Watched the smarmy pundits on the Project the other night basically write Dick Smith's ideas off, ostensibly, because he supports Hanson's smaller immigration policy.

Dick said something interesting that I had to to check.  He said that at the preferred 3% growth that Costello thinks we should have Australia's population will double in 25 years.  (And that in 200 years Australia's population, with a constant 3% growth, would hit 1 billion.)

I found the whole thing slightly skew-if until I did the numbers.

At 3% growth year in year out Australia's population will hit

50 million 25 years from now.
100 million in 48 years from now.
200 million in 72 years from now.

Now Dick was wrong to say that we'll hit a billion in 200 years.  We'll actually get there in 125 years from now.  The numbers are staggering.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  Unless the world seriously looks at arresting population growth any pissing about with emission targets is a waste time.  Any reduction in carbon output will be dwarfed by the 100's of millions (if not billions) of new consumers to come.

A major, MAJOR rethink of the world's economy has to happen because the current system, predicated on perpetual growth, is fundamentally and inherently flawed.

Yes I know European countries and countries like Japan have declining populations.
Yes I think humans are contributing to climate change.
And yes I think, based on the best current scientific advice (and not my political affiliation), it is a problem.) 
No I don't think Australia's population will hit a billion.  But I would put a lazy $100 on Australia hitting 40 million before I peg it.  Some of you younger blokes, say 60 years from now) are looking at an Australia with 140 million souls in it.  Well within the realms of possibility.

I do also realise Australia's population is not increasing at 3% a year but it is in other countries around the world, particularly African countries.  (Australia's current population growth is, based on the last 3 years, approx 360 000 persons per year.)  Still a not insignificant amount and we can't blindly wander through the dark without a discussion as to the whys and wheres of it all.

Don't quote this post otherwise the thread will go on forever.

Year		Population		GROWTH
				3%
1		25,000,000		750,000
2		25,750,000		772,500
3		26,522,500		795,675
4		27,318,175		819,545
5		28,137,720		844,132
6		28,981,852		869,456
7		29,851,307		895,539
8		30,746,847		922,405
9		31,669,252		950,078
10		32,619,330		978,580
11		33,597,909		1,007,937
12		34,605,847		1,038,175
13		35,644,022		1,069,321
14		36,713,343		1,101,400
15		37,814,743		1,134,442
16		38,949,185		1,168,476
17		40,117,661		1,203,530
18		41,321,191		1,239,636
19		42,560,827		1,276,825
20		43,837,651		1,315,130
21		45,152,781		1,354,583
22		46,507,364		1,395,221
23		47,902,585		1,437,078
24		49,339,663		1,480,190
25		50,819,853		1,524,596
26		52,344,448		1,570,333
27		53,914,782		1,617,443
28		55,532,225		1,665,967
29		57,198,192		1,715,946
30		58,914,138		1,767,424
31		60,681,562		1,820,447
32		62,502,009		1,875,060
33		64,377,069		1,931,312
34		66,308,381		1,989,251
35		68,297,632		2,048,929
36		70,346,561		2,110,397
37		72,456,958		2,173,709
38		74,630,667		2,238,920
39		76,869,587		2,306,088
40		79,175,675		2,375,270
41		81,550,945		2,446,528
42		83,997,473		2,519,924
43		86,517,397		2,595,522
44		89,112,919		2,673,388
45		91,786,307		2,753,589
46		94,539,896		2,836,197
47		97,376,093		2,921,283
48		100,297,376		3,008,921
49		103,306,297		3,099,189
50		106,405,486		3,192,165
51		109,597,650		3,287,930
52		112,885,580		3,386,567
53		116,272,147		3,488,164
54		119,760,312		3,592,809
55		123,353,121		3,700,594
56		127,053,715		3,811,611
57		130,865,326		3,925,960
58		134,791,286		4,043,739
59		138,835,025		4,165,051
60		143,000,075		4,290,002
61		147,290,078		4,418,702
62		151,708,780		4,551,263
63		156,260,043		4,687,801
64		160,947,845		4,828,435
65		165,776,280		4,973,288
66		170,749,568		5,122,487
67		175,872,055		5,276,162
68		181,148,217		5,434,447
69		186,582,664		5,597,480
70		192,180,143		5,765,404
71		197,945,548		5,938,366
72		203,883,914		6,116,517
73		210,000,432		6,300,013
74		216,300,445		6,489,013
75		222,789,458		6,683,684
76		229,473,142		6,884,194
77		236,357,336		7,090,720
78		243,448,056		7,303,442
79		250,751,498		7,522,545
80		258,274,043		7,748,221
81		266,022,264		7,980,668
82		274,002,932		8,220,088
83		282,223,020		8,466,691
84		290,689,710		8,720,691
85		299,410,402		8,982,312
86		308,392,714		9,251,781
87		317,644,495		9,529,335
88		327,173,830		9,815,215
89		336,989,045		10,109,671
90		347,098,716		10,412,961
91		357,511,678		10,725,350
92		368,237,028		11,047,111
93		379,284,139		11,378,524
94		390,662,663		11,719,880
95		402,382,543		12,071,476
96		414,454,019		12,433,621
97		426,887,640		12,806,629
98		439,694,269		13,190,828
99		452,885,097		13,586,553
100		466,471,650		13,994,150
101		480,465,800		14,413,974
102		494,879,774		14,846,393
103		509,726,167		15,291,785
104		525,017,952		15,750,539
105		540,768,490		16,223,055
106		556,991,545		16,709,746
107		573,701,291		17,211,039
108		590,912,330		17,727,370
109		608,639,700		18,259,191
110		626,898,891		18,806,967
111		645,705,858		19,371,176
112		665,077,033		19,952,311
113		685,029,344		20,550,880
114		705,580,225		21,167,407
115		726,747,632		21,802,429
116		748,550,060		22,456,502
117		771,006,562		23,130,197
118		794,136,759		23,824,103
119		817,960,862		24,538,826
120		842,499,688		25,274,991
121		867,774,678		26,033,240
122		893,807,919		26,814,238
123		920,622,156		27,618,665
124		948,240,821		28,447,225
125		976,688,046		29,300,641

Not as simple as plucking a figure out of the sky unfortunately. A bigger key to sustainability in my eye is the "consumption" of the population than the sheer number. I have had a problem with many environmentalists for years on this subject ... and I studied environmental studies at uni etc. But lecturers continually worried about sheer numbers than "consumption" ... which to me was a bit alarmists.

The other problem is that if resources because scarce because of growing populations, then the cost of living rises, which tends to correlate with a lower birth rate / population growth.

I think the other mentality that needs correcting is that a healthy economy needs a growing population. The economy is neither that simple and not that isolated anymore. The global market means that we don't need to continually grow (nothing wrong with consolidation), and that smaller nations with smaller populations can be sustainable and economically grow without the need for population growth.

The immigration policy should be seen as a short-term solution for skill shortages, and policy established for long-term solutions (such as skilling up the local population, offering incentives to study certain skills, determining why students chose labour work over a professional role etc. etc.) Bit of the old adage, "give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach him how to fish he'll eat forever".

The economy needs a massive rethink because if immigration stopped tomorrow the economy on Australia (and many other countries) would collapse.  Australia (and the world) have to learn to exist in a closed system.

The fundamental problem is the economy is based on growth and the consumption that comes with that growth.  

Immigrants come in we need new houses, new roads, new doctors, new schools, new carpenters, builders, lawyers, nurses, engineers etc etc except that by definition unrestrained infinite growth is unsustainable and effectively self defeating. 

They need to wargame a scenario whereby they say if we capped Australia's population at, say, 30 million people how could we design the economy to be self sustaining and then move on from there.

Consumption is part of it but not the main part.  Let's say you reduced consumption across the board by half.  Fine.  The world now consumes 50% of what they were previously.

But the population increased four fold.  

Well now you are consuming twice as much as you were previously. (In nett terms).

It's not as simple as reducing consumption when you have unrestrained population growth.  It's a downward spiral.

Big picture thinkers can see it.  Head in the sand types assume the 'market' will self correct.  They're a bit like the climate deniers who grudgingly admit 'something is happening ' but assume Gaia will sort it out for them. 

At my current work we are facing similar issues. We need to plan for the "expansion" of regional towns, when in effect we should be planning for their consolidation or in many circumstances their declining populations. However, politically "growth" is seen as the be all, and to plan for anything else is not allowed. Doesn't matter if one idea is pointless and the other could actually sustain the population (or a smaller population) for longer.

I don't think we can act in isolation, or even close the borders per se. My concern is that at the moment the government is using immigration to fill skilled positions, but isn't looking at longer term solutions. At the moment where I live we'd have a huge shortage of doctors if it wasn't for immigration.

Even without immigration we would need new houses, renovations, upgrades, move home etc. it is just a different way to look at situations (in WA building a two storey house is an oddity ... so it sprawls, imagine the renovations, retro fits etc. if suddenly WA houses had to go up rather than out). Growth would occur with the same population, if you just changed the mindset / created new ideas. Change is such a hard thing to enact though.

Change is hard because the economy we know now is the only economy we've ever known.

It'll take a massive war, a dictatorship or some other big thing to enact a mindset.

2 examples of countries that had to operate in a closed system were South Africa, under apartheid and Cuba of course. (There's probably others.)

I'm not holding those two countries up as examples of anything other than examples that it can be done.

You're right, our economy is leveraged with huge amounts of debt to ensure growth, and requires an ever increasing population to consume stuff and feed into the Ponzi scheme that is the retirement/pension system. Our entire system is predicated on the unreasonable assumption of perpetual economic growth, so sooner or later it's bound to collapse.

How to fix it?

Well at the moment our economy looks like an inverted pyramid, so the government needs to do something to get that base wider and THEN keep it relatively straight (like a pillar). This is obviously FAR more easier said than done, immigration/family incentives then strict immigration control could the the answer? Waleed's suggestion is utterly moronic - it only kicks the can down the street for our grandchildren to clean up (which I suppose is what the boomers did lol).

We're going to need to cut the amount we spend on older people (look at including the house in pension means testing), negative gearing and capital gains concessions etc. Otherwise, the younger generation is going to be saddled with an absolute mountain of a tax burden to pay for the pensions of their grandparents. 

As for population in general:

I think we'll reach our zenith at some point before 2050 then start to decline - the vast majority of population growth is from Africa (Asia/Europe/US have all slowed down) and with increasing levels of education/infrastructure/GDP growth hopefully it will decrease. 

I can't remember the exact analogy from when I studied sustainable technologies but the growth situation was described through the use of bacteria in a petri-dish. The food in the petri dish can replenish itself at a rate of half the petri dish volume per unit time. The bacteria doubles its size by consuming 1 unit of food per bacteria reproducing. Sustainability limit is reached once the number of bacteria needs to eat half the petri dish but the bacteria can keep on reproducing beyond that another generation as the food provide equals the whole petri dish. By the time the bacteria realises that there is no food left it is FOUR times the size that is sustainable.

I'm worried about the time when we realise that we have reached our population limits. By then it will probably be too late to save ourselves with the population/consumption being way over what we can sustain ourselves on. 

There is an absolutely enourmous change coming to the labour market with the increase in automation that will wipe out hundreds of thousands of manual jobs in 20-40 years. Granted, Australia will be less impacted than other nations as we have already lost our manufacturing base (China's fucked) but the effects will still be enormous.

Consideration should be given to this before dramaticallyincreasing the number of people looking for work in our economy

I have been looking at countries population growth recently so the timing of this thread is really weird. 

Anyway I agree with OP. Never watch the Project because its edgy hipsters pushing an agenda to sell. But the reality is countries with low education and in war torn regions population is on the steep incline, especially countries of Islamic persuasion. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq , Tajikistan ect. Then we look at war torn regions such as Nigeria and Iraq. Steep increases again. 

The reality is this world is fucked. Unless we implement a system like Manila did thanks to the japanese. Basically there were green spaces above the buildings and houses. Maximising spaces with high rise buildings. It could potentially be the only way. 

http://investphilippines.gov.ph/clark-green-city/

https://clarkgreencityphils.com

The obvious, and only, situation is the one that you are all avoiding - population reduction. As that is never a voluntary choice it is something that must be imposed by force, the sooner the better. The complete depopulation of a continent and its isolation as an environmental regeneration zone is best for the planet. The obvious choice is Africa, due to its low level of political and military power combined with high rate of vegetation, unique wildlife and excessive human birth rates.

What is the most effective method of depopulating Africa, for the good of the environment? Blockade and biological warfare seems best and would prevent the environmental regeneration zone being resettled by humans.

They are trying though.  Just the whole CIA created AIDS virus thing hasn't kicked off as much as the tin hat wearers though it would.

Stop aid to africa and the third world, send condoms instead 

Here, watch this if you're looking to ease your mind...

Great stuff Petszk! I was about to post the same clip! It's an awesome channel, that deals with logic and facts

People need to relax and look at the bigger picture and look at the stats for world population growth on a global, not local scale.....the OP has made the mistake of assuming growth rates will continue as they are. They will not! In fact world growth rates are slowing

AU's population will NEVER reach those ridiculous numbers proposed because over time as the world develops, the number of immigrants coming to Australia will significantly drop off. To naturally maintain the population (ie births only, no immigration), you need a birthrate of 2.1% . Almost all developed countries (including AU), are at about 1.8. So basically we are topping the difference up with immigration as, being a capitalist society, the economy will shrink.

As someone else said above....women's education in the developed world (and thus birth control knowledge) is crucial for the developed world. That's why it is crucial to increase aid to 3rd world countries (not reducing it like we are)...because the better educated women are, then the less kids they have, and thus the less refugees there will be in generations to come....it's a fact

People who advocate population control etc in AU, i think are masquerading hidden agendas...and I'll let the readers decide what those are....

Yep you got me.  As a son of immigrant parents I'm against immigration.  Well spotted.

If you think a net gain of 350 000 persons per annum is OK then good for you.  I think where we want to end up, population wise, should be discussed rather than just importing people ad infinitum.

I am heartened by the above linked video which is very informative.  

I still stand by the fact that our, and the world's, economy is predicated on perpetual growth.  Which is simply unsustainable.  It needs a major rethink because what happens when the growth stops and the population ages.

Kavorka wrote:

AU's population will NEVER reach those ridiculous numbers proposed because over time as the world develops, the number of immigrants coming to Australia will significantly drop off. To naturally maintain the population (ie births only, no immigration), you need a birthrate of 2.1% . Almost all developed countries (including AU), are at about 1.8. So basically we are topping the difference up with immigration as, being a capitalist society, the economy will shrink.

Which tells us nothing.  Our economy is based on growth.  When our immigration drops off what then?   

It tells you nothing? At least it gives a glimmer of hope to the world running out of resources. The economy being based on perpetual growth as you put it, is why capitalism is flawed and will ultimately fail in the long run. 

Also, a slowing population isn't the biggest threat to the economy....automation is. That's why countries like Finland and Norway etc are trying to head this off by proposing to introduce a living wage ( or basic wage? i cant remember what its called) to every non working citizen in the country to help fight off the massive unemployment that will be caused by automation (ie automated transport, machinery etc). Job losses are going to be massive as automation becomes better and cheaper

I rather see this as a pro international aid video than an anti immigration video, either way the numbers speak for themselves.

On the other hand if we got the population up to 100m somehow while maintaining our standards of living, winning a World Cup would be a whole lot easier.

The issue with that video is the premise is completely wrong for Australia. We don't take immigrants to make a difference to world poverty.