Its the Wrong Question

Recently the Australiann 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. 

Their question seems to be "why do we (the public) think there is too much growth". This is to me the wrong question, the question we really need to ask is "why are they doing it to us".  

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! Well a good example for me to start with in this analysis of their views is here:

Which while offering "trend lines" from the "historical; 1950's 1960's ... up to 2010, only gives us data starting at 2018. WTF? In my view Australia was already cooked in 2010.

Next lets they to other countries growth rates over a short period withot context (as if to demonstrate that its all ok 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.

Perhaps we did ... but what was:

1. the actual population back then
2. what happened back then

Its childishly simplistic dismissal. That leads us to 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 article does not ask why its toxic. I put forward that its toxic because we on the ground know the squeeze is on and feel it, and know they're wrong. They on the other hand are in their ivory towers and just trying to squeeze more out of this situation.

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

This is the actual nub of the problem and to me the actual issue here is that "The Crown" have been seeking more and more tax money over the last century and the best way to do that is get more and more people here as well as increase the taxes. A good word here is profligate:

 

So that's to me the core of the problem and the AFR article (if not the whole organisation) are just being the Handmaiden of the Crown here and attempting to pretend its all ok.

With that clarified, lets dive into the historical details. Some problems with using the above (AFR) views (which seem to be "we're doing ok") are:

• back then the population was about 9million (yes, closer to a third than half of our present population)
• productivity meant making things (like houses, cars, appliances, infrastructure food ...) not  just a"service sector" (where nothing is made: see bullshit jobs)
• many more people had active hands in building their homes (like my parents, my neighbors)
• we weren't "consumers" back then and our demand for imported goods was much less as we made our stuff last and we made do with less (lets not start on how we're producing so much garbage in this article)

So they attempt to pretend there isn't a problem by simply comparing what we've absorbed in the past while ignoring the problems which its continuation has created right now.

Myself I think the right question is "how much can we take in total, and what's needed to ensure we can be sustainable going into the future". (hint, we reached that in the 1980's or maybe 90's)

Accumulation: and compounding. 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 some time back which therefore has only got data to 2005 *(cat. no. 3105.0.65.001 Australian Historical Population Statistics). Back then I wanted to show how its changed since over time. I refreshed it  by just adding to it a single data-point. So we therefore see a straight line from 2025 to the final data point. This makes the more recent acceleration in population growth look milder, but it'll suffice for now.

How many have we accumulated (by growth and by migration)?  

Numbers are a bit easy to closs over on, so another way is by looking at this is to see how long it takes a population to double. We can see that from the middle of 1960 to the middle of 1990 Brisbanes population doubled in about 30 years, 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 now, when between 1965 and now its population has doubled twice?

An anecdote: I personally grew up in (what was) a small town, to the south of Brisbane, where population has grown even faster than Brisbane. The Gold Coast. When I was born it had a population of about 65,000 to now a population of nearly 700,000. Yes that's more than ten times, but as its a tourist destination that swells to well over 800,000 during various times.

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

This sort of growth is unprecedented in Europe and places enormous strain on a city. Supply and demand will make it clear why housing prices have gone the same way (up) and we haven't even started to count the costs on infrastructure (or asked who's paying for that and how).

In the face of this is the simple fact (commonly observed that many are homeless and living in tents or in cars. This just wasn't the case when I was at school there.

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.

Surely by now we can see that the AFR article is plain wrong about growth, and hiding the actual causes. 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 (because both parties have become similar problem type entities).

So basically this question started with the problems of population and expansion; now we need to ask both why 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 cause of the problem, as I see it, is that there is no connection between the wants of Government and the will and wants of The People.

The Government is an entity that wants things; mostly to get bigger and have more income. While it is a rules based system that attracts humans to act in roles (by paying them) it has 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 previous two). I've covered before how the Government is a Machine (here and here) and is actually rather poor at being a Nanny. What people want is a bit similar but not the same. People want to be comfortable, to be fulfilled, to better themselves, to raise a family and contribute to a society. 

We (as humans) 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 or understanding of what happens when it breaks.

Remove anything that causes spending and replace it with what provides a source of revenue

We see that the government has systematically eroded every aspect of our self sufficiency as a nation. For example we have gone from being energy independent to now depend upon on Energy from overseas sources (as well as Manufactured 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 the AFR 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. Our Government proffers the lip service of Sustainable Development but does nothing of the kind. We need to actually look at how to make our Nation Sustainable.

We aren't.

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).