Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The population debate - a few facts please

By Alan Jones - posted Wednesday, 15 December 1999


Technological possibilities certainly exist but they need to be paid for. For example, the Prime Minister’s Science and Engineering Council found that between 50% and 70% of existing agricultural producers may not have the financial resources to make the fundamental and far-reaching changes necessary for sustainable production.

Reducing per capita consumption is another big ask because it is rising sharply, not falling. For example, in Sydney since 1970, per capita consumption of water, energy and food has risen by 25%, 37% and more than 70%, respectively (SoE report).

To promote an ecologically sustainable future, the SoE report recommended a decision-making model that recognises the economy as a subset of society which in turn is totally constrained by the ecology of the planet. But these constraints are not accepted by the boosters who consider ever more economic growth the holy grail. Growth is even claimed to be necessary for funding environmental protection. Social economist Ted Trainer says this is like an obese person needing to eat more chocolate cake to raise the energy to go jogging to lose weight.

Advertisement

The boosters’ position depends heavily on undocumented assertions that population growth is good for our economy, security and independence. Environmental and other problems can be solved or, as economist Glenn Withers recently claimed, are either ‘wrong’ or ‘myths and frights unworthy of a young, clever and vigorous nation.’

To be credible, the boosters need to support their claims with evidence rather than assertions. They need to show why a much larger population would be sustainable rather than accelerating our well-documented ecological decline. Those in doubt would do well to read Mark O’Connor’s recent book This Tired Brown Land. Sifting the evidence, it offers, in Bob Carr’s words, ‘a robust demolition job on all the arguments for population growth.’

This issue is no trivial matter; the future of our children and the natural environment is at risk. It is they who will pay the price for of all this long-term destruction for short-term gain. Managing this risk demands our best scientific assessment, political commitment and informed debate. If you believe the growth boosters, we need at least 50 million to be influential and secure. If you believe the scientists, 50 million of us will blow that future away like eroded topsoil.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Alan Jones is Head of the Division of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the Australian Museum.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Alan Jones
Related Links
Austalian Museum
Photo of Alan Jones
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy