Maximum Australian Population

I looked at a physical map, and in southeast Australia, it looks like there are some rivers. Just use those for increased irrigation and I bet you could sustain a lot of people there, potentially, as long as the focus remains centered on subsistence.

The question is why people would move there just to grow food.
I would be extremely surprised if said rivers aren't already used for irrigation. And then there's the problem of overuse, leading to a river that is only a small creek by the time it reaches the ocean. (currently a problem for the Yellow River)
 
I looked at a physical map, and in southeast Australia, it looks like there are some rivers. Just use those for increased irrigation and I bet you could sustain a lot of people there, potentially, as long as the focus remains centered on subsistence.

The question is why people would move there just to grow food.

I think that what you are referring to is the Murry-Darling river basin. The land around those rivers is intensively farmed, so intensively in fact that water no longer flows out of the river mouth, so much is taken out for irrigation and what little is left goes to Adelaide. The reason that their isn't a large amount of population is that much of the farms are highly mechanized s they don't need a lot of workers and the farming land was settled later then the American mid-west so instead of having a network of towns established that could grow into cities the produce was transported to major cities on the coast. Furthermore a lot of highly water intensive crops, like rice and cotton, are grown there.
 
Aussie is frankly blessed - we have just so many options. Energy generation? what do you want/ Nuclear. ok that's an option, solar - that has got to be viable. Where it all goes wrong is the lack of a long term plan that all parties sign up for. We can not survive with the childish not my plan - I am going to kick your sand castle over mind set. Add to that is that total rubbish of it must make a profit in 3/5 years. We are in the nation building phase, adapting the mind set of Europe or the US is silly. For god sakes lets build our country - it's work in progress

What Horne said in 1964 is as true now as it was then: "Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck."
 
Maybe this is the rub. What could get them to plant more water-friendly crops?
Simple, Economics. If either, a., water was more expensive, b., the prices for cotton and rice were lower or c., the prices for other crops like corn and wheat were higher then our use of water in agriculture would be a lot more efficient, in terms of liters of water per ton of food. The easiest way to do that would be for the government to introduce some sort of allocation scheme. However I can remember doing a project on the proposed scheme in my first year of high school, I'm currently in my last year at collage and the state governments, Commonwealth government, farmers and environmentalists still haven't managed to come to an agreement.

This last fact annoys me :mad:.
 
the produce was transported to major cities on the coast.


Wool came first and was initially transported by paddle wheeler down river to the Murray Mouth and transhipped to ocean going vessels. This caused considerable heartburn in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide and a study of rail development in each of the colonies shows what happened next.

The wheat came a little later.
 
The Murray Darling basin is heavily irrigated, as much as these things are in the world's driest continent, but this has caused major problems with salinity which drastically reduces what can be done. The Murray discharges 767m3/s compared to the Missisipi's 16,200m3/s, so it's a mere trickle by world standards and not capable of giving much more.

There are harebrained ideas to divert water inland, but I'm highly mistrustful since they tend to have severe unforseen negative consequences.
 
Top