News & media
Bigger or Better? Australia’s population debate
Population growth is one of Australia's political hot potatoes. In his new book, Bigger or Better? Australia’s population debate, Professor Ian Lowe — author, pre-eminent scientist and president of the Australian Conservation Foundation — answers the questions at the root of the debate, and provides a comprehensive analysis of the issue.
- What is the link between population and economic growth?
- What are the environmental impacts of population growth?
- Are we an ageing society and if so, is that a matter for concern?
- Are ‘boat people’ and refugees a significant component of our migrant intake?
- What capacity do we have to influence Australia’s future population?
Recognised for his commonsense, Lowe unravels the misconceptions and urban myths about the controversial debate and the choices we are making about Australia’s future population
When Kevin Rudd responded to a government forecast that the Australian population could reach 36 million by 2040 by saying he believed in ‘a big Australia’, there was a strong public reaction. One insider said ‘the focus groups went ballistic’. Julia Gillard renamed the relevant minister’s portfolio ‘sustainable population’, implicitly criticising pro-growth policies of previous governments.
Tony Abbott vowed to ‘stop the boats’ if elected (thus limiting immigration), despite generally supporting a population growth agenda and clearly having no way of stopping the boats.
Much of the press attacked both major parties, accusing them of pandering to base prejudice by discussing the social impacts of immigration or suggesting that population growth had negative environmental impacts and urged politicians to champion what it claimed were the self-evident economic benefits of rapid population growth.
In this timely book, Lowe calls for all Australians to realise the future is not somewhere we are going but rather a place we create by our own actions — or inactions — now
In Bigger or Better? Lowe categorises the various contributors to the debate, those voices urging further growth and those wishing to see growth slowed or the population stabilised.
As he states, ‘there are humanitarians on both sides of the debate, there are racists on both sides of the debate, there are totally misinformed people on both sides of the debate and there are well-informed professionals on both sides of the debate.’
He looks at how population growth is affecting the environment of our major cities, the Murray-Darling Basin and South Australia’s Fleurieu Peninsula, and raises the prospect of ‘Noosangatta’ in south-east Queensland — one continuous urban sprawl from Noosa, through Brisbane to Coolangatta and the NSW border.
Lowe makes the complex and controversial issues around population accessible to general readers who he hopes will contribute to an informed discussion about the issue and the sort of future we want for our country
* Bigger or Better? Australia’s population debate is published in Australia by UQP.
We want to know what you think about this important issue. Share your thoughts and ideas with us in the dicussion below.
Related...
@AusConservation
Join us
Comments (52)
At last!
I have been a member of ACF for 44 years.
I have considered withdrawing support for ACF, like Kevin Squire in a post on this forum. Population increase is the root of all humanity's pressing problems. Population must decrease soon: there is no choice about that. Only strong commitment by bodies like the ACF can perhaps ease the pain and misery to some extent.
Already, the oil production possible in the next decades is over-committed for the urgent needs of China and India. Not much will be left over for Australia's cars, trucks trains and tractors. Can Australians feed the world with wheat harvested by men and women using scythes?
To "The Oil Drum", Albert Bartlett's lecture, "Our Finite World", and "The Automatic Earth", add "Question Everything", "Economic Undertow", and "The Archdruid Report".
I am really glad to hear this conversation started, as I cannot understand how our various levels of government are talking about bringing more and more people into Australia. This is not a comment coming from racism but from a practical mind saying -- how can we possibly think that we resolve the issue of how-to-support-a-boom-of-old-people by bringing in more younger people? It just maintains the problem into our future. On top of which, this country is essentially a giant desert surrounded by a fertile area -- and the (fertile) edge also goes into cycles of serious drought, which we just need to accept is the way it is. Why the credit-card mentally about life? There is no point in thinking short-term about resolving our living 'problems' (such as energy, water) -- to desal, over-irrigate, frack-for-oil, fertilise-pesticide our land is like making the decision to eat sugar, eat sugar, eat sugar -- it is not a smart, long-term decision if you want health as your outcome. Humans are startling creatures in that we have the ability to look back in time (history) and to project into the future. There are many, many examples (read Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed') of human societies that have been in exactly the same situation we are in now -- and unless we actively choose differently, we will also aim ourselves towards collapse. The fabulous thing is that we can actively choose a path that leads us to a more stable, healthy, long-term outcome -- and yes, just like deciding to save the money (for a future goal) or not eat the donut now (for health and slimness later) or look to be 'in relationship' rather than 'be right' when you are in the heat of an emotional debate -- it is not always easy. But, the also wonderful thing is that we are pack animals and we kind of just want to know we are with the pack -- so if everyone is doing this care-for-the-group-&-future thing, then it makes it easier for the individual to contribute. For instance, choose clothing that maybe you paid a bit more for, but it is well made, lasts and be comfortable wearing it for a number of years (and not just a season). Or, it is seen as successful to have repaired or self-modified your own furniture / television / computer, instead of just buying the newest. It is just fashion-for-now. Look back in history -- pretty much anything can be considering highly desirable, it's just what emphasis society (and that society's leaders) placed on it. OK. That's enough from me now. ACF please do what you can to get our political leaders to see the sense in keeping our population numbers at a level that reflects what this Australian environment can support, when you factor the combination of the best-years outcomes with those of the worst-years. Just like agricultural practices, the land needs lie fallow for periods in order to support an abundant future.