Ageing threat?

“Shanghai urges ‘two-child policy’ ”, BBC News, 24/7. China has a growing ageing population, so some cities are wanting to increase the one-child policy to two children. Big mistake! China already has nearly 1.4 billion people; the last thing they need is to increase this.

Micky Bristow, BBC News Chinese and foreign experts have been saying for some time that China needs to change its strict family planning rules. If the country continues as it is, the proportion of elderly people in society will continue to increase. This is a problem because it will leave a smaller group of workers paying for the country’s retired population.

All these extra young people will one day be old, so, using this logic, even more younger people will be needed to support them…and this keeps growing exponentially until the population reaches some absurdly high and unsustainable number. Ageing is a fact of life that countries just have to deal with; once that particular generation of older people have passed on, the population declines.

Coincidentally, there was an opinion piece in The Age, 25/7, on the issue of an ageing population, and how it is not necessarily a bad thing: “We should celebrate enhanced longevity” (originally from The Guardian).

My published letter – 22/7

“The grass isn’t always green in Melbourne’s exclusive suburbs”, Herald-Sun, 21/7. This article about the cosmetic use of synthetic grass annoyed me enough to send off a letter, which got published (in an edited form):

The vanity of some residents is unbelievable. Synthetic grass smothers the soil under it, as well as reflecting heat in summer, and ultimately ends up in landfill. It does nothing to help the environment and this cosmetic use for it should be banned.

Original draft:

The vanity of some residents is unbelievable. Synthetic grass smothers the soil under it, as well as reflecting heat in summer (real grass absorbs heat and is cooler), and will ultimately end up in landfill. It does nothing to help the environment and this cosmetic use for it should be banned by councils.

“Our exploding population is the gravest threat Britain faces today”, Daily Mail, 16/7. Michael Hanlon bluntly states the dismal truth which many don’t want to acknowledge: the U.K. is seriously overcrowded, and this is only getting worse.

“Record number of arrivals swells population”, SMH, 19/7. Features alarming statistics showing Australia’s immigration and birth rates are the highest since the 1950s. There are two voices of reason in the end paragraphs:

But not all are convinced population growth is good for the country. Scientist Tim Flannery, who was the Australian of the Year in 2007, has questioned whether Australia’s natural resources can support even the existing population in the longer term. Mark O’Connor, the author of the 2009 book Overloading Australia said: “From any scientific point of view it’s straightforward: it’s crazy to be growing our population. We need to cut carbon emissions and secure food and water supplies.”

A letter, 20/7, answering the one quoted in my 18/7/2009 entry:

Roots of violence go beyond suburbia

Graham Wines from leafy Glen Iris (Letters, 18/7) thinks that we should all live in densely populated centres such as Hong Kong, Paris and Tokyo. I can assure him that, although they were interesting places to visit, after the novelty wore off I found them to be stiflingly claustrophobic. I have come to the conclusion that living in a pleasant suburb such as Glen Iris is probably the best compromise.

The large cities referred to by Mr Wines, in particular Hong Kong and Tokyo, are indeed safe but have completely different cultures to Melbourne’s.

As for Paris, I did not feel safe there. What about other densely populated cities, such as Rio de Janeiro or London? I would suggest that, due to their high population densities, they are more dangerous than sprawling Melbourne, not less.

There is violence in the home, in schoolyards, on sports fields, and on the roads. Violence is ingrained into the social fabric. Poor education, alcohol abuse and poverty are catalysts for brutal urges and their destructive consequences. No politician has the courage or ability to tackle these issues in a meaningful way.

Denying us the Australian dream is hardly the answer.

– Andrew Gardner, Melbourne

As I repeat endlessly, the only sustainable solution to the social and environmental ills caused by overcrowding is to reduce population growth!

“Indian student industry a study in shams and scams”, The Australian, 14/7. Another report on the corrupt education industry here. India’s basic problem is, of course, its huge population (2008 estimate: 1 147 995 904) – to quote one commentator:

I think the root cause of the problem is poor average students in India who have no hope of prosperity in Indian due to intense competition back home are inevitably falling pray to expectation of better quality of life in Australia.

Too many of us, says Apollo astronaut

The Apollo 11 moon landing 40th anniversary is currently underway. An entry at Cosmic Log, “Apollo 11: Where are they now?”, has this interview excerpt with Michael Collins (who remained in lunar orbit):

As seen from the moon, Earth looked fragile 40 years ago and probably would look even more fragile today, Collins said:

…When we flew to the moon, our population was 3 billion; today it has more than doubled and is headed for 8 billion, the experts say. I do not think this growth is sustainable or healthy. The loss of habitat, the trashing of oceans, the accumulation of waste products – this is no way to treat a planet.

Nice to see at least one astronaut has environmental sensibility!

A letter from The Age, 18/7, argues that high-density living decreases the risk of street violence because there are more people around:

The very high price of urban sprawl

Yesterday’s Age had two articles on the front page. One showed a perplexed Premier struggling to comprehend the spiralling street violence. The other told us what we have known forever: urban sprawl is costly and fraught with social problems.

The answer to the first article lies in the second. Higher-density cities are more able to manage day-to-day street violence than cities with satellite suburbs sprawling across the urban edges.

When density rises there is a blending of economic, social and cultural traits. Conversely, these traits are prised apart when new, isolated suburbs are constructed far away from the central activity areas where cultures and belief systems become secondary to personality.

There is often a cultural bias in these new suburbs and, in isolation, there is a far greater likelihood that violence will be used as a means of expression. For some, it replaces social, academic and economic deficiencies. Tolerance is more likely when cultural interaction is part of everyday life. Higher densities aid that interaction.

High-density cities are easier to police; to transport the population and to manage economically. Hong Kong has a density of 6400 persons per square kilometre, Paris 21,000, and Tokyo 33,650 – cities that people love visiting and living in.

Melbourne, by contrast, has a population density of about 1600 people per square kilometre and dropping. The contrast is significant.When Melburnians venture out, they are generally alone, especially at night. If our perplexed Premier wants to solve our urban crime problem, he will first need to resolve the issue of urban sprawl and low-density living.

– Graham Wines, Glen Iris

In my observation, crowding thousands of people together leads to more stress and thus violence, as humans are not evolutionarily adapted to live this way. This was the opinion given in the article “London’s a rat hole” (21/1/2009 entry). High-density cities also drain the landscape around them of resources.

Annoying stories

I was browsing through the Young Adult section in Borders bookstore today, and came across a series by a Gemma Malley that aroused my ire. Beginning with The Declaration and continuing with The Resistance, they are set in a dystopian future, a drug to prolong life has been discovered, and naturally is used by a lot of people. With an increasing population, though, this puts a great burden on society, so the solution is to ban those who take the drug from having children, with harsh penalties for those who disobey this. Fair enough, but from my brief skimming through the novel, the plot takes the irritatingly predictable theme of Resisting Authority, a trope that infects a lot of YA and adult novels.

In the year 2140, it is illegal to be young. Children are all but extinct. The world is a better place. Longevity drugs are a fountain of youth. Sign the Declaration, agree not to have children and you too can live forever. Refuse, and you will live as an outcast. For the children born outside the law, it only gets worse – Surplus status. Not everyone thinks Longevity is a good thing, but you better be clear what side you’re on… Surplus Anna is about to find out what happens when you can’t decide if you should cheat the law or cheat death.

Anna does not have a last name. She has no right to one. She is Surplus – an unwanted burden on fragile Mother Nature; a child born after the Declaration which outlawed all children to control the rising human population. The most she can hope for in life is to Know Her Place and be a Valuable Asset to Legal humans, who stave off mortality with daily doses of Longevity drugs. At age fourteen, she has learned to accept her bleak fate – but then Surplus Peter arrives at Grange Hall, and turns her world upside down. Peter refuses to accept that he is Surplus. He insists that Anna has a family – and he plans to escape from Grange Hall to reunite her with them.

The first novel has a website; from the Inspiration page:

I decided to put the questions to some friends. Would they, if given the chance to extend their lifespan considerably, give up the right to have children? The result was fascinating. Initially, all of them dismissed the idea out of hand; then, gradually, they started to consider it, to consider the temptation of a long, long life. After this consideration, about fifty percent still rejected the idea outright – some because the idea of living forever was abhorrent (“what would you do with yourself?”), some because the idea of not having children was too terrible. The others, to varying degrees, saw the temptation. Men were slightly more likely than women to agree; single men and women were more likely to agree than their married counterparts. Some older couples with grown up children thought long and hard and said that whilst they adored their children and wouldn’t be without them, they might perhaps have done things differently if given the chance again. Recently married couples were those most likely to be aghast at the idea; those who considered their chances of conceiving to be low (those who were resolutely single and those who had been (unsuccessfully) through the torturous route of infertility treatment) wanted details – how healthy would their extended life be; how would they feel physically and mentally a hundred years from now – but were generally open to the idea.

I realised I had the makings of a potentially terrifying new world, and one that many would recognise as only too credible. But I needed a protagonist, someone to lead us into this world, to expose its inner workings, its temptations, its horrific dark side. Everything comes with a cost; Longevity’s “cost” would be the end of new human life, the end of new thought, new energy; the end of youth with its naïve ambition, its determination, its belief in itself. And yet, I realised, as I mulled my new, inner world over in my head, there would, no doubt, be people who broke the rules, who ignored the Declaration. There would be mistakes; there would be rebels. In short, there would be children. Children that no one (except their parents) wanted; children who were considered a threat, a burden, a problem. Children who were Surplus.

There’s always an irrational few who spoil things for everyone else! There seems to be a vague preaching against population control, but I can’t verify this without reading the novels. I am certainly not buying them, but I may borrow them at my local library (if I can force myself to read them).

I can’t see much wrong with this; I don’t find such a world “terrifying”! I would certainly choose longevity over having children (I have done little in my life so far, and would like to have more time than the normal lifespan!). If society is to be sustainable into the future, some form of population growth control is a necessity, whether citizens like it or not.

“Mumbai faces acute water shortage”, BBC News 7/7. A city of 20 million with a water shortage – a nightmarish scenario, and a justification for population control. What happens if all water dries up?

“Sink immigrants’ boats – Griffin”, BBC News, 10/7. A member of the far-Right BNP made a statement that illegal immigrants’ boats should be sunk on sight, and to “Throw [the occupants] a life raft and they can go back to Libya”. I suspect this comes out of increasing exasperation at the never-ending flow of illegals, and many might agree with him (though not admit it). The U.K. is seriously overcrowded, and stress due to this will result in many adopting harsher attitudes towards immigrants, despite this not being politically-correct. Australia has the same problem of illegals coming in from the north (though not in the numbers that Europe gets). The brutal truth is that a country can’t take in everyone who wants to go there – it has limited space and resources, and should put its own citizens’ interests first. There should also be a U.N. taskforce to intervene in dysfunctional countries and take over their governments forcibly if need be, so the citizens of those countries won’t feel such a need to leave.

“Australia’s overseas education ‘a scam’ ”, AAP, 14/7. Not surprisingly, the growing international student market is also become an immigration racket. There are 500 000 students in Australia – using up resources. In my view the program should be ended – surely the education system in their home countries is not that bad?

Dwindling supplies

An alarming article about our water supplies from The Age, 1/7:

Drought runs into 13th year

Melbourne has endured its driest first half year on record, with less than 50 per cent of the long-term average falling up until late yesterday afternoon.

The year’s rainfall up until 9am yesterday was 126.2 millimetres, 8 millimetres below the previous half-year record low of 134.5 millimetres set in 1967. The rain that fell later yesterday was not included in the half-year total, as the bureau applies a 9 a.m. cut-off time on the last day of the month when recording rainfall.

The bureau’s Victorian climate services manager, Harvey Stern, said Melbourne had not recorded above-average annual rainfall since 1996. “It is going to take many years of good rainfall to remove these deficiencies,” Dr Stern said.

Melbourne Water said the city’s dams had received about half the average inflow since the start of the year, with the reconnection of the Tarago reservoir last week providing the only real boost to water supplies this year.

I believe this “drought” is more climate change, and permanent – with dire implications for a city with an unsustainably-growing population. Reservoir storage reserves are at 26.5%, the lowest they have ever been.

“Melbourne suburbs are the best and the future’s in the west”, Herald-Sun, 7/7. A baffling opinion piece from Bernard Salt, who seems to think that Melbourne should keep expanding indefinitely and that population growth is a good thing.

Population growth supports job growth and business opportunity. Melbourne is growing at a record rate of 74,000 residents every year. Every 10,000 new residents expand the retail spending pie by $9 million and create demand for about 4000 new households. More jobs and rising business confidence are good for the future prosperity of this city and its residents.

Such growth puts pressure on resources, transport and utilities, and makes life increasingly stressful for residents. It can’t continue indefinitely.

Melbourne, and indeed Australia, must expand its population for two fundamental reasons. Developed nations have a humanitarian responsibility to accommodate a greater share of the world’s rising population. And with the imminent retirement of the baby-boomer generation (who first reach pensionable age in July 2011) we need to shore up the tax base by drawing young, fit, skilled migrants who can go straight into the workforce. Someone else has paid for these migrants’ education, health and defence: they arrive here, go to work and export tax to the rest of us. This is how we will fund the retirement of the baby-boomer generation.

We have no such responsibility – if other countries can’t or won’t contain their expanding populations, why should we have to cope with the fallout? The young migrants will eventually age and add to the strain on resources. And the baby-boomers will just have to look after themselves (or be euthanized!) – they have messed up the world for my generation and those following.

I sent in a rather snippy letter, don’t know if it will be published:

No, Bernard Salt, there are no positives in Melbourne’s population growth, just increasing strain on resources and utilities, as well as stress for residents. Australia has no responsibility to other countries who can’t or won’t contain their expanding populations – why should we have to cope with the fallout? And the baby-boomers will just have to look after themselves – they have messed up the world for my generation (Gen-X) and those following.

“Keep baby hope alive with IVF”, Herald-Sun, 7/7. Another entitlement whinge about how IVF is a “right” and should continue to be government-funded.

Surely having a baby is a basic right worth fighting for? Why, then, would we ever think of restricting access to IVF just to those who can afford it?

[…]

And so we must fight for the right of 11,000 babies to be born every year to parents who desperately want to have kids, but can’t for medical reasons.

Reproduction is not a “right”, and IVF certainly isn’t! People who can’t have children can find other means of fulfilment, and infertility is not in the same category as a life-threatening or disabling illness. IVF should not be taxpayer-funded! The world is overpopulated as it is.

A collection of letters from The Age, which often express opinions on various issues better than I can:

6/6:

A lottery no one wants to win

Mark Davis (Comment, 4/7) argues that Australia should triple its intake of refugees. Presumably, so should every other developed country. Irrespective of whether resettlement is doubled or quadrupled, the few who win the resettlement lottery hardly make a dent in the overall numbers of at least 35 million displaced persons/refugees in the world, with the numbers increasing.

Uprooting these people from their own culture and resettling them into an alien one is not the answer. In desperation they cling to their own communities and form a culture within a culture, which makes neither them nor the host country happy.

The problem requires an in-situ solution. Almost all conflict arises from an excess demand for the planet’s scarce resources – in other words: too many people crowding each other out on a planet that is fixed in size.

Time is overdue for global leaders to recognise this population explosion issue, take it seriously and afford it highest priority. The Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would be a good starting point.

– Margit Alm, Eltham

30/6:

Wild about the west

I support Justin Madden in shifting the growth boundary in the west. I, like a lot of other people, do not want to be forced into living in overpriced, small high-rise living, where you can hear and smell what your neighbours are cooking.

The do-gooders, who usually live in the east, are trying to force their ideals on the working class; these snobs do not even know how to get to the west.

The land in the west is infertile and useless for farming. The so-called native grasslands are scattered and you cannot tell the difference between native grass and weeds. Native grasses will be catered for in the proposed growth extension in a more controlled way.

Some also want to stop population growth. Next they’ll want to limit families to one child. What comes first, the greenies’ ideals, or affordable land for hard-working families who want to build affordable housing on their own little block? The west is a great place to live; bring it on, Mr Madden.

– Lance Hughes, Melton

[Totally clueless. The “do-gooders” want to preserve liveability and open space – and stopping population growth is the only way to ensure Melbourne has a sustainable future, and that people don’t have to live crammed together in high-density apartments.]

Only way is up

Let me get this straight. High population growth encouraged by the Government is causing high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, price rises for water and power as we run low on supplies, rate rises up to three times the inflation rate to pay for new infrastructure, loss of productive farm land due to urban expansion, and loss of open space and tree cover in or near urban areas as they are infilled. Could someone remind me again how this is benefiting us?

– Jennie Epstein, Little River

1/7:

Disaster in waiting

Reports that 10,000 people are in Malaysia and planning to “migrate” to Australia using people smugglers are a cause for concern. The debate about whether the Government’s softened stance is causing this problem is irrelevant. The reality is that it is happening.

Refugee advocates who would throw open the doors to all comers need to recognise that even more will follow by example, regardless of whether these potential immigrants are “refugees” or not.

The world recession and continuing political unrest will further exacerbate the situation to the point of impossibility.

Like Grocery Watch and FuelWatch, the Rudd Government will soon have to abandon another election undertaking and further tighten immigration controls to avoid this potential catastrophe.

– Greg Angelo, Balwyn North

2/7 – a sarcastic letter about rising house prices, which are almost always reported positively, but in reality these only benefit greedy investors, developers and speculators:

Great, let’s party

Attention students, pensioners, the unemployed and low-income workers. It is time to celebrate the “housing recovery” (The Age, 1/7). Rental “yields” will continue to “climb”, the “damage” of cheaper housing is undone, and Melbourne prices have “soared” the fastest, “eclipsing” everywhere else in the country to reach “record highs”.

– Scott Fisher, Kiama, NSW

4/7:

Ask tough questions

Will extending Melbourne’s population solve the water shortage imposed by climate change? Will extending housing onto dwindling arable land feed those who live there?

Will exploding global population create the resources to support it? Won’t Government funding for first home buyers merely force up house prices?

Isn’t it time our politicians, and those who vote for them, think about the real questions we must confront? Answers are easy; it’s the questions we don’t ask that matter.

– Eric Mack, Eltham

A site called Hard SF has an opinion page, Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation? I have griped before (12/5/2009 entry) about Conservative/Libertarian “Space Cadets” who think humanity can solve all its problems by expanding into space and continuing as before with its destructive and wasteful behavior, as there are supposedly unlimited resources in the solar system and beyond. The article makes clear the absurdity of transporting large numbers of people off-world.

Suppose, in order to accomplish all of these necessary projects it took 75 years rather than 50. At a 1% population growth rate, the Earth’s population in 2083 would be 13.8 billion with 138 million more each year. Suppose, all of this took 100 years. At a 1% rate, by 2108, the population would be 17.7 billion. It would be necessary to take 177 million people off-planet every year just to maintain Earth at 17.7 billion. If we consider 17.7 billion too many and want to reduce Earth’s population, it would be necessary to transport even more millions to other habitats.

I do not believe our current population growth will permit us enough time for this to be a practical solution. It seems that by the time we may be able to accomplish the technological marvels that would be required, the Earth’s population would already be at too great a state of crisis. Other means are needed that can help us avoid such a huge population which can be implemented in a shorter period of time.