My letter to the Sunday Age last week did not get published, but some others did, all very critical of that ridiculous opinion piece (26/4/2009 entry). I will reproduce them below:
One-child policy may not be enough
Chris Berg’s response to reported comments of Sandra Kanck and a one-child policy was facile, ignorant and unscientific (“Depopulate and die of boredom”, 26/4).
Whether or not we like trees or crowds is utterly irrelevant to how many people this country can sustain. What is relevant is how much food can be grown in an energy-constrained world facing temperatures of up to six degrees higher by the end of the century.
Has Berg even heard about peak oil? Is he not aware that if and when we get even four degrees warming, we can kiss Australian agriculture goodbye?
Sandra Kanck certainly said we may have to consider a one-child policy. That may be what we will have to have if we do not stop our population exploding right now.
And exploding it is, with 1 million being added every three years or less. She mentioned 7 million in response to a question of what was an ecologically sustainable population for Australia. Given that many leading scientists are now saying the world can only support 1 or 2 billion, or less than a third of the current population, Australia having 7 million fits with that.
Even 7 million, however, may be too many in a post-oil world.
– Jenny Goldie, president, Canberra region branch, Sustainable Population Australia Inc
“Surprising”, really?
Chris Berg’s repulsive piece on Australian depopulation not only suffers from a lack of research, but trivialises a serious issue. Is it really “surprising” that this is an issue for people in a country where urban sprawl and extreme water shortages have become the norm, Mr. Berg? And as for your fear that depopulation will lessen the stock list of your boutique supermarket: many of the world’s “boring” places have given birth to beautiful things. Ricky Gervais (suburban Reading), single malt whisky (Scottish Highlands), pesto (my Nana’s kitchen).
Without crap places, there would be no shining gems for your “cultured” world to pillage.
– Madeline Farrugia, Abbotsford
Great minds v Berg
The world’s most respected scientists, including Sir David Attenborough, David Suzuki and Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, all agree: the world is overpopulated. I’ll take their views over Chris Berg’s any day.
With Australian oil production barely meeting half our needs and world prices on the way back up, and with water restrictions in cities and irrigators having to watch crops die, and with all the uncertainty of climate change, it beggars belief that an intelligent person could claim that this country needs to increase its population lest we “die of boredom”!
– James Ward, Adelaide
Look around the world
Chris Berg should spin the globe and examine Antarctica, the Sahara, the Gobi, northern Siberia, the Andes and several oceans patiently awaiting the blessings of civilisation.
– Brian Spittle, Gooseberry Hill, WA
Standing room only
Chris Berg writes that “over and over, we have demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to innovate our way out of any theoretical ‘limit to growth’ ”. It takes only simple maths to work out that continued growth of anything is insustainable. Yes, Australia is a big country with a small population. At present we are growing at 1.2 per cent per year, which doesn’t sound much. If we continue on this path, by the year 2700 we will have 1000 people per square kilometre, including the deserts. By year 3440, we would have one person per square metre – standing room only.
– Peter Seligman, Essendon
Logic, please
Chris Berg shows that we do not need a particular size population to be bored, we just need the Institute of Public Affairs. They have a template for it. Once you read one IPA article, you’ve read them all. They make the same assumption – private better than public, economic and population growth good, anything “socialist” bad, and that people who challenge these assumptions are deserving of insult, scorn, derision and a range of other put-downs.
Read the IPA articles and look for a well put-together, logical argument. You won’t find one, just the same repeated “template”: abuse, ridicule, cheap jokes and a little benevolent paternalism.
– Robert Yates, Diamond Creek
A Herald-Sun letter also mentioned my last one to the paper (30/4/2009 entry):
Our gardens are our haven
I could not agree more with readers Suzanne McHale and Mary Drost (Your Say, April 30). I too deplore the destruction of lovely houses and beautiful gardens through bad urban planning. The prospect of ugly, high- rise apartments eating up the rest of our leafy suburbs fills me with horror. Throw in the issue of inadequate infrastructure and a population growing too fast, and Melbourne’s future looks bleak indeed.
The majority of people cannot wish to live crammed cheek by jowl in tiny boxes in hideous apartments, surrounded by people. I know I certainly don’t.
Melbourne must retain its parks and gardens (including the backyard variety) and nature strips. Leave us our precious open spaces, or we’ll all go crazy. The Labor Government’s insidious 2030 policy, in collusion with developers, signais the further decline of once beautiful Melbourne.
– Brigid Guymer, Blackburn
Crowded city is maddening
It appears insane we are planning to have another million people in Melbourne when our water supply is not only dwindling, but is under threat. The issue of population growth is one that we seem to ignore and which must have an impact on the issues of sustainability of resources, infrastructure, the environment and climate change.
– Joan Lynn, Williamstown
