I’m not following you here…? Kids cost money, and the parent/s get taxpayer help, no kids obviously costs less money, and the ‘non-parents get no taxpayer help, soooo… society is worse off with less kids?

The kids will arrive regardless of the money. This is almost as true here as it is in the developing world. So the choice is between raising kids without assistance or raising them with assistance. Actually, better targeted assistance could break the cycle of poverty in which socially disadvantaged people end up having more children “accidentally”.

Sure. With enough energy, you can do almost anything. But there are limits to just how much of the planet we can cover with high-altitude kites, CSP and PV fields, wind turbines, wave and tidal barriers, coal mines, and Fusion test plants.

Absolutely, but at the risk of a thread of doom, I favour nuclear power. This resource is, for our purposes, unlimited on any meaningful timeline to us. We can do flash desal and supply as much power as needed to create the factors we need for agriculture. Much of the demand of course is for crops, water and land to raise ruminants, so a move away from this would free up a lot of agricultural production.

Effectively what your argument boils down to is that the lowering of home prices associated with a lowering of population will be unpopular and therefore cannot be. Forget that it will be good for the populace in the long term …

It’s an observation. The system as it is currently configured rewards patronage of sectional interests perceived to have sufficient coherence to affect the outcome of elections. A sufficient number of people in this country identify their sense of self with equity in real property. This was Menzies’ exlicit political bulwark against leftist policy deviation. Howard made sure he patronised this group by seeking to underpin real growth in property prices because he knew that this would underpin his regime and the spivs that stgood behind it. That is now a bulwak that even the ALP must respect, because the collateral in residential housing now underpins many small businesses, and the retail sector more generally. A crash in the value of that secotr would cause unmanageable volatility throughout the economy as a whole and the incumbent government would suffer.

Is that a good way to run policy? Of course not. But it is as firm a political reality as any, and nobody can unwind it at speed without being ejected from office — so few will try, and those who do will not be entertained.

The point you fail to see is that while everyone pays lipservice to the longterm, very few prefer it in their decision-making to the needs of the moment. If people felt right now that the big cioties weren’t over-crowded few would be bothered with what Australia’s population would be in 2050.

Every politician says they want to lay the foundations for the future, but wherever that conflicts with the foundations for the next 3 years, they go to water.

So the question for those proposing a serious policy is how to devise a policy that people will accept in the here and now that can be maintained in the medium term that will be sustainable in the long term. That’s much trickier, but I would argue that the first thing we need to get into people’s heads is that there is nothing to fear from population increase. What we must insist upon are levels of human service approrirate to the needs of the popualtion that can be reconsiled with the resources we have or can fashion.

I actually have some ideas about how we can slowly disengage from the mad property bubble spiral, but they will certianly dake more than a decade to start working and they have nothing to do with artifical limits on population.

If you’re correct though, the withdrawal of the money would scarcely matter. The only difference would be that they were worse off, and in the long run so would the entire community around them because social disadvantage affects most of us, in the long run.

I’m not following you here…?
Kids cost money, and the parent/s get taxpayer help, no kids obviously costs less money, and the ‘non-parents get no taxpayer help, soooo… society is worse off with less kids?
The money from the Government doesn’t cover the full costs of raising children (Mum was a single-parent). Not having kids, and losing the potential Government subsidies, is a net win for the adults concerned.

A pointless distinction. Anyone wanting to abort at 12 weeks and 1 day is not different from those at 12 weeks. Most abortions take place in this window.

*shrug* Gotta draw the line somewhere (some older societies drew that line at 48 hours/two nights on a hilltop after birth).

This is fundamentally an energy question and we have an ample supply. Water is not in short supply — it’s just in the wrong places and form. With enough energy, we can alter that. We have enough.

Sure. With enough energy, you can do almost anything. But there are limits to just how much of the planet we can cover with high-altitude kites, CSP and PV fields, wind turbines, wave and tidal barriers, coal mines, and Fusion test plants. Ultimately, our energy resourse is the amount of sunlight falling on the planets surface each day (allowing for temporary storage)

Ditto with crop nutrients and pesticides.

Quality soil is more than just tossing some Ammonia on it twice a year. Even if we somehow discovered unlimited Zero-Point Energy, we still need good soils to grow our food in.
Trapping waste streams and returning it to the soil instead of flushing it out to sea would be a good start, but it’s a massive engineering headache. We can put that up there with all the other things our pollies won’t do.

This is a euphemism for saying that the bulk of them live in various states of absolute or relative poverty. We ought to be looking to change that, not merely because that is the obligation falling upon everyone who believes in human ethical equality and dignity,

While I’m sympathetic to their plight (not their fault where they were born, etc), I think we should get our own s*it together (ie, less throwaway society, cleaner power, reduced population, more energy-efficient, etc) before we start deliberately ‘raising up’ vast numbers of others to a resource-intensive way-of-life (China is busy doing this, and is turning large parts of their country into moonscapes).
In those countries, educating Women is a key plank in reducing poverty (since women usually bear the brunt of it), population growth, conflict, etc, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. I can’t remember the country (it’s in east Africa somewhere), women are busy planting trees to stabilise the soils and the men are busy herding their goats in to graze on the new trees. Madness. One group in the States is busy sending Solar Ovens to Africa. By reducing the workload on the Women (no more need to search for firewood for hours a day), they are directly reducing habitat loss and giving the women a little bit of dignity. That’s the sort of thing I approve of! Access to birth control would be good, too.

Ahhh, so difficult to get nuance across in text.

Well you and I might, but your average state and Federal politician won’t dare ….

Effectively what your argument boils down to is that the lowering of home prices associated with a lowering of population will be unpopular and therefore cannot be.
Forget that it will be good for the populace in the long term, forget that along with more affordable housing will be more access to necessities like doctors hospitals ect. Forget the benefits to people no longer trapped in gridlock or endless ques.

Is your idea of successfully managing for our countries future based entirely upon what is popular?
What about governing for what is more responsible over a long term?

The very same households who would benefit - financially - from not having children (full disclosure; I am on a below-average wage, no kids). I’d expect the majority of children born aren’t planned,

If you’re correct though, the withdrawal of the money would scarcely matter. The only difference would be that they were worse off, and in the long run so would the entire community around them because social disadvantage affects most of us, in the long run. It shows up in less effective education, poor skills development, lower productivity, more contact with the justice system, higher health system costs and so forth.

Perhaps free abortions up to 12 weeks, and legal-but-pay-your-own-way up to 20 weeks?

A pointless distinction. Anyone wanting to abort at 12 weeks and 1 day is not different from those at 12 weeks. Most abortions take place in this window.

I personally doubt it. Limitations such as water storage, crop nutrients, and energy suppliers are likely to throw a noose around the neck of any idea to support such a population

This is fundamentally an energy question and we have an ample supply. Water is not in short supply — it’s just in the wrong places and form. With enough energy, we can alter that. We have enough. Ditto with crop nutrients and pesticides.

Fortunately for the environment, most of these people have very little impact, per head, on the environment.

This is a euphemism for saying that the bulk of them live in various states of absolute or relative poverty. We ought to be looking to change that, not merely because that is the obligation falling upon everyone who believes in human ethical equality and dignity, but because amongst the impacts of poverty are counted falling biodiversity, large population growth, civil conflict, an impulse on the part of developed states to stay militarised, displacement of persons etc …

The policy would be a lot less popular than anything on boat people. Nobody with a chance of being elected would propose that suite.

No argument there, which is why we need non-politicians, or candidates willing to stand for election knowing they won’t get elected, to float the ideas. A few years ago, nobody though we’d happilly accept water restrictions either, so there’s a little it of hope.

Also, it would be very regressive, since the bulk of child support benefits children from low income households.

The very same households who would benefit - financially - from not having children (full disclosure; I am on a below-average wage, no kids). I’d expect the majority of children born aren’t planned, nor necessarilly… ‘wanted’, for want of a better term, but the parents keep them (either bringing them to Term or not putting them up for adoption) because society expects them to. Unwed mothers are no longer hidden away by the family because of ‘shame’, but we still expect the mother to want to keep the child.

I’d be OK with that. I support free abortion on demand to 20 weeks.

So would I, but can you imagine the faux outrage?
Heck, the use of Abortificants (herbs etc) was apparently a widely accepted practice in older societies up to ~120 days Gestation.
Perhaps free abortions up to 12 weeks, and legal-but-pay-your-own-way up to 20 weeks?

With adequate planning and provision, Australia can comfortably accommodate 40 or 50 million people in a way that we’d all find acceptable. We have abundant supplies of land and energy,

I personally doubt it. Limitations such as water storage, crop nutrients, and energy suppliers are liekly to throw a noose around the neck of any idea to support such a population (currently, almost all our fertilizer is mined, and almost all our Pesticides are made from Oil and Gas. We can make plenty of Green Electricity, if we feel like building a HVDC grid and distributed CSP. Oil supplies - at least at levels to support anything like current use - are a gonna within the next few years).

We are planning… …to build high-speed rail links…

No we’re not. Labor and the Coalition voted down a Greens proposal for a 1-year, $10m study. Even the US, that bastion of car culture, is considering semi-high-speed rail, Europe is covered in it, and China is going gangbusters with it. Our pollies, however, are still smitten with highways.

It is widely supposed that by 2050, the world will have 9 billion people,

Fortunately for the environment, most of these people have very little impact, per head, on the environment. It’s the 1 billion ‘rich’ (that’s us) that are the resources problem. Feeding them all becomes a problem, for the reasons outlined above.

No taxpayer support for a second child, additional taxes for further children. No tax write offs for dependent children after the first one. Taxpayer-funded voluntary sterilisation: $1000/man and $10,000/woman. Taxpayer-funded (or at least partially subsidised) Abortions up to 12 weeks gestation.

The policy would be a lot less popular than anything on boat people. Nobody with a chance of being elected would propose that suite. Also, it would be very regressive, since the bulk of child support benefits children from low income households. I don’t see a lot of people taking up sterilisation, but I’d be OK with that. I support free abortion on demand to 20 weeks.

I doubt in practice though that these policies would make a lot of difference. Lots of symbolism there but state support probably doesn’t prompt many decisions to have children.

Five years after such policies were introduced, I doubt we would see a change of any significance in fertility.

And, what time frame do you envisage?

Well if it is going to be meaningful you have to have it occur within about 10-15 years otherwise the people bothered now don’t get any benefit out of it. Telling them that by 2100 the population will be only 18 million makes no difference to anyone now. Consider also that the changing demographics implied even in keeping population stable will absolutely mean a radical extension in the retirement age and in the interim a large increase in the burden imposed on those in work for supporting existing and future infrastructure and the needs of ageing persons, and that your policies on youth would probably result in a growth in child neglect and their contact with the justice system and really, the future doesn’t look all that promising.

Really, the whole debate is misconceived. With adequate planning and provision, Australia can comfortably accommodate 40 or 50 million people in a way that we’d all find acceptable. We have abundant supplies of land and energy, and with a larger domestic market we might be able to start buying food at prices comparable to those in the UK. There are all manner of engineering, manufacturing and service businesses that would be viable here if the domestic market were twice the size it is now. We are planning over the next few years to run fibre to the home and to build high-speed rail links and to retool our energy system. Would we rather spread these capital costs over 22 or 36 million people?

It is widely supposed that by 2050, the world will have 9 billion people, and this will be so whatever Australia does on population. It is also likely that a significantly increased proportion of those 9 billion will be displaced by climate change, and it is fit and proper that we take our share. Proportionately, there’s your 36 million right there. We can look after them far better in advanced economies than in amidst poor and failed states.

TwoBob said of mortgage holders:

In relation to your question of what will happen to the idiots who overextended themselves in their mortgages … the answer is we will laugh at them, long and loud.

Well you and I might, but your average state and Federal politician won’t dare. They will want to subsidise them — that is what they did here as soon as the GFC hit. Not the least thing that brought down the British Labor Party was the collapse in home values. No party will tolerate that, I’m sorry to say. Compared to that, people on boats is nothing.

And, what timeframe do you envisage?

You want non-big? Show how we can get back to about 10 million.

No taxpayer support for a second child, additional taxes for further children. No tax writeoffs for dependent children after the first one. Taxpayer-funded voluntary sterilisation: $1000/man and $10,000/woman. Taxpayer-funded (or at least partially subsidised) Abortions up to 12 weeks gestation.

Frankly, I’d vote for that.

In relation to your question of what will happen to the idiots who overextended themselves in their mortgages … the answer is we will laugh at them, long and loud.

We will at the same time be gratefully cheering the fact that the completely ridiculous and unsustainable rises in the cost of housing prices has stopped and we well might breath a sigh of relief and revisit the possibility that our children might one day enjoy home ownership themselves (as opposed to those purchasing today who really only enjoy the ownership of excessive debt!)

Ten points to anyone who shows how we could reverse population numbers here without going all Khmer Rouge

as follows:

We don’t even need to do anything substantial to achieve Zero Net population Change

Fail. I asked how we could reverse population so as to achieve a non-big Australia. Most of those whining about asylum seekers and migrants in general already think we are too big. Gillard nodded at that.

You want non-big? Show how we can get back to about 10 million.

Sidebar: What do people who are against immigration think will happen to the Lindsay mortgage belt crowd when they realise that stagnating or declining population threatens the value of their mortgage far more seriously than interest rate rises?

Ten points to anyone who shows how we could reverse population numbers here without going all Khmer Rouge.

We don’t even need to do anything substantial to achieve Zero Net population Change. The native-born fertility rate is already below replacement levels. Asylum Seekers don’t make even a small dent in Population, so can be ignored for the purpose of the population argument. The Planned Immigration Intake can be run on a 5-year rolling average, taking into account natural population changes and people leaving permanently.
While older people aren’t the key source of the problem (retirees are hardly going to be directly increasing population levels), the legal and social impediments to ‘checking out’ are high. We put animals out of their misery, but not people (and allegedly, people have souls while animals don’t. Which is the greater death?). Euthenasia (with checks and balances) should be legalised, instead of the ‘black market’ of dubious legality that it is now.
There is a couple in QLD about to be placed on trial for procuring an abortion. Abortions up to 12 weeks should be freely available. Tubal Ligations and Vascectomies should be on the public purse (heck, being sterile could ven be a few points in someones favour when they apply to immigrate).
Society is still set up to see women as baby factories. Tony Abbot may have made a pitch for womens Hymens, but Rudd made a similar pitch for their wombs. Women who have a single child are told to have another as soon as possible. Childless women (like my Partner) are considered borderline freaks.
If you have children, you are given tax breaks and Taxpayer support, but if you don’t have children, and therefore don’t place added pressure on services, you get nothing.

Many methods have been proposed for stabilising Australia’s population over the long term without imploding the economy or abandoning the aging Baby Boomers, but that’s far too difficult to explore and analyse, so let’s cut straight to “OMG! Brutal one-child policies by 2012! Genocide! Pol Pot! Eugenics! White Australia resurrected! Hitler! WARGARBL!”

Recruiting skilled professionals like doctors and nurses from developing countries is beyond racist - its genocidal.

a) what a non-big Australia would look like in practice?

AND

b) how we could achieve it.

If Gillard is right then we are already “a big Australia” and probably have been since we passed about 10 million.

Ten points to anyone who shows how we could reverse population numbers here without going all Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot was a brutal psychopath, but he did deal with the traffic problems of Democratic Kampuchea. He also got rid of a lot of useless intellectuals and you can’t get much more anti-globalisation than he was.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say most people here would take umbrage if someone tried that here.

Personally I don’t mind the migrants coming here, so long as they respect the land, each other and what has gone on here before. And very few people seem to be able to do that.

(hypothetical) I assume would assume that a lot of white people would be gone from this country if indigenous people had their way. Am I correct?
If it’s true, then we’ve got to wear it.
Yes, I would go. Since I was born in the the US, I’d have to base there for a while, then probably apply to live here. (/hypothetical)