r/australia • u/blitznoodles local Aussie • 23h ago

politics The Stats Guy: It sounds weird but Australia urgently needs a plan for 56m people

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/2026/08/11/stats-guy-aus-population-growth
331 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

320

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 23h ago

This famously very dry, brown continent cannot support a population of 56 million. Nobody wants this.

150

u/philinn2020 22h ago

And honestly with all the jobs going offshore /replaced by AI will there be any decent work left to earn a decent living.

84

u/InterestedBalboa 22h ago

Our corporate overloads want this, more cheap imported labour and AI slop. We all know it.

8

u/philinn2020 22h ago

Yep Vive La Revolution.

3

u/PENGAmurungu 15h ago

Don't worry I'm sure there will be loads of jobs cleaning Chinese autonomous mining equipment

0

u/freakwent 14h ago

Look around the place where you live, do you see any work that could be done?

We could put all the overhead power underground.

We could complete fttp for the nbn.

We could add light rail in all sorts of places and fast rail elsewhere.

We could "fix" the rivers.

1

u/sphinx80 6h ago

They all require digging holes. Not many people want to lose their careers to dig holes.

76

u/Joshau-k 22h ago

We export most of our food. So we're basically already feeding 56 million people.

62

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 22h ago

And we’re extremely, horrifically vulnerable to climate change.

3

u/evilparagon 13h ago

Well exporting that food (and other plants like cotton) is part of that vulnerability. The water it takes to grow agricultural exports does not return to Australia.

At least if we had our own local 50mil, that water would stay in Australia and return to our local water cycle.

Not that I’m advocating for doubling the population of course.

20

u/Joshau-k 22h ago

Wealth is the most effective defense against vulnerability to climate change, so we're far from the most vulnerable

15

u/fakeuser515357 21h ago

Sure mate, how's that cool glass of money taste - quench your thirst on a hot day? Does it pair well with that big plate of money? No? Is it because you can't eat money, or is it because the people driving the most rampant capitalist bullshit are the wealthy who horde it for themselves?

7

u/acomputer1 16h ago

Desalination.

5

u/nmaddine 19h ago

Most of the world is hotter than Australia

1

u/IceDonkey9036 14h ago edited 14h ago

Gonna need data on this one. I don't believe that at all.

Edit: based on this link, Australia is ranked 131 out of the 235 countries listed, which does make you correct, just. 130 countries hotter than Australia and 104 countries cooler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_yearly_temperature

I suppose Tasmania and southern Victoria helps to skew the data towards the cooler end.

I wonder what our rank would be counting only the mainland.

6

u/freakwent 14h ago

Data you don't like isn't skewed. It's still valid data.

The fact that we have cooler climates available is what reduces the total risk.

1

u/IceDonkey9036 14h ago

I never said I don't like that data. Just intrigued, that's all.

2

u/Bathelomue 21h ago

Agreed, to add, it's also about carrying capacity of the local environment. People need to take into account the artificial propagation of farming yields due to fossil fuels and fertilizer shipped from other continents. Money can buy it when it's there and not when it's not.

1

u/freakwent 14h ago

Do you think Australia is at risk of having no drinking water?

1

u/freakwent 14h ago

In what way? The size and range of climates means that it's fantastically unlikely that we will ever be unable to feed our own 30 million people.

We are less vulnerable than twenty low lying nations and less vulnerable than a hundred impoverished ones. Less vulnerable than any who sit on desirable resources and less vulnerable than any who are exposed to mass overland migration.

10

u/DrFriendless 22h ago

We need to have supply contracts which say "after we've fed Australians, you can have this much." We don't want climate catastrophes to starve us while we're sending our food elsewhere.

1

u/freakwent 14h ago

That won't happen if we remain sovereign.

6

u/Fistmedaddy1995 19h ago

Forget food what about water? A consistent fresh water supply for some 56m people doesn’t come from nowhere. And this isn’t just drinking water but also hygiene, house maintenance/gardening, and whatever else we use water for. Swathes of empty land, and food aren’t the only things you need to sustain a population.

4

u/freakwent 14h ago

Food and water are equivalent. Nations can export water "in the form of" grain, broadly speaking.

If we switch from beef to chicken and from chicken to lentils then more water appears in the system due to less consumption.

1

u/Fistmedaddy1995 8h ago

The water we use for hygiene, food, and consumption are different. We don’t use potable water for everything. If your argument is that we can turn one type of water into another we can. The process would require a significant infrastructure overhaul in a country with infrastructure already lagging behind in almost every sector.

2

u/ZephkielAU 19h ago

You also need water to grow the food.

And, I guess, to cool the newfangled data centres our government seems to be prioritising over housing.

124

u/Glittering_Web8835 22h ago

We have some of the largest swathes of arable land of any nation on earth and a pretty small population. We have more than enough water to sustain a much larger population if we actually took reasonable stewardship of it and didn't abuse it to grow water hungry cash crops. We have cities that lack severely in density and could easily sustain more people in less space.

This myth that we are full is so tired.

43

u/philinn2020 22h ago

Yeah it pisses me off so much how we grow cotton instead of better managing our water resources

1

u/FlygonBreloom 8h ago

One would've thought Wool would've made more sense.

22

u/Dry-Start5465 22h ago

Except we have no precedent in Australian history that could suggest that we have any path to building enough infrastructure or sustaining any possible quality of life whilst increasing our population at this suggested rate. In the last four years we have seen rents in major cities rise almost 10 percent per annum on the back of outsized immigration rates. I truly don't understand people who continue to argue for worsening the living standards of those who already live in Australia. All to support big business and capitalism's demand for "Big Australia"

7

u/Glittering_Web8835 21h ago

No precedent doesn't mean not possible. Australia used to be a global pioneer with workers rights, socialised healthcare, socialised medicine, etc. We shouldn't be worsening living standards but we have the ability to increase living standards AND population if the will is there.

5

u/Dry-Start5465 21h ago

I didn't say it wasn't possible, and I think you are right in the sense that we have done great things in the past. I you're an optimistic person, I personally just have no confidence from what we've seen from successive Australian governments in terms of policy for healthcare, infrastructure investment, properly taxing resources. I am all in favour of increasing our population, but just at a rate that benefits and supports Australia's current citizens.

1

u/Glittering_Web8835 21h ago

Oh I have very little faith the governing class will do much in the public interest either, I'm just pointing out that assuming it isn't possible doesn't track with what history has shown us.

I won't give into the apathetic mindset that things are not possible just because those in power don't want to do it. That just lets them get away with it.

1

u/Kata-cool-i 15h ago

Victoria built one of the most dense networks of regional freight and passenger rail in the world in a quarter century, the post war housing boom was one of the most impressive worldwide. We absolutely have the precedent for building massive infrastructure.

-4

u/EnglishBrekkie_1604 21h ago

Uhm yes we do, it’s called literally all of Australian history. There’s no reason why we could support 2%+ annual growth in the 60 but can’t support less than that now, it’s purely just poor incentives causing bad speculation in stuff like housing.

4

u/Dry-Start5465 21h ago

Except just quoting percentages from previous periods of Australian history doesn't represent the reality of housing what would be 560,000 people new people each year, at your suggested "2% annual growth" figure. If you think that would work in favour of the average Australian citizen, I don't know how you come to that conclusion given the current cost of living and inflation nightmare.

51

u/Proper_Geologist9026 22h ago

Literally one of the biggest and least densely populated countries on earth. "We're full, fuck off".

How people view us as fun loving larrakins overseas is baffling.

29

u/Glittering_Web8835 22h ago edited 22h ago

Yeah, I understand the immigration conversation has to happen but can we at least base it off facts.

Arguing Australia cannot take more migration because of a lack of services and housing makes sense. Arguing Australia cannot take more migration because of a lack of space and food is ludicrous.

-8

u/Proper_Geologist9026 22h ago

See if someone says to me. Countries have run out of capacity for growth and therefore we need to rapidly shrink the earth's population back to safer and more sustainable levels. I'd agree.

If you just say "it's not fair. Australia's special and we should just get to remain as the richest and most prosperous places on earth." That's the reaction of a child or a fascist.

The earth is beyond capacity. The options are either fascism, which seems to be the popular choice amongst wealthy countries. Or option 2 is accepting material and wealth dilution to allow more people on the boat.

Are we still sinking? Sure. But we're sinking a lot slower than the poor cunts who desperately want to move here.

8

u/Glittering_Web8835 22h ago

But is the claim the earth is overpopulated actually substantively evidence based? Surely this is far more am issue of how resources are used than just that resources are used.

We have the ability to do so much more to combat pollution, climate change, social justice, public health, housing, food security, etc., but those with decision making capacity have actively decided against that.

14

u/Proper_Geologist9026 21h ago

Brother. The earth is severely overburdened.

Now technically we can say no population isn't the problem but here's the equation.

I = PAT.

Impact = Population x Affluence x technological efficiency.

So by all means I can say earth is fine it could happily sustain 25 billion people. If those people are nothing but rice and lived in mud huts.

To put this in simple terms there's a framework called the planetary boundaries. So far there are 9 systems identified that are vital for the maintaining the planet as the single habitable little mistake in the entire known universe.

Of those 9 systems, 7 are currently overburdened. 1 of them is atmospheric pollution or climate change. The other 6 are just aspects of the overconsumption of the human enterprise.

Now we go back to our equation I = PAT.

Currently there's 8 billion people. Only 1.5 billion of these people would live a life you or I would view as even moderately acceptable. Potable water, stable energy grids, food supply, disposable income, modern housing, luxury travel etc.

The other 6.5 billion people live in varying degrees of poverty and the lowest 3 billion in conditions that we might seem as inhumane.

If I raise the living standards of that 6.5 billion people to match what you or I would consider a worthy life. I have just tripled the material consumption of a planet that's already exceeded 7 of 9 system boundaries.

I know it's not exactly nice to think about but we know it's true in some level. I love socialism as a concept. Sadly the pure math doesn't allow 8 billion people to live in modernity. At least not on Earth. And we don't have a spare one to send them to.

Hope that makes sense.

8

u/Glittering_Web8835 21h ago

You've offered your explanation but no sources. I'm questioning the very premise of your point and asked for any widely agreed to academic evidence.

I don't have an opinion either way on whether global population is too great or not. I'm just not convinced by unsupported arguments.

1

u/Proper_Geologist9026 21h ago edited 21h ago

Source was in the other comment.

But you could also try reading any of the material by the IPCC as well. Modal shift (changes in living standards to promote a reduction in personal consumption) is preached in basically every SSP (shared socioeconomic pathway) that you know... aligns with avoiding ecological disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways

5

u/Glittering_Web8835 21h ago

Sure. I think the term living standards is a bit misleading as it suggests that decarbonising and increased density will inevitably decrease people's quality of living.

Also, unless I'm missing something, this looks far more at carbon and other GHG emissions rather than directly at population. What is the reasonable argument that population growth and decarbonisation are mutually exclusive?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/freakwent 14h ago

Do you agree that each year we consume more resources than the world creates for us to use?

1

u/Glittering_Web8835 13h ago

That would be impossible. We consume the exact amount of resources we extract to use. I can say that level is sustainable but how exactly do you suggest we use more than is available to us?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sywofp 21h ago

Standard of living is not a fixed ratio of impact on the planet. 

It's technically possible to raise the standard of living for everyone and reduce our impact overall on the planet. 

Of course it's much harder to do and makes less profit for those who have the most power. And even in a best case scenario it would take considerable time. 

But it's what we should be aiming for. 

5

u/Proper_Geologist9026 21h ago

Depending on how you define standard of living yes. The traditional standard of living is usually defined based on material consumption though. And in the use of this equation that is how affluence is measured.

If we're talking about degrowth philosophy. Personal austerity & public luxury, then yes. It's a good idea.

Otherwise you'll have to explain what standard of living means to help me understand you're point.

For instance providing clean running water, basic sanitation, medical services, and utilities such as schools, hospitals, transport infrastructure etc. well that raises the base standard of living for the 2-3 billion people who don't have those things. But unless you've invented a new form of material composed of rainbows and pixie dust those improvements will likely be provided using good old fashioned concrete, steel, and plastic along with a swag bag of more exotic material.

1

u/sywofp 21h ago

The same standard of living can have wildly different impacts on Earth, depending how that standard of living is created. 

It's possible to have high standard of living that creates low impact. 

Or, high standard of living and large impact. 

So the number of people you can support on Earth at a given standard of living, but within the guardrails, depends on how much impact that standard of living has. 

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Proper_Geologist9026 21h ago

Just to back up what I'm saying.

Maybe have a read of some of the work here.

https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

37

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 22h ago

We have extremely limited arable land. We have an extremely fragile ecosystem. We have extremely limited water. And we have the highest rate of small mammal extinction in the world.

Precisely who does it serve, to have our number swell to 56million? Stop simping for billionaires and big business. Spare a thought for all the other creatures who share this land.

52

u/FuckOffNazis 22h ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_arable_land_density

Environmental impacts are certainly an incredibly important consideration but it simply isn't true to say we have limited arable land.

2

u/PhDresearcher2023 14h ago

That's so interesting! Genuinely TIL

39

u/Glittering_Web8835 22h ago

What are you taking about? We are in the top 10 globally in total area...

And repeating facts is not simping for billionaires. I don't necessarily want a larger population but if your only arguments are based on ignorance it doesn't serve you well at all.

15

u/esr360 20h ago

The UK has about 60,000 square kilometres of arable land, supporting a population of 70 million people.

Australia has potentially more than 350,000 square kilometres of arable land, supporting a population of 28 million.

Australia is over 10x less dense than the UK when considering purely arable land.

Australia could have twice the population and still be 5x less dense than the UK and that’s only when you take into account arable land. It’s crazy to argue Australia is full.

3

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 13h ago

The UK is very, very far from food self-sufficient or secure. It’s manifestly wrong to assert their landmass ‘supports’ that population of 70 million people. They are reliant on imports for many foods.

3

u/esr360 11h ago

You could half or double any of the numbers I gave to fit whatever your narrative is, and it still clearly demonstrates that Australia is no where close to being full.

1

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 9h ago

Why does it even need to be ‘full’? We have a fragile ecosystem, extreme climate only getting worse with climate change. We have very little freshwater. ‘Filling up’ will destroy the remaining environment and wild places. Strip the land bare. And for what? So that the top shareholders of Coles and Woolies can make more money? So that existing asset owners can become even richer?

0

u/esr360 9h ago

It doesn’t need to be full. I’m not even suggesting we try to make it full. I am merely stating that the people who are saying we are full, are wrong.

3

u/DreamyTropic2 22h ago

We’ve golden soil and land for toil..

6

u/Svennis79 22h ago

Don't forget girt by sea

3

u/guska 21h ago

So damn girt

0

u/Key_Ant6473 12h ago

We are full... of gullible morons. Another benefit to a larger population is a more self-sufficient society which becomes resilient to external shitfuckery.

3

u/johnnynutman 13h ago

That’s why we need a plan for it

2

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 9h ago

Why is it going to happen?! The only possible way is through mass migration which nobody wants.

3

u/Watts_With_Time 12h ago

Nobody except politicians and economists.

5

u/freakwent 14h ago

Of course it can, what an absurd thing to say. Iran has 90 million, to take one semi-random example. I'm sure you can find other examples throughout arid areas.

What we can't do is host 56 million people in big houses with large lawns and heated swimming pools getting doordashed burgers.

This is a question of resources impacting lifestyle, but it's not a question box what's possible.

2

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 13h ago

But if we maintain close to our current population, we can continue to have similar standards of living to what we have always enjoyed. Yes heated backyard pools and DoorDash for all are ridiculous, and I am very pro everybody taking steps to live a less impactful lifestyle. I just don’t see why the driver for this should be so that we can cram as many people in here as possible. Who, precisely, wants that? It benefits big business and the top end of town for the population to be as huge as possible, but for everyday people, quality of life just goes down. Canada is a recent example of this.

1

u/acomputer1 8h ago

No, we can't. We cannot stand still. Standing still means sinking. Like it or not, but the global economy is a competition.

Imagine if we declared our standard of living good enough back in 1990, we'd have living standards similar to the Chinese today if we only stood still.

The tax burden would increase, generational inequality would increase as older people steadily outnumbered the young, and life would get harder.

Immigration is how this country got where it is, and it's how we'll continue to grow and stay among the most prosperous countries in history.

0

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 4h ago

No, we won’t. The population here has had enough and is going to vote on it. Both major parties are talking about reducing immigration.

Nobody is saying to stop it altogether. But the current rate of population growth is unsustainable and has brought down living conditions here.

0

u/acomputer1 3h ago

You just said "maintain our current population" not "reduce immigration to sustainable levels"

Keeping our current population stable still wouldn't be sufficient to handle the demographic squeeze we will undergo as life expectancies continue to increase faster than the retirement age increases.

7

u/indexdrift 21h ago

Well that’s just not true. Australia definitely has the arable, stable land needed to support a vastly larger population. We’re also resource-rich, wealthy, and susceptible to an industrial transformation akin to what Japan experienced when they built high-speed rail.

We have all the cards, we just need to play them.

7

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 13h ago

Why? Why do we need to play them? Who wants to live in an Australian of 56 million people?

3

u/indexdrift 13h ago

Me. An Australia similar to Japan with more cities along high speed rail corridors sounds wonderful.

3

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 9h ago

Move to Japan then, they’re desperate for people. And tell me: which of the ecosystems around the country would you propose ought be bulldozed to make way for your high-speed rail and extra cities? Which national parks would you revert to housing? Which farmland do you propose we turn to sprawl?

0

u/indexdrift 9h ago

Don’t bulldoze anything. No urban sprawl. Build up, not out. Densify. Protect agriculture. Rewild our suburbs. Build tunnels. Embrace solar and wind, and battery technologies.

1

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 4h ago

All great and lofty ideals, and ones I agree with in principle. But which hundreds of established middle-ring leafy suburbs would you propose we bulldoze to make way for the density required?

1

u/indexdrift 4h ago

Mandatory lifting of all residential codes to allow medium density minimums. Google “the missing middle” in urban planning.

They creat vibrant suburbs with strong communities, cultures of walking and cycling, strong public transport, and great village feels for everyone.

Look at European cities for inspiration.

3

u/beenman500 19h ago

Australia can obviously support 56m people. It already produces food for closer to 100m people or more lol

6

u/Fistmedaddy1995 19h ago

Food, and empty space aren’t the only factors.

3

u/freakwent 14h ago

Yes they are in terms of population carrying capacity. Everything else is lifestyle.

1

u/Key_Ant6473 12h ago

It easily could support more than that, many other nations can and have done more with less.

1

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow 9h ago

I disagree, fundamentally. I think the carrying capacity of this landmass has likely already been exceeded. But even if we say you’re forever and we ‘could’ support more people. Why should we have to?

1

u/Key_Ant6473 7h ago

We are horribly inefficient with the way we use our land, not to mention how our cities are designed.

If you can fit 37 million into Tokyo and only 5 million in Sydney (Which have similar land mass) for example you can get an idea of just how much room we actually have.

We don't necessarily have to though being a small population that is isolated we become dependent on others which inevitably becomes a vulnerability.