Populate and Perish

Agamedes considers "Big Australia" -- and shudders.

Why are politicians afraid to see uncontrolled population growth as a threat?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A few weeks ago Paul Murray wrote in The West in support of agricultural development across the north of Australia. The prime minister of Australia happily announced that our population is set to grow enormously. Statisticians say that the population of Perth will more than double within forty years.

We all sit back, shake our heads sadly, and say, Oh deary deary me, how will we cope?

The question should be, How will we control rampant growth of population?

As population grows, lifestyle suffers. As people spread, the rest of the environment is destroyed. Still, as a senior Alcoa manager was rumoured to have said, "No-one actually visits a jarrah forest. Just give them a photo of a tree and chop it all down."

You may be able to guess: I'm in favour of ZPG, Zero Population Growth. Have been for years. With no expectation that it will ever happen.

So how should we cope with rampant population growth?

Where will we grow?

Today, Paul Murray looks at one view of "Big Australia" (Imagine all the people, The West Australian, 2 April 2010). It's a bland article, mostly about the failure to actually discuss population growth. The point of the article is neatly summarised near the end: "We need to talk about the size of Perth." A very good point.

Unfortunately, Murray ends with a clear bias. He accepts uncontrolled breeding and immigration. He just worries about where it will happen.

Back in February, Murray argued that we should develop agriculture across the north of Australia. Lack of data, he wrote, implies support for development. Okay, he was writing nonsense (see Conserve & Protect, or Develop & Destroy for my views on that article). I am worried that Murray can look at the disasters of Murray-Darling exploitation -- and suggest that we do the same in our north.

For today, I am worried about Murray's final words, under Imagine all the people: "And if we are irrevocably on a dramatic population growth trajectory," -- we are, but only because we are afraid to discuss the alternative -- "we need to talk about how to direct that growth to the regions."

Direct that growth to the regions?!

We are destroying the natural environment of Perth, as quickly as we can. We are growing fast enough to affect our lifestyle -- for better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Now, without solving any of Perth's problems -- Murray wants to give more of the same to the regions!

Here's a better thought

The population of Perth is growing. If we do nothing, the population of Perth will continue to grow, possibly beyond our capacity to maintain an adequate standard of living. This is a problem.

Let's solve -- or at least discuss -- this problem.

We need to discuss our view of the future of Perth. Will we accept dramatic population growth? If not, how will we curb population growth? Or, how will we cope, with double the current population of Perth? We need to discuss these issues. If we can solve the problems -- current and future -- so much the better.

Once we have solved the problems of a growing Perth population, then -- and only then -- will we be ready to pass those same problems on to regional centres.

First, learn to deal with population pressures where they already occur. Then apply our solutions to regional areas. Encourage regional growth -- if regions really want it -- and apply the solutions in advance. Find solutions first. Spread the problems around later. Spread the problems around, but only when we know that we can solve them.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com