population- of course, this may well need to exclude a considerable degree of civil living the higher it goes.
The REAL problem is, where the huge numbers of people live and how they share infrastructure, the environment and what they compromise to make space (or the space compromises to accomodate THEM).

THAT is what the population crisis is about and THAT is what authors should be focusing on.

Thanks fore the numbers King Hazza, and no thanks Pericles for the back hander.
I do not see the thread as one about migration/boat people.
King Hazza says it rightly, if we only had 300.000?
We would be vacant land.
YES western world consumes far too much.
But with no room for doubt is out bred by third world country's.
So share the blame for our problems.
Ludwig, others of like mind, please tell us how can this country, any country control its population, stay viable, without an international plan for every country to do the same.
We simple as it sounds can not, defending our boarders would cost twice the GNP.

Sorry if I've offended. It just seemed so obvious to me.

>>How about debating on the statements that you quote instead of just poo-pooing the person who wrote them<<

Actually Ludwig, it was the statements themselves that led me there.

Given that the original topic was "what to do about world population", fuelled by a ridiculous proposition that there is only room for 100 million people..

Given that everyone agreed, after some cosmetic pussyfooting around, that limiting world population by government action was an unrealistic objective, and had been from the outset.

Given that we then switch focus to our own borders, and...

...given that historically Ludwig has a tendency to steer discussion on population to the question of high immigration levels...

>>The debate on high immigration and high population levels is happening, at last. Thank goodness for that.<< (Dec 31st)

...I drew my conclusions. Obviously in error. Apologies all round.

But seriously, fortress Australia is not an answer, and never will be. The broad question, of whether Australia is able to support greater numbers, is inevitably mired in NIMBYism, instead of recognizing that people have lived in, survived in, and ultimately prospered in environments easily as challenging as that which we have in Australia. We're just too accustomed our own affluence to see it.

Now back to the topic.

The world's population will ultimately shrink - the last numbers I saw predicted a peak in around forty years time - as globalization slowly drags the most disadvantaged into its orbit.

The correlation between GDP and population replacement rates is well known.

http://www.search.com/reference/Total_fertility_rate

Instead of fretting about the impact of population growth on the world economy, I suggest it would be more instructive - and ultimately more rewarding - to concentrate on the impact of the world economy on population growth.

It would at least avoid the need for a global clampdown on nookie.

Surely Pericles isn't suggesting that Ludwig would stoop to 'bait and switch' tactics in order to engender yet another tiresome discussion about immigration and border protection in Australia?

We are all reading the same thing while at the same time reading something different into comments as well.

I took Ludwig as poo-pooing the whole 100million people worldwide as well. I don't think he was supporting that ridiculous proposal.

The trouble with the population debate is that it becomes a race debate with little attention to the issue at hand.

It is possible to debate this topic without accusations hurled at each other, fun that it might pose, about racism. Accusations that are hurled all too easy these days thanks to media beatups.

Perhaps we need to start a thread which straight up states a replacement immigration policy which does not discriminate on race and get on with actually discussing what people think is an optimum population for Australia.

It is pointless discussing world population in any detail until there is a discussion about distribution of resources.

No wonder mental health issues are on the rise when this sort of human hating garbage is not only promoted but believed by the gullible. Surely the gigantic uncovering of scientist fraudsters should wake up enough people to the false crap that social engineers want to impose on people.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 January 2010 11:45:25 AM

Indeed runner, keep the people scared and amenable. The world will turn and people will eventually adapt or become extinct. The species will change or die but the earth will remain. In the meantime we all have to put up this this BS. It's political as we all know, well I hope we all know that. How gullible would you have to be?

You know they have been talking this up for years and years, when I was young the predictors stated that by the year 2000 there would be some many people we would be standing shoulder to shoulder. I have heard it all before. And some people wonder why I am a sceptic?