Steve Madden

“Sure there are areas of Australia where people should live in harmony with the fragile environment, but this is not the rule where most people live or want to live.”

What? So you are saying that it is alright for us not to live in harmony with our environment where it is deemed not to be “fragile”?

“Unfortunately the "sustainable" population debate has been hijacked by single issue fanatics pushing their own agendas.”

Good lord! As far as I can see, those on this thread and others on OLO are concerned about population for the right reasons. You might find one or two who want a unicultural Australia and don’t care too much about sustainability, but you could hardly tar the whole canvas with that sort of brush. I think you are trying to hijack the discussion by suggesting that your detractors have disingenuous motives.

“Then a population of 100,000,000 will be quite feasible.”

Well maybe 30 or even 40 million… if we really got our acts together on the full gamut of resource-efficiency improvements, alternative and all other technological advances. But why on earth would you want 100 million let alone 30 million? Why would you even think twice about it?

Surely the only thing we should really be thinking about is how to achieve that currently extremely elusive sustainability imperative with all the urgency it deserves….which necessitates bringing demand into line with supply, and hence a halt to population growth in this country forthwith.

Then once we are sure that we have achieved that, or are definitely going to achieve it, we might think about increasing the population….a little bit.

Why would you want a situation where all the technological improvements that we make are just chasing the tail of ever-increasing pressure on our resource base and environment generated by an ever-increasing population?

The simple fact is that we have to do both together – maximise technological improvements / resource efficiencies and alternative energy sources…and….stabilise population.

Oligarch.

At last we come to the real question " why the hell would we want another 10 million people?"

My answer to this question is so we can pay for the infrastucture that is desparately needed and that is limited by our tiny population.

Given that if you include Australia's antarctic and fishing zone we lay claim to about one fifth of the worlds surface is a population of 20 million sustainable?

But of course "the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position." :)

Given the Namby -Pamby ,tail -between- our- legs attitude of Aust Govts to such issues .I think we should drop the pronoun ‘our’ when referring to the Antarctic territories.

It’s ‘ours’ only in the sense we are its current guardians .
When push comes to shove we are likely to have no claim -& no show.

Steve

I get worried by the logistical calculations of population growth advocates.

"How about this little known fact "Australia's average rainfall of 490mm last year was slightly more than the long-term average of 472mm, but it fell unevenly across the continent."

This is in contrast to London's 30 year average of 55mm. The 30 year average for Melbourne is 350mm."

London's average annual is about 13 times your claimed figure. On your rainfall ration, I think that the UK could not support 5 million people.

http://www.londondrum.com/info/weather.php

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/1190084/natural_forces/weather_climate/?lang=_e

What's more, the rain falls fairly evenly year round, not seasonally and erratically as in Australia.

Does your erroneous understanding of London's rainfall affect your belief in Australia supporting 100 million people? We may not be able to feed our current population if the dry spell continues, yet you think Australia can feasibly support five times as many.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21592458-952,00.html

Ludwig.

In many of your posts on this subject you assert that our resources are being stretched by our population and argue that it should be reduced.

Australia is a net energy exporter so energy is not a resource that is under pressure.

Australia exports more agricultural produce than is consumed domestically so food is not under pressure.

Australia had more rainfall last year than the 30 year average, so its not lack of rain, its lack of water infrastructure.

Sorry if my opinion goes against conventional wisdom, but in my view we cannot afford not to increase our population.

Some very poor thinking here.

We can only have a stable, sustainable population, and silly comparisons of UK land area to Victoria only expose the poverty of the thinking behind those who want to destroy Australia for future generations.

If we need 30 million, why would this then be enough, would we not still be addicted to 60M?

These population pundits are not really interested in any particular sized population - they just want growth irrespective of the problems.

Unnatural, boosted, artificial growth gives lazy business easy profits and homeowners capital gains. This totally distorts market signals compared to the normal distribution of productive resources in Australia. It also distorts interest rates.

Those wanting 30M should explain why 30M, as so far there only interest in 30M appears to be the simple fact that it is substaintially more than today.

This logic threatens Australia.