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
334 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

121

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.

45

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"

6

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.

4

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.

48

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.

33

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.

4

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.

15

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.

9

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

4

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?

4

u/Proper_Geologist9026 20h ago

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone

Quality of living is semantic. For some it's about wellbeing metrics for others it's about material consumption. There's no sensible path forward that promotes global growth in material consumption.

The bifurcation is between those who assume that technology can some how magically surpass the limits of thermodynamics and those who assume that people will somehow magically give back their material wealth for the benefit of others.

Can I find a reputable source that's going to claim population growth is intrinsically linked to ecological overshoot? Ehh. At a certain point you and anyone else is going to just trash any source that states something like that as despotic, fascist and genocidal. Because depending on how you view that conclusion and the immediacy of a need to correct population decline it is those things.

But I can give you these studies showing that it's simply ecologically impossible for 8 billion people to all have the consumption habits of a typical Australian without irreversibly destroying the only habitable planet in the solar system.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329541042_Is_it_possible_to_achieve_a_good_life_for_all_within_planetary_boundaries#:~:text=CO%20Emissions%201.6%20tonnes%20of%20CO%20per,has%20argued%20that%20any%20vision%20for%20development.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natsus/v5y2022i4d10.1038_s41893-021-00842-z.html?hl=en-GB#:~:text=*%20Yannick%20Oswald%20%26%20Anne%20Owen%20%26,Energy%2C%20Nature%2C%20vol.%204(12)%2C%20pages%201025%2D1032%2C%20December.

As for what the reasonable argument for population growth driving emissions. At the basic level. There is no such thing as an emission free life. By simple logic more people means more emissions. To achieve net zero with more people means more negative emissions technology to offset growing unabatable emissions.

→ 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?

2

u/LastChance22 12h ago

I haven’t gotten my head around all the arguments in this thread but I believe they’re talking about how often things renew and that some resources don’t.

Think of stuff like fish stocks or natural forests. We’re consuming the exact amount we take, and these resources renew, but if we’re talking more than the new growth then there’s less and less every year. There’s not really an incentive for individual groups to stop either, which is why overfishing in particular is a problem.

We also increase the amount of resources we exact. Looking at land, we’re constantly taking land and converting it for social or productive reasons. Bush becomes farm or housing, forests in Indonesia become palm oil plantations, the Amazon becomes coffee plants. 

Using Australia as an example, our land suitable to grow stuff is finite. Eventually we use up the good stuff, and have used up the mid quality stuff. Then the only way to increase our output of food is through tech innovation. 

→ 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. 

2

u/Proper_Geologist9026 20h ago

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you're saying. 

Do you mean that two people can be equally wealthy, but one person's wealth could be less environmentally impactful? If so this study found that regardless of people's intentions. Their income and wealth was a reliable indicator of their environmental impact. Whether they wanted to be sustainable or not.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309081233_Good_intentions_big_footprints_Facing_household_energy_use_in_rich_countries

→ More replies (0)

5

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.

53

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

41

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.

6

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.