Melbourne on the path to ruin

Haven’t written for a while, though there have been quite a few articles on population issues; I feel disheartened that nothing ever seems to change regarding the problems faced, and that governments and business remain in denial of overpopulation’s negative effects.

“Fast-growing Melbourne heading towards becoming Australia’s largest city”, H-S, 3/4. Dismaying news for my home city, and this will completely destroy its livability, despite the positive statement of the apparently-delusional Premier. At 4.35 million now, traffic on the roads virtually grinds to a halt at times every day, and public transport is beyond capacity. Victoria’s population has also been growing rapidly as a whole (from overseas and interstate), currently at 5,768,000, most of whom head to Melbourne. It has become too popular and this is ruining it. But all Premier Denis Napthine does is “welcome” the strong growth.

“Mumbai: Bright lights, tight city”, The Age, 21/2: article from February on the extreme overcrowding in an Indian city. The situation is quite horrifying, and the people questioned are obviously unhappy about their situation – “We have already reached saturation point. We’ve got skin-to-skin contact on the trains. How much closer together can we live without going mad? There is nowhere to walk, nowhere to throw a ball or have a picnic”. It is obviously extremely unhealthy both mentally and physically. The proponents of high-density living in other countries (including those in Australia) should read this as a cautionary tale: an ultimate outcome of uncontrolled population growth and urbanization.

There has been a lot of recent attention on foreign buyers purchasing residential property in Australia – estimated at one-fifth of all buyers – particularly those from China. Our lax laws encourage this, and it is a major factor in driving up property prices to ridiculous levels, along with strong population growth. Canada recently (and sensibly) cancelled its own 28-year-old visa scheme designed to attract wealthy foreigners to the country, so Australia is now the next easy target for buyers. Of course such attention inevitably attracts criticism that such concern is “racist”, but a government’s priority should be toward its own citizens in providing essential services – shelter is a basic human right – and in this it is failing. The trend is also fuelling unwanted demolitions and inappropriate developments in once-pleasant suburbs, as a columnist laments.

Some collected letters:

One-child no longer

As part of a social reform initiative announced last week, China is to “relax” its one-child policy. There have been exceptions to it for years for certain groups, but this makes it officially-approved. Naturally my reaction was dismay (“the environment is now f*cked”). The policy has been criticized by some for being inhumane, but it somewhat it at least kept the country’s already-huge population from becoming even larger.

Someone on r/overpopulation did a rough projection of what population numbers might look like under a worldwide one-child policy. There is a decline to just over 6 billion by 2053, and 3.4 billion by this century’s end. As for a 2-child policy: “If 2 is input, the population would increase slowly until it peaks at 9 billion in 2063 before it slowly decreases, bottoming out at 5 billion in 2373”.

Oh, China, no!

China is considering allowing couples to have more than one child, due to demographic panic over an aging population and labor shortages – as well as wanting more consumers. This would result in 9.5 million additional births in an already very overpopulated
and polluted country. It will be an environmental disaster, considering that the country is already plundering other continents for resources (Australia and Africa being some).

As soon as a country’s birth rate goes into decline, its government seems to go into panic mode and do everything to encourage more births, no matter how this may negatively impact them in the future (see Iran). Those from a baby boom will one day be old too, and the cycle repeats itself.

Humanity as a species just can’t seem to commit to sustained long-term planning for the future – looking decades or even hundreds of years ahead. The type of society that is dominant now – a capitalist consumer economy – seems to preclude this. All that is heard as a policy in Australia’s upcoming Federal election is the mindless mantra of growth, growth and more growth. Any other way of thinking is heretical.

Selling off Melbourne

“Alarm over city bribes offer”, The Age, 21/10 and “The land dragons”. A lot of property in Melbourne and surrounding suburbs is being bought up by overseas investors for development, often without regard for those who live around the usually ugly buildings that are erected. Quite a lot of people seem to regard a city full of skyscrapers as sophisticated and futuristic, and regard those who think otherwise as backwards Luddites. I find such buildings dehumanizing and they are claustrophobic to walk under as they block out the sun and sky. Melbourne was a pleasanter place before skyscrapers were built.

The developments do nothing to alleviate the housing affordability crisis and here as they are marketed towards wealthy buyers and investors (some also from overseas). I feverently hope the property market will catastrophically collapse and all these greedy parasites will lose their money.

Some letters from today’s Age in response:

See you later, Mr Xu

JEFF Xu says developers can go elsewhere – if we don’t adopt an exponential approach to growth (“The land dragons”, The Sunday Age, 21/10). Then, Mr Xu, we’ll be seeing you. Growth is the ponzi scheme of the economy. You make your money, walk away and leave us to pick up the pieces. I would rather you left before you make your money that way.

The current wailing from the under-resourced new housing developments on Melbourne’s agricultural fringe will be a roar within a decade. The centre of town will be a lightless slum, and the Matthew Guys, Ron Walkers and Jeff Xus will be long gone – but not forgotten. It is good that developers who are “taking us to the cleaners” are being named.

– CHRISTOPHER MONIE, Ballarat

Room to block view

AS ASIAN-financed boxes move further skyward, much charm in our city is slowly being diminished. Perhaps it is just as well that our suburban transport system’s use of external advertising, at least partially, obscures our view of the changing landscape.

– PAUL MURCHISON, Kingsbury

Weed out corruption

CITY of Melbourne councillor Ken Ong warns of a “ ‘subculture’ of corruption taking root in Melbourne” (“Alarm over city bribes offer”, The Sunday Age, 21/10). However, the subculture of corruption may have already taken firm root in a range of areas. We have small-scale entrepreneur “Mary” operating her business of ghost-writing assignments, and now large-scale, bribe-offering developer entrepreneurs at the big end of town.

Regardless of how business may be done in other countries, it is vital for the wellbeing of our society that we ensure things are done here with honesty and due process. Vigilant scrutiny and constant weeding out of any corruption before its poisonous roots go too deep is needed. Applause for Councillor Ong for his timely warning.

– DEBORAH MORRISON, Malvern East

Not our backyard

SHANGHAI property developer Jeff Xu says developers “can choose Canada … they can choose Shanghai”. I respectfully recommend choosing Shanghai for fulfilling high-rise fantasies; leave Melbourne alone. Australians like wide-open spaces; they want to see the sky, the ocean, the hills and plains, feel surrounded by nature. They do not want to live in crammed spaces removed from the environment. Melbourne is one of the world’s most liveable places thanks to its parks and gardens, not because of its looming towers in the CBD.

– MARGIT ALM, Eltham

“Chinese parents invest in overseas digs for sons and daughters”, Wentworth Courier, 5/10. This trend also drives up house prices and pushes out local citizens who simply want a place to live. Any hope of the government closing this loophole? Not likely.

Colonization by stealth?

“The Unintended Consequences Of China’s One-child Policy”, io9, 3/10. I usually emit a groan when this topic comes up, as the critics of the policy come out in force. The article points out the issues with such a policy:

• Males outnumbering females due to a long-standing cultural preference for boys.
• “Surplus males” – men greatly outnumbering women, which can be an instigator of social unrest from frustrated males. This was “traditionally” (if not consciously) dealt with by war.
• The elderly outnumbering the young in a declining population.

As more than one commenter remarks there, however, what else was the Chinese government to do? If they allowed unrestrained reproduction the population would be even greater than the already huge figure (1.4 billion or so), with all the social problems and environmental damage that result (and still are afflicting the country, anyway). The policy does not apply to everyone, anyway – some ethnic groups, for example, are exempt (perhaps to keep them mollified?), and some cities are reversing the policy to address the aging problem (see previous entries with the China label).

Another traditonal way of dealing with “surplus people” is to export them, and China is certainly doing this – Australia is a popular destination. However this strategy can incite resentment amongst the host country’s citizens as they face increased competition for living space and jobs, as described this article: “In Africa’s warm heart, a cold welcome for Chinese”, Reuters, 18/9. Many African citizens are growing resentful of increased Chinese immigration there, as the latter can undercut them with cheap imported labor and goods. They also have no qualms about bribery when deemed necessary.

China is also, to put it bluntly, plundering the rest of the world for resources, such as Australia and Africa for minerals and farmland. This is also another potential source of conflict, though those raising alarm about this – such as recent controversy over the sale of a large cotton farm to Chinese investors – are invariably branded “xenophobic”. With future food and resource security at stake, though, why is this so unreasonable? I doubt the Chinese government has any scruples about their activities. In Africa’s case, China is effectively colonizing and exploiting the continent, as Europe did in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries – the term for this new version is neocolonialism.

Edit, 28/10: forgot to mention Tibet as an example.

Loopholes

“Chinese couple pay to have second child”, Telegraph, 1/6. Another article proving that many selfish people will seek to circumvent whatever birth restriction policies are in place. My opinions on this were stated in my 11/2/2012 entry.

However, the [one-child] policy has never been evenly enforced. There are exemptions for ethnic minorities, for families where both parents were single children themselves, and for couples in the countryside whose first child is a girl. In addition, a growing number of rich families now choose simply to pay the fine, which is a multiple of between three and ten times the average after-tax income of the city where they live. Aspirational advertisements in Beijing, including propaganda posters from the local government, often now show families with two children, rather than one.

“China’s One-Child Policy’s Unexpected Issue: Infertility”, Forbes, 25/5. In an overpopulated country (and world) I can’t see this as a bad thing, sorry! I would like to see a ban on IVF – or at least not have it taxpayer-funded.

Huang Hefeng, director of the Zhejiang province reproductive medical center, said that factors like heavy workloads, stress, environmental pollution and unhealthy lifestyles are known to be related to a rising infertility level in China. The WHO expects infertility and sterility to be the third-most serious disease worldwide in the 21st century, after cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

Battery-hen living

“Hong Kong’s High-Density Housing & Cramped Living Conditions”, ChinaSMACK.com, 23/5 (via Kotaku). These are a series of photos showing the incredibly cramped living conditions that are normal for that city. To my view it looks rather hellish, though I suppose someone who grew up there would regard it as normal. I guess such cramped apartments are preferable to being homeless, but it seems a very Nature-deprived way of living – humans did not evolve to live like termites. I can’t imagine such conditions as being good for their long-term health. Many regard such dense living as desirable for its supposed reduced “ecological footprint”, but the people in the buildings still need all their supplies brought in from elsewhere. I would hate to have to climb up and down hundreds of stairs, or rely on lifts, just to go outside! If a fire took hold in one of those apartments, it would be a major disaster if the residents could not access fire escapes.

A recent Daily Mail article shows the even more nightmarish-looking Kowloon Walled City in China before its (thankful) demolition, an unplanned, unregulated and claustrophobic rabbit warren housing 50,000 or so residents. I don’t envy the children growing up there! They would undoubtedly have many health problems, given China’s pollution, and be very Nature-deprived if they never went outside its walls. The io9 sci-fi site mentioned the place a few times – a few commenters there seem to have romanticized views of the place as it resembled a science fiction dystopia.

Families are squeezed together in tiny apartments, with all their possessions crowding the rooms. (I have to admit that my increasingly cluttered bedroom does not look too different! But at least I can go outside into the backyard or for a walk around the streets.)

“No room for a view”, The Age, 14/5. Melbourne CBD residents are increasingly facing a problem with overshadowing from the many tall apartments being erected, though on a much smaller scale than Hong Kong. Planning here is generally poorly-thought out, with developers given far too many concessions. Problem is that most cities have not been planned properly from their inception and have grown in a messy organic fashion over the decades or centuries – Kowloon was an extreme example of this – so new developments are shoehorned in as best city planners can.

“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, 13/5. Yet another alarmist article concerning Japan’s ageing and declining population! It seems to have become a favorite trope. Given their advances in technology (somewhat exaggerated in a satirical Onion article from 2007, “Earthquake Sets Japan Back To 2147”), perhaps they will have robot helpers by then, and people won’t stop having children altogether, so the article is just silly. A couple of letters in response, 16/5:

Falling population

ANYONE who has battled crowds on Tokyo’s trains will welcome the news that Japan’s population is declining (“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, theage.com.au, 13/5). Japan is an overcrowded country with few natural resources, and its population needs to decline.

As for disappearing altogether, it’s not going to happen. When the population gets close to what is deemed ecologically sustainable, all the government needs to do is introduce baby bonuses to boost the fertility rate. After the baby bonus was introduced here, our fertility rate went from 1.7 to 1.9.

As for ageing, look at the Okinawans. They live to a ripe old age and are largely independent as they age. Other Japanese can do the same once they are given a bit of space and fresh air – splendid side effects of a lower population.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Act on East Timor

IT’S good to see the “urgent” matter of the extrapolated extinction of the Japanese race in 1000 years being raised.

But we never hear about the doubling of the population of East Timor (an infertile and seasonally dry country already food-insecure) within 25 years due to unwanted and preventable births happening now.

The Japanese may well decide to have more children – for example, when an average couple can afford a home with more than one bedroom. In the meantime, they have everything to gain from population shrinkage. The East Timorese, on the other hand …

– Jane O’Sullivan, Chelmer, Queensland

Addendum: Letter from MP Kelvin Thompson regarding Melbourne’s sorry excuse for high-rise planning, 27/5:

THE article “Chasing the sun among high-rises a heated issue” (20/5) raises very important issues about Melbourne’s headlong rush to high-rise.

The loss of sunlight is a very important point. As is the fact that high-density high-rise buildings have big carbon footprints, consume more energy, generate more pollution and detract public amenity through the large shadows they cast. The proliferation of high-rise development is threatening not only our environment, but also our social fabric.

I am a fan of the suburban backyard. I believe children who grow up in concrete jungles are subject to more bullying and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs. What do you call a kid in a backyard? A free range kid. I think free range kids have a better time of it than battery kids. The more high-rise developments that are shoved down the throats of local communities, the more our communities will be suffocated.

– KELVIN THOMSON, MP, Federal Member for Wills

Oh no, please don’t

“Urgent calls to alter one-child policy”, The Age, 3/3. There is a push to gradually abolish this policy, the main reason being to encourage economic growth (i.e. produce future consumers – “Relaxing the one-child policy is ‘urgent’ to help shift the economy towards greater consumption”) – never mind the impact on China’s already-degraded environment, or the additional increase to its huge population. Another symptom of this current civilization’s growth addiction. If there is a population decline – mainly a decrease in births – there seems to be a panicked reaction to try to rectify this.

“Shanghai Gets Supersized”, Smithsonian, November 2011. A general overview of the city of 23 million – approximately Australia’s population – squeezed into an area of a little over 6 km². A dystopian, polluted nightmare, but this is the future that technological types seem to find desirable. My reaction to such places is: Nuke it from Orbit.

“Big Australia looms as migration surges”, AN/PublicPopForum, 7/3. This unwanted increase when there are weekly reports of hundreds of job losses and rising unemployment. The asylum seekers are an extra burden on welfare. As noted in “ Australia a ‘soft touch’ for asylum”, the situation with illegal boat arrivals has reached absurdity, but a lot of idealistic fools would let them all in unchallenged.

Cheating the system

“China warns parents against Hong Kong ‘birth tours’ ”, H-S, 8/2 (also at The Age). Here is evidence that some people will go to great lengths to avoid birthrate control restrictions – in this case, Chinese women going to Hong Kong to have more children. It shows that some can be irrational when it comes to reproduction and they therefore can’t be trusted to do the right thing. The punishments are monetary fines, but in a future dystopia, or fictional one, these punishments could be a lot harsher (I’ll leave those to the imagination). If you look under my fiction tag you can see previous entries with examples of these dystopias.

Baby bribery

“Dump baby bonus, says Anglican Church’s key advisory group”, Herald-Sun, 28/4 (ABC article also). This proposal by (surprisingly) a religious organization drew much controversy. Unfortunately the wasteful bonus looks here to stay, with both major political parties (Labor and Liberal) saying they would not abolish it – despite the considerable savings to be made if they did (278,000 baby bonus payments paid out last year at $5294 each equals nearly $1.5 billion!). They would not then have to cut medical research funding as the upcoming Budget threatens – a shortsighted policy if there ever was. I suppose they are more afraid of losing votes. Sadly, issues involving reproduction seem to bring out the worst irrationality in humans.

“Big Melbourne isn’t to be feared, you might find it’ll grow on you”, The Age, 23/4. An utterly deluded piece of drivel! He shares the bizarre conviction that bigger is better, despite the misery this policy inflicts on those living in the affected city. He does admit, almost as an aside:

Admittedly, the advent of 605,000 extra Melburnians since 2001 creates problems: worsening traffic, crowded trains and insufficient housing supply has driven prices to ludicrous heights. But for all the whingeing, the positives of the Big Melbourne far outweigh the negatives.

Oh no they don’t, mate!

“China’s crop supply dries up, spurring global prices”, 19/4. As China’s population increases, it is losing farmland – a lot of this due to urban growth. Perhaps one ultimate solution would be genetically-modified and processed algae for consumption (as I have read in a sci-fi novel or two, and was mentioned in the Avatar movie).

The factories sprawling from Jinan city, 350 kilometers (220 miles) south of Beijing, put Zhao on the front line of a clash between a policy of food self-sufficiency and industrial growth that made China the world’s second-biggest economy. Industrialisation is winning, signaling prices for crops like wheat and corn will rise as China is increasingly unable to feed itself and vies for supplies on global markets.

On a slightly different note, the parasitical organizations otherwise known as hedge funds can only see this as an opportunity for profit:

“China’s increased demand for agricultural commodities will mean an increase in prices for the entire world market,” said David Stroud, chief executive officer of New York-based hedge fund TS Capital Partners. “China can outlast any other bidders for the commodities it desires.” Investors should bet on crops in shortest supply in China, with wheat and corn now offering the best opportunities, he said.

In other words, they seek to profit from others’ misery.

“World’s future is a crowded place”, SMH, 30/4. An overview of the world’s increasing population and the issues involved. Though they seem overly optimistic; 9 billion is still a huge burden on the environment. Countermeasures such as educating women and giving them access to family planning are one way to combat growth, but it is too slow (over decades) and does not always work – as the many “educated” women in Australia having 3+ children demonstrate. Food shortages will be an issue. The well-worn example of the world’s population fitting into a given area is stated yet again, but this is utterly irrelevant to reality.

The world’s current population could stand, shoulder to shoulder, inside the borders of greater Sydney. That means there is enough land for all: how much they consume is the problem. Graeme Hugo warns that population reduction is not a silver bullet: “You need good environmental policy as well as good population policy.”

Much of that land is desert or otherwise unlivable, and reducing consumption can only go so far. Population reduction is ultimately the only sustainable solution.

Collected letters:

Urban nightmares

“The future is a high-rise world”, The Age, 22/12/2010. I have come to detest architects in general; most seem to be enraptured by the idea of cramming millions of humans into futuristic hi-tech cities, and rendering utopian artwork of such. One of the most extreme examples is that of housing up to one million people in a single tower in London (architect’s webpage) to accomodate its growing population. To me that sounds like a nightmarish way to live, crammed into a small space with that many people – “battery-hen living” is my name for it. The architect in the first article, Thom Mayne, seems to be one of those arrogant types who think city living is sophisticated and sneers at suburbs – I just want to slap him!

“What future for intelligent life in space?”, The Space Review, 7/11. This opinion piece by Stephen Ashworth asserts that colonizing space (as opposed to other planets) and exploiting its resources will enable humanity to keep expanding almost indefinitely. This comes across to me as “Space Cadet” thinking – an overly-optimistic view that going into space will magically solve humanity’s problems. Somewhat alarmingly, he notes that such expansion will supposedly allow the human population to expand hugely:

In this way, very large future human populations are conceivable. For example, John S. Lewis has reckoned that the material resources of the main asteroid belt, together with large-scale use of solar power, would allow at least 10 million billion people to support themselves (Mining the Sky, p.196). When one adds in the Jupiter trojans and the opportunities presented by the outer solar system, even larger populations become possible. Frank Drake and Dava Sobel have put the overall carrying capacity of our system at “more than a hundred billion billion human beings” (Is Anyone Out There?, p.128), while Marshall Savage suggests an even larger figure (The Millennial Project, p.303). We do not need to quibble over orders of magnitude in order to make the point that the propensity for economic and population growth characteristic of industrial civilization is well matched with the opportunities offered by its local environment, provided that the 21st century sees a shift of the focus of industrial and population growth away from Earth and onto large-scale development of the natural resources of near-Earth space.

It’s the same old infinite growth mentality that is causing so much damage to humanity and the enviroment on Earth. Realistically, I can’t see space colonies happening before mid- or late-century – if ever. And most people would want to stay on Earth, on which humans have evolved and are intensely adapted to.

China’s population reached 1.34 billion last year – attributed mainly to people living longer rather than more births. But now the furphy of the “ageing population” is being raised:

Cai Yong said allowing more births now would help the country cope with looking after its large and growing elderly population. “To have a stable society, you better start now, to think ahead of time because it takes 20 to 30 years to have another generation come down the line,” he said.

And then they will be back to square one, because the increased number of young people born will grow old, and require yet more young people born to look after them… *Sigh*

The year of 7 billion

2011 marks a dismal milestone, in that the estimated population of humans will reach 7 billion, a near-unimaginable number for which the Earth’s environment is suffering. World population estimates at Wikipedia shows the huge growth in the 20th century: in 1900 there was an estimated 1.6 billion; only 101 years later that has increased nearly seven times (despite various wars and revolutions killing millions). Despite claims population growth has slowed or is in decline, the projection is still 8 billion in 2025 and 9 billion in 2050 – given current rates, those numbers will probably be reached sooner.

“Asia tells its young: love is in the air”, The Age, 15/1. Despite various Asian countries having huge populations, their governments are getting in a lather about falling fertility rates and so are trying to reverse this through various policies. Well, when you educate and empower women, that’s what is supposed to happen!

In the category of “I shouldn’t say anything, but I can’t resist” is a response to this blog entry, “Oh, restricting IVF will save us from overpopulation, pestilence, war and famine?”. (I used to enjoy his blog, but not so much anymore.) I thought the one who originally emailed him had some valid points, but he equates access to IVF as a “human right”; that Medicare funding for it is as valid as doing the same for, say, a hip replacement operation. I think this comparison is spurious at best (as I have said in previous IVF-tagged posts).

“Burke rejects population goal”, The Age, 17/12/2010. Predictably, the Federal Government is avoiding setting a population target.

“Cities getting less liveable”, The Age, 20/12/2010. Population growth has increased house prices, strained services and is generally making life miserable for citizens. But the Government won’t address this.

“China faces up to growth cost”, The Age, 30/12/2010. China’s rapid population and economic growth are destroying its environment. Something’s got to give.

“Urban sprawl aided Aussie torrent: experts”, The West, 14/1 (also here). Deliberate encouragement of population growth and the accompanying urban sprawl helped make the disasterous Queensland floods even worse than they otherwise might have been. I believe that I can safely predict that governments will do nothing to remedy this, and the next floods will be even worse.

Bad decision

“Ageing China flags truce in one-child revolution”, The Age, 13/9. Some dismaying news that China is easing its 1-child policy because of alarm over who will look after their aging population. Perhaps they should consider alternatives such as developing helper robots. Their population is still growing, however:

By 2050 India is expected to have grown to 1.75 billion people compared with China’s 1.44 billion, according to the Population Reference Bureau. China’s population is now 1.34 billion and India’s 1.19 billion.

Ideally, I would like to see a 2-child policy implemented worldwide – but that would require a dictatorial world government to reinforce.

“Nation fertile ground for IVF”, Herald-Sun. IVF treatments in Australia are on the increase. I am adamantly against government funding for this procedure (on Medicare) and this should be abolished, though there would be an outcry as people get irrational when it comes to reproduction. There is no intrinsic “right” to IVF. With the world being already overpopulated, more people should not be created artificially.

“Strict curbs on IVF treatment a must, says Susie O’Brien”, H-S, 11/5. The taxpayer-funded treatment is being abused and should be reined in.

It’s made me realise that having babies through IVF is fast being regarded as a right, not a privilege. And this makes me profoundly uneasy.

[…]

And take the case of Victorian woman Kimberley Castles, who is serving three years in a minimum security jail for welfare fraud, and who is pushing to get IVF in jail. She has only seven months left before she turns 46 and becomes ineligible for in vitro fertilisation treatment. Although I don’t think any human rights should be denied to people in jail, this is one privilege that should not be granted to Castles.

Unfortunately the IVF was granted to her – despite her already having 2 children – because denying her treatment (and justly so, in my view) was a breach of her “rights”. What bullshit! There is no intrinsic “right” to reproduce, and certainly not at taxpayers’ expense while incarcerated, as in her case. In this society there is too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibilities.

“Big fall in IVF attempts as cost soars”, The Age, 13/8.

But instead they had increased the proportion of the total cost met directly by people seeking the treatment, said Sandra Dill, chief executive of the patient group Access Australia Infertility Network. “There are 1000 babies that won’t be born,” she said. “It’s not as if IVF’s a hit-and-miss thing. It’s highly successful.”

1000 people who won’t exist in an overpopulated world – that is a good thing!

Cramped city

Tokyo’s population has reached an astonishing 13 million (13.1 million as of 1/4), packed into a dense urban area of 2000 km² (Victoria, in contrast, has 3.4 million people in nearly 9000 km²). I suppose some would say that such density is an efficient use of space, but to me it sounds nightmarish. Granted, Japan has a cultural mindset that allows people to mostly live civily in such crowded conditions (one can imagine how those from a relatively uncivilized and violent Australian culture would cope – namely, not at all!), but it is hardly a desirable way to live.

Some officials in China are pushing to ease the one-child limit, because of alarmism over an aging population. (However, the one-child limit does not apply to ethnic minorities and rural families.) The surfeit of younger people will supposedly slow down economic growth. But the population is still growing, expected to reach 1.4 billion in 2026 before shrinking – how do they expect to find employment and resources for such huge numbers? Some are opposed to relaxing the limit.

Still, not all experts agree the one-child rule should be dropped. Li Xiaoping, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, welcomes the coming population decline, saying it will ease food and water shortages and limit pollution. Writing in the state-run China Daily newspaper, Li said the government should stand firm on the one-child limit while finding ways to boost the earning power of a smaller work force.

“Taiwanese solution to soaring house prices: don’t have kids”, The Age, 27/4. Like Australia’s housing market, Taiwan’s is also out of control, no thanks to investors, and one inadvertent result has been a decline in fertility. Its population at over 23 million is only a little more than Australia’s, but crammed into a small island, so such a decline is a good thing – but not according to the writer, who raises the usual ageing population alarmism.

But not having children creates even bigger costs ahead. Right now, Taiwan has 6.8 people of working age for every retiree. But preschools are already closing for lack of children, and the population is set to shrink dramatically. By 2032, demographers project, Taiwan will have just 2.5 potential workers for every retiree – and by 2056, just 1.4. If nothing changes, Taiwan – like China, Japan and Korea – will slowly become economically unviable.

“The shock of the old: Welcome to the elderly age”, 8/4. This article states that an ageing population is not necessarily a bad thing, and even a positive thing in many respects – one being that the pathological social obsession with youth might abate. Society will need to make some adjustments, such as being prepared to employ older workers, but it won’t be the disaster many doomsayers predict. Another positive aspect not mentioned: with fewer young males around, violence should also lessen.

“Too many people packed into dirty, crowded cities”, Daily Telegraph, 11/2. An opinion piece by businessman Dick Smith, who has become an opponent of population growth (one of the good guys, in other words!). Australia should not seek to emulate the megacities of the world, which are horridly overcrowded.

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”.

Freeway mania

“Frankston Bypass to bury historical remnant bush at Westerfield”, Courier-Mail, 10/12. I can only feel disgust at the Brumby Government for its obsession with scarring the landscape with yet more freeways, and this particular freeway will cut through an ecologically-significant piece of remnant bushland. No amount of compensation will make up for the loss once that ecology is gone. As it is a compulsory aquisition, the old couple who own the land appear powerless to do anything to stop it – though surely they could take their objection to court? I can see why people rebel against governments out of sheer frustration when all else fails (I am wishing for civil war against the current one). The environmental credentials of the State Government are a joke; it only cares for growing the economy and population, and placating developers and the building industry.

“Expert calls for freeway projects to be scrapped”, The Age, 3/12. No more freeways should be built until there is a comprehensive transport plan in place, and money should instead be put into rail lines. That’s a forlorn hope, however, with the current Government.

“Victorian prep classes to be at bursting point as ‘one for the country’ kids start school”, H-S, 15/12. Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello’s stupid remark in 2004 is unfortunately becoming reality as the birth rate has increased, no thanks to the baby bonus. We don’t need any more children.

China and India are, not surprisingly, among the highest source of immigrants. Both countries have such unsustainably huge populations that many have to go to other countries to find work. But they can’t expect to keep exporting their surplus people. The UK has a similar problem with its high immigration; there is a “spillover” of its citizens coming to Australia because the UK is so overcrowded. What happens when Australia in turn becomes unliveable because of growth? There is nowhere else to go.

Outspoken federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson wants immigration slashed on the basis that rampant population growth is worsening urban congestion, harming the environment and exacerbating the water shortage. But his leader, PM Kevin Rudd, is a “big Australia man”, with the Federal Government predicting the population will grow to 35 million by 2050.

Could Kelvin Thomson please run for PM? He would definitely get my vote (I certainly won’t be voting for the Rudd Government again, and the Liberals are just as bad).

“Wake-up to the opportunities in population growth”, The Age, 11/12. An utterly inane opinion by columnist Julie Szego, who believes that Australia has some moral duty to import more people because other countries have high populations.

Changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness, the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) ethos writ large. It would not help make cities more dense and habits less wasteful – quite the reverse. Lessen the pressure for change and the danger is complacency. Go down the misanthropic path and tomorrow’s suburban protesters (what, a new housing block /school/skate park? In my street?) are emboldened today.

People are NIMBYs because they want to retain their pleasant surroundings of gardens and space, not be crammed into high-density developments like battery hens. The article got a lot of scathing comments, including mine:

More people are an “opportunity”? Yes – if you don’t mind competing for dwindling living space, jobs and resources. European countries are facing social unrest from their massive immigration (remember the riots in France?). If you think population growth is a good thing, you are seriously deluded.

12/12:

Expect a backlash

Julie Szego (Comment, 11/12) provides little information as to exactly what the opportunities are in population growth. In fact by references to congestion, water shortages, fraying social fabric and greenhouse gas emissions, she gives examples of how our lifestyle will be diminished.

She holds up Spain as an example because it absorbed 2.5 million immigrants, but fails to mention the impact it had as development ran amok, corrupting local councils.

In Europe there is hardly a nation that has not experienced a backlash against immigration. Right-wing extreme parties have proliferated and violence against minorities has escalated, often because migrants have a disproportionately high level of unemployment and are forced to congregate in slums.

– Don Owers, Dudley, NSW

14/12:

Can’t cut footprint if adding more feet

I would like to correct four points in Julie Szego’s argument (Comment, 11/12) in favour of a 60 per cent population increase.

First, that “changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness”. It is the exact opposite. We should be less selfish, and share this country with our wonderful wildlife, and keep it intact for our children and grandchildren. It would be utterly selfish to ruin our country for the sake of a bigger corporate bottom line now.

Second, that my proposal to scrap the baby bonus means “the future’s no longer worth nurturing”. Wrong again. I am in favour of nurturing the future, but you do that far better by putting money into educating and training young Australians.

Third, at no stage have I proposed a Chinese-style one child policy. My plan also involves a net 70,000 migrants each year.

Finally, that “climate change is a red herring”. Nonsense. Cutting Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent or more by 2050 is made much harder by population rising by 60 per cent during that time. It’s hard to reduce your carbon footprint when you keep adding more feet.

– Kelvin Thomson, federal member for Wills

Monument to greed

Graham Reilly (Insight, 12/12) said it all. Local residents with limited resources are obliged to be the custodians of the very “soul” of each local area while developers are given free rein to push the envelope as far as possible – and beyond – to maximise profit. They’re on a “search and destroy” mission called “planning by arithmetic”.

Meanwhile, the Planning Minister happily endorses every plot to curtail the rights of residents and the already limited powers of councils, so that the “soul” of Melbourne is forever dammed to a car-packed, grey, concrete monument to greed.

The unique qualities of our suburbs are lost to what is euphemistically known as “urban renewal”. Just what is the minister renewing? He is being handed unprecedented powers over our way of life.

– Ann Reid, Malvern East

15/12:

Weight of numbers

The world’s human population is anticipated to rise quickly to at least 9 billion, but is likely to go higher if sufficient water and food can be found to sustain more people. This is easily the biggest crisis confronting humanity. All over the planet ecosystems are collapsing under the weight of human populations and species are being made extinct at cataclysmic rates.

My ancestors came here from Europe because it was overcrowded and without opportunities. They dispossessed Aboriginal populations who were living sustainably. That process continues. Why humans should decide to cram as many people on to the planet as conceivably possible is strange, given the history of overcrowding, environmental collapse, resource wars, and famines past and present.

The least we might expect is rational debate on this most important issue, not dictum from on high. Let’s think about where increased overpopulation might take us.

– Jim Walker, Caulfield

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).

Overgrowth

A few articles collected during this week, so I’ll list them by date order.

“Higher immigration not an economic magic bullet”, SMH, 4/2. Article from February saying that increasing immigration has some benefits but also some negatives.

“Getting a UK job a song and dance”, The Age, 4/5. The UK is tightening its immigration requirements for foreign workers (Australian ones in this case) due to rising domestic unemployment. Some of those skilled Australians are needed back here!

“Melbourne needs to grow up and end urban sprawl”, The Age, 4/5. This editorial asserts that Melbourne’s urban sprawl must be contained – no disagreement there – but by accommodating the increasing population in high-density developments, not by restricting population growth:

The ABS outlook represents even more rapid growth than anticipated in the State Government’s Melbourne 2030 strategy, which has made little headway in preparing for the city population to expand by a third. A revolution in planning is needed because the urban area has already spread across 100 kilometres from south to north and east to west. A city this big – and a 10,000-square-kilometre footprint is big by any standard – is reaching the limits of growth. The Government is already struggling with the challenges of connecting and servicing the whole city, much less ensuring its sustainability. Some argue that the answer is to cap the population, since the forecast growth is based on assumed annual immigration intakes of 180,000 (slightly below recent levels). Yet how else will Australia sustain its economy and tax revenue as its ageing workforce, dominated by baby boomers, retires?

Maybe we should adapt a different outlook – a steady-state economy, not a forever-growing and unsustainable one? A few letters were published in response. Most disagreed, but the third one, from the so-called “Friends of the Earth” organization, thought the plan a good idea, using that word I have come to loathe, “vibrant” – which apparently means having huge numbers of people swarming about. A lot of people are concerned about Melbourne’s unsustainable population growth, but the State Government just does not want to listen. We will know who to blame when Melbourne degrades into a nightmarish megacity in a decade or so.

Too much of this good thing will come at a price

Melbourne does need to grow up, but not in the way suggested. A mature city, as with any organism, does not grow, but develops sustainably. Growth is like a cancer – you can have too much of a good thing. We should not be enslaved by the economy, but use it as a tool to improve our quality of life, shifting resources to where they are needed – to support the elderly, the ill or the environment – instead of using it for baby bonuses and freeways that encourage higher population growth and car use, leading to yet more overcrowding and congestion.

– Jennie Epstein, Little River

Get off this wheel

Your editorial (4/5) does not appear to take into account that Bureau of Statistics projections of high immigration-fuelled population growth depend on past and present assumptions of immigration intakes.

If the Federal Government continues with its immigration policies, then future population growth projections will become a political self-fulfilling prophecy – and so will the need for ill-founded radical solutions to be forced on a disenfranchised electorate.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

Done well, it’s a solution

The issue of urban infill is such an emotive one that it can be hard to come out in support of Melbourne “going up rather than out”. Therefore, congratulations should go to The Age for yesterday’s editorial.

Urban infill is a key way we could finally rein in the seemingly endless urban sprawl that has Melbourne stretching for more than 100 kilometres from east to west. As anyone who has travelled to Western Europe will know, compact and dense cities can be beautiful, vibrant and liveable. Allowing for greater density in suitable locations should be encouraged. To achieve this we will need to be able to convince people that this doesn’t mean open slather for property developers, a legitimate concern. We need to ensure that growth planning gets this right.

At last week’s COAG meeting, the states signed up to uniform six-star energy ratings for new homes. This is a good start but still far short of what is technically possible and economically viable.

We urge the State Government not to rush forward with speeding up housing development without giving serious consideration to improving energy ratings in housing and channelling much of the new construction into infill rather than the urban fringe.

– Cam Walker, campaigns co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth, Fitzroy

Look after our heritage

It is true that the people of Melbourne will be unlikely to tolerate the imposition of developers in the process of increasing urban density.

What is also true is that the people of Melbourne seem to have no say at all in what developments of any kind look like. How is it that our political representatives are required to seek expert opinions on technical matters and not on the visual aspects when buildings are being created?

Melbourne is being subjected to a rash of buildings that look cheap, impermanent and ugly. I love modern but believe it must, and can, have grace and charm. I love “green” buildings but they must also offer peace and beauty to the people who live in them, and they must offer connections to the visual-scape around them.

We have a right to expect that our leaders will ensure that we enhance our heritage, modern or not. At the moment, we have multi-storey boxes copying historical styles, Lego-like concrete boxes with cheap-as-chips decoration and large, wiry public extravaganzas dominating our vanishing visual heritage.

Imagination, courage and a genuine desire to contribute to the whole community has been conquered by the big dollars that belong to only a few. Melbourne should not be for sale.

– Carol Oliver, Daylesford

RIP democracy

Your article spells out exactly what I have been predicting (“Rudd millions may bypass planning system”, The Age, 4/5). The Rudd billions (actually our taxpayer cash) is going to be put into the hands of the developers to build anything, anywhere.

The move to centralised planning that is obviously where Mr Brumby is taking Victoria will bring about the death of “marvellous Melbourne” and democracy. They don’t want to hear council or resident voices. Their planning zealots know better than us, the great unwashed.

Mr Brumby, give the people a voice. Have an open and honest discussion about how many people Melbourne can actually have without becoming unliveable. There are alternatives to overcrowding. If you lose touch with the people, it is time to go.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell

“Quake survivors start bittersweet baby boom”, The Age, 6/5. Survivors who lost their children last year’s earthquake in China’s Sichuan province are being permitted to have another child. Yet again there is implied criticism of China’s one-child policy.

The motives are not purely humanitarian. The Government needs to quell resentment over its unpopular limits on family size. Sichuan has long been a battleground over the policy, with the Government strictly enforcing the one-child limit. (In many other parts of China, farmers can have a second child if the first is a girl, but not in Sichuan.) Among Sichuan’s predominantly rural population, most people have no retirement plans other than the ingrained Chinese tradition that children care for their elders. “The earthquake very much highlights the vulnerability of the one-child policy,” said Gu Baochang, a professor of demographics at the People’s University in Beijing. “These people are not covered by any social security program. They rely completely on their children for elderly support. And it’s not just money. Once they are old, without children they have no place in society.”

Introducing a social security scheme would seem an obvious solution!

“Migrant figures jump the slump”, The Age, 9/5. Another study of Bureau of Statistics figures showing Australian immigration has increased – but another report on the same day says the skilled immigration figures will be cut again (but not by very much):

Skilled migration intake to be slashed

Australia’s skilled migration intake will be slashed for the second time in the past two months.

Next week’s federal budget will cut the general skilled migration intake for the next financial year by about 7,000 people to 108,000, Fairfax reports. The government’s move follows a decision taken in March to shed 18,500 places.

The total reduction of 25,000 places will constitute a 20 per cent cut to the program. The cuts are the deepest since the previous recession, Fairfax reports.

The move is expected to go ahead despite figures released this week which show the unemployment rate fell from 5.7 per cent to 5.4 per cent, or 27,000 jobs, last month.

According to this letter-writer in the 8/5 The Age, advocating population control is “dangerous” because it encourages urban sprawl!

Destructive fantasy

In the debate over planning, a dangerous furphy has emerged – that of eliminating population growth as a “solution” to urban growth woes.

It is not simply that this is unachievable. It is dangerous because it perpetuates a destructive fantasy – that we can continue to help ourselves to what we want (quarter-acre sprawl) without having to face the inevitable consequences (an unsustainable, unliveable urban mess). The recession demonstrates how the Western world deluded itself that the good times would roll on without end. We now find ourselves bewildered because we refused to acknowledge that getting what we want would eventually exact its price.

Planners have known for decades that car-dependent sprawl would end in choked roads and destruction of liveability. We cannot simply switch off urban growth just because we have realised the costs of doing it badly.

We need to transform our city into one that is capable of providing for our future. The one-dimensional sprawl we have pursued for 60 years is incapable of doing this.

– Kris Hansen, Ringwood

A reply I emailed in (not yet published):

Kris Hansen’s odd assertion (The Age, Letters, 8/5) that controlling population growth is “dangerous” because it encourages urban sprawl is lacking in logic – a low population density will contain such sprawl while ensuring people can still enjoy their quarter-acre blocks and gardens. Forcing people to live in high-density apartment towers is not an acceptable substitute, and is an environmentally-unfriendly solution.

“IVF a future investment”, Herald-Sun, 10/5. The virulent IVF lobby gets another hearing on Mother’s Day.

If the speculation of cuts to IVF funding is true, such treatments will be out of the financial reach of many Australian couples from next week. Having a baby could become a luxury. I’m appalled a Labor government would let that happen – making money a deciding factor in who has children. Infertility is not nature’s way of eliminating unworthy parents. Nor should it eliminate those with limited incomes.

In some cases, infertility is Nature’s way of eliminating genetically-defective parents (if IVF treatment is given, that infertility can be passed to the next generation). And if people can’t afford to have children, well, that is self-evident!

China’s surplus males

I have addressed this topic before (2/6/2008 entry), but there have been three articles this week about the potential for social unrest that ensues from a population of single, unemployed young men. The cultural preference for boys in China and the one-child policy means that female foetuses are sometimes aborted.

“Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million”, New York Times, 10/4.

The Chinese government is openly concerned “about the consequences of large numbers of excess men for social stability and security,” the researchers said. But “although some imaginative and extreme solutions have been suggested,” they wrote, China will have too many men for a generation to come.

“With 32.7 Million ‘Excess Males,’ What Will Become of China?”, io9, 14/4.

“Sex Reversal”, Slate, 15/4.

The government is very aware of the problem and has openly expressed concerns about the consequences of large numbers of excess men for societal stability and security. As early as 2000 the government launched a range of policies to specifically counter the sex imbalance, the “care for girls” campaign. This includes changes in laws in areas such as inheritance by females, as well as an educational campaign to promote gender equality. These measures have had some success, with reports of lower sex ratios at birth in targeted localities.

In other words, the quota on children, translated through sexism into a quota on girls, has created a political problem for the government. And this, in turn, has forced the government to confront sexism economically and culturally. This policy change is being driven not by moral enlightenment but by practical necessity. The old problem was too many children. The new problem is too few girls. Without enough girls, the boys become unruly. So the government, following the same collective logic that inspired the one-child policy, has become the world's biggest promoter of sexual equality.

A few commenters remarked that the time-honored method of dealing with a male surplus was a war, though this is somewhat uncontrolled and messy. The other rather drastic solution would be a controlled cull, as I noted in that entry. China can’t afford to relax its population policy if its government is to maintain social stability.

“The cut and thrust of secret men’s business”, The Age, 14/4. A short but positive profile of a doctor who has performed a huge number of vasectomies (13 000 to date!).

One too many

“Chinese women ‘want more babies’ ”, BBC News, 16/1. A 2006 survey by Chinese family-planning officials found that most (70%) women want to have more than one child. The one-child policy, however, does not apply to everyone:

…in most rural areas couples are allowed a second child if their first is a girl. Different birth-control policies also apply to some ethnic-minority groups.

Other countries see the policy as draconian, but if it was not (mostly) enforced, the population would be even higher. There is a latent problem of a gender imbalance as female foetuses are sometimes aborted as male children are preferred, which will become increasingly socially disruptive with an increasing number of males not being able to find female partners.

The Chinese economy has to be kept growing in order to keep a growing population employed, but this is ultimately unsustainable in a world of finite space and resources, and environmentally destructive. As noted in “Chinese hit by growing pains”, The Age, 17/1:

“Unemployment of migrant workers on a mass scale implies severe political and social problems,” he says. “Any minor mishandling will cause social turmoil.”

(The migrant workers in this case are mostly peasants from the countryside who go to cities to look for work.) As I remarked in my entry, “Culling surplus males”, unmarried, unemployed young males tend to be the most troublesome elements in any society. Many will get killed off if a country goes to war, but this is a rather uncontrolled way to go about it. (If this seems rather callous, I am just looking at the problem from a pragmatic point of view.) Therefore if the Chinese government is to maintain control, it has to contain its population growth in some manner.

“How Many Chinese Are Enough?” by Gwynne Dyer also looks at the problem and comes to much the same conclusion: however unpalatable the one-child policy is, the alternatives are worse. One has to be realistic, not sentimental – individual rights must be overridden in this case for the survival of a society as a whole.

Most ecologists would say that China is well beyond its long-term “carrying capacity” even with its present population. Maybe the government is actually listening to them. Maybe it also knows that climate change will not be kind to China. There are things worse than a one-child policy. Famine, social disintegration and civil war, for example.