My published letter – 16/6

Another letter published, in the Herald-Sun today! Highlighted in a box with 2 others on the same topic. I actually emailed the letter on 6/6, so they must have put it aside.

Melbourne’s population is expected to increase by approximately one million within the next 20 years. This is a frightening prospect.

Already, with the impact of global warming and the rising cost of fuel, our city is struggling to provide essential services.

Our transport system is woefully inadequate, hospitals and public schools need additional funding, and each summer and winter we are warned of possible blackouts.

Worst of all, our reservoirs are running dry. Melbourne’s population is already roughly equivalent to that of major cities such as Madrid and Berlin, and greater than that of San Francisco, Copenhagen, and Birmingham. Isn’t it time that city planners developed strategies based on a population status quo?

This would allow for consolidation and improvement of existing infrastructure and would ensure that the city has the capacity to provide essential services to all its citizens.

– Maureen Kutner, Glen Waverley

Considering our current environmental, infrastructure, cultural, and cost of living problems, the thought of another million people in Victoria within 12 years seems idiotic.

The State Government can’t responsibly manage the population it has got without burdening us with more people to compete for resources.

Governments need to drop this “populate or perish” mentality.

They should look beyond their own lifetimes and set ways in motion for a society that can economically survive without devouring our way of life and environment.

– D. Spooner, Bruthen

News that Australia’s population is booming is dismaying.

Water and housing shortages and overstretched public services mean an increasing population (and competition for resources) should be a cause for alarm, not celebration.

The Brumby Government seems to be in denial of these negative effects of growth.

– Suzanne McHale

Culling surplus males

A relevant article: “Waking from the dream”, ABC News, 28/5. Our wastefully extravagent lifestyles are becoming unsustainable.

“The Family Way”, Time magazine, 29/5. The recent Chinese earthquake has given some in the media an excuse to once again attack its one-child policy, as some families lost their only child when shoddily-built schools collapsed. But the issue is with the corruption that resulted in the buildings collapsing – if a family had 2 or more children and lost all at the school, it is still the same result (if that makes sense). The article does note that “couples whose only child was killed or disabled will be permitted to have another one”, which is fair enough. But China can’t afford to otherwise relax this policy – its already-huge population is having a worldwide environmental impact as they become more affluent (the hunt for mineral resources in other nations being one consequence of this).

Clearly, a rising birth rate would place an enormous burden on China’s social and medical infrastructure, which is far less developed than physical infrastructure like roads and rail. A change in emphasis will be essential. Hospitals will need vast new infusions of money and other resources. The weak system of homes for the elderly, child-care providers and other social services will have to be greatly expanded.

Where will the money and resources come from to provide for a massive population?

China also faces one of the most skewed sex ratios in the world: men outnumber women 1.2 to 1. The male surplus, which means many Chinese men will never be able to have a family, creates an ominous future; already, an underclass of young male thugs is proliferating in Chinese cities, a group easily recruited for crime. In Beijing’s worst nightmare, these angry young men could turn against the state. As scholars Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer wrote in a 2004 book, in the mid-19th century unequal sex ratios, which left men idle, contributed to armed rebellion in the Chinese countryside.

A radical solution might be to cull (as in kill) the surplus young males (wars already tend to do this, in a somewhat uncontrolled manner). In fact, that is something that could be done in any society with a surplus of single, young, unemployed males between 12-25 years (who tend to be the most troublesome elements – just consult any statistics for violent crime). As a female, I would feel a lot safer if there were fewer aggressive young males around. How would you identify the aggressive ones, as, of course, not all males fit this description? One way is to catch those who roam the streets at night in groups or gangs – I see the results in my neighborhood the next morning (graffiti, vandalism). Another is to target those convicted of violent crimes. Note that humans don’t hesitate to cull other species (some being elephants and kangaroos) – species that are seen as being in competition with humans for land and resources.