What size population can Australia sustain? Or should we avoid trying to answer the question?
By business reporter Gareth Hutchens
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-20/what-size-population-can-australia-sustain-fertility-rates/104492976
Link
5e+7
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.
So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
We’ll probably have water wars first. Wait, we are already having them.
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
We’ll probably have water wars first. Wait, we are already having them.
This is not an Australian problem. We don’t share rivers with any other countries, so there is noboy to go to war with over water.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
We’ll probably have water wars first. Wait, we are already having them.
This is not an Australian problem. We don’t share rivers with any other countries, so there is noboy to go to war with over water.
There are the water regulators to steal water from. There are your neighbours to steal water from. It has been going on all the time, it can only get worse before we are all fighting the government for our share.
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:We’ll probably have water wars first. Wait, we are already having them.
This is not an Australian problem. We don’t share rivers with any other countries, so there is noboy to go to war with over water.
There are the water regulators to steal water from. There are your neighbours to steal water from. It has been going on all the time, it can only get worse before we are all fighting the government for our share.
That’s just politics. That is not a war in the literal meaning of the word.
I like to stick to literal meanings, not metaphor or analogy.party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:This is not an Australian problem. We don’t share rivers with any other countries, so there is noboy to go to war with over water.
There are the water regulators to steal water from. There are your neighbours to steal water from. It has been going on all the time, it can only get worse before we are all fighting the government for our share.
That’s just politics. That is not a war in the literal meaning of the word.
I like to stick to literal meanings, not metaphor or analogy.
Fair enough but we do get the phrase of repeated. https://discover.abc.net.au/index.html?siteTitle=news#/?query=Water%20Wars&refinementList%5Bsite.title%5D%5B0%5D=ABC%20News
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:There are the water regulators to steal water from. There are your neighbours to steal water from. It has been going on all the time, it can only get worse before we are all fighting the government for our share.
That’s just politics. That is not a war in the literal meaning of the word.
I like to stick to literal meanings, not metaphor or analogy.Fair enough but we do get the phrase of repeated. https://discover.abc.net.au/index.html?siteTitle=news#/?query=Water%20Wars&refinementList%5Bsite.title%5D%5B0%5D=ABC%20News
Well, they should stop repeating it because it sn’t true. Nobody is getting shelled or bombed or stabbed in the guts with a bayonet; you know, the usual things that happen in proper wars.
It is just politics and argy-bargy.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:This is not an Australian problem. We don’t share rivers with any other countries, so there is noboy to go to war with over water.
There are the water regulators to steal water from. There are your neighbours to steal water from. It has been going on all the time, it can only get worse before we are all fighting the government for our share.
That’s just politics. That is not a war in the literal meaning of the word.
I like to stick to literal meanings, not metaphor or analogy.
Do you have some special solvent to free yourself when you become stuck to literal meanings?
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
There are two big problems for the future:
1) Too few people to do the jobs, because of the declining birth rate.
2) Too few jobs for all the people, because the AIs will take ‘em all.
Don’t know how they are going to handle that.
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
when we bought in the Sudanese refugees we took women and children. The boys grew up with no male role models and there are some who say this has been a problem.
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:There are the water regulators to steal water from. There are your neighbours to steal water from. It has been going on all the time, it can only get worse before we are all fighting the government for our share.
That’s just politics. That is not a war in the literal meaning of the word.
I like to stick to literal meanings, not metaphor or analogy.Do you have some special solvent to free yourself when you become stuck to literal meanings?
I remain resolute in not describing water politics as “war”.
sarahs mum said:
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
when we bought in the Sudanese refugees we took women and children. The boys grew up with no male role models and there are some who say this has been a problem.
Solve one problem, create another.
Such is the way of thing.
The historian Thomas Sowell said: There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs; and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that’s all you can hope for. I like that quote and I use it a lot.
it’s all just a special military operation anyway
roughbarked said:
What size population can Australia sustain? Or should we avoid trying to answer the question?
By business reporter Gareth Hutchenshttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-20/what-size-population-can-australia-sustain-fertility-rates/104492976
Link
Not this again. Can’t be much news today.
Woodie said:
Can’t be much news today.
seems bit slow
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
There are two big problems for the future:
1) Too few people to do the jobs, because of the declining birth rate.
2) Too few jobs for all the people, because the AIs will take ‘em all.Don’t know how they are going to handle that.
The thing that really gets economists worried is a large cohort of retirees on state-funded pensions, requiring an ever increasing amount of healthcare; with a shrinking cohort of young working taxpayers to fund it all. This is the sort of nightmare scenario that is predicted in most industrialised countries around the world, if it is not already happening.
Australia will be a little more shielded than most other economies thanks to compulsory super, starting in the early 1990s. It is a bit too late for other countries to start on it now. But still we can expect the demand for healthcare to increase rapidly as the population ages.
Immigration of younger skilled workers is one way to increase the tax base.
party_pants said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
There are two big problems for the future:
1) Too few people to do the jobs, because of the declining birth rate.
2) Too few jobs for all the people, because the AIs will take ‘em all.Don’t know how they are going to handle that.
The thing that really gets economists worried is a large cohort of retirees on state-funded pensions, requiring an ever increasing amount of healthcare; with a shrinking cohort of young working taxpayers to fund it all. This is the sort of nightmare scenario that is predicted in most industrialised countries around the world, if it is not already happening.
Australia will be a little more shielded than most other economies thanks to compulsory super, starting in the early 1990s. It is a bit too late for other countries to start on it now. But still we can expect the demand for healthcare to increase rapidly as the population ages.
Immigration of younger skilled workers is one way to increase the tax base.
Maybe make the AIs pay extra tax for each extra finger.
Bubblecar said:
party_pants said:
The Rev Dodgson said:There are two big problems for the future:
1) Too few people to do the jobs, because of the declining birth rate.
2) Too few jobs for all the people, because the AIs will take ‘em all.Don’t know how they are going to handle that.
The thing that really gets economists worried is a large cohort of retirees on state-funded pensions, requiring an ever increasing amount of healthcare; with a shrinking cohort of young working taxpayers to fund it all. This is the sort of nightmare scenario that is predicted in most industrialised countries around the world, if it is not already happening.
Australia will be a little more shielded than most other economies thanks to compulsory super, starting in the early 1990s. It is a bit too late for other countries to start on it now. But still we can expect the demand for healthcare to increase rapidly as the population ages.
Immigration of younger skilled workers is one way to increase the tax base.
Maybe make the AIs pay extra tax for each extra finger.
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
About 3/4 of the food Australia produces is exported, so there is a case to say around 4 times the current population.
So around 100-120 million, just in terms of mouths to feed. Space shouldn’t be a factor, we’ve got a whole continent to ourselves. Fresh water might be a problem, will need lots of investment in desal or long pipelines from the north to the south – plenty of schemes have been proposed over the years.
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
Maybe if they are worried about declining birth rates they can be selective in letting in young women more freely, perhaps if they have a resident husband or sponsor. Or the granting of citizenship based on the number of children, on the birth of their 2.1th child. Probably of lot of women in poor countries who love to move to a country like Australia and have 2.1 kids. Maybe an extra tax on single men?
There are two big problems for the future:
1) Too few people to do the jobs, because of the declining birth rate.
2) Too few jobs for all the people, because the AIs will take ‘em all.Don’t know how they are going to handle that.
easy
The real trade-off is the environment vs making money.
The more people you have the more they need and want, this includes greater land use to grow crops, store water, build houses and roads and unfortunately the environment pays for most of it via eviction and death.
On the other hand, more people need more things and the economy grows, making big business happy, and as governments also look good, this outcome it makes them happy too. Unfortunately, with large numbers of immigrants, it means shortages of big-ticket items like houses, schools, medical centres and professionals like doctors, etc. It also means the places you loved gradually become urbanised, either changed or lost and so the standard of living for most is lowered.
Why the argument about a reduced number of young must pay for the wellbeing of the old and aging survives, is extremely shortsighted, as the same problem will happen with the next generation and next and the next with the population continually rising and the standard of living falling. This idea is a fallacy with only vested interests benefiting, while the average person becomes no more than a consumer.
Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.
So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max
1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.
2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.
3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.
And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
dv said:
Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
In answer to your first question, because there were not any species of plant suitable for it.
As for the rest, it is based on the assumption of a supply of fresh water for irrigation independent of rainfall. Like large scale desal powered by renewables of course, or bringing monsoon season water south via pipelines, canals, dams, pumping stations and the like. There have been many “drought-proofing” schemes proposed over the years.
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
In answer to your first question, because there were not any species of plant suitable for it.
As for the rest, it is based on the assumption of a supply of fresh water for irrigation independent of rainfall. Like large scale desal powered by renewables of course, or bringing monsoon season water south via pipelines, canals, dams, pumping stations and the like. There have been many “drought-proofing” schemes proposed over the years.
There is a little more to growing crops than you seem to appreciate especially with our expected increased temperatures and more extreme weather events. But if you don’t take that seriously then I appreciate your optimistic outlook.
PermeateFree said:
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
In answer to your first question, because there were not any species of plant suitable for it.
As for the rest, it is based on the assumption of a supply of fresh water for irrigation independent of rainfall. Like large scale desal powered by renewables of course, or bringing monsoon season water south via pipelines, canals, dams, pumping stations and the like. There have been many “drought-proofing” schemes proposed over the years.
There is a little more to growing crops than you seem to appreciate especially with our expected increased temperatures and more extreme weather events. But if you don’t take that seriously then I appreciate your optimistic outlook.
>>In answer to your first question, because there were not any species of plant suitable for it.<<
The are no animals that could be domesticated, but there are many plants including numerous grasses to make bread, etc.
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
party_pants said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
In answer to your first question, because there were not any species of plant suitable for it.
As for the rest, it is based on the assumption of a supply of fresh water for irrigation independent of rainfall. Like large scale desal powered by renewables of course, or bringing monsoon season water south via pipelines, canals, dams, pumping stations and the like. There have been many “drought-proofing” schemes proposed over the years.
Species of plant that were suitable to agriculture, murnong, terrestrial orchids. Many high protein grasses. All were farmed in a sustainable way.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
For my futurist max scenario we’d need to get all starting material from the oceans and basically convert a good chunk of the regolith into the feed for the synthesis project. Once you have it you can extract it from the waste.
dv said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
For my futurist max scenario we’d need to get all starting material from the oceans and basically convert a good chunk of the regolith into the feed for the synthesis project. Once you have it you can extract it from the waste.
Fairynuff. By then we may be used to recycling all that.
It’s all idle speculation anyway. Australia seems destined to have a population under 60 million indefinitely.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Plenty in the Northern Australian Cambrian basins. They’ve been mining at Duchess, Qld for about 50 years now, and there are many undeveloped deposits, some of which will be coming on line soon. The Phosphate Hill mine produces around a million tonnes of ammonium phosphate (processed from phosphate rock) per year. At that rate, there’s enough left for at least 80 years.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
dv said:Although it is possible to run a country that is dependent on food imports (as for instance Singapore is), this does include a risk of long term vulnerability in genuine crises, so I think it would be better to at least have the potential to be self-sufficient in that area.
There are only a handful of countries with more arable land than Australia, and not many with more rainfall but with the advent of desal/recyc, freshwater production becomes just a matter of building the plant.So I’ll give three answers:
business as usual +,
to heck with the environment
futurist max1. Business as usual +
Suppose we want to preserve our currently protected parks and also not drive extinctions in the seas.
Australia currently produces food for about 80 million people but there are plenty of marginally productive farms that can be better irrigated and opportunities to catch or farm fish that aren’t quite right for market condtions at the moment but that could sustain the population if push came to shove. We could feed and house 200 million comfortably without particularly cracking a sweat: it would mean the non-arid areas would have a similar population density to Europe.2. To heck with the environment.
With no concern for biodiversity or natural heritage etc the parks would be cleared for agriculture and the grazing areas expanded with irrigation fed by desal, and the fisheries expanded, to be looking at more like 500 million. This would give Australia including the current arid areas a population density akin to that of Europe: not much wilderness and most people living in cities with medium density housing.The countryside would look different and we’d miss the quolls and the reefs etc but it would still be a kind of lifestyle we’d recognise.3. Futurist max
In the longest term we would need to rely on renewable energy, more or less by definition, so I’ll use that as the basis for limits to energy input. Agriculture is a very “space-inefficient” mode of producing macronutrients, typically only converting a couple of % of incident sunlight into effective dietary kJ.
If we converted the entire land and sea area of this Commonwealth into a renewable powerplant to power macronutrient synthesis and water recycling then at a push you could keep 5 trillion people fed. Assuming we only housed them on the current non-Antarctic territory, this would imply about 700000 people per sq km which is certainly pushing it: even if all space were residential and you wanted to give a family of four a 150 sqm apartment you need coat the continent with 26 floors of enclosed building.And anyway I like quolls so my modest proposal would be a cap of 200 million … 250 million tops.
Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
I really need a new D key on this laptop.
dv said:
It’s all idle speculation anyway. Australia seems destined to have a population under 60 million indefinitely.
and what causes you to say that then?
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Plenty in the Northern Australian Cambrian basins. They’ve been mining at Duchess, Qld for about 50 years now, and there are many undeveloped deposits, some of which will be coming on line soon. The Phosphate Hill mine produces around a million tonnes of ammonium phosphate (processed from phosphate rock) per year. At that rate, there’s enough left for at least 80 years.
I see.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:Do you know why Aborigines did not get involved with agriculture? It is simply because Australia’s climate and weather are so unreliable. The southern agricultural zone is pretty much the extent where crops can be grown with any degree of success. Infrequent rainfall, droughts and floods make even these zones hazardous and with climate change it will only become worse, so apart from some temporary regions up north before they become unusable for large scale agriculture, we do not have unlimited space to grow food and the thought of between 200 and 250 million people living in Australia, especially with its uncertain future is complete madness.
Singapore and other Asian countries generally, not only have far better soils than Australia, but also have a monsoon season to bring plenty of rain on a regular basis, plus their average temperature although very humid for people has growing advantages for crops and can produce up to three a year. Even in these favorable growing areas with high human populations it too might be in question with predicted monsoon failures and drying rivers. Australia’s wheat being only an annual crop can be devasted by drought and floods. We are heading into a very uncertain future, and a large population will only increase the problem.
What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
roughbarked said:
dv said:
It’s all idle speculation anyway. Australia seems destined to have a population under 60 million indefinitely.
and what causes you to say that then?
Nobody wants it. It won’t happen by natural increase because young people can’t afford to have children even at the replacement rate. It can only happen by immigration but nobody wants that either because there is already a shortage of housing and infrastructure.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
dv said:
It’s all idle speculation anyway. Australia seems destined to have a population under 60 million indefinitely.
and what causes you to say that then?
Nobody wants it. It won’t happen by natural increase because young people can’t afford to have children even at the replacement rate. It can only happen by immigration but nobody wants that either because there is already a shortage of housing and infrastructure.
Plus we’re full.
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Plenty in the Northern Australian Cambrian basins. They’ve been mining at Duchess, Qld for about 50 years now, and there are many undeveloped deposits, some of which will be coming on line soon. The Phosphate Hill mine produces around a million tonnes of ammonium phosphate (processed from phosphate rock) per year. At that rate, there’s enough left for at least 80 years.
I see.
Australian farmers use only about half the production at the moment.
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
As far as I am aware, we don’t.
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:What are we going to do to get the phosphates we’d need??
Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
It is cheaper to ship it by sea from Ukraine or China or Morroco, in bulk, to the southern ports of Australia, than it is to truck it from NT/QLD border lands. This is why I suggest building a railway. Right now the only method of shifting it is by truck.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
It’s all idle speculation anyway. Australia seems destined to have a population under 60 million indefinitely.
and what causes you to say that then?
exactly, confirms the claim that is made then calls it idle speculation because everyone else was claiming something else unconfirmed
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
As far as I am aware, we don’t.
There was a lot of noise abot us having fertiliser shortage because Russia was bombing Ukraine.
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
As far as I am aware, we don’t.
There was a lot of noise abot us having fertiliser shortage because Russia was bombing Ukraine.
ah, ammonium nitrate, is there a population problem it can’t solve
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
It is cheaper to ship it by sea from Ukraine or China or Morroco, in bulk, to the southern ports of Australia, than it is to truck it from NT/QLD border lands. This is why I suggest building a railway. Right now the only method of shifting it is by truck.
Yes. Australia always needed trains for shifting freight long distances. Moreso now with the costs of fuels and roads.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:Build a railway. Australia has large reserves of phosphates, but they are a bit in the middle of nowhere along the NT/QLD borer. A railway line from say Mt Isa (sh) to meet the Darwin-Adelaide line at Tenant Creek might be the go. Then phosphate can be mined and transported southwards. Also some phosphates WA near Mt Weld, but they are also not being commercially mine at the moment.
How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
It is cheaper to ship it by sea from Ukraine or China or Morroco, in bulk, to the southern ports of Australia, than it is to truck it from NT/QLD border lands. This is why I suggest building a railway. Right now the only method of shifting it is by truck.
It’s shipped by rail to Townsville via Mt Isa, and then by ship to various ports both in and out of Australia.
Michael V said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
It is cheaper to ship it by sea from Ukraine or China or Morroco, in bulk, to the southern ports of Australia, than it is to truck it from NT/QLD border lands. This is why I suggest building a railway. Right now the only method of shifting it is by truck.
It’s shipped by rail to Townsville via Mt Isa, and then by ship to various ports both in and out of Australia.
That’s how the bulk of it goes. Yes.
I guess you could add about 40% to my previous estimates just by eliminating food waste. And overeating…
Michael V said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:How come we buy it from Ukraine then?
It is cheaper to ship it by sea from Ukraine or China or Morroco, in bulk, to the southern ports of Australia, than it is to truck it from NT/QLD border lands. This is why I suggest building a railway. Right now the only method of shifting it is by truck.
It’s shipped by rail to Townsville via Mt Isa, and then by ship to various ports both in and out of Australia.
That’s from the Phosphate Hill mine, I take it?
There is plenty more over the border in NT. A more direct route by rail direct to the southern agricultural regions mght be better than loading it onto ships.
dv said:
I guess you could add about 40% to my previous estimates just by eliminating food waste. And overeating…
Wonder who’s going to regulate that though?
party_pants said:
Michael V said:
party_pants said:It is cheaper to ship it by sea from Ukraine or China or Morroco, in bulk, to the southern ports of Australia, than it is to truck it from NT/QLD border lands. This is why I suggest building a railway. Right now the only method of shifting it is by truck.
It’s shipped by rail to Townsville via Mt Isa, and then by ship to various ports both in and out of Australia.
That’s from the Phosphate Hill mine, I take it?
There is plenty more over the border in NT. A more direct route by rail direct to the southern agricultural regions mght be better than loading it onto ships.
Phosphate hill, yes.
Yes, I know there is plenty of very large deposits in the NT (mostly also in the Georgina Basin).
Building new rail is very expensive. I wonder whether the economics work. I’m not going to do the work to find that out.
In fact, all I’ll likely do is visit the basin to collect trilobite fossils, which are found in the Beetle Creek Formation – the same bunch of rocks that host the phosphorite deposits.
Michael V said:
party_pants said:
Michael V said:It’s shipped by rail to Townsville via Mt Isa, and then by ship to various ports both in and out of Australia.
That’s from the Phosphate Hill mine, I take it?
There is plenty more over the border in NT. A more direct route by rail direct to the southern agricultural regions mght be better than loading it onto ships.
Phosphate hill, yes.
Yes, I know there is plenty of very large deposits in the NT (mostly also in the Georgina Basin).
Building new rail is very expensive. I wonder whether the economics work. I’m not going to do the work to find that out.
In fact, all I’ll likely do is visit the basin to collect trilobite fossils, which are found in the Beetle Creek Formation – the same bunch of rocks that host the phosphorite deposits.
It’s not my own idea. I heard someone spruiking the case for more inland rail. I guess that was just one potential source of revenue. but then I don’t need much persuading about building new rail projects.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
I guess you could add about 40% to my previous estimates just by eliminating food waste. And overeating…
Wonder who’s going to regulate that though?
The ingestapo
dv said:
roughbarked said:
dv said:
I guess you could add about 40% to my previous estimates just by eliminating food waste. And overeating…
Wonder who’s going to regulate that though?
The ingestapo
LOL
party_pants said:
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
“Might”? They definitely won’t fit in. The question is why so many people are so impatient with them instead of giving them the generation or two that it takes to acclimatise.
Kothos said:
party_pants said:
But I don’t think that would be doable in any short space of time, given the social factors. Hard to imagine maintaining any sort lf national unity and cultural identity with massive numbers of new migrants. Which everywhere is what seems to be the main objection to immigration – they might not fit in.
“Might”? They definitely won’t fit in. The question is why so many people are so impatient with them instead of giving them the generation or two that it takes to acclimatise.
More like taking the time to help them acclimatise.