34
TOPICS
4626
VOTES
1166
COMMENTS
621
PARTICIPANTS
National Forum
In the National forum we cover a range of public issues of importance to all Australians. Is multiculturalism failing? Is our democracy damaged by corporate donations? Should the Melbourne Cup be a national holiday?
We should say YES to Big Australia.
In Brief
See Topher debate Topher on the topic of Big Australia.
The question of whether Australia should welcome population growth or avoid it remains unresolved. The issue raises its head in public debate in different guises – from controversies over importing labour to fill vacancies in booming industries like mining, to temporary work visas and refugee quotas, from pressure on infrastructure and services in cities to boosting regional areas.
Pantera Press have published a guide to both sides of this debate in Why vs Why™ Big Australia, being released 22 August 2012. The book presents an accessible and balanced view of both sides of the argument for and against a big Australia aimed at a mainstream audience.
In conjunction with the release, YourView is raising the issue for public debate. Unlike other forums, YourView identifies the collective wisdom - the considered collective view of the participants.
Below, we'd like to hear your view. But first, consider the cases for and against made in the book:
| Yes Case | No Case | |
1. Because it is happening whether we like it or notUnder every realistic scenario, even if migration is cut sharply, Australia’s population will become larger. “Big Australia” is not, as some claim, simply the aspiration of greedy businessmen; it is a reality for which we have to prepare. And, in reality, legislators have few options to prevent population growth and the illiberal consequences of these policies would be unacceptable to Australians, for example limiting the number of children people have, or limiting medical care for older people. Unless the government is prepared to take draconian measures, a growing Australia will remain the reality. 2. Because it can offset the challenges of an ageing societyOur population is ageing and will continue to age no matter what the population growth. Currently, there are about 820,000 Australians aged 80 or over and by 2050, this will double regardless of changes in fertility and migration. This demographic trend will see the need more hospitals, aged care facilities and support services for the elderly. Importantly, if we slow population growth, our population will age more rapidly. Labour force participation and labour force growth will slow as the population ages, and the tax take will fall at exactly the same time as health care and aged care costs are rising. 3. Because of its economic benefitsA growing, more diverse population opens countless prospects for specialisation and discovery, which lead to more competition and economic growth. It is this economic growth that helps build better physical and social infrastructure in public transport, schools and hospitals as well as cleaner and more efficient technology. And the economies of scale resulting from a growing population foster a more interesting, cosmopolitan and efficient society. 4. Because we can afford the infrastructure and housingAustralia must build new housing and infrastructure with or without population growth. Our present infrastructure is already inadequate and increased demand will make it worse. We can do much better in meeting the demands for housing and infrastructure if we fix our federation and give state and local governments both the tools and the incentives to deal with population growth. Such reforms are long overdue, and a bigger population could well be the catalyst to tackle them. 5. Because we will have enough food and waterDespite a massive explosion in the global population, we have not run out of food. Famines still occur, but their causes are political and economic not a global shortage of food. Australia is extremely self-sufficient in food; according to the CSIRO, we produce about 93 per cent (by retail value) of the food we consume and we export about two-thirds of the food we produce. Although we consume the second-highest amount of fresh water per capita in the world, this is less than 10 per cent of the fresh water resources available as well as that there is a lot more we can do to reuse and recycle the water we have. 6. Because we can still protect the environmentAustralia has among the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. But that is not because we have too many people; it is because we rely on carbon-intensive sources of power such as brown coal. Reducing our carbon intensity (the amount of carbon produced for a given economic output) would have a much greater impact on total emissions than reducing population growth, as well renewable energy will become more viable as the population grows. 7. Because social cohesion will remain strongWhile other countries have also become ethnically diverse, few have managed the change as well as Australia. Across Western Europe, there are frequent outbursts of racial violence originating from migrant communities which experience high welfare dependence and high unemployment. In contrast, Australia with its skilled migration program, has created a culture in which migrants from very different backgrounds not only integrate but thrive by integrating into the workforce. |
1. Because of the environmental damage.Australia has the world’s worst record for mammal extinctions and now our birds are beginning to vanish. On top of this research has shown that if Australia’s population grew by only 10.6 million by 2050, this would probably still produce 276 million more tonnes of greenhouse pollution (53% more) than if the population had stayed at 22 million. At a private level, simply having one less child will save 20 times more emissions than you could do by making every possible change in your personal lifestyle. 2. Because we’re running short of oil and energy.The basic assumption of growth economics, that growth can go on forever, begins to seem like folly As the global economy grows it pushes up the price of oil, which in turn tends to choke economic growth. Capitalism seemed a robust system while it could grow and feed on a seemingly limitless natural world. Yet now we are facing peak oil, peak gas, peak water, peak fish, peak phosphorus – the list goes on. 3. Because we’re running short of resources, food, and water.The threat of world famine is back. In Australia and globally, technological improvements have largely ceased to improve crop yields, in many regions yields are flat or dropping. Certainly they are not keeping up with world population growth. Grain yield per person peaked back in 1986. Soils are eroded, compacted, salted, acidified, and robbed of humus after being over-exploited for decades. Treasury’s Intergenerational Report 2010 estimates how long Australia’s mineral and energy resources might last at current rates of extraction. It’s an eye-opener. Oil, 10 years left. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), 20 years. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), 63 years. Black coal, 90 years. Uranium, 143 years. Brown coal, 490 years. Zinc, 35 years. Iron ore, 70 years. You may be comforted by some of the larger numbers. Yet we are selling off, in a blink of time, oil and gas that took millions of years to create – and minerals that took billions of years. 4. Because it will make us poorer, not richer; and we don’t need more workers or a younger population.A very detailed study for the former Bureau of Immigration Research found the net cost to government budgets for an annual migrant intake of 114,000 was well over $3 billion dollars, or about $34,500 (in 1992 dollars) per immigrant. So the existing population needs to spend at least $200,000 on infrastructure for each new person added to Australia. If this is not spent before the new people arrive, we get the congested roads, hospital queues, overcrowded trains that we see in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. 5. Because it will damage our cities and our quality of life.It’s odd, and sad, that Australia has urban housing prices comparable to NewYork and London. The squeeze is on for inner urban land because Australians no longer found new cities. We are said to be the world’s most urbanised large country; 89 per cent of us – and that percentage is increasing – live in cities. Throw in out-of-control population growth, and we are at great risk of increasing the pressure on our already sky- high land prices. House prices cripple many families. Population pressure and densification produce ever-worsening traffic jams which merely add to the time parents spend away from home. 6. Because it won’t benefit the world.Australia could not absorb any significant percentage of the annual increase of more populous countries as well richer countries are the great polluters, where every extra person seriously increases the load on the planet. Immigrants do increase their individual emissions and environmental demands. People in Australia produce about 26 tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year, whereas people in Europe average about 10 tonnes, in China four, and India two. 7. Because a stable, sustainable population is achievable, and gives a safer future.An Australia with a stable population promises a better and safer quality of life for our children and grandchildren, and more likely survival of Australia’s unique animals and plants. It is still a higher population than we should have, but it is at least a population we can plan for. It is logically impossible to plan for an indefinitely increasing population. |
See also:
- Sustainable Australia - Sustainable Communities - Australia's current, official population strategy
- Dick Smith's Population Crisis (book) and Dick Smith Population (website)
- Bigger or Better? Australia's Population Debate (book) by Ian Lowe
- Make Population Growth Work - op ed in The Australian by Hartwich & Brown Aug 22.
Vote
Views (57)
Support YourView
YourView's mission is to enhance democracy in Australia by identifying the collective wisdom on major public issues.
It relies entirely on volunteer efforts and donated funds, and is independent of any government, corporate or political organisation.
Please consider helping YourView to build momentum.
FOR (20)
Both the for and against arguments read along the lines of we do/don't have enough room and resources to sustain a larger population. In a sense both arguments are correct - because what matters is the rate at which our population uses those resources.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter if Australia's population is 22 million, 30 million or 50 million. None of these populations are sustainable under current resource consumption and waste generation. This is where the challenge lies - reducing our per capita consumption of non-renewable resources.
Like it or not this is also a debate about immigration - Australia's birth-rate is below the replacement rate - and future population growth will mainly come from this source. I believe we do need to have a discussion (unfortunately it's not likely to be a particularly informed one) about how best to manage temporary and permanent immigration to Australia, but it's one that shouldn't be dressed up as a conversation about environmental sustainability.
Globally population growth is a problem, however population is expected to peak sometime this century. The best way to reign in growth? Educate women, improve child and maternal health and improve access to contraceptives. Again the challenge globally is not so much population growth, but how to lift billions of people out of poverty whilst improving sustainability globally.
As usual.
Even if our current population of 22 million is unsustainable in the long run given current consumption and waste, the changes needed to correct this are small compared to the changes a 50 million population would have to make. I agree that this is largely a debate about immigration levels though. The problem is that if people become too aware of this, the debate will become clouded by xenophobia. Just imagine all the people who will say, "Big Australia, it sounded like such a good idea, but now you're saying we're going to be overrun by foreigners, no thanks!" This is not my view you understand, I welcome skilled immigrants, they will be a valuable part of the future of Australia, but sadly there is a lot of barely disguised xenophobia going around in Australia today
Well, given that we're one of the world's education exporters, we'd have to say that a good place to go and get educated is right here in Australia. So if you really care about women taking more control of their fertility, then bring them over here as girls.
@barry d - Thanks!
@bkeniry - Only when you consider absolute consumption. On a per capita basis, the changes to Australia's footprint (a word I'm not particularly fond of, but its useful shorthand) to reach a sustainable level are some of the largest in the world. I admit that trying to reduce the footprint of a 50 million population would be much harder than for a population of 22 million, but its easier to plan new sustainable development than it is to retrofit existing development to be sustainable.
@erasumus - I'm not talking about University education. Getting 85% of girls enrolled in secondary school will drop your fertility rate below 2 (on average). Similarly with universal primary education.
I tend, on balance, to favour a more substantial population in Australia, but this is entirely dependent on the assumption that we manage and conserve our quality of life and upgrade urban infrastructure to absorb the growth. If I became convinced that we would not or could not do these things, I would tend to become more conservative. And I understand that fears of these things NOT being managed well shape the advocacy of zero population or minimal population growth.
Whether here or overseas the debate about the 'carrying capacity of the Earth' is a wonderfully complex one. Our own case is peculiar in two ways: we live in a quite unusually arid continent and we are unusually prosperous and urbanized. There is, on these latter grounds alone, never mind wider global concerns, a plausible case to be made that we would be unwise to seek a massive growth in our population. However, there are several points to be made in favour of planning for and welcoming a significantly larger population. The most evident of these are a domestic market for innovations, manufactures and commodities and a capacity to defend ourselves. These are classic arguments for having a substantial population, especially in a very large land mass. The argument that we are running out of food and energy or environmental goods is dubious, even if the argument for being responsible and strategically thoughtful about them is well taken.
The fact that our population is growing and that benefits can and do come from this points to there being a bigger Australia (say 35 million by mid-century), but is that a 'BIG Australia? Or would a big Australia be a 50 or even 100 million Australia, sometimes called for my business magnates? We need to acknowledge that there is a considerable elasticity in the term 'BIG' here. The ideal population in China, for example, might well be 300 million (a 75% decrease), whereas ours might be 35 to 50 million without an overshoot (a 100% increase). What is vital in this debate is to think through clearly the public policy requirements and social impacts of such growth.
Sure, let's take it steady. But if you're arguments are right – that a large population improves markets, stimulates innovation, increases capacity and grows the economy – then it let's put a stake in the ground for 50 million.
Your points are well taken, but personally I am extremely dubious about the prospect of governments actually meeting the infrastructure requirements for a significantly larger population. They have failed miserably so far even to manage our current needs. To take energy requirements as one example, remember the huge problems with Melbourne's power grid last summer. Frequent and sustained brownouts, sometimes lasting for days. Trying to transition to renewables will be hard enough under current conditions, Imagine trying to do it while trying to simultaneously double base load requirements (and at a rough guess, tripple peak load requirements).
"[My position] is entirely dependent on the assumption that we manage and conserve our quality of life and upgrade urban infrastructure to absorb the growth".
That's one big assumption. What experience of the Australian political landscape leads you to believe, on balance, that that is ever likely to happen?
Like all things we can see this as an opportunity or a problem which cannot be solved. Let's consider that it is an opportunity to do things differently; to create a new way of doing things in a sustainable way. If we get this right, we will be a world leader in sustainable development. Are there roadblocks? Of course there are. Are we naturally inclined to change in a pro-active positive manner? I think we are. But, you not think so if you heed all the doomsayers. Let us say, 'let us make this work.'
It is nice to live in countryside than living in crowded city people tend to live in places where opportunities exist; globalization and technology making people with right skills can choose the place they like the most for better life similarly countries can choose the foreign people with skills it need the most.
In the technologically advanced world skilled human power is highly needed for sustaining countries growth. With limited population it will be a great challenge for Australia to maintain skilled people throughout all industries.
Age care industry is a typical example to prove how difficult to manage facilities for growing number of aging population. Currently age care industry is in short of staff because of this government diverting resources into age care to attract staff. Many other industries are in need of qualified staff due to this government constantly supplying lot of resources, not necessarily all resources producing expected outcome.
It is highly challenging task for Australia to balance human resource issues across all industries with current population, if it is not necessary to make Australia big how can we support industries that are need in people.
Bob Menzies planned for an Australia of 50 million - which he thought we needed for defence purposes. But by the mid 70s, we'd lost our nerve. A lot of this was sparked by the oil crisis. Doomsdayers said that the world was now overpopulated, and was headed for a crisis in food and energy. And that we were heading for the same disaster.
Forty years later, Australia has almost double the population and we're all significantly richer in real terms. And we don't appear to be running out of fuel or food. In fact, we keep discovering new ways to generate electricity - whether it's the monumental reserves of LPG we've barely started to tap or the flowering of wind farms.
But what about food? Well, Australia currently produces $60 billion in agricultural products. But we only consume $20 billion. That leaves $40 billion worth of food that we happily export to the world. And we'd export a lot more if world food prices weren't so low. Or, more relevantly, if there were more hungry Aussies. I know my family on the Riverina would be producing a lot more grapes, oranges and avocados if the local market was a bit bigger.
Agriculture is just one example of how a bigger Australia would bring good things. There's no doubt that it would add to our economy massively. One of the reasons we're so wealthy today (remembering that Australia is now the only nation in the OECD with 20 straight years of growth) is that we had a baby bulge in the 70s. That's right it was in the 70s, not the 50s. And all those people are now in the peak of their productivity and their consumption. If we don't plan for a bigger Australia, then once those folks start living less productive lives, it's all going to become a bit of a strain. The sooner we start planning for fresh faces in this country, the better off we'll all be.
Not forgetting, of course, that parts of world really are overcrowded, and would like to come here to work and play. Often they come from nations that really don't know how to get an economy running. Let's bring a few more of them in here - solving some of those nation's problems - and helping to solve a whole bunch of ours.
Why? 2 reasons:
(1) The rest of the world wants the maximum supply of food possible. More Australians = more domestic consumption, and thus less food available for export.
(2) The way Australia wants to grow is by economic migration. Yes we do take some refugees, but the number is pathetic in comparison to the economic intake. Australia is basically a parasite that trawls the world looking to strip mine the best and brightest individuals away from the developing nations who need them the most. Go to a country like Bangladesh or Nepal and ask them where all the doctors, nurses and engineers are. It's an international disgrace. Sure, the migrants might send a few bucks back for their few remaining relatives for a couple of years, but an entire class (including future generations) of educated, middle class workers is being unethically poached by countries like Australia, Canada and the US, leaving the most vulnerable countries hollowed-out shells.
The other issue with your analysis is that you appear to be arguing the edges of the classic "safety-valve" fallacy i.e. any country can do the world a favour by absorbing excess population from other countries. But it doesn't work. Why? Demography 101. Reducing numbers in an area under population pressure simply creates a vacuum that is promptly filled. Looking at Bangladesh again: if there is food for 150 million people, there is likely to always be at least 150 million people until such time as you have a social security system (or until the environment collapses under the weight). Without social security, most underdeveloped world parents have no choice but to maximise the number of children they have so they can ensure they are properly looked after in old age. Otherwise they are out on the street. Often brutally. Any reasonable person would do the same in the same situation. Add up all similar families and the population grows to meet the available food supply. The 'safety-valve' achieved nothing.
Meanwhile Australia doubled its population to 'help' the rest of the world, absorbing just 100 days of world growth to grow by another 22 million, leaving the Australian environment under extreme pressure, and leaving the 'donor' country no better off - in fact worse off because we only took their young, educated, wealthy, middle class workers...
It's not a good answer. Not that your plan isn't entirely without merit though. Temporary visas for economic migrants - so they can get the skills and money, then go home and look after their parents and breed a new generation of educated middle class in their home country - now that's a good solution.
I'd just ask you to see two qualifying things to each of them. 1. Australia isn't even close to maximum capacity with regards to agriculture. If you happen to have ever visited the Negev, you'll know that it's possible to create banana production in the absolute desert. Australia hasn't even started to try. As mentioned, folks I know in the Murray Darling are winding production back, because the domestic market isn't that strong. 2. I'm a big supporter of increasing our refugee intake. (As I've flagged on these pages.) And, as I happen to know a couple, I can assure you they are the folks who'll take the jobs that pay $18 an hour. And those are the jobs that agricultural work provides.
This is a world fast realising that we must change the way we do things - which supports the YES arguments and severely undemines almost all of the arguments of the NO camp. Yes, we're running out of oil. So we should (eventually and sustainably) stop using it. We should be looking at the way we live - we could certainly, even with double the population, live better and cleaner lives. I was also reminded of the anti-carbon tax argument that somehow if we can't fix the whole world's emissions problems all by ourselves then we shouldn't bother about tackling even our little bit of it. Similarly, it is smug and selfish in the extreme to say that just because we can't relieve all of the world's ovecrowding, we should put up the barriers to anyone new. Should that, one wonders, include refugees? At home, should we sterilise women who want more than two children? How will we support our aged people? In the end, the best argument is that, since there will an increase in any case - if only through birth numbers - we should be looking at all of the waste in our lives and simply make whaever we do sustainable. The NO case is a simplistic one, and simplistic arguments are rarely of any use.
A very interesting question to contemplate, but do we have a choice as individual voters or is the government going to determine who can and who can not move to Australia.
All Australian residents either newly migrated or born and breed here are going to continue to have children, we can not change this fact, so the population is going to continue to grow. We are not living in the past were some countries only allowed you to have one child, we are living in the 21st Century where individuals can have as many children as they wish. The government has even supported this by the introduction of Baby Bonus for parents having children. This was introduce to assist the economy and create a spending spree as well as assisting new parents with the support of their children in the first few weeks.
Australia is getting bigger in population, we are living longer and additional places need to be build for the ageing population and child care facilities and schools.
The population needs to understand they can not all live in the major cities or on the beach and there is a lot of land in the country that can still be cultivated and built on. State and Local Governments need to work together to give people a reason to leave the city lift behind and move to the county.
We should embrace what everyone has to offer, no matter of what race, sex, culture, nationality and disability we all have something valuable to offer.
Let us learn from others and over populated countries, we still have fresh drinking water, we produce crops like wheat, corn, barley etc and continue to export sheep and cattle. Australia is a lucky country that boasts a lot of primary producing and is a high achiever in the business market.
Australia is going to continue to grow and we need to embrace all that is has to offer.
As a migrant to Australia and knowing many other migrants that now call Austalia home, I know how amazingly fortunate I am to live in this country. I work hard, I contribute to the community and so do the other migrants I know. I know migration is only one way that the population will grow, but I fully support the increase in skilled migrants being welcomed into this country. As for the other factors contributing to a 'big' Australia, they're happening, so instead of trying to stop the inevitable let's focus on using the increased number of minds to find more sustainable solutions to support a larger population.
Global warming is irreversible in that it will continue for centuries more even if we can get a unified world effort to limit it which looks doubtful at present. The Global Warming will cause sea level rise displacing many tens of millions of people around the world who will become environment refugees. We, like all the countries of the world will need to take a share of these unfortunate people. Since we are extremely well off compared to most other countries in the world it is our duty as citizens of the world to be generous and take as many as we can possible take. These people are likely to be grateful and contribute substantially to the betterment of our Australian society. A second point is that there is currently in reserve approximately eight times as much carbon ready to be burnt as needed to increase the Earth's average air temperature to 2C above what was considered normal. This is the point at which all governments have agreed that we should not exceed.
At the current energy use that 2C will likely be reached in the next 20 years. We in Australia are currently the biggest users and sellers of carbon per capita on Earth. This is what has sustained our high standard of living. If the world decides to cut back drastically on Carbon use we will have a negative resources boom and our economy will suffer immensely. I larger population grown from refugees will help simulate our economy and diversify away from minerals and mining to a more sustainable farming future as we still have a huge land that is only partially occupied.
I support your call for an increased refugee intake. I also share your concerns on how climate change may well engender a substantial increase in environmental refugees.
I would caution you however, to be wary of who you throw your hat in the ring with. The 'compassionate Australia' you argue for is not the 'Big Australia' you are being offered. Neither major political party has any intention of significantly increasing our miserly refugee intake. They are instead offering a 'Greedy' Australia through what they term 'economic migration', which accounts for the overwhelming majority of migration to Australia.
Economic migration is code for stalking the world like a parasite, strip-mining the world's underdeveloped countries of their educated, skilled, middle class workers - severely compromising the future prospects of those nations for generations. It is an international disgrace. Please see my more lengthy response to Erasumus on this very topic.
The other issue that you might want to chase is that the Refugee Convention does not currently recognise environmental refugees, only refugees fleeing oppression or violence. It also only covers people who have already moved outside their own country. Many countries are already strongly resisting moves to include environmental refugees in the definition, going so far as to want the terminology downgraded to 'environmentally displaced person' or 'environmental migrant'.
On the question of whether a large increase in migrants can be absorbed into this country sustainably, I'm afraid you and I are very much at odds. Nevertheless, I do concede that Australia may very much be ethically bound to accept a large number of environmental refugees from climate change given our (not insignificant) part in causing it. Necessary as it may be however, don't be under the illusion that it will do the Australian environment any favours.
Australia's population is not increasing due to global warming refugees. Most immigrants have to have money, education, family connections and/or a company sponsor. We are growing because of shortsighted government policy, not compassion. In fact, in many cases people are moving from low carbon footprint lifestyles in India, China and elsewhere to a high carbon footprint here - actually worsening the global warming problem.
Firstly let me start by saying that Australia has got a lot of things wrong, particularly in relation to land use, environmental sustainability, development and growth of our cities and management of some issues in society. Then let me say, its our responsibility to accept the inevitability and in fact welcome the change and the challenge that Big Australia brings. We must face up to fact that we must be prepared for increased migration. We need to realise the benefits that additional population can bring. But we must also focus on changing our way of life, which consumes material goods, resources and land area at too a rapid rate. Its time now to change these practices in preparation for a bigger population. We need to reverse the trend of over-consumption. Our development, industry and growth does not need to be at the expense of our resources. We can create industries which minimise resource consumption. We can help the rest of the world become a better place through these industries. One step at a time Australia!
Australia does not have an overpopulation problem. From my understanding of birth statistics in this country we clearly need to be breeding more due to an over balance of older people leaving the workforce. Australian politics seriously lacks vision. We have a vast country that has much potential. We could be building inland solar powered cities (as Australian contractors are already doing in China!) linked by super fast rail. We could be taking control of the water situation in Australia by channeling water around the country, but instead we choose to not move and argue the merits of keeping things just the way they are. I think the latent racism in this country fuels the fear of change.
Australia's demographics compel us to balance the boomers otherwise we won't be able to develop infrastructure needed to become sustainable. We have the resources, competence and knowlege to adapt and mend our rather profligate ways to reach a more sustainable economy/ lifestyle. The recent severe droughts demonstrated that we can modify our lifestyle for the better good. We willingly changed many bad habits and conserved water. However the thorny problem of unemployment in migrant groups needs to be addressed in innovative cooperation between all the stakeholders to preempt the cycle of alienation and its corollary of racial riots. A good example are the recent reports on African youth crime in melbourne. An innovative approach would be to develop agricultural projects in urban areas such as agroforestry, and horticulture, that would provide skills, education prospects, careers in high tech agriculture as well as connecting these 'hands on' type of workers- and especially african youth who have strong cultural links to the soil- to the whole community.
Hello,
Just wanted to say I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this issue. I think we should look at both sides of this before making a life-changing decision. If we do take these people (refugees especially) I think they need lenience and compassion to welcome them into our society. This is an easy process if we all keep an open mind to the situation that these desperate and poor people have been forced into.
On the other hand, I feel those who have the money to enjoy the luxury of aeroplanes should look at other countries to live in, Sweden or Switzerland are just two places I would suggest.
So there's my two cents on this topic, what's yours?
Yee
Hi Yee, Australia has a generous refugee program but these are but a small fraction of our overall migrant intake. All parties agree on maintaining our refugee program so this isn't really the issue. The media and governments have arguably been very remiss in the way this has been distorted such that many mistakenly think our immigration program is all about our humanitarian program.
But Australia is also primarily desert: http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html
But humans aren't the only life on the planet so it's a bit conceited to not hold other creatures with any regard - and of course we cannot survive in isolation. Even now, we do not fully understand the inter-dependency we have on other lifeforms.
Lastly, we are increasingly unable to meet our global obligations because our current pro-populate courses are sending us broke ecologically and economically. Put simply, no purpose other than that of the greedy is served by continuing with deliberately growing our population.
I vote for a BIGGER AUSTRALIA because a bigger Australia will be a BETTER Australia. The only way for Australia to retain a balanced age profile and a cost effective blend of diversity,skills and experience is a balanced mix of immigration and supported home grown population growth. Equally it is unrealistic toi imagine that centuries from now Australi will be peacefully able to maintain a small population of haves in a world of havenots.
Nice to have smaller population but challenge will be balancing skills.
The question is poorly framed, and having read the 'yes' 'experts' article in the news ltd press I don't expect the book to advance the debate, as the article was a series of straw men, false dichotomies and fallacious reasoning. Clearly research in this area has a long way to go.
Having said all that, we must increase our population to allow less pressure on more stressed parts of the world. This will be a small numerical amount but large on moral force for the rest of the world to follow suit. But. We need much.more research on what levels are sustainable, what different levels would mean for us as a country. Thanks for at least raising this issue.
"we must increase our population to allow less pressure on more stressed parts of the world".
You've just argued the classic 'safety-valve' fallacy. It doesn't work. No "pressure" ever gets relieved by simply shifting excess populations to a different country. Rather than write it all out again, please see my detailed response to Erasumus on this same topic.
The world population continues to expand. People need somewhere to live. Technology will (when needed) find a way to create conditions suitable for habitation in our 'red centre'. The need is not for argument about a finite subject, but the requirement that serious thought be put to the subject of how and where Australia should house a greater population - not why or who. Migration pressures, protection-seekers, refugees; these will be our population increase and there is no system which will stop it happening. So - accept it and now begin some serious thought on how the Land of Oz is to cope with the inevitable intake. We need work for our 'New Australians'; we need cheap electricity to power old and new industries; we need planning. All we have at present is dissension, political nonsense, and a true 'Aussie knocker' mentality. WE must lift ourselves off the ground and stand up straight so that our brains may work, our attitudes may become humane and our efforts be put into useful productivity.
Australia can't be a repository to release the Earth's population pressures. The problems with overuse of the Murray Darling Basin and desalination plants means we are already in ecological overshoot. Allowing people from overpopulation countries to migrate will not lower their populations. Shuffling people around the planet won't solve our population blowout. Millions of women are being denied family planning and contraception. This needs to be addressed through aid and the UN. Australia should set an example of sustainability, not be obsessed with the myth of perpetual growth.
Australia is in the fortunate position to have the resources to support a larger population. As a result it has a responsibility to do so.
Australia's impact on global climate change is miniscule. The commitment of most Australians, including most Australian companies, to reducing carbon emissions and creating sustainable supply of clean water through the use of new technologies, irrespective of government rhetoric and regulation, will enable to both support substantial population growth and do so with a reducing impact on the environment.
If unabated population growth continues in regions where there is little concern given to supporting responsible growth, Australia will be impacted anyway.
Apart from our economy benefiting, a large Australia will mean we will regain some of our past respect throughout the world to humanitarian and human rights issues.
Most new Australians are not here on humanitarian or human rights grounds. We are gaining zero respect for having large scale immigration. We are just ending up crowded.
good for multinationals only
Bigger is Better
Attempting to limit Australia's population growth is like trying to hold back the tide. The more you pursue this course of action the more tension will be created between Australia and its immediate neighbourhood. Better to accept that Australia, as part of the rest of the world, must share in the problem of overpopulation, and seek to minimise its impact. Seeking to insulate ourselves from this reality is an ultimately futile endeavour.
If we halved our immigration rate, there would be no protest from neighbouring countries whatsoever. Indonesia (for example) has a quarter of a billion people. China has 1.3 billion. Our immigration policies make no difference to them whatsoever. But to us they are affecting our whole way of life. We do not need to 'share' the problem in a way that makes things worse for us and does not improve the global situation one bit.
what rubbish
AGAINST (37)
Overall, I find only the 2nd of the 'for' arguments compelling. Unless we have more young people entering the work force, the tax base will shrink rapidly as large numbers of older Australians retire. At the same time, many of these older people will require public support, either in the form of pensions etc., and certainly in the form of health care. It is I think important to say that we should not regard these older Australians who will need public assistance as a burden, most of them have worked very hard their whole lives to make Australia prosperous, so they deserve all the assistance we can give them in their old age. I think the best solution would be: 1) to scrap the baby bonus immediately; we don't need to give people financial incentives to have children. 2) in order to meet the challenge of a decreasing tax base, maintain or increase our SKILLED migrant intake, and reduce all other immigration to a minimum. 3) so as not to exacerbate the ageing population problem, perhaps we should consider an age cap on migration, or at least reserving the majority of places to young people. 4) in addition to skilled migration, we could significantly increase our humanitarian intake, but it is important that we do everything we can to help these people become productive members of Australian society. (Believe it or not, I strongly suspect that most of them WANT to be productive, rather than bludging off our social security system) Although it may seem here that my proposals largely favour a 'big' Australia, I make thes concessions onl;y insofar as they are needed to meet the ageing population problem. Anything beyond that, say expansion on purely economic grounds, is unjustified. As is correctly pointed out above, unlimited expansion only works if you have unlimited resources. While I have great faith that improvements in technology and infrastructure will help us make more out of our limited resources, they are already stretched as it is. The best we can do is to strive to maintain the population increase necessary to maintain the tax base. Anything beyond that seems to be wishful thinking.
Why socially engineer a bigger population in face of climate change, soil depletions, food security scares, global water shortages, global overpopulation and the coming energy crisis? Already Australia is overcrowded and we have the highest population growth rate of the developed nations. What would be achieved? It would be undemocratic, risky, costly, and compromise our lifestyles. The social impacts of high growth have already destroyed the "Lucky Country" and housing is largely unaffordable, jobs are going off-shore, and we have the highest mammal extinction rate in the modern world. The basis of our human carry-capacity is our environmental strength, not human whim, the economy, politics or what we might desire. All people and all populations age. It's something that's unavoidable. The wealthiest nations all have "ageing populations" and it's an indication of success, not something to fear. Bigger is not necessarily better, and there are realistic limits to growth. Perpetual growth is a cruel myth and we must have any further economic growth through being the smart, innovative country, not through a crushing, top-heavy human biomass!
Spend some time driving around, and trying to find a rental property in any major city in Australia. Things are already too crowded. In Sydney, we have a severe rental shortage, prices are high, the roads are choked and the hospitals are overflowing. In Australia, we have long-term water supply issues which a few wet years will not change. Adding more people in the mix (primarily through our federal immigration policies) only worsens all these problems. The 'For' arguments are incredibly weak! '1. Because it is happening whether we like it or not'... er, not if we change our immigration policy! '2. Aging population'... if we add lots more people, guess what? They will get old eventually too. Then what? Double the population again? '4. Infrastructure and housing'... they actually argue that because our infrastructure and housing is inadequate and we have to upgrade it anyway, we might as well add more people and do even more of it! Making an existing problem worse is NOT a solution. I won't bother with the rest of it but rather consider the benefits of a SMALL Australia. Every single aspect of what is good about living in this country would only be better if we had a few million fewer people. The only real reasons this is policy with both major parties are greed, lust for power and fear of upsetting the apple cart by saying no to vested interests. I'm sick of it. When are our politicians going to put the best interests of the country first?
The Australian environment can exist perfectly well without an economy, but you can't have an economy without a functioning environment. The onus is on those who want to expand the population to demonstrate unambiguously how it can be achieved without further destruction to biodiversity and ecosystems, and without further degradation to what are the very foundations of both the economy AND the environment i.e. air, soil and water.
There is an argument that we can 'manage' the problems and politely ask others to voluntarily stop consuming so much, but we all know that will never achieve anything unless we're staring an environmental catastrophe right in the face. But even then, after 200 years of ecocide on Australia's native species as well as the slow-motion catastrophe of climate change, we've arguably ticked the catastrophe box twice already. Yet we're still pretty much unmoved.
So show me a workable program for action to reduce resource consumption in this age of self-interest - which won't be laughed off the Australian political stage - and then we might be able to discuss the next step. But not before. The argument that we can keep increasing numbers and then just fix it all at some unspecified future date through a bit of judicious 'management' is simply fatuous. We're so hapless we can't even provide the economic infrastructure for current numbers, let alone fix the environmental infrastructure. How is a big expansion to the number of people consuming and destroying in exactly the same way going to help?
Regulate. Consumption. First. Or you do more harm than good.
This was Doug Cocks' conclusion in his book People Policy 1996. Or, to use Paul Ehrlich's words: "Whatever your cause, it’s a lost cause without population control". The only people who profit from population growth in Australia are the minority of vested interests, mainly property developers, who make money out of diminishing the quality of life of their fellow Australians. They also fund think tanks to promote their interests and try to buy politicians for the same purpose. Mark O'Connor's points are all cogent and don't need repeating here. It is not good enough to say that we could squeeze more people in. We probably could. And given the way the vested interests are stacked up, will probably have to. But there is no evidence that it will make the existing population better off, even in the limited terms of GDP per capita. The Productivity Commission concludes that by 2024-25 high immigration would increase "annual income per capita is about $383 (or about 0.71 per cent)" [p. XXXII] It also says that“Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grows more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages."[p. 154] [Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, 2006] Calculations of this sort omit all the uncosted diseconomies of scale inflicted on the people living in our cities and the huge infrastructure costs that the taxpayer will have to bear.
I grew up in California in 1970 when there was about 18 million people. Today there is about 38 million. Did the quality of life for the majority of Californian's improved? Absolutely not. Quality housing became less affordable, traffic increased, water rationing became commonplace, and there was fewer open spaces and nature reserves. Why would Australia want to make this same mistake? We are indeed the lucky country with abundant natural resources and a low population density to share those abundant resources which means we are amongst the wealthiest people on the planet and enjoy the highest standard of living.
Overpopulation is a serious global problem. Just go the Beijing and see what the quality of life is like when you cram the population of Australia into one big city. Global warming, shortages of oil, natural resources, water, etc all result from overpopulation. The only winners from a Big Australia are large corporations who sell more products, but the average person loses. Don't make the same mistake as California and overpopulate, that mistake is irreversable.
Hmmmm, the way the question on this topic is framed, I have to “Oppose”. But that doesn’t mean I support a medium, small or smaller Australia. This question topic suggests we have a choice. At best, we can really only influence the rate of growth but growth will still occur. It has happened for the whole existence of humanity (albeit at a quickening rate these last few centuries). Perhaps the question for this topic should be reframed to ask what rate of growth do we think Australia can support.
Given that our current birth rate is apparently below the replacement level (i.e. births are fewer than deaths, sorry, don't have a link to support this but I seem to recall reading it somewhere credible) we could actually, if we wanted to, reduced our population without any draconian measures at all. Simply stop all immigration and the population would gradually decline, especially if we removed incentives to reproduce like the baby bonus. I'm not actually advocating this course of action, but it is worth noting that it wouldn't really be that difficult to do if we wanted to.
I appreciate your intentions, but I would just point out that population growth really hasn't been a feature of human history at all, except at the very start, and then again just more recently.
We don't have as much choice as you might think. Long term, the rate of growth has to average very close to zero. Let me demonstrate:
If humans evolved out from 2 individuals about 300,000 years ago, then the rate of growth to get to 7 billion today works out at less than 0.0001% per year.
The physicist Albert Bartlett went so far as to work out that if the bible was right and that the first 2 humans existed around 5000 B.C., and the rate of growth since then was unchecked at just 1.7% per annum (less than what Australia grew by in 2008 and 2009) then the following would take place:
(1) by the year 3100 B.C. the population density on land would have reached 1 person per square metre on Earth.
(2) by the year 2000 B.C. the mass of the human population would equal the mass of the Earth.
(3) by today, the world would be a ball of human flesh ten thousand times the size of the solar system, and expanding outwards at the speed of light!
Gotta love the power of compound interest.
So you can't keep up growth for any significant length of time. At the 2009 rate of increase, Australia will grow 60-fold to 1.4 billion within 200 years.
Endless growth - at even tiny rates - is a fantasy.
There is a typo in my response above.
I wrote that the average rate of growth since human evolution was less than 0.0001%. The percent sign was superfluous. Actual rate of growth was 0.0001 = one hundredth of 1% (not a ten thousandth of 1%).
The point still stands however. Australia is growing at over 200 times the historical human average.
Apologies for any confusion. All other figures are correct.
Yes, point taken Richard and quite right. I recall a documentary about the human race that explained that the population growth we experience now is a historical anomaly. Apparently the world's population was static for many thousands of years, sitting on quite a low figure (I think is was something surprisingly small like 3 million people).
In addition, it’s not even true to say that population growth today is inevitable. Japan is a serious case in point. Apparently, at current reproduction rates, the Japanese race will extinguish in as little as a few hundred years (I can’t recall the exact time). The Japanese government is very concerned.
In the end, I think that growth is still a desirable option and the point still turns on the rate of growth that we think is in our interests. For example, if we’re talking about a population of 50 million (just to use a number others have used here), the question then really is when do we want to achieve that figure? By 2050, 2100, 2200? To say we can’t support 50 million people point blank is silly because technological advances will overcome many of the problems that people cite to argue against a bigger population.
Thanks for the reply Barry. I think I would have to challenge your assertion that technology will inevitably fix our population problems. That's a particularly Cornucopian point of view. Would it come to the rescue if we were talking about 500 million? Rather, I would say that technology might be able to help, but it needs to be in place and working first before we talk about increasing numbers. That technology also has to come with a reasonable guarantee that there will be no more species loss or ecosystem destruction from the higher population.
FOR: "A growing, more diverse population opens countless prospects for specialisation and discovery, which lead to more competition and economic growth". Actually, population growth simply means our wealth is diluted between more people. While population growth may, through brute-force, increase our overall GDP, it's at the sacrifice of per capita GDP (or wealth). Since 1991 Australia has shown a stagnation, or decrease, in personal wealth. The most wealthy nations, and the most sustainable in the long term, are those with stable populations - such as in northern Europe. An ageing population is a positive sign or ageing gracefully.
I am surprised that the growth arguments are so poorly supported by any real data or evidenced in our current economic/ecological climates. But I'll address them one by one.
1) Because it is happening whether we like it or not?
Not true, the Federal government sets population growth targets of which is primarily source from immigration. If current trends continue, our population growth will be overwhelmingly (2 thirds or higher) from migrants and the children of migrants.
2) Because it can offset the challenges of an ageing society.
No. Our primary dependants are our young, not our elderly who contribute in many important ways. Please stop using the elderly to further your self-serving interests. The ever increasing level of immigration is the primary cause of issues we are facing, a far cry from any form of solution. Infrastructure costs go well beyond the benefits of increasing our population year upon year. Steady-state economies are better for everyone including those currently benefiting from growth. The growth paradigm will ultimately strangle itself (as it is), whereas a steady-state economy will survive and no growth doesn't mean no profit. Growth is a lost cause.
3). Because of its economic benefits.
No, categorically no. The rate of population growth has outstripped the tax base and does not contribute significantly in productivity. It further ensures our trade deficits outstrip our ability to repay whilst discouraging investment in true productivity and training the people already here. We should be adopting immigration policies which aren't onerous on the existing population. It's hard to imagine a crueller thing that could be done than subject the Australian people to year after year, decade after decade of forced population growth. And we must realise that the economy is beholden to the ecology. Further, economic benefits have for too long been touted as the be-all whilst ignoring the casualties along the way. What value can you put on wiping out entire species? What do we tell our children when we've watched the last wild Koala go under a bulldozer?
4). Because we can afford the infrastructure and housing.
No, we can't. We are much worse off now than we have ever been. We have an ailing health service which now has people waiting 4+ years for elective surgery. Our states are broke and infrastructure deficit needs now tally into the tens of billions and are causing significant loss of productivity. Increasingly, we are moving to user-pays arrangements.. To suggest we can pay for it is patently false.
5). Because we will have enough food and water.
No. Water restrictions are commonplace now and it wasn't so long ago that we had a major drought which you appear to be totally ignorant of. We are increasingly losing productive assets and capacity. Continuing with this trajectory insures we are going to lose our most important water resources e.g. the Murray-Darling.
6). Because we can still protect the environment.
This isn't happening now, what makes you think we'll be better at it at 35,60, 100 million? Why should we continue to pave over good land, mow down Koalas, Numbats, Wombats etc in the pursuit of something which is not for the common good?
7) Because social cohesion will remain strong.
I'm not really seeing anything to inspire confidence in this regard. Historically, whenever Australia has had large-scale immigration from other cultures, there's been unrest and division. Increasingly, we are unable to provide opportunities for those who are here and those who come with un/underemployment of 17.5% according to Roy Morgan. This means we have a growing number of disenfranchised. We further have some 2 million who regularly need to resort to food bank because the costs of living have sky-rocketed due to population growth. It is almost certain that we'll see growing deterioration of social cohesion if we do not change course and allow Australia's population to stabilise.
Population stabilisation is inevitable. We either do it now or leave it to the usual methods, war, famine, pestilence. Personally, I'd sooner we start behaving like rational beings who realise there is nowhere else to go (at least for some time if ever). We have to make it here and we should start taking responsibility for what we leave future generations. I wonder if Hartwich and Brown have children or friends with children? Why are they so keen on consigning them to rapidly declining quality of existence?
With so many manufacturing jobs being lost to China and India, I cannot foresee that we will be able to create employment for those entering. Unless we can turn this around, there will be fewer opportunities for employment and higher population figures will push downward pressure on wages making cost of living even worse than it presently is.
Both sides have some valid arguments, but overwhelmingly the pro population growth argument is structured like a Ponzi scheme, one of those pyramid schemes that come and go, but always end in collapse.
The cost of ever increasing population is already there to be seen, as is the lack of government ability to manage it properly.
Given the finite nature of resources, poor overall governance of the environment and reliance of yet more population to "fund" continuing growth I have to oppose the concept of "Big" because it is not sustainable in the medium or long term.
We are a very small nation living in the fertile fringe of a vast dry land. Due to climate change we can expect more extreme climate events. Our present infrastructure cannot cope with current weather events. A bigger population will place even more pressure on what infrastructure we do have.
However, I am in support of immigration - this is simply spreading an existing population from one place to another. The days of "have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country" has to be seen for the hype it was - an effort to win votes but bereft of any practical consideration. We can take in people who need a home to go to to live in safety - what we don't need are any more state sponsored breeding programs.
I don't think the "Big Australia" proponents are suggesting we move to a Latin America model of population growth. Even after stimulus with the Baby Bonus, I think we're lower than the replacement rate with a fertility rate of something like 1.78.
So any population growth would come by immigration. Which means we wouldn't really be adding to the gross world population. Just helping to disperse it more evenly.
I say 'No' – but tentatively. This is because I do not think that Australia's fragile environment can truly sustainably accommodate a large population. My understanding is that much of the country is too marginal for the support of any real population.
Also, the supposedly agriculturally productive parts aren't as productive as they may seem (although we do grow much of our own food) because they require artificial means to regenerate fertility - the nutrients in Australian soil were put down gradually over a long period, and once gone, they stay gone. In essence farming in Australia 'mines' the nutrients from the soil. Further, advanced agricultural practices tend to mobilize high salinity and cause significant erosion, making it even more difficult over time to keep land productive.
I understand that Australia also has significant water issues - issues that may well be exacerbated by overpopulation.
Therefore, if my information is correct, I do not feel Australia will be a wealthier and better place with a large population. Instead we will be more dependent on others, and probably have a poorer standard of living. Water and food are simply too fundamental a factor – without an adequate supply of either it will be difficult to ensure quality of life.
(Note – for reference, much of my info comes from my recollections of the book ‘Collapse’ by Jared Diamond)
we have to frame our whole way of thinking around the idea that resources are finite. The mentality of growth as an inherent good has led and will continue to lead to crises in climate, housing, food supply and so on. Of course there is still a lot of room for growth in Australia, and there is plenty of potential for immigration - skilled, family, humanitarian, whatever - but if we need an ideological point of view to guide our future, it should be resource use minimisation and it should definitely not be growth. Besides which, the arguments above in support of population growth are made by representatives of think-tanks who are bankrolled by large companies who have an interest in profit and therefore growth. The arguments against growth may not be perfect, but at least they are not being manipulated behind the scenes.
Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, like our planet colliding with something very big, I understand our scientists are unanimous in their belief that the planet Earth still be around to sustain life for many billions of years yet.
Understanding what that means is a bit like discovering that your pension, hopefully enough to sustain you for the next 20 or 30 years, was going to need to be stretched instead for many thousands of years.
I could never understand why Kevin Rudd did not stick to his guns with the mineral resources tax. To the mining companies who claimed that they would walk away from leases, he should have said: "So? All the better for our grandkids. Or great, great grandkids. There would be something left for them.
I believe our duty as humans, or at least a reasonable reason for our existence, is to aim for a sustainable future worldwide and encourage families to aim for a replacement birthrate. Big Australia would not contribute to that, adding instead to the headlong rush for extinction in the not too far-off future.
A stable population is inevitable because we live in a finite world and can’t grow forever. Quality of life and intergenerational equity through the sustainable use of energy, food and water resources is our priority. Population growth is already causing or exacerbating Australia's major problems. Think: Cost of living pressures; Infrastructure overload; Environmental and ecosystem degradation; and un/under-employment of 2 million Australians; to name a few. Big business profiteering is behind the push for rapid population (customer) growth and an over-supply of cheap (pre-trained) labour in order to force down wages. But our grassroots community party echoes the voice of the people - 73% of Australians support our stable population target of around 26m by 2050, not the Coalition / Labor / Greens target of 36m+ and rapidly rising. Why? We won't resolve any of Australia's (or the world's) major problems until we first resolve 'the everything issue' - population. Better, not bigger: a sustainable Australia starts with a stable population. Vote 1 STABLE POPULATION PARTY - www.PopulationParty.org.au
yes good thinking
The following is adapted from a post in response to a property developer at http://candobetter.net/node/2711#comment-8497 :
The property developer contributor was invited to supply a response to these questions, but has never done so. If anyone on your site can supply answers to these questions, candobetter.net would be happy to publish them. - Ed
Population growth is our prime environmental threat. We need to acknowledge this and develop strategies to create economies that do not depend on growth driven by an ever increasing number of people at the bottom of the wealth ladder. Our environment and our culture will only survive if we learn how to do this at home and then export this knowledge abroad.
The yes case is defeatist and delusional. Basically "lets have a big Australia because there's nothing we can do about it and look at all the good its done". Firstly, there is something you can do about it - and it depends on educating people to have smaller families. It will take time to translate to real change, but if we don't start now it will never happen. All of the supposed benefits haven't happened despite 200 years of a growth paradigm. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have already severely damaged our quality of life and the environment and the inequality gap is widening. Despite a booming economy, employment is insecure and many people remain in poverty and disadvantage. Growth has not fixed these problems. If anything it has made them worse. Humanities greatest failure is the inability to understand the exponential function.
...and we're going to hit issues with feeding, clothing and transporting the population we have, let alone a larger one. This applies to the whole world, not just Australia. We need to rein in population growth, and shift to an economic paradigm that doesn't require infinite growth, because that is purely impossible on a limited planet.
We have to reduce our population because we are facing the end of growth as we have known it, brought on by the decline in necessary resources and by the inability of the biosphere to absorb our wastes. These factors are manifesting themselves in climate change, loss of biodiversity, food insecurity etc. Population growth is not inevitable - it should be possible to keep global population under eight billion and not let it rise to nine or ten billion providing we ensure universal access to contraception and enhance women's education and rights. Nationally, if we can keep net overseas migration under 70,000 and remove all subsidies for people having children, then we can stabilise our numbers here. We need to move to a steady state economy that serves the needs of the people without drawing down the resources of the planet or leaving waste that cannot be reabsorbed. Such an economy cannot cater to an ever expanding population.
However long before the sh** hits the fan, ultimately we can't just grow our way out of any problems now existing. We are encouraged to boost our population so the old can be cared for, but the new generation will age, and we will then need another bigger cohort of youth to do the trick. It's absolute madness!
The most common argument is to sustain economic growth. The world can't keep growing! Economists must find a way to mitigate the poor economic outcomes of negative growth while retaining the consequent maintenance of living standards that arises with less crowded use of limited resources
As Jared Diamond documents in Collapse, I think the most important reason to oppose a 'big Australia' is that we simply don't have the resources, particularly in terms of arable land to support an ever-increasing population. This is especially true of when Australians want to maintain a certain standard of living.
The world has already exceeded its carrying capacity, i.e. we consume more resources than the earth can replenish. Australia must do its part in pulling back from this situation which is increasingly difficult in the short term and catastrophic in the medium-long term.
Big, medium or small what scale are we talking here? Our resources are finite and therefor we can only reach a certain population before we start living unsustainably. As for oil, gas, coal and other non-renewable resources - well IT IS going to run out sooner or later. As long as we are living SUSTAINABLY then I'll support the population that goes with it....big, medium or small. Can't have a big population without clean air, water and soil.
Let's take coal - one of your examples. With the exception of just three years in the last fifty, coal production has grown, every year, by 5%. And along with that, we've managed to extract more energy out of every tonne. We have 76 billion tonnes of coal reserves, which should last us until at least next century. But if we keep finding other means to generate power - wind, solar, CSG, uranium, shale oil - then we may not even need those black lumps of carbon at all.
Keep using it, then it'll eventually run out as it is a finite resource. The more efficiently we use it, the longer it'll last.
The larger the population though, the quicker we'll drain the supplies if used in the same way. Hopefully though through renewable resources, it'll become a thing of the past and we'll keep it in the Earth along with the gas and oil.
Erasmus, the scientists have determined pretty clearly that most of the fossil fuels currently in the ground have to stay there if were to avoid catastrophic climate change. Or, put another way - what we're running out of is atmospheric dumping grounds. As far as GSGs go, we've already exceeded the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb what we're dumping without wreaking the climate balance.
Anyone who claims we have unlimited space for expansion has never travelled in Central Australia. We have a great deal of very salty desert sand. It grows saltbush and little else. There are no people because people live near centres of trade, and ours are all on the coastline. Farms are huge and produce little for their size. Towns are small and produce nothing much. Supporters of this proposal are living in fantasyland.
As others have noted, the question is poorly framed. What exactly is "Big Australia"? To me it implies a heedless (reckless?) push to increase population even faster than we have been. We need some specifics before we can discuss this in a meaningful way.
Should we welcome population growth? It depends on the context. In a global sense, encouraging population growth seems suicidal unless we can somehow start migrating to other planets. In a local context, it seems that there are arguments for some increases in population for humanitarian or short-term economic reasons, but these need to be carefully considered in terms of the broader (and increasingly urgent) need to live sustainably, both within Australia and the wider world.
Big Society is really all about money. Governments cannot afford to fund the those products and services traditionally provided and will seek to dodge responsibility by selling off or giving away as much of their responsibility as they can to predominately private operators who will operate for profit and marginalise those who cannot afford to share or participate and will thus fall by the wayside and no one will care. Community oriented organisations who will operate for no profit will fail to attract the helpers and volunteers necessary to give effective carriage of the services.
It is a fundamental given that unrestricted population growth simply cannot work forever. Something about a gallon into a pint pot! But we rely so much on growth. The European and now the rest of the planet's problems have been and are about relying on growth to pay back the money - aka resources - we have already spent. Europe has spent their grandchildren's inheritance believing that growth will pay it back. And the reason they did that is the planet's financial model has growth as a fundamental part of the equation. So develop a financial model that has stasis as a basis. We have to move away from the idea that the planet will mop up our excesses. Or maybe we can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as well.
I've just finished reading this month's Wired magazine. The best bits in it were quotes from article and books in the 1960s and 70s about how growth was going to kills us all.
In the '70s, the thought was the industrial demands of the population would necessarily mean we'd choke the atmosphere with the pollutants we need to put out to keep it all going. So, here's the quote from the January issue of LIfe Magazine, "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to suport... the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution... by 1985 air pollution will harve reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half."
It was the same apocalyptic vision with regards human population.
Paul Ehrlich wrote in "The Population Bomb" in 1970, that the sub-continent would starve itself: "The train of events leading to the dissolution of India as a viable nation" was already in progress.
Denis Hayes, the organiser of the first Earth Day in 1970 said, "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
What has actually happened, in India and most other countries, is that the death rate has fallen, food production has massively increased - so that food prices, worldwide, are at record low. And the net worth of citizens in almost every nation has grown.
So, with respect, aldereran07, I think these common assumptions are worth reviewing.
Our savings working group noted that we have the third highest rate of immigration in the OECD and every 1% increase pushes up house prices 10%. Also new infrastructure has to be provided immediately by our low wage economy; "In a country with a relatively low national savings rate, rapid population growth will put sustained upward pressure on real interest rates and, in turn, the real exchange rate, making it harder to achieve the per capita income gains that people (and the government) aspire to." It doesn't matter, however as the media ignore the findings of the SWG (never connecting housing, house prices, infrastructure and immigration) and the Government claims to have research showing the migrants don't raise house prices. In other words it isn't the strength of the argument that counts but the choices of the political class and whose interests they represent.
Immigrants, illegal or otherwise still predominantly want to live in Sydney because of better economic opportunities. Sydney is already overcrowded, almost paralysed in peak times which now stretch from 0700-1000 and 1500-1900. We are increasingly importing everything we wear and use and food imports are increasing as well. We can support a larger population but only if that population is more widely spread like mainland USA. Large expenditure is needed to irrigate our desert areas to enable a larger population to be self-sufficient in food. Despite this there is a finite number of people that the Earth can support and it would be irresponsible to add to the overall Earth population.
Ultimately the human race is doomed because we will run out of raw resources in time. There's no point in accelerating the use of the finite stock of resources we have. Note also that although vegetable / fruit based food is nominally a sustainable resource, the natural fertility of land is decreasing and we are increasingly using artificial boosters to enable the land to produce the food we need. This is not sustainable long term. The rate of use needs to be reduced to enable the land to recover naturally.
Only shallow minded, greedy and short-term thinkers would think to have a 'Big Australia'. Our local Councillors at Penrith fit in very well here. They all seem to be involved with property development (which I find to be a form of corruption). Hence, when I mentioned we should have a limit on population in the district at a Council meeting, I was frowned upon. I think it is appalling that people in charge have virtually no respect for this issue or our now almost extinct bushland. This is being bulldozed for more housing estates- all due to limitless population growth.
It is a long time since Kevin Rudd proposed that Australia would adopt a growth plan. On the face of it Australia benefited hugely from the migration policy of the 50's. So it would seem reasonable to readopt the same goals if it wasn't for the fact that growth and consumption seems to have got us nowhere. One of the saddest observations, from recent travels, was the homogenisation of European cities each filled with oodles of useless stuff and (grand?) designer labels. The availability of product didn't seem to be making anyone happier. And there was no shortage of miserable looking gaol seeking people. On this matter I do not align myself with Mark O'Connor or Dick Smith entirely but I do think we have reached a size where we are stretching our ability to grow. We do have limited water and some of this is wasted growing crops which will not feed us. On balance I think we need to limit ourselves to natural growth for the sake of the land.
Although there are many benefits that could be associated with having a big Australia and we should do our part in helping refugees, but we don't have the resources to sustain a large population. Even though we are a large country majority of it is relatively uninhabitable. Australia will become larger there is no doubt about that and we shouldn't do anything to limit this but we shouldn't encourage a larger Australia by taking in too many new citizens.
I think those are the only understandable reasons to support this ridiculous policy
This is an issue for all of us. Ultimately nature will take care of it - a cancer dies with its host, the host for this cancer will make the cancer unviable. We (in Australia) won't have any credibility in working towards a sustainable (ultimately lower than now) population
Cheers to my fellow carcinomas
Tim