Incoherent Policies

While visiting in Australia three headlines caught my eye. They were reported as completely independent issues; one did not affect the other. The first stated that the baby bonuses of $5000 per child, which were started in 2004, are working: there has been a measurable increase in births. The second reported that the water supply for Adelaide and the surrounding region of South Australia was in crisis and unless drastic action is taken serious water shortages will start soon. The third stated that immigration, after holding steady for decades, would be cut by 14 percent (from 135,000 to 115,000) to help protect Australian workers in this recession.
Australia is a large country with a low population (about 20 million). Nevertheless, population should be a national issue that is addressed in a coherent and integrated manner. These newspaper reports clearly show that this is not the case. The baby-bonus and immigration policies are in direct conflict with each other. For the Adelaide water shortage, it is not even recognized that the large and growing population contributes to the problem. All the blame is placed on the drought and non of the proposed solutions suggests curbing population growth.
I am not picking on Australia for most nations are in the same boat. For example, the US southwest, notably Phoenix and Las Vegas, are suffering similar troubles as Adelaide. With human population approaching seven billion, the globe is experiencing severe shortages in many resources including fisheries, oil and gas, water and more. I won’t even touch on global warming.
It is time to recognize that human population is a serious, if not the most serious, problem the world faces. National and international policies are needed to address this issue. These policies must be coherent and integrated with all the relevant issues.

Will Human Numbers Ever Decrease?

Concerned scientists such as Paul Ehrlich argue that the ever-increasing human population is looting the planet. Most economists and politicians refuse to accept this. Often they respond that population growth is slowing and is actually decreasing in some countries, notably western Europe, and is slowing in most developed nations. In a few more decades human population will peak and then slowly decline, they claim.
Recent evidence from Australia indicates that this slow down in population growth rate may be temporary. In 2005, Australian treasurer Peter Costello made his famous plea, "Have one (child) for mum, one for dad, and one for the country." In 2004, to encourage fecundity he offered a $3000 bonus for every new baby. Recent data shows that Australia’s strategy has worked. The birth rate, which had been in a rut for years, rose in 2005 and again in 2006. The baby-bonus cost for the two years was $1.7 billion, resulting in 37,000 extra babies. The province of Quebec, Russia and other jurisdictions are offering similar incentives.
It’s too early to tell, but it appears that projections for human population growth will likely be at the high end of United Nations predictions. After all, Australia and others don’t seem to care about peak oil, fisheries depletion, water shortages and global warming. Instead they’re paying big bucks to keep the population, that is, the economy, expanding. Is there any hope?