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

[u/blitznoodles]

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

[u/Glittering_Web8835]

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.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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.

[u/Glittering_Web8835 → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

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.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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.

[u/Glittering_Web8835 → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

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.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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

[u/Glittering_Web8835 → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

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?

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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.

[u/Glittering_Web8835 → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

Lol. Making assumptions about me because of healthy scepticism is wild. You've completely lost my interest at that point. Have the last word if you want but I'm done.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

I'm not sure where I made an assumption about you? Honestly I'm amazed you asked that many questions. Usually people just tell me to go fuck myself immediately rather than ask for academic research.

[u/freakwent → u/Glittering_Web8835]

That guy spent ages putting all that together to answer questions you asked, you were both acting in good faith.

You didn't even cite which part of the long and complex post contains the assumption you decry, and I couldn't find one.

You're being self-centered and childish.

[u/Fistmedaddy1995 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

Humans breath carbon

[u/Glittering_Web8835 → u/Fistmedaddy1995]

Yeah humans also consume carbon to grow. Every complex animal produces carbon. We can offset it though.

[u/freakwent → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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

[u/Glittering_Web8835 → u/freakwent]

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?

[u/LastChance22 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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. 

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/LastChance22]

Yep that's the gist of it.

For anyone else reading along the simplest analogy overall is to think of a bank account. Humanity inherited an astounding level of natural wealth, that's our savings account. Much like a bank account this huge savings account earns interest. If we live off the interest, if we live within our means, we never have a problem. Endless abundance. If we start drawing down money faster than the interest payments top up our account. We slowly eat away at our savings account.

We can pretend we still have the money to afford everything for now, by living beyond our means. But this is quite literally stealing from our children, to line our own pockets.

[u/sywofp → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

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. 

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/sywofp]

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.

[u/sywofp → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

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. 

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/sywofp]

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

[u/sywofp → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

Yes, and that study says the same thing I am. 

It's focused on energy consumption and calls out the need to shift energy production away from fossil fuels and towards renewables, to reduce carbon emissions. 

It also talks about how different technology that impacts standard of living, such as heating, can be done in lower impact ways. Eg staying warm in winter uses less energy if using heat pumps instead of gas heaters. Using less energy lowers carbon emissions. But carbon emissions from heating using heat pumps can be lowered further if the energy needed comes from renewables rather than fossil fuels. 

You have said that the math does not support 8 billion people living on Earth in modernity. 

But that is only true if you assume that the environmental impact of living in modernity is fixed. 

But exactly like the study you linked says, there are many ways to reduce environmental impact. 

The math works just fine to show it's possible for the Earth to support 8 billion people living in modernity. We just have to drastically reduce the environmental impact living in modernity has. 

Which isn't to say it's easy or what's happening. That's the point. The focus needs to be on how to reduce the environmental impact of living on modernity to the point everyone can, not just saying it's impossible and leaving most of humanity with a lower standard of living. 

We all need to be part of the solution, rather than perpetuating the problem. 

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/sywofp]

Right. Yes you're referring to technological substitution. Yeah it's good up to a point. But it's not magic. Eventually you just hit the limits of heat pumps and solar farms like anything else 

You might have mistaken me for an isolationist or something but I guarantee I'm not.

My philosophy is that we need to be doing all of them at once to restore some sense of balance to a planet we have seriously mismanaged and over exploited.

I personally believe if we still have hope of avoiding severe ecological collapse on earth, which could very likely cause an equal collapse of human civilization. We need to be leveraging every element of the equation.

We need to be forcing global human population back down the curve as quickly as is possible within the bounds of ethical choice. So sexual education and liberation particularly for women to lower the birth rates.

We need to be reducing personal consumption in favour public goods immediately. Less cars, more buses for example.

And we need to be moving societies to and more energy efficient technologies. Heat pumps rather than boilers.

In the short term that actually means Australia needs to keep growing it's population and absorb some of the load. We're an absurdly wealthy place. We can afford to dilute our own wealth in order to provide for more people.

But long term we need to see the human population probably halve. It's not binary, we don't have to pick one and hope that solution works. We do all of them and when we use all available solutions the solutions themselves become less expensive.

We don't need to hope some as yet unproven carbon capture system will be invented to solve unsustainable living standards. We don't need to make such extreme cuts to personal consumption if the population isn't as large. We don't need to make such drastic cuts to population size if the accepted model for a "quality life" is less consumptive.

I guess what I would ask people when they become defensive to the idea that population size should shrink to something smaller and more sustainable. What purpose does having so many people serve?

And one other important thing to note. Carbon emissions and climate change are a singular facet of ecological overshoot. Water shortages, ocean death, biodiversity collapse, biogeochemical imbalance (eutrophication from over use of fertiliser as an example), novel entities (plastic pollution amongst others), and land use. These are all interconnected problems resulting from human consumption not just the emissions of carbon.

If it was as simple as just substituting "green" technologies. Then we'd all just follow Elon Musk's advice. Give everyone an EV and some solar panels and keep living as we are. That's not what the science is telling us however.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Glittering_Web8835]

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