Thou shalt not breed

“Thou shalt not breed: Anglicans”, The Age, 9/5. The Anglican Church caused a minor flurry in May when it issued a statement saying that the baby bonus was environmentally irresponsible and should be scrapped (replaced by paid parental leave).

Wading into the population debate, the General Synod of the Anglican Church has warned that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine – including the eighth commandment, “Thou shall not steal”.

In a significant intervention, the Anglican Public Affairs Commission has warned concerned Christians that remaining silent “is little different from supporting further overpopulation and ecological degradation”.

“Out of care for the whole of creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves…it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent,” a discussion paper by the commission warns. “Unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment – ‘Thou shall not steal’.”

Approving letters, 16/5:

They’ve got it!

Congratulations to the Anglican Church for its courageous and principled stand on population growth. Accumulated and overwhelming evidence over the past 40 years has highlighted the folly of human self-interest and arrogance as the species continues to breed unabated while totally disregarding its effect on the world’s finite capacities.

Without halting population growth, the environmental and resource problems cannot be mitigated. A stand-out example is global warming, where the effect of the projected growth in local and global population will completely negate any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Sustainable development is an oxymoron in the face of population growth and it should be challenged every time it is uttered.

– Robert Boffey, Macleod

Curb the growth

The Anglican Church should be congratulated and supported wholeheartedly (on its call for a population curb in Australia).

Probably, this is the first time that a Christian church has taken such a momentous leadership direction. Most Western nations have near zero or negative population growth; but population growth is taking place in developing countries, by up to 5 per cent a year.

The biggest threat to world peace and civil society in the future will come from unsustainable population growth. People in most developing countries do not have sufficient water to drink or land to grow food, let alone materials to build shelter. In many poor countries, any economic progress they make is swallowed up by increasing population. Global warming and climate change will certainly make life more difficult in such countries. It is only a matter of time before large numbers of refugees from overpopulated countries seek to move to less populated countries. This will result in warfare, death and destruction.

It is to be hoped that all churches and political parties take the Anglicans’ lead and seek to curb population growth as a policy initiative around the world.

– Bill Mathew, Parkville

Thou shalt not mislead

The headline about the Anglican Public Affairs Commission discussion paper on population issues was misleading. Neither explicitly or implicitly does the paper argue that people should not have children. Rather, it suggests that the government incentive to have more children – the baby bonus – be removed and replaced by increased paid parental leave so as to strengthen the time parents are able to have with their babies.

The article also said that the paper came from the Anglican General Synod. In fact, it was prepared by the national Public Affairs Commission and will be considered by the General Synod at its meeting in September.

– Professor John Langmore, chairman, Anglican Public Affairs Commission

“Hoping for some gains amid the growing pains”, 12/5. This article aroused my ire as the couple profiled are displaying environmental irresponsibility by having so many children (four with another on the way).

Although Mrs Smith admitted money was sometimes tight for extra-curricular activities for the children, she said there were benefits to having a large household. “I love having a big family. There’s never a dull moment and always plenty of laughs, and a few tears,” she said. “Our aim was to start with two and then we quickly went to four and then we thought if we’re going to do it they can grow up together. When they are older they will be best mates.” Last year the budget brought some pain for the family – they were hoping this year would not be the same.

Well, if your budget is tight, stop breeding! Of course they expect Government handouts. A similar article featured a couple with five children and another on the way. What the hell is wrong with these people? We live in a society where most children can be expected to survive to adulthood, and contraception is readily available, so there is little excuse anymore to have large families. Such couples should also be classified as “environmental vandals”. They should be penalized from child #3 onwards, either actively with extra taxes, or passively by withdrawal of Government funding for extra children.

Australia is not the only nation promoting family growth; I came across this news item at the Kremlin.ru site: “Ceremony awarding the Order of Parental Glory to parents of large families”. Even if Russia’s population is declining, there is (as of 2002 census) just over 141 million – over 6 times that of Australia’s – hardly any reason to be concerned yet!

Environmental vandals

“Australia’s global footprint one of the worst”, The Age, 6/5. The discovery and settlement of Australia by European explorers was arguably the most disastrous event in the continent’s history – for both its environment and indigenous population – and the destruction is still ongoing. The Federal and State Governments’ supposed concern about the environment is just empty rhetoric. Greens Senator Bob Brown said that Australia and humanity are sealing their own fates. I will probably vote for the Greens in the Federal election later this year, though I don’t agree with all their policies; they seem to be the only party with some integrity left.

“Melbourne’s liveability under threat as population grows, experts warn”, Herald-Sun, 14/6. I now have the misfortune to live in the fastest-growing state in Australia, and it is hell, as far as I am concerned. Premier Brumby did acknowledge that Victoria’s population has been growing too fast, but then repeated the furphy that growth was necessary to deal with an ageing population:

Mr. Brumby said it was important Victoria and Australia maintained population growth to deal with an ageing population. “When all of the baby boomers go through, for every seven baby boomers there will just be two people who are productive in the community,” he said.

Following this line of reasoning, those younger people will also grow old in the future, and require yet more people to sustain them. Where does this idiocy end?

The state in which I grew up is being ruined, both socially and environmentally, and the blame starts with Premier Jeff Kennett’s policies in the 1990s, followed by the Labor Government.

Collected letters

A collection of letters from The Age over the last 2 months.

18/5:

Stable population key to our future

In an act of seemingly good planning and policy, hundreds of homes will be added to three of Melbourne’s largest public housing estates at a time when the waiting list for public housing is nearing 40,000 (“Public housing gets boost”, The Age, 17/5).

The crisis at all levels of housing means that our federal government, with the support of state governments, can implement its high-density social housing agenda under the guise of a much-needed, but manufactured, social necessity.

Our population growth is not inevitable and neither is the public’s displacement from home ownership. In a stable population, most houses would already be existing, or inherited.

Children should not be raised in hot-houses, and we should expect escalating violence and crime.

Crises such as peak oil, the global population blow-out and climate change demand more functional, sustainable, self-supporting towns, rather than heat-trapping high-rises and environmentally destructive urban sprawl.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

30/5:

Missing the point

“Foreign Property Fear Exaggerated” (23/5) misses the point. There are two issues regarding foreigners purchasing property. The first is whether foreigners were making illegal purchases in breach of the FIRB rules. I doubt whether this is a significant factor but it’s hard to know when the FIRB reviewed only 58 sales. The second is Rudd relaxing the FIRB rules making it much easier for temporary residents to legally purchase property. These purchases were not identified in the FIRB review because they’re legal transactions. Therefore, to conclude fears over foreigners purchasing our homes are exaggerated on the basis the FIRB did not identify illegal purchases is ignorant.

The fact is Rudd has reduced the visa eligibility period from three years to one year, broadened the definition of “existing dwelling”, and abolished the $300,000 cap for student visa holders. These changes, none of which have been reversed, have had a significant impact. The Age’s own survey concluded 30-40 per cent of sales between Camberwell and Doncaster may have been to foreigners. You don’t need an economics degree to conclude these changes have priced local families out of the market – and they have every right to be angry.

– Stephen Roberts, Box Hill North

11/6:

Earth has limits

David Milner (Letters, 10/6) queries the notion that perpetual economic growth is a bad thing. There are two main reasons why it is. The first is that it is impossible. The earth has limits. The failure to recognise this is one reason why there is such widespread environmental damage and why billions of people live in poverty. Things will get much worse if we stay on this path. The second is that there is a better way that avoids these consequences – the steady state economy.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

13/6:

Population control a must

“People could be a threat to ecology” (6/6). Could Be? We are! Humans are the greatest threat to the balanced ecology of this planet. The excessive growth of the human species at the expense of all other living creatures, both flora and fauna, cannot go unchecked without the ecological system breaking down.

The Rudd government needs to take the lead to curb the growth of humans on this planet.

Carbon tax, carbon trading and now mining tax are side issues compared with the unchecked growth of the human species.

– Bob Greaves, Mount Eliza

17/6:

In response to Premier Brumby’s dubious plan to alleviate Melbourne’s growth problems by forcing people into rural areas, which are ill-equipped to deal with such growth, and would spoil their amenity:

One-track plan will ruin our lifestyles

It appears that John Brumby, having made Melbourne a not-so-liveable city, is planning to divert some surplus population to some regional cities.

Residents of Castlemaine and Bendigo have a good lifestyle, community spirit and access to parks, gardens and countryside. House prices, though increasing, are not insane and you can generally park your car near where you want to go without paying mega-bucks for the privilege.

We also have a rail link to Melbourne, which works tolerably well, except on very hot days, when the lines buckle. There is a limit as to how much more the line could take since former transport minister Peter Batchelor removed, at great expense, large sections of the parallel line. The single line doesn’t handle the delays well, as trains have to wait for those travelling in the other direction.

An increase in population will bring increased difficulties with these single-line sections of the track and probable meltdowns.

Mr. Brumby might find it to his advantage to try to limit population growth rather than exporting the surplus to us, for most of us are not going to be happy about it. We like our lifestyle the way it is.

– Cedric Buck, Castlemaine

What’s the point in shifting all those public sector jobs to rural areas – there’s no water here; you’ve already piped it to Melbourne. Leave the jobs in Melbourne and reap the so-called benefits of encouraging population growth for the past few decades.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

18/6:

Sold lie on growth

It is nonsense to state that Melbourne or regional Victoria’s record high population growth is evidence of prosperity. Study after study has concluded there is no link between population growth and an increase in per capita wealth. Population growth damns us to unaffordable housing, increased pollution, loss of native habitat, strained infrastructure, and a growing wealth divide. How is any of this evidence of prosperity?

John Brumby may seek to spread the pain, but the real political backlash will come when Australians realise they are being sold a lie.

– Vladimir Stoikovich, Brunswick East

19/6:

Victorians aren’t hankering for more

To implement a cohesive growth and development strategy for Victoria, we need to recast our thinking away from the dichotomous Melbourne/regional, city/country mindset. We need to think of ourselves simply as Victoria. Because that is the eventual outcome of a push for growth in regional Victoria – a blurring of lines between city and country lifestyle.

But do Victorians wish to make this change in thinking, let alone change their way of life? I think not. There is no impetus for change. Only the government and businesses are crying out for growth to feed their greedy budgets. Everyone else loves the way they live, and all are reeling from a decade of far-too-rapid change.

Victoria is a very liveable state, and liveability is all about size. Melburnians love their city because it is big, without being huge. It has world-class amenities without the Tokyo commuting times. Regional Victorians equally enjoy their open spaces and smaller towns, but appreciate their easy access to big cities. Country people have no burning desire to become citified.

Mr. Brumby seems deaf and blind to his constituents. Over to you, Mr. Baillieu.

– Cecilia Litchfield, Balwyn

Sustainable sign

Why is an apparent downturn in the building industry so often reported as a negative thing (“Victoria props up ailing building”, The Age, 17/6)? Surely it’s an indicator that we are slowly moving towards a sustainable society. We can’t keep on pushing the urban boundaries into former green areas, or cramming ever more people into densely populated suburbs, or forcing people into rural areas thus destroying country character.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

John Brumby has “detected a hunger for growth” in regional cities. From whom did he “detect” this hunger – politicians and developers perhaps? Australians wanting a sustainable future detected something else – the start of a large political backlash.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

Fat city

A short news article from the 10/6 The Age on a statement by MP Kelvin Thomson:

Melbourne growing obese: Labor MP

Federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has described Melbourne as “obese” in a scathing attack on the Victorian government’s decision to expand the urban boundary by thousands of hectares. “Melbourne is becoming an obese, hardened-artery parody of its former self. Extending the urban growth boundary is like a man rapidly gaining weight who thinks he can solve the problem by loosening his belt,” he said in a statement. He said the expansion would destroy nearly 7000 hectares of volcanic plains grassland, would add thousands of cars heading to the CBD every day, would create a massive infrastructure bill and contradicted the state government’s Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint. A planning amendment is before State Parliamentto expand Melbourne’s urban boundary by 43,600 hectares and allow for an estimated 134,000 new homes. It is expected to pass with the support of the opposition.

– Jason Dowling

A more detailed press release is reproduced at the PublicPopForum.

Melbourne is getting more unpleasant to live in as each year passes, the population increases and the city grows further like a cancer. Yet all the media can do is exult over rising real estate prices (good for investors and developers) and how the “building boom” supposedly benefits the economy. The Herald-Sun article below is an example (not available online):

More people, more homes: Victoria leads nation in building boom and urban sprawl

Outer suburbs in Victoria are booming with a mass of new homes built. Victoria is the growth capital of the country and in the past year has had four of the top five fastest-growing regions by population.

The Population and Residential Building Hotspots report by the Housing Industry Association showed Whittlesea north top the list with an incredible $484 million worth of new building approvals in 2008-09. There was 18 per cent population growth in Whittlesea north in the same period. Wyndham south took second place with 13 per cent growth, and Cardinia Pakenham and Melton east were fourth and fifth.

The HIA says Victoria has the fastest growing population, and building works must keep accelerating in areas of demand.

But a leading urban planner said the push to the fringes meant the gap between the “haves and have nots” was rapidly increasing. HIA Victorian executive director Gil King said there was no sign of boom suburb growth slowing.

“Victoria has had the nation’s fastest population growth, meaning demand for housing is higher than other states,” Ms King said. “It is crucial that the Victorian Government continues to introduce measures that aim at stimulating housing supply, including the promised expansion of the urban growth boundary.”

Senior urban planning lecturer at the University of Melbourne Dr Alan March said he was concerned about the low density of developments in growth areas and questioned how growth would spread. “One of the great problems we suffer in this growth is going into areas that are poorer in the levels of services that they have, compared to existing areas,” Dr March said. “And there’s not a great range of housing choice.”

Dr March said first home buyer grants were pushing prices up and there must be more assistance given to people in boom suburbs.

“If you look at data over the past 20 years, we are seeing a greater distance between the haves and have nots,” he said.

Of course the HIA wants more houses built as it profits their members! Never mind the damage to the environment. The fragile native volcanic grasslands that provide breathing space are being subsumed under a mass of housing – but most people tend to see these regions as “worthless” and open land that should be built over.

I get angry and despairing at this continuing destruction, enough so to hope for a firestorm to destroy the housing estates.