Random AH Query: Maximum Australian Population by Modern Day?

Hello all! I had recently done some research into Australia's colonization period for s**ts and giggles, and noticed that even today the number of Aussies are rather anemic for the landmass they live in (and yes, I'm aware of the issues they face such as water supplies, arable land, hostile wildlife, etc.). That being said, is there any way for a unified, continent-spanning Australia to reach a population by modern day of, say, 50 million or more? Here are the scenarios for said discussion:

1) Same sources of immigration as OTL (i.e. "White Australia" policy), and same timeframe,
2) Less/no restrictions on the source of immigrants, but same timeframe as OTL, and
3) Similar restrictions on immigration sources, but done earlier than OTL (e.g. immigration picks up in the 17th. or 18th. Century, not 19th.).

I'm also curious whether tightening up levels of urbanization would be of use, or if it would be possible to have an equal-or-greater than OTL population with more rural habitations and settlements, ones that grow into towns and/or cities. Thoughts/comments/gripes?
 
Hello all! I had recently done some research into Australia's colonization period for s**ts and giggles, and noticed that even today the number of Aussies are rather anemic for the landmass they live in (and yes, I'm aware of the issues they face such as water supplies, arable land, hostile wildlife, etc.). That being said, is there any way for a unified, continent-spanning Australia to reach a population by modern day of, say, 50 million or more? Here are the scenarios for said discussion:

1) Same sources of immigration as OTL (i.e. "White Australia" policy), and same timeframe,
2) Less/no restrictions on the source of immigrants, but same timeframe as OTL, and
3) Similar restrictions on immigration sources, but done earlier than OTL (e.g. immigration picks up in the 17th. or 18th. Century, not 19th.).

I'm also curious whether tightening up levels of urbanization would be of use, or if it would be possible to have an equal-or-greater than OTL population with more rural habitations and settlements, ones that grow into towns and/or cities. Thoughts/comments/gripes?

I'd say probably about 50 million or so might be possible with relative OTL trends(including the gradual disbanding of the WA policy from the '60s until '73), especially with less restrictions on immigration......and maybe ~35 mil. without. :D
 
Yeah I remember reading a thread where the challenge was reaching a 100 million population, which IMO is not at all reasonable. However, half that would be doable if the eastern and southern coasts are more thoroughly settled (what with the north and interior being inhospitable to widespread urban habitation, at least until the development of air conditioning and/or tropical medicine). I think this might also be helped if the development of irrigation is somehow achieved, as well as de-desertification (not sure how/why this would go down, but the concept still stands in theory). Personally, I'm inclined to believe that getting earlier settlement would help, what with a "head-start" being achieved, but I'm also aware that the Americas are closer/easier to get to (perhaps a Treaty of Tordesillas sort of situation arises, especially if it can be enforced...but I'm getting ahead of myself there :p).
 

Pangur

Donor
The big issue to resolve if you want to bring the population over say 40 m is having enough water.
 
If the Australian ecosystem's survival is a lesser or nonexistent priority, there's always the Snowy Mountains Scheme, wherein the higher-level water sources in the Snowy Mountains are funneled into the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers for processing and distribution. Given the amount of deadly wildlife in Australia (myriad venomous snakes, killer crocodiles, dingoes, etc.), I wouldn't personally shed a tear over an approach like that.
 

Pangur

Donor
If the Australian ecosystem's survival is a lesser or nonexistent priority, there's always the Snowy Mountains Scheme, wherein the higher-level water sources in the Snowy Mountains are funneled into the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers for processing and distribution. Given the amount of deadly wildlife in Australia (myriad venomous snakes, killer crocodiles, dingoes, etc.), I wouldn't personally shed a tear over an approach like that.

There is that option - maybe (not sure how far it would get us) or we could bite the bullet and go for many and massive desalination plants powered by nuclear power
 
The fundamental problem of Australia's populaton is not carrying capacity or whatever but simply a lack of more people coming here. Australia was consistently out competed by the Americas for immigrants and furthermore started very late. Find ways to make Australia more attractive to immigrants and Australia will have more people. Carrying capacity would only become a major factor when you get into the realm of 80+ million people i.e. more people than we currently feed.
 
That's some good info, then (I wasn't really sure where the carrying capacity limit for Australia was, so I pretty much worked on the assumption that 50 million was that limit). And yeah, I know that the Americas (or even just South Africa) are closer, cheaper and easier to settle than Australia. Perhaps either the Brits get locked out of the Americas entirely*, or whatever colony of Britain's in North America is smaller and/or more hostile to immigrants (greater Nativist hostility in a smaller USA/Canada/both, for example). Simultaneous to that, maybe have it so that South Africa is never taken over by London (or just remains a way-station in the the Cape portion, if the discovery of gold inland is butterflied or at least delayed, so as to develop the Land Down Under as the big draw for miners, crop farmers and other job-seekers).

*Some might bring up a viewpoint that the settlement of the New World turned out the way it did due to factors like geography and current patterns, to which I say "humbug, that's deterministic thinking for this concept". 'Tis boring and unimaginative...I never stipulated any limits for how early or late this AHC could take place in :p.
 
In essence, I see several points why Australia didn't remotely get to the population figures it could actually sustain.

  • Late start of its settlement. Not only is Australia relatively remote, its most doable regions for human settlement other than hunter-gather societies are actually at its "backside" (east and south) if you take the Oz as a moon and the rest of the world (or Indonesia as the nearest "civilization") as its mother planet.
  • Lack of geo-engineering, terraforming, you name it. Australia is already doing quite a lot to harvest its natural water resources and channels them to conurbations that otherwise wouldn't get the rain. And it's so good at it that it affords to be inefficient by loosing water on the way due to e.g. suboptimally maintained pipes. We didn't even talk about displacing ice from Antarctica to Australia in order to create sustainable oases.
 
Top