commonwealth

but australia is 99% desert.

Zen10

It really isn't. The habitable areas of Australia are massive. Way bigger than Britain which has 63 million people.

KJCherokee

Zen10, how far outside one of the capital cities have you travelled? The reason that Australia is not densely populated is that most of the land area just cannot support a dense population - no water! It's only on the east coast and round the south to Ceduna, and then Esperance round to north of Perth in WA, that there is sufficient water to support horticulture and dense agriculture - the rest of the country just can't do it. Alice Springs is only the size it is because it was the railhead: you coudn't support the population without importing food and other essential supplies.

So there's no irony in Australia's population density of 2.92 people per sq. km. Canada has 3.43, Libya 3.72 and Mongolia 1.77 for the same reason - most of the land can't support any more.

Zen10

Sorry but this is just not true. Take Tasmania as an example. Tasmania is broadly the same size as Ireland. Ireland has 4 million people, Tasmania has 400,000. This is just one example of how the population could be increased in Tasmania alone, if not to Irish levels due to lower water supply, certainly well above 400,000.

Large areas of the tropical north have exactly the same climate and water supply as Indonesia, which has 240 million people. The habitable water-sodden parts of Australia's north have about 400,000 people. There is no argument in it; Australia's habitable zones, particularly in the north, are grossly underpopulated, and centred hopelessly on the urban sprawls of the cities. Mackay could be a city of 4 million, for example, and you can find places like this all over the coasts.

Personally, I am not in favour of massive population growth as I believe it will lead to a decline in the standard of living, but it will happen whatever my opinion of it.

Pollyana

I suggest you read the Canadian Immigration forum for a while. Their rules in many cases are more stringent than Australia's - when it comes to previous convictions for instance.

KJCherokee

Bangladesh has plenty of water (unless India restricts the flow in the Ganges) and supports a population density of 1,140/sq.km., but I wouldn't want to live like that.

Zen10

I agree, but Bangladesh isn't the future facing those who settle in the north of Australia. Bangladesh is a developing country with massive internal problems. Its GDP per capita is $1700 (I just checked - I swear I don't keep stuff like this in my head!!) and Australia's is $70,000 - greater than Canada's, the UK's or even America's. Australia can fund (and will fund) the settlement of the north at some point, and that settlement will be first-world tropical cities like Singapore.

Australia has grown at 1.7% pa on average since federation (that one in my head so it might be wrong). Even if it grows at 1.4% per year from now on, by 2120 its population will be 100 million.

Budawang

We have 2000 + arriving per month at the moment so it isnt insignificant.

Zen10

Australia refugees per 1000 population: 0.98
UK refugees per 1000 population: 3.84
Canada refugees per 1000 population: 4.87

The numbers arriving in Australia are absolutely insignificant relative to other places. The US, disgracefully, is 0.85, so Australia at least beats America.

commonwealth

Well the US population is very big already that's why you get that smaller ratio.

Zen10

The figures are per 1000 population.

commonwealth

yes exactly. the US is overcrowding thats why your denominator is big. hence smaller ratio.

Zen10

If there were three islands, one with 1000 Americans on it, one with 1000 Australians on it and one with 1000 Canadians on it, the Americans would take 0.85 refugees, the Australians would take 0.98 and the Canadians would take 4.87.

Therefore, the Canadians take more refugees onto their island, per Canadian, than do Americans or Australians. It's why they did the stat per capita and not per state.

paularn

I don't know if that saddens me or makes me ill.

I don't need to read the Canadian forum...I've lived in Canada my entire life, I see what's happening and they may be more stringent on some things, but obviously not enough. They are letting in way too many immigrants and need to shut the door! One in leads to the entire family to follow later. And when my child becomes a minority in her school in her own country....there is an issue that needs to be addressed!

Amazulu

So it's now a competition to see which country takes the most refugees, with the winner being the one that takes the most.

Wow.

Well done Canada - what a great prize to win.