Stop breeding!

“Dick Smith says Australia should cut population by slashing immigration and encouraging women to have only two babies”, H-S, 26/1. A businessman who is against population growth is a rarity! The well-known entrepreneur has incited controversy by his comments, but discouraging large families should be a key population policy. While banning is probably a bit strong (and would probably evoke resentment), more passive measures could be used: no government benefits after a woman’s second child (and, more drastically, no access to government services for child #3 onwards), no baby bonus after two children, making large families socially unacceptable, and so on. Those who chose to have three or more children would have to financially support those extra ones themselves.

We live in a first world country where virtually all children are guaranteed to survive to adulthood, so the redundancy argument is no excuse to justify large families here. Most people’s genes are not so special that they need multiple copies of themselves. Those who have many children are also taking more than their fair share of resources.

The ageing population is brought up again as a problem – namely, supporting them. Population increase to solve this is only a short-term solution, as those extra people will in turn need to be supported by an even larger population, until numbers reach ridiculously high levels. A line has to be drawn at some point. Perhaps euthanasia will have to be legalized as an option – it does seem preferable and more dignified in comparison to withering away in a nursing home, senile and incontinent. Developing robot helpers and exoskeletons are also another solution.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wants a “big Australia” so no guidance can be expected from him. In his Australia Day speech he raises the usual alarm about an ageing population and states as a fact that our population will increase to 36 million (a nightmarish prospect).

In the newsprint article (which was a bit different in wording) there was criticism from “family groups”:

Football identity and father of eight Grant Thomas has joined family groups in attacking Mr. Smith’s suggestion to discourage women from having more than two babies.

[…]

Thomas, the former coach of St. Kilda, was shocked by Mr. Smith’s comments. […] He said his big family brought him much joy. “Dick’s a much better man than me. I couldn’t face going through life only having made love to my wife twice,” he said.

This ignoramus obviously hasn’t heard of contraception, judging by the ridiculously large family he has. How can anyone justify having 8 children in a First-World country?

Family Council of Victoria secretary Bill Muehlenberg said it was scaremongering. “We had Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s saying exactly the same thing, that in the ’70s and ’80s millions of people would die of famine and starvation. Really, I would take him with a grain of salt.”

There are millions dying of starvation; does he not watch the news? These family organizations tend to be conservative religious fanatics, so they should not be listened to.

“Australia ‘must plan new city’ to cope with population”, The Age, 26/1. Demographer Bernard Salt, whose opinion is of dubious value, asserts that we need another city in the north, and that we are obligated to take in more people:

By 2050, the global population is set to grow to 9 billion from about 7 billion today. As a nation of 22 million with the resources of a continent, Australia had a moral imperative to take its share of migrants, Mr Salt said. “We need to project that we are a generous nation,” he said. “You might get away with no growth for the next 10 years, but then those pressures build up. “The rest of the planet says, ‘We’re drowning in poverty and here’s Australia sitting on 22 million people, and they don’t want to accept migrants because it compromises the quality of their lifestyle’.”

Bugger that! Much of Australia is arid desert, so a large population is unsustainable – its environment is already severely damaged with the numbers we have. Other countries should take responsibility for their own problems and not expect to keep exporting their surplus people.

“Populate and pollute”, H-S, 20/1. An obvious way for Australia to cut its emissions levels is to reduce immigration levels.

The report said the Government was unlikely to meet its target of cutting year 2000 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 if high population policies continued. “The Government is in a diabolically difficult policy situation,” the two demographers wrote. “The implication is that it regards population growth as more important than the achievement of greenhouse abatement targets.” Dr. Birrell and Dr. Healy said the Government had limited power to control fertility rates, but it could take decisive action on the migrant intake.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been unapologetic about his support for a much bigger population, branding himself a “big Australia” man. “I think it’s good…for our national security long term, it’s good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation,” he said recently.

A collection of published letters from The Age:

18/1:

Population fantasy

John Bayly (Letters, 16/1) is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that Australia can sustain a population of 70 million, even if the “dead centre” can provide solar and geothermal energy to support people living on the habitable fringes of the continent.

Day-to-day life for ordinary folk in Melbourne is fast becoming intolerable due to failure by the Brumby Government to provide efficient public services, plus pressure of increased population: more than 2000 settlers are arriving here each week. We are seeing the breakdown of public transport; regular road traffic jams; water shortages; overstretched hospital accommodation; unaffordable housing; and loss of residential amenity with increased density. All this is being compounded by climate change with extremes of weather, such as record high temperatures with threats of bushfires.

Just how many people can Australia sustainably support without destroying the environment and without affecting our standard of living?

The new warning “populate and perish” should be broadcast to all state MPs.

– Lewis Prichard, Hawthorn

No road to utopia

Michael Danby (The Age, 14/1) implies perpetual population growth is the pathway to utopia, but on what planet?

Time and time again, Mother Nature has wreaked revenge on those who forget that humans are but a small part of the world’s ecosystem, wiping out whole civilisations whose leaders acted like grasshoppers rather than ants, living for today and forgetting about tomorrow.

Profligate squandering of her resources has created sterile moonscapes where once there were verdant forests.

History has shown we live beyond our means at our peril. Yet Mr Danby and his ilk want Australians to grow ever larger and richer.

Dying rivers, rising sea levels, diminishing soil fertility, intolerable traffic congestion, sprawling urban development, increasing social alienation - no problem. All we need is a bit of smart planning and a desal plant.

Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man’s world.

– Rosalie Counsell, Harkaway

19/1:

Michael Danby, here’s a novel idea. Why don’t we better train more people who are already here so we don’t need to bring in so many extra workers?

– Lorraine Bates, Surrey Hills

20/1:

Rudd warns that the ageing population will “drag” down our growth rate. How disgusting that he considers ageing to be a threat. Nobody stays young, and even the young migrants he lures here will age. Older people may not add to the gross domestic product - but if they worked most of their lives, they have contributed to the economy. Also, many retirees are self-supporting, and they often care for the elderly and children, as well as do volunteer work. The economy is supposed to serve us, not be our master to devalue people as unproductive burdens when they are no longer doing paid work.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

21/1:

A simplistic view

Peter Cosgrove, there are many valid reasons for wanting to stop the population growing that have nothing to do with racial tolerance. Water, for example, or some of the world’s worst species extinction rates, or how ongoing urban sprawl is eating up farmland and green space, or the inability to reduce greenhouse gasses while increasing the population. None of these are perspectives born of racism, yet any suggestion that we should limit our population to help deal with these problems is described as racial intolerance. I look forward to the debate about our population moving beyond this simplistic level.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Poor, poor boomers

Thanks, Kevin Rudd, for asking younger generations, particularly “working families” to work harder for the older one. Let us work harder for the baby boom generation, who had free tertiary education, had their property values explode, milked the pension system dry and left the planet’s environment on the verge of disaster. It is becoming tiring being part of a generation that is held ransom for another generation’s voting population.

– Sarah and Brett Wilson, Ashwood

22/1:

Show us respect

Planning Minister Justin Madden has been charged with overseeing “the Government’s Respect Agenda, which aims to reduce alcohol-related violence” (The Age, 21/1). If Madden and John Brumby respected what Victorians value about our cities and environment and planned for future generations, young people might be inspired to follow their “respect agenda”. Protect our grasslands, forests, heritage, green wedges and streetscapes from developers who are the main objects of Government respect.

– Rosemary West, Edithvale

Damned if they do or don’t

Article reproduced below in case it disappears:

Study warns aborting girl fetuses will leave China with 24 million more men than women by 2020

Beijing – Abortions of girl fetuses are expected to leave China with 24 million more men than women over the next decade, according to a study that warns the imbalance will dash many young men’s chance at marriage and lead to increased crime.

China enforces strict family planning controls, including limiting most couples to having one child. Because of a traditional preference for male heirs, many families terminate pregnancies of girl babies in order to be able to continue trying for a boy. Infanticide of baby girls has also become a problem.

The study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, reported in Chinese state media this week, specifically said such preferences were behind the ballooning imbalance.

“Sex-specific abortions are extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas,” the CASS report said. “The phenomenon of abortions of female fetuses is very serious.”

China bans tests to determine the fetus’ sex for non-medical reasons, but they are still commonly done, mainly by underground private clinics in the countryside.

The report said the male-female ratio at birth in China was 119 males to 100 females, with the gap as high as 130 males for every 100 females in some provinces. In industrialized countries, the ratio is 107 to 100.

The report is similar to other studies in recent years that warn of serious social problems because of the gap.

The official Global Times newspaper quoted researcher Wang Guangzhou as saying men with lower incomes would have trouble finding spouses in rural areas, leading to crime problems. The newspaper also said abductions and trafficking of women were widespread in areas with excess numbers of men.

The CASS study mirrors a report published last April in the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal, that said China has 32 million more young men than young women because parents facing strict birth limits abort female fetuses to have a son.

The BMJ study found even higher gender ratios, with 140 boys for every 100 girls in the 1-4 age range in Jiangxi and Henan provinces. The figures were based on data from 2005.

China imposed strict birth controls in the 1970s to limit growth of its huge population, noting that resources, especially land, were increasingly strained and that changes were needed in its new push to modernize. The government says the controls have prevented an additional 400 million births in the world’s most populous country of 1.3 billion.

Seems China can’t win either way – it has to get its population growth under control, but cultural preferences lead to a gender imbalance that could result in social instability. I have remarked in previous entries (2/6/2008, 18/1/2009) that a brutally pragmatic solution would be to cull the surplus males (wars do that anyway, in an uncontrolled manner).

“MPs call for 70m population cap”, BBC News, 6/1. UK politicians seem to belatedly be realizing that their island might be a tad overcrowded at 61 million or so. It will be even worse at 70 million! Public resentment at high immigration levels is growing, and will result in social unrest if not alleviated.

“It’s ‘dog eat dog’ on London’s overcrowded Tube: report”, The Age, 2/12/2009. An earlier article describing how overcrowding, here on the railway underground network, leads to a “survival of the fittest” attitude. I’ll again link to the article, “London’s a rat hole”.

Collected letters

The articles linked in my 14/1 entry generated a flurry of letters to The Age. (I did not send one as I seem to have fallen out of favor – the last few I emailed were not published.)

15/1:

Migration’s drain on public purse

Michael Danby justifies our having the highest per capita immigration program by saying it brings in extra tax revenue (Comment, 14/1). A single year of migration like 2008, he claims, can “add more than $800 million to the tax base in the first year”. So what? If this is to be Danby’s economic case for high migration, then surely he needs to ask: do recent immigrants contribute more to the public purse in taxes than they take from it in direct costs and subsidies?

Back in the 1990s, answering this question set the economist Russell Matthews a massive task of disaggregation. His findings are discussed in my book This Tired Brown Land. Professor Matthews found it took the average immigrant about 10 years to become (like the average older resident) a net contributor to the public purse; and the highest costs occurred in the first two or three years after arrival. It seems that the average net cost to the public purse per immigrant back then was some $34,500 – a result so unwelcome to the government that it never funded a follow-up study.

The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figure for annual net migration is 285,000. A very rough calculation suggests this intake might be a net cost to the taxpayer of $9.7 billion – without counting environmental costs or the loss of urban amenities through crowding.

– Mark O’Connor, Lyneham, ACT

Cancer that kills the host

I do not feel reassured that Michael Danby and his parliamentary committee colleagues believe we can cope with population growth. Population policy in this country does not consider the greater good of existing citizens or the long-term suitability of a higher population, but is driven by what suits the electoral cycle and vested interests.

The Government’s contention that Australia was unique in avoiding the global financial crisis does not mention that it was largely on the back of increased demand from population growth. This growth is also artificially propping up house prices, now considered among the highest in the Western world. Business naturally wants more consuming units for its products. The biggest cheerleaders are developers and builders, with the Master Builders Association (“Green wedges lost in the woods”, Online, 14/1) implying that building more McMansions in the urban wastelands on the fringe of the city is an altruistic public service.

It is time citizens demanded a voice on this issue, which is being decided behind closed doors. We live in a mostly desert land that is getting hotter and drier. Experience tells us that governments never provide good planning and appropriate infrastructure to support a higher population, only ad-hoc freeways and energy-guzzling desalination plants as an afterthought. Growth should not always be the goal. The only thing that keeps growing is a cancer – until it kills its host.

– Chris Owens, Lysterfield South

Fix the problems first

How out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Victorians is the MBA? It is interested first and foremost in builders making money. It says it supports a larger population because Victoria should sustain more people. Why should it? So the MBA can build more houses and make more money? Victorians do not want continuing urban expansion and do not want to be battery hens locked up in tiny apartments. The MBA dismisses congestion and scarce resources as a management issue despite the fact that it is a huge problem with no solution in sight. I would like the MBA to first sort out these problems and then it can push for the population to grow ad-infinitum. Probably until the whole country is covered with housing.

– Greg Delaney, Amaroo, ACT

Growth that is gentle

Proponents of perpetual growth may not realise that we do not have to abandon all growth. While unchecked economic/population growth is not sustainable, we can indulge ourselves in intellectual growth, humanitarian growth, growth in compassion, demolishing the poverty industry and dissolving the billionaires’ club. The list is endless. This generates employment and income and is gentle on the environment.

– Margit Alm, Eltham

On the home front

While I concur in general with Terry Barnes about consumerism (Comment, 13/1), I do not agree with his convoluted solution to limit the size of houses by imposing a surcharge based on floor space per person.

The problem of the ever-increasing size of private residences has been created in part by the tax-free status of owner-occupied houses irrespective of size or market value. This has resulted in the family home being the best “investment” one can have and in reality forms part of one’s superannuation.

A quick reality check would be for the Federal Government to introduce a capital gains tax on properties over a nominated value, say, $1 million, which would change with inflation. This would no doubt lead to loud dissent by the better off, but would create a fairer system.

– Barry Robinson, McCrae

Recipe for high debt

Let’s debate what is really contributing to rising household debt and not just consider fringe issues such as McMansions and entertainment systems.

In 1996, approximately 30 per cent of an average weekly income was needed to pay off a 25-year mortgage on a median-priced house bought by first home buyers in Australia. This figure was more than 80 per cent in 2008 and will probably be higher again this year. The increasing size of new houses does not explain these figures.

Stopping this debt madness will require tough medicine, including removal of an unfair taxation system and supply policies. Ironically, people who have enough money to buy houses enjoy significant tax benefits on capital gains; what’s more, if it is an investment, the taxpayer helps finance it through negative gearing.

Couple this with a cut in the supply of public housing and a rising population, and you have a recipe for spiralling housing costs and rising household debt.

– Linda Brownstein, Wangaratta

Michael Danby’s view that population growth is required to “maintain our generous care of seniors” (Comment, 14/1) fails to acknowledge that such growth generates future dependency by new generations of seniors, in greater numbers, who will in turn require a growing population to support them.

– Luke Hooper, Northcote

16/1:

Michael Danby (Comment, 14/1) believes we can manage our environment while continuing to grow our population. In medical terms this is called palliative care.

– Kyle Matheson, Mont Albert

Just because economic gurus don’t know how we can grow richer without a simplistic growth in population doesn’t mean it is impossible.

– Guido Stavenuiter, Balmain

“ ‘Don’t pander to greenies’ ”, The Age, 31/12/2009. I sent a letter in response to this, but it wasn’t published:

Mr. Gadiel’s objection to “extreme environment groups“ being enabled to challenge governments in court is hardly surprising, seeing as he is part of the property development industry – a group not known for its regard for the environment or residents’ rights. Hopefully the law changes that reduce the court costs for activists will be implemented, making it more difficult for greedy developers to get their way.

Some that were:

1/1:

Brownwashing the environment debate

Comments by property development group Urban Taskforce Australia (The Age, 31/12) demonstrate the importance of looking beyond the intemperate views of such groups in developing government policy.

Aaron Gadiel provided a scaremongering assessment of recommendations in the Hawke review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. He suggests that reinstating provisions that remove cost barriers to parties seeking injunctions against environmentally contentious projects will “drench Australia in American-style litigation culture”.

However, only four such injunctions were granted under the act from 1999 to 2007, before the provisions were repealed.

It is disingenuous of UTA to paint environmental groups as not-in-my-backyard activists. Most serious environmental litigation is undertaken by those with more altruistic motivations such as species protection and safeguarding the planet for future generations. This may be contrasted with not-in-my-back-pocket industry groups, which, acting on behalf of their constituent members, are principally concerned with financial returns.

Removing cost barriers to the courts promotes access to justice opportunities, enhances scrutiny of government decision-making, and has potential to advance the rule of law in an area that the scientific community suggests will determine the future of the planet.

– Gregor Hupser, Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic), Melbourne

Bring it on

Aaron Gadiel complains that legislative changes would give people who want to complain more of a voice in court, reducing “opportunities for Australia to get the urban development it needs”. Bring it on. I’d love to see what happens when locals have as much say as people whose only interest in the community is to make money from the community and leave.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Growth and greed

Three population articles in today’s The Age, two of them pro-growth.

“More people does not equal trashing our environment”: a minister (for migration) argues that population growth (though immigration) can be accommodated for with adequate planning. Given how hopeless the Brumby Government is at planning anything, his is wishful thinking. More immigration might seem to boost the economy in the short term, but those people will in turn grow old, and require even more people to support them – where does this end? We do not have infinite space, jobs or resources, and stating that people should curtail their standard of living is unacceptable – the most severe water restrictions will be futile if the population keeps increasing.

“Green wedges lost in the woods”: a representative from the Master Builders Association of Victoria says urban growth should continue, that people should be able to build big houses, that grasslands are “barren” and thus should be smothered over with housing.

Large homes have long been the obvious signs of affluence, success and in many cases, fertility. These are all social virtues that should be supported.

Greed is good, in short? What a load of self-serving bullshit. Large homes are environmentally-unfriendly and far from being “efficient”.

He was responding to an earlier article, “We need more green areas, not people”, 12/1, by a member of the Green Wedges Coalition.

“Reality check on growth”: by Bob Birrell, says that such a population increase will destroy quality of life for Australia’s citizens, and that the 35 million population projection is over-inflated as high migration programs have historically not been sustained. Both State and Federal Governments, however, have vested interests in maintaining growth:

Those involved in the building needed for the housing, services and employment required by new residents have a direct interest in high population growth. They include Victoria’s state government leaders, who are aware that the state’s main growth industry is city building.

Relying on building stuff can’t be sustained forever, though (as much as the industry would like it too). Mr. Birrell notes that:

Pursuit of the migration-driven 35 million target will generate increasing vexations as governments struggle to accommodate the extra numbers. Opposition will increase, as will critical attention to migration policies.

Many of the responding comments to the first two articles are quite good (and acerbic!). It is reassuring at least to see that commenters share my concerns about unrestrained population growth, though few politicans do, aside from Kelvin Thomson.

Some recent letters on the same topics:

6/1:

Preserving our green wedges

I am heartened that Planning Minister Justin Madden has stated “we are not in hurry to move the urban growth boundary” (The Age, 5/1). Melbourne has outgrown its optimal size, both in population and the surface area it covers. Our green wedges need to be preserved for their ecological value and food production. With the problems of “peak oil” (increased demand but plateauing of supplies) and the need to reduce our greenhouse gas production, it makes sense for farmland to be within closer transport distance. For example, the extensive market garden area on the south-eastern edge of Melbourne supplies much of our fresh produce. It has rich soils and a reliable rainfall. It should be preserved as a national treasure, not an area to be paved over for housing.

– Kit James, Melbourne

A defining moment

At last, democracy in action. Reading that the Government’s ridiculous decision to destroy our green wedges and further turn our once most-liveable city into a monstrous urban sprawl is being put on the backburner, due to Coalition and Greens resistance, is a breath of fresh air.

This is true bipartisanship that will shape what a 21st century Melbourne can be at its best. Let us build more efficiently, effectively and environmentally, improve our land use, curb our hunger for huge backyards and McMansions, and stop developers’ greed getting in the way of good planning. The challenge is upon us.

– Paul Bugeja, Caulfield North

Victoria has a population crisis, not a water crisis. By attacking the symptom (less water) rather than the cause (overpopulation), we live in a fool’s paradise while resolving nothing.

– Luke Hooper, Northcote

7/1:

Yes, there is a choice

Poor old developer, Delfin Lend Lease (The Age, 6/1), unable to open up more grasslands to flog off unsustainable future ghettos. Apparently the only way to afford a home in “Melbourne” is to buy one of its houses and enjoy all the future driving, health and social costs thereafter. There are no shortage of alternatives; for example, living regionally (it’s quicker to get the train to the CBD from Geelong than Berwick) or doing without a backyard and living near a park instead. But, as they say, it’s all about “My Choice”. Well, I would like the choice (having decided to live in a modest house, with no yard) of my countryside to remain as country when I escape town occasionally, rather than becoming one massive sprawl of obese housing estates so that private companies can flip a quick profit.

– Patricia Bakacs, Seddon

10/1:

Vanishing dream

While developers, investors and state government stamp duty coffers grow fat on Melbourne’s property boom (The Sunday Age, 3/1), we should all spare a thought for the average home buyer. With the median home price now $481,000 and rising, the Australian dream is becoming unachievable for the average Melburnian. While the Prime Minister and Premier crow about population growth, the next generation is slowly being locked out of the property market altogether, due to the spiralling cost. And those who are braving the market and purchasing a home are generally saddled with a massive mortgage, that may never be paid in their lifetime.

A debate on future population and migration levels is long overdue, along with a number of initiatives to direct growth to regional towns and cities.

– Mathew Knight, Malvern East

David vs. Goliath

“Bushland owners to fight bid for overpass”, The Age, 11/1. The owners of a heritage-listed bushland property are to fight the State Government’s compulsory land acquisition for a freeway bypass (mentioned in my 16/12/2009 entry). I really hope they can win as the Brumby Government are environmental vandals. The Save The Pines! website is a support group.

A letter, 12/1:

Warped priorities

I sympathise with Simon and Joyce Welsh whose heritage-listed property, Westerfield, has been compulsorily acquired for the Frankston bypass (The Age, 11/1). It seems the State Government is hell-bent on destroying ecosystems and remnant habitat for the sake of its sacred freeways and other developments. Local governments, too, collude with developers to mount unrelenting attacks on the environment. Apparently all that is required to tear down a “protected” tree in the suburbs, for example, is for a developer to apply for a permit. The result is an increasing loss of habitat as vegetation makes way for McMansions. We need governments who have greater vision than building freeways, lining the pockets of developers or hosting events.

– Tim Hartnett, Mont Albert North

Much of Victoria’s wilderness has been destroyed already – the forests that once covered it decimated since the arrival of European settlers – so it is vital that remnant bushland be preserved.

Back in 2006 a 400-year-old River Red Gum was felled to make way for a freeway. I will quote my 23/6/2006 journey entry from then:

Another tree murdered! This one a 400-year-old River Red Gum:

Tree was there first, but it had to go

Liam Houlihan, 23 June 2006

A 400-year-old tree that threatened to stump the Eastlink tollway has been chopped down by road builders. Dandenong council rallied to save the ancient River Red Gum, but was refused a last-ditch attempt for heritage protection.

Eastlink builders felled the tree about 9 a.m. yesterday, clearing the way for work to continue on the Dandenong Southern Bypass. Road builder Thiess John Holland said there was no feasible way to save the tree, near Hammond Rd, Dandenong South.

Dandenong Council admitted an oversight meant they had failed to protect it earlier. “I feel very sad today,” said Cr. John Kelly, who led the push to save the tree. “Unfortunately, we didn’t get our interim heritage order.” He said he was now pushing for the council to investigate whether there were similar old trees needing protection.

The tree was lopped just two days after its plight came to public attention.

“That might have quickened the process up,” Cr. Kelly said.

The main body of the tree was lifted onto a truck by a crane yesterday afternoon to be taken to council offices. It may be made into sculptures or art or erected in the ground with a plaque.

A tree that had been growing long before the first European settlers arrived here is now no more, no thanks to heartless developers and the overpopulated state’s insatiable need for more roads. It was rather isolated, the only tree near a busy road and housing developments. Perhaps it was once surrounded by forest.

This cartoon by Mark Knight provides some perspective:

Pompous ass

If there is one blogger who seriously irritates me, it is author John C. Wright. He is a Catholic/conservative/libertarian (a former atheist who underwent a “conversion” after a heart attack), and, not surprisingly, he is anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and (the subject of this entry) does not believe Earth is overpopulated. On the contrary, the more humans the merrier! A recent Livejournal entry, “The Manifesto of the Cornucopians”, illustrates his viewpoint. He has a ponderously pompous style of writing that gives me a headache, so I can’t sum it up easily, but he denies that Earth is overpopulated, that there will ever be scarcity of resources, and that “human ingenuity” will find ways around any problems related to these.

He usually responds to any criticism with withering sarcasm, so there is little point in posting a counter-argument, but I did try anyway, in my usual incoherent fashion:

If ~7 billion people is not too many, how many is – 10 billion, 20 billion? Assuming humans never manage off-world space colonization, do we keep growing until the land is covered with continent-wide megacities, with no nature left? (Which was the nightmarish vision of Earth presented in Avatar, incidentally.)

It’s not only the sheer numbers of people that has a negative impact on the environment, it’s all the waste and pollution they produce – billions of tonnes of garbage in landfill, not to mention the oceans being used as a toxic waste dump. (See these photos of pollution in China for just one example.)

A Malthusian says that population growth (especially of Irish, Hindoos and Negroes) leads to disastrous scarcity of resources, resulting in mass famine, war, and apocalyptic megadeath.

That’s happening in parts of the world already. Not to mention the greatest mass extinction of species since the dinosaurs.

“Human genius” as touted here is dangerously close to hubris – technological “solutions” can have a nasty habit of backfiring.

I will copy any responses (which I confidently predict will all tell me how wrong and ignorant I am). If anyone else wishes to add to the discussion, feel free to –though there is little point in debating him, as he is utterly convinced he is right (as am I, admittedly).

As long as there are people with attitudes like his, there is little hope for Earth’s environment.