Its the Wrong Question

Recently the Financial Review ran a piece (link here) about the Australian population, I found it very narrow in historical scope and perhaps intending to further a government policy with no discussion about the usefulness of that policy with respect to the interests of Australian People and effects on our way of life. 

Much is said there that attempts to persuade you that the water temperature here in "Pot Australia" is not too hot by comparing it only with how hot it was last year and its only a bit over a 1% increase. Right, a good example for me to start with in this analysis of their views is here:

and here

Oh, its only a 1.57% increase, nothing can be wong. Words surrounding this are difficult to make sense of:

Rizvi says Australia coped with even higher rates of migration in the past when productivity and building activity were higher, such as in the 1950s.

and this timeless quote:

This is hardly surprising when two parties have diametrically opposed views and neither is willing to budge. The problem is that one of the parties is supposed to be representing the views and desires of the other.

The Government is supposed to be representing us, not being a Crown that Rules us.

Ok, so lets look at that. Some problems with using the above views (which seem to be "we're doing ok") are:

• back then the population was about 9million (closer to a third than half of our present population)
• productivity meant making things (like houses, cars, appliances, food ...) not "service sector" (where nothing is made: see bullshit jobs)
• many more people had active hands in building their homes
• we weren't "consumers" back then and our demand for imported goods was much less

Accumulation: Another angle

The following graph is a bit compicated because the population and growth rate of Brisbane is different to Sydney and Melbourne; so I've put Brisbane on the right hand side (RHS) Y (vertical) axis. The X axis is year.

The next important thing to observe is that I got that Data from ABS (cat. no. 3105.0.65.001 Australian Historical Population Statistics) which has only got data to 2005, and I wanted to show how its changed since then. I made it simple by just making it a single datapoint and therefore a straight line to the final data point. This makes the more recent acceleration in population growth look milder, but it'll suffice for now.

Looking at how long it takes a population to double is easy and we can see that from the middle of 1960 to the middle of 1990 Brisbanes population doubled, meanwhile it took Sydney a lot longer to double (about 2016) and Melbournes doubling a bit less (2012). Brisbane however doubled again since then just about now. *(Note: I picked mid 1960's because thats when I was born and therefore I can discuss this from a position of direct experience).

So is it any wonder that Brisbane has a housing crisis when between 1965 and now its population has doubled twice?

I personally grew up in (what was) a small town to the south where population has grown  faster than Brisbane. The Gold Coast had a population of about 65,000 to now a population of nearly 700,000 but as its a tourist destination that swells to 800,000.

Lets be clear 65,000 doubles to 130,000 then 260,000 then 520,000 and then 1,040,000. So nearly doubling in population 4 times.

Supply and demand will make it clear why housing prices have gone the same way (up).

In the face of this simple act, and the observation that many are homeless and living in tents or in cars. I asked an AI (Claude) for a summary of the position and got this:

... I can provide you with some important context about homelessness in Queensland and the Gold Coast region:

Broader Queensland Context

In Queensland overall, between 2023 and 2024, approximately 48,800 people reached out for help through government-funded homelessness support services—the third-largest number in Australia after Victoria and New South Wales.

Gold Coast Situation

While specific Gold Coast figures aren't available, recent reports indicate the region faces a critical housing crisis that's directly driving homelessness:

• Rental costs are surging: Gold Coast apartment rents have climbed 8-9% annually over the past three years, far outpacing wage growth.
• Extremely low vacancy rates: Rental vacancy rates on the Gold Coast are only 1.1-1.3%, well below the 3% threshold considered healthy for rental markets.
• Council enforcement: Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Moreton Bay councils have been taking an increasingly hardline approach against rough sleepers by threatening fines, evictions, or bulldozing homeless camps.

The lack of precise local figures suggests that homelessness on the Gold Coast may be under-recorded, particularly among those sleeping rough or in informal camps. For the most current and specific data about declared homelessness on the Gold Coast, I'd recommend contacting the Gold Coast City Council or local homelessness support organizations directly.

Since then each successive wave of Governemt has behaved like a machine with bad programming: its interested in itself, it (and its actors) has no accountability, it can not be punished, the public has no capacity to change it.

So basically this question starts with population and expansion; from here we need to ask why and ask  and when is enough.

The last time I wrote on this subject was back in 2009 here as well as over here on another blog in 2011 where I talked about the Australian Labor policy of "Populate or Perish", In those I examined issues like why its been bad for the environment, our lifestyle and people in Australia understanding Australia.

When is enough enough?

The problem as I see it is that there is no connection between the Government and the People.

The Government is an entity that wants things; it is a rules based system that attracts humans to act in roles (by paying them) and has almost no ability to sense anything other than money (although some of the actors it hires do sense and are driven by power, prestige and other personal needs fed by those previoud two. I've covered before how the Government is a Machine (here and here) and is actually rather poor at being a Nanny.

We know that there are environmental sustainability limits but actively choose to not be guided by this (lets say, water) and The Actors in Government seem to steer The Machines code to persue what can only be described as "growth for infinity" with no plan to consolidate.

We have systematically eroded every aspect of our self sufficiency as a nation for we depend upon now on Energy from overseas, Goods from overseas and indeed Food from overseas. Since I started with Energy, lets have a quick look at one aspect of critical energy: liquid fuels. Despite what the Green Magic Faries will tell you (and what everyone right now in Australia must be keenly aware of), we need fuel to run our machines. So how has the Government "bolstered our Energy Security"?

Australia's Fuel Refining Capacity Decline: Key Dates Since 1980

Year/Date	Refinery	Location	Capacity	Event
1984	Westernport	Victoria	34,000 b/d	Closed
1985	Matraville	New South Wales	45,000 b/d	Closed
2003	Port Stanvac	South Australia	100,000 b/d	Mothballed (demolished 2012)
July 2011	Shell Clyde	New South Wales	100,000 b/d	Closure announced
30 September 2012	Shell Clyde	New South Wales	100,000 b/d	Refining ceased; converted to import terminal
July 2012	Caltex Kurnell	New South Wales	135,000 b/d	Closure announced
December 2009	Caltex Kurnell (lube oil)	New South Wales	3,300 b/d	Lubricating oil refinery closure announced
December 2011	Caltex Kurnell (lube oil)	New South Wales	3,300 b/d	Lubricating oil refinery closed (last in Australia)
2014	Caltex Kurnell	New South Wales	135,000 b/d	Refining ceased; converted to import terminal
2015	BP Bulwer Island	Queensland	102,000 b/d	Converted to import terminal
October 2020	BP Kwinana	Western Australia	146,000 b/d	Closure announced
End March 2021	BP Kwinana	Western Australia	146,000 b/d	Refining ceased; converted to import terminal
February 2021	ExxonMobil Altona	Victoria	90,000 b/d	Closure announced; conversion to import terminal

So none of that looks good, does it, even if we were still producing oil for ourselves, we can't refine it. When we look at agriculture it looks bad, worse when you add in how much prime agricultural land is lost to urban sprawl (and then factor in how much that impacts our energy requirements.

I haven't even touched on the complete failure of transport infrastructure in cities that are under the largest population increase pressures.

Biology

So I suggested at the start we are asking the wrong questions; the correct question should have been something more like "how can we provide a good society for Australians; foster our own resilience and remain self sufficient within the bounds of our environment".

If we aren't asking that then there will be a correction ... I'm willing to bet that nobody has thought what happens when / if globalisation fails.

So, we need to be asking the right questions ... or we'll perish because of our population.

The Flying Flea (and what Journalists get wrong)

Long term readers of my blog will know I've had a lengthy interest in two wheeled machines and even 2 wheeled EV type machines. So it should come as no surprise that I'm quite interested in the Flying Flea by Royal Enfield.

I don't want to get into the comparison with the original (read a bit about that here).

but you'll also know (dear reader) that I have an interest in motorcycles, including classice old style ones like my SR500

... which is of course an internal combustion engine type not an EV.

Also I've written more than a few articles where I dive into the energy consumption per distance travelled and found interestnig things with ranges in various conditions from

• 2.8kWh per 100km (see test)
• 1.2kWh/100km (see test)
• and 2.8kWh/100km (see test)

so you can see that a stand up scooter with little wheels the idea of getting 2kWh/100 is not absurd, so when these articles seem skeptical about the Fleas claims; for instance NewAtlas writes

Which given the 3.9kWh battery  suggests that over the100km range is entirely possible >> if you consider the reality of city driving in India << and drive according to the commuting reality there ...

where you won't be doing 60kmh that much.

Personally I'm keen to see one, but the reality of my location and the pernicious Queensland registration costs are that I'm unlikely to buy one because I can't really use it much here. If I lived in a more sizable town (like Warwick, or back where I came from on The Gold Coast) it would be perfect, but here in my town I prefer my electric scooter or my bicycle.

A pity really; but who knows I might try to justify it.

INR testing - getting enough blood

Getting enough blood is somethhing that confounds beginners and experienced INR self testers alike; and while the manual shows a few things like this:

This is an important topic because if you don't get enough blood the machine will give an error and you've just wasted a strip. This can be more than a nusiance if

• you are on a low income (and $6 makes a difference in your part of the world)
• you were on your last strip and are waiting for the next delivery (never wait till you run out my freend, that's what preparation is all about)

I've noticed that people still seem to struggle. To help address this, I've done a previous video on the topic of "getting enough blood" over on this post. There you'll find this video:

This video is pretty quick and was intended to show some of the basic techniques (and inadvertently nicely show a source of mild panic as I forgot to cock the lance).

Later in discussion with someone I was assisting I did this more extensive video:

which goes into a lot more depth. 

That was about six months back and so I thought that (since I recently referred someone else to it yesterday) I thought I'd add it to my INR series here on my blog.

Remember; its important to use the right lance too.

The problem with AI as we get it

I think the best way to understand AI is that it wasn't created for absolute honesty nor the premise of accuracy.

If I may quote TARS from Interstellar : Absolute honesty isn't always the most diplomatic nor the safest form of communication with emotional beings.

Also most people don't ask questions seeking honesty (looks over at the Eww Ass Ay and the stark and widening gulf between Democrat and Republican), they're seeking validation. However for the sake of argument lets pretend someone is asking a technical question (from a positoin of ignorance) and is seeking the truth. My experience is that you'll get that 90% honesty that TARS cited.

So I asked a very specific question about EV charging (a subject I happen to know a bit about)

Claude went on to say how it doesn't cause any harm ... however I know differently (from decades of working with batteries), and I knew this was partially wrong

you see it only works in the case where you have not avoided the most critcal balance window listed in point 1. above.

If you go on charging at 80% (which all the EV makers seem to suggest in their advertising you should do) you'll hit problems.

So after I was assured by Claude that it was all OK, I pushed back with the quesion below. The answer is worth understanding and is why Claude should have said "it can't prevent balancing issues" when it first answered my question.

But it didn't and if I didn't know enough to push back it would have misled me. Aside from the "acceptance rate cliff" he mentions there's also the very likely outcome of "inaccurate range estimation because that only comes to light as you discharge (on the highway or taking off from the lights) and one "cell" in the pack buckles down more and you go from having enough range to "we need to charge".

As to how we'll get around this constraint I'm not sure, because all models seem to focus on making you happy (not informing you).