A broken society

The madness of last week’s London riots appears to be mostly contained, but the many issues that provoked it are unlikely to be resolved soon (if ever). Some of the rioting was simple criminal opportunism, but a lot of it was a venting of frustration from people who have few prospects and no say in their society. Is overpopulation one of the contributing factors? I would argue, yes – in my 18/7/2009 entry I said that crowding thousands of people together leads to more stress and thus violence, as humans are not evolutionarily adapted to live this way. This was the opinion given in the article “London’s a rat hole” (21/1/2009 entry).

It is hardly surprising that many rioters seem to live in the ugly, inhuman, modernist housing projects that afflict London like the plague.

– David Thomson, St Kilda, 16/8

A counter-argument might be that countries such as Japan are even more overcrowded and their populations do not riot, but their pathologies merely are expressed in different ways. Their culture insists on extreme self-control, necessary for living so closely, but the suicide rate has long been one of the highest in the world, and the hikikomori phenomenon amongst mostly young people – extreme withdrawal for years on end – is well-known. Anger is turned inward rather than outward.

Many of the rioters are unemployed, and there are little in the way of jobs for them. It is simply impossible to provide meaningful jobs for everyone in a growing population, especially as many businesses and industries are “downsizing” to become more efficient, and outsourcing a lot of work to cheap (slave) labor in developing countries. Such frustrations were also a factor in the “Arab spring” uprisings earlier this year (which are still ongoing), and the Israeli housing protests over the rising cost of living (Israel is very overcrowded). Too many people competing for dwindling resources, living space and jobs.

An article in Business Week from earlier this year, “The Youth Unemployment Bomb”, looks at the social consequences of having a large, unemployed and educated youth population, and the inevitable disorder this creates. The article, though, somewhat unhelpfully suggests that the solution is to create entrepreneurs – start one’s own company. But not all people have the aptitude for that (I don’t), and there are only so many products and services that can be created; the market is arguably saturated with “stuff”. The article does not address the basic issue: that there is simply a massive overpopulation of young people (who will one day become old).

So that’s the situation in this year of 7 billion – how much worse will things get if and when the population reaches 8, then 9 billion?

Arrogant architect

“A contrarian with a big idea for mankind”, The Age, 14/8 (scanned in as I could not find the article online). The architect profiled here, Austin Williams, surely is the embodiment of arrogance and hubris, and reinforces my general dislike of his profession. His attitude is still prevalent amongst business and governments.

The British architect is a firm believer in global population growth and disdainful of the green building movement. Where many see hopelessness in huge slums, he sees hope.

Architect Austin Williams is one person among 6.8 billion, The size of the world’s population alarms some people, particularly in light of the planet’s finite resources, but Williams champions growth, seeing in it increased opportunities to transform the world to our benefit.

“For me the enlightened response to population growth is to celebrate it,” the London-based architect and author says. “More people is a good thing: the more we attach value to humanity the more human we become.”

He has the mindset that human ingenuity and “cleverness” can somehow overcome any problems caused by such growth. Not always! Trying to engineer one’s way out can sometimes lead to worse problems in the future, causing inadvertent enviromental disasters (dams are one example).

With assertive rhetoric about architects moulding the world according to their own aesthetic values, ManTowNHuman reads at times like the brainchild of a bunch of arrogant architects who have taken a leaf out of Ayn Rand’s individualist novel The Fountainhead.

That is the most accurate paragraph in the whole article.

Williams and his colleagues were not merely playing agents provocateurs in attacking sustainable design. “The fact that I found so many people reciting the mantra of sustainability without even questioning its meaning alerted me to its political problems,” he says. He saw in the “mantra of sustainability” the pernicious idea that people’s presence in the natural world is problematic. “Seeing the enviromnent as sacrosanct and humanity as somehow despoiling it is anti-human, in as much as it puts nature first and puts humanity second,” he says.

Without a liveable environment, humanity will cease to exist. We are not independent of nature, no matter how some try to pretend otherwise.

Williams deplores this kind of “miserablist” take. Where many see hopelessness in the huge slums of Mumbai or Lagos, he sees hope, and evidence of humanity’s great march of progress in action.

“You go to Lagos, they are living in utter squalor. However, even within the squalor there’s a potential for them to create industy and experience the ambition to get out of squalor,” he says. Even without effective government planning or adequate infrastructure, Lagos is developing as people work to improve their lives. It’s the same in other Third World slums.

How many will manage to escape their poverty, though? Slums are miserably unhealthy places to grow up in, and romanticizing them does the inhabitants no favors.

He says we are fortunate to be able to debate desirability of growth – and the problems it creates, such as congestion and sprawl – from a position of strength.

“Cities grow. That’s what they do… [But] you have some of the world’s most liveable cities.”

Australia’s cities are liveable because of their low population density. Unfortunately, that is changing due to uncontrolled growth. And governments are almost never able to provide adequate infrastructure to cope – they are continually trying to catch up, and never quite manage to (my state of Victoria being one example).

Resolving the issues of population, cities and housing is not easy, but we have the ingenuity to do it: “I see humanity as a source of fantastic creativity and potential, a source of wonder that has made the world today.”

Ruined the world today, more like. No point arguing with him, though – he is utterly convinced of his rightness. We hope that some day he will be made to eat his words.

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”.

Growing like a cancer

Everytime I see that Victorian Government Transport “Plan” ad on TV (YouTube parody version), I want to throw something at it! “Victoria is growing” the voiceover man cheerily says – well, that’s not a good thing, is it? Life is getting very stressful for those living here. The Govt. merely seems obsessed with scarring the landscape with yet more freeways.

“Labour has been ‘maladroit’ in immigration policy, admits Home Secretary Alan Johnson”, Daily Mail, 2/11. A politician somewhat grudgingly admits that the U.K.’s immigration rate has had negative effects.

“Backyard blitz puts Aussie lifestyle under threat”, The Age, 15/4. An English professor is dismayed by the reduction of backyard size of Australian homes. Backyard vegetation also provides shelter for local birds.

“City’s population explosion threatens urban devastation”, The Age, 5/11. This article only concentrates on how to accommodate a large population, rather than trying to prevent such growth. It is not inevitable if governments have the will to combat it!

“Time to take in hand the birds in the bush”, The Age, 5/11. Native birdlife is diminishing rapidly in Victoria, due to land clearing and urbanization, both caused by population growth. The Brumby Government’s thoughtless approval of vegetation clearing around properties is not helping.

The Age letters:

1/11:

Perish the thought

In response to Peter Munro’s article “The big squeezy” (25/10) – do we really want 35 million Australians by 2050? There was a time when our nation’s leaders cried: “Populate or perish!” That cry is now public policy at state and federal level. The planet is racing towards the tipping point for oil reserves, potable water supplies and unstoppable climate change. We live in a society so accustomed to having it all we should update our national pledge to bring it in line with the logical outcome: “Populate AND perish!”

– Michael Virant, Kensington

That article portrays a grim view of Melbourne’s future, assuming that population growth is inevitable. Its liveability will be destroyed if this becomes reality.

Herald-Sun letters:

7/9:

I’m 32 and lived in the one street in Croydon for 31 of those years.

I remember thinking as a child that there was so much space in Croydon. Not so now.

In the past few years I’ve seen townhouses popping up everywhere. I’m starting to feel hemmed in, in my own street.

Croydon, I love you. But you’re changing, and I don’t believe it’s for the better. I think it’s time I left.

– Nola Wernicke, Croydon

Unfortunately, the problem of overdevelopment is afflicting all suburbs, so moving is not really a solution, unless you go somewhere in the country – but then there is the problem there of lack of transport and facilities (such as medical care).

24/9:

We need more people pointing out the impossibility of reconciling increased population, current affluence and a healthy environment. Something’s got to give.

– Beverly Broadbent, East Brighton

3/11:

Hidden agenda on migrants

Australia’s population has been growing and growing over the past decade, and all we hear from our political leaders is either silence or what a great thing population growth is, never mind the environment or the cost of building new housing and infrastructure. The Labor and Liberal parties pretend to make a fuss about a few hundred boat people, but at the same time they are opening the door to hundreds of thousands of so-called skilled migrants. Their tough stance against asylum seekers is really just a way of disguising from the public their pro-immigration and pro-population growth policies.

– Lynne Skinner, Kangaroo Flat

6/11:

Get off the fake grass

The idea that fake grass is better for the environment than real grass is a myth that continues to be enthusiastically promoted by people with vested interests. The logic goes that synthetic turf doesn’t need to be watered or mown and is therefore the obvious choice for ecologically aware gardeners. However, fake grass is a petro-chemical product that takes a long time to break down – unlike real, living, organic grass. In addition, the manufacture and transportation of synthetic grass creates carbon, whereas real grass absorbs it. Artificial grass also damages the soil underneath it and creates an inhospitable environment for the life that thrives in and around real grass, such as insects, worms and birds. While real grass may not be perfect, it is surely a better option than synthetic turf.

– Virginia van Engelen, Port Fairy

Despairing at stupidity

I haven’t been posting due to depression and despair at the seeming pointlessness of trying to do anything to combat overpopulation – growth-addicted governments just don’t want to know, and the majority of humans think it doesn’t apply to them. I keep repeating the same opinions, but does it do any good?

“Footscray’s future as ‘St Kilda of the west’ ”, Herald-Sun, 24/8. The usual clueless enthusiasm about the growth of suburbs and how this supposedly makes them “happening places”. There is also this nightmarish prediction:

Ms. Sanderson, who heads VicUrban, the State Government’s sustainable urban development agency, told the Herald-Sun that in a few decades Melbourne could house seven million people, which would effectively make Werribee the “heart of the west”.

[…]

Cr. Clarke said that the western suburbs would feature prominently as planners looked as far ahead as the time when Melbourne might be home to 10 million people.

10 million people?! She can’t be serious? What the fuck (sorry, I have to swear, I am so incensed) is wrong with these idiots? Melbourne will be a living hell. Where will the water come from to supply such huge numbers? I despair for the future of the city I have lived in all my life. Things are bad enough now with overdevelopment and overcrowding. Melbourne is already ruined, and, when in the future I look back in anger, I will know exactly who to blame.

She also repeats the usual meaningless bullshit about “cultural diversity” and ends with:

“House prices have gone up 22 per cent in one quarter. We are so under-priced here,” Cr. Clarke said.

Nice for greedy investors, but not for those who just want a house to live in – or who pay council rates based on house values.

Equally incensing articles from The Age: “Western fringe gears up for housing boom”, 25/8; “Housing estate pushes urban sprawl limit”, 29/8. It’s a great time for greedy developers but not for the enviroment.

“We’ve got native grasses on the volcanic planes and they’ve been seriously affected by the rapid expansion to the west,” Dr. McPhail said. “We’ve also got to be very careful that we don’t take too much of those farmlands to the west of the city, simply because, as the world population goes towards 9 billion, food production is going to become increasingly important.”

“Young Britons give birth to huge population boom”, The Age, 29/8. No good news for the U.K. either with its already-huge population growing inexorably.

Roma Chappell, an ONS statistician, said: “For the first time in a decade, natural change exceeded net migration as the main driver of population change. “That’s actually quite exciting because it’s the highest fertility rate we have seen in the UK for some time. You have to go all the way back to 1973 to find a time when the fertility rate went higher.’’

“Exciting”? Lady, you should be concerned, not happy!

“Is population growth a Ponzi scheme?”, CSMonitor.com, 17/8. A thankfully more sensible article saying that an ageing but stable population is not necessarily a bad thing – it is ultimately more manageable than a growing population.

Changing the subject a little: one snarky phrase I sometimes see expressed in debates about population growth is along the lines of, “If you want to reduce the population, why don’t you start by killing yourself, then?” My response: “Only if you go first! Also, I am not reproducing and so adding to growth.”

A roundup of some collected letters since I last wrote:

11/8:

Forget terrorism. What about water?

Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has suggested that we should reduce immigration because each new migrant might be a terrorist. That’s probably a bit of a long shot, but there are some other dead certainties that are much better reasons for reducing migration.

How about that we haven’t got enough water, or that our cities are sprawling unsustainably into farmland that used to grow food, or that our native wildlife is declining because of the increasing human impact, or that our roads are already overcrowded, or that we don’t like high density suburbia, or that our greenhouse footprint continues to grow as our population increases?

The probability of a new migrant being a terrorist is remote, but the probability that they will add to all these existing problems is a sure bet.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

On idiot councils unnecessarily felling trees in the regions affected by bushfires on “Black Saturday” in February this year (there are quite a lot of tree-haters), 15/8:

Extinguishing hope

Many Kinglake and Flowerdale residents are distraught by the unnecessary removal of trees. Under the pretext of safety, trees along many roads are being cut down, including live, large, hollow-bearing trees that are essential for many native species. It will take at least 100 years to replace them.

Recently everything was felled along the Number One Creek, even the tree ferns!

Some residents are being deceived into believing that clearing blocks of all trees will reduce maximum fire risk and that they will not need to build houses to the highest safety standard. Removing trees means less water, higher temperatures, no habitat for animals, no shade, more pollution and erosion, and has devastating psychological effects.

Trees with shoots along Bald Spur Road, where many people died, offered some hope for the future. But they were all cut down. Our trauma is being compounded to satisfy someone’s intent to take revenge on trees. It seems tree-haters have more rights than people who care about nature and the future.

– Hania Lada, Kinglake

21/8:

Time for a debate on population growth

Efforts to curtail greenhouse gases will prove futile if the increasing world population is not tackled. Australia’s annual population growth rate of 2 per cent means the population will double in 35 years. Regardless of assurances by politicians and big business, we have insufficient resources to support our quality of life and twice the number of people.

Why aren’t we having a debate about population? Governments will not take a lead because they and big business understand that the easiest way to stimulate economies is to stimulate demand via population growth – cynical short-term strategies.

Governments and business appear to be prepared to allow “natural limits” to halt population growth. But this term is really a euphemism for myriad negative influences on growth – food and water shortages, disease, war, economic hardship, environmental degradation and so on.

The sooner the world takes responsible action on population growth, the lesser will be the impacts of “natural limits”.

– Nicholas Howe, Malvern

When is enough?

My son accidentally Googled Windows “20000” in his search for a software patch. Just for fun we then tried to work out what our house might be worth in 18,000 years, allowing for annual growth of a modest 1 per cent. At this rate, doubling occurs every 70 years. Initially, this seemed uninteresting, but to get to my son’s search date required a whopping 257 doublings. The calculator had packed it in by now so we settled on five doublings (350 years from now): our house in the suburbs would exceed $16 million, a loaf of bread would push $100 and there would be more than 200 billion people on the planet.

One has to wonder at what point “sustained” growth must slow or stop. So here’s a few questions. What will “economic recovery” mean, long-term? How many years can we demand more and more? Do we have even a single doubling left up our collective sleeve? What does “double-digit growth” in China imply? Is there enough to go around? How much is enough?

We’re told that “growth is good”. But it seems to my son and I, two average Joes, that infinite growth is impossible. Could we be seeing signs of “the great mathematical slowdown” today?

– Matthew Blain, Heathmont

23/8:

Less would be more

Thornton McCamish has given us a truly insightful analysis of the state of social equity in Australia (“On the slide. Whatever happened to the classless society?”, 16/8). His remedy of “building a society we all want to live in” is equally admirable, but achieving equality needs to be seen as a part of the solution to an even bigger problem – the relentless war humanity is waging on the finite global environment.

The answer lies in replacing our dysfunctional, endless growth-based economy with a steady-state economy, one in which creativity and respect for all replaces the quest for material affluence and dominance.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

24/8:

A visionary

The late Reverend Martin Luther King jnr. said, “Unlike the plagues of the Dark Ages…the modern plague of overpopulation is solvable with means we have discovered and with resources we possess.”

We’ve heard endless talk about sustainability. Population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained. It’s dishonest to talk about saving the environment, conservation or climate change without stressing the fact that stopping population growth is a necessary condition for sustainability.

Our capitalist society worships growth. But growth at the cost of ecosystems and native species shows we humans are narcissistic and self-indulgent.

King said that alien visitors to our planet would observe that we spend “paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet”. He was a visionary before his time.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

29/8:

Total disconnect

On Jon Faine’s ABC talkback (27/8) Premier Brumby stated: “I have always supported population growth.” This statement highlights the total disconnect between the Brumby Government and reality.

The evidence for the impact of population growth worldwide on depletion of natural resources and climate change is overwhelming. And yet, here we have a government, that for some reason best known to themselves, believes that Victoria stands alone on this planet as being immune from the consequences of overpopulation.

Where is the leadership that will stand up to this insanity?

– Tony Jones, Healesville

My published letter – 22/7

“The grass isn’t always green in Melbourne’s exclusive suburbs”, Herald-Sun, 21/7. This article about the cosmetic use of synthetic grass annoyed me enough to send off a letter, which got published (in an edited form):

The vanity of some residents is unbelievable. Synthetic grass smothers the soil under it, as well as reflecting heat in summer, and ultimately ends up in landfill. It does nothing to help the environment and this cosmetic use for it should be banned.

Original draft:

The vanity of some residents is unbelievable. Synthetic grass smothers the soil under it, as well as reflecting heat in summer (real grass absorbs heat and is cooler), and will ultimately end up in landfill. It does nothing to help the environment and this cosmetic use for it should be banned by councils.

“Our exploding population is the gravest threat Britain faces today”, Daily Mail, 16/7. Michael Hanlon bluntly states the dismal truth which many don’t want to acknowledge: the U.K. is seriously overcrowded, and this is only getting worse.

“Record number of arrivals swells population”, SMH, 19/7. Features alarming statistics showing Australia’s immigration and birth rates are the highest since the 1950s. There are two voices of reason in the end paragraphs:

But not all are convinced population growth is good for the country. Scientist Tim Flannery, who was the Australian of the Year in 2007, has questioned whether Australia’s natural resources can support even the existing population in the longer term. Mark O’Connor, the author of the 2009 book Overloading Australia said: “From any scientific point of view it’s straightforward: it’s crazy to be growing our population. We need to cut carbon emissions and secure food and water supplies.”

A letter, 20/7, answering the one quoted in my 18/7/2009 entry:

Roots of violence go beyond suburbia

Graham Wines from leafy Glen Iris (Letters, 18/7) thinks that we should all live in densely populated centres such as Hong Kong, Paris and Tokyo. I can assure him that, although they were interesting places to visit, after the novelty wore off I found them to be stiflingly claustrophobic. I have come to the conclusion that living in a pleasant suburb such as Glen Iris is probably the best compromise.

The large cities referred to by Mr Wines, in particular Hong Kong and Tokyo, are indeed safe but have completely different cultures to Melbourne’s.

As for Paris, I did not feel safe there. What about other densely populated cities, such as Rio de Janeiro or London? I would suggest that, due to their high population densities, they are more dangerous than sprawling Melbourne, not less.

There is violence in the home, in schoolyards, on sports fields, and on the roads. Violence is ingrained into the social fabric. Poor education, alcohol abuse and poverty are catalysts for brutal urges and their destructive consequences. No politician has the courage or ability to tackle these issues in a meaningful way.

Denying us the Australian dream is hardly the answer.

– Andrew Gardner, Melbourne

As I repeat endlessly, the only sustainable solution to the social and environmental ills caused by overcrowding is to reduce population growth!

“Indian student industry a study in shams and scams”, The Australian, 14/7. Another report on the corrupt education industry here. India’s basic problem is, of course, its huge population (2008 estimate: 1 147 995 904) – to quote one commentator:

I think the root cause of the problem is poor average students in India who have no hope of prosperity in Indian due to intense competition back home are inevitably falling pray to expectation of better quality of life in Australia.

My published letter – 23/3

Got the IVF letter (22/3 entry) published in today’s The Age:

Needs versus wants

Lisa Campbell (Letters, 21/3) needs to learn the distinction between needs and wants (hers are the latter). Infertility is not a disfiguring, painful or life-threatening condition. Before IVF, people had to deal with infertility and find other means of fulfilment. Taxpayers’ money should not be used to bring people into an already overpopulated world who would not otherwise be here – there are far more urgent social programs that need funding.

A related article from 22/3 Herald-Sun:

IVF babies warning

British couples having IVF treatment will be warned for the first time that their children have a higher risk of genetic flaws and health problems.

IVF babies may be up to 30 per cent more likely to suffer from heart valve defects, cleft lip and palate and digestive system abnormalities. They also have an increased risk of rare genetic disorders such as Angelman syndrome.

One reason for infertility in older women and men is poor-quality eggs or sperm (which decline as they age), so they obviously should not be passing these defects on. Another reason for men:

Infertility caused by DNA defects on the Y chromosome is passed on from father to son. If natural selection is the primary error correction mechanism that prevents random mutations on the Y chromosome, then fertility treatments for men with abnormal sperm (in particular ICSI) only defer the underlying problem to the next male generation. (Wikipedia: Infertility)

“Britain set to become most populous country in EU”, Guardian, 22/3. Britain is going to be an increasingly unpleasant place to live in as it gets ever-more overcrowded. Exacerbating the problem is the thousands of refugees anticipated as a result of climate change.

In addition, there is the issue of humanitarian responsibility. Britain is likely to be one of the few nations to survive the worst effects of climate change while other nations, particularly those in the developing world, have their farmland and fishing grounds destroyed. It could be argued that the UK has a moral duty to provide shelter for as many refugees as our shores can support.

It could also be argued that Britain has a greater responsibility to its own citizens first and foremost, and should not take in more people than it can handle.

But many climatologists believe that by then life on the planet will already have become dangerously unpleasant. Temperature rises will have started to have devastating impacts on farmland, water supplies and sea levels. Humans – increasing both in numbers and dependence on food from devastated landscapes – will then come under increased pressure. The end result will be apocalyptic, said Lovelock. By the end of the century, the world’s population will suffer calamitous declines until numbers are reduced to around 1 billion or less. “By 2100, pestilence, war and famine will have dealt with the majority of humans,” he said.

One of the few places to survive the worst impacts will be Britain. “Our climate will be one of the least affected by global warming,” added Lovelock. “As a result, everyone will want to live here. We will become one of the world’s lifeboats. The trouble, of course, will be that, even if we wanted to, we will not be able to pick up everyone. There will be some hard decisions to make.”

If governments of the least-afflicted countries wish their societies to survive, they will have to be brutally pragmatic.

Vanishing plains

“More loss than gain in encroaching urban sprawl on threatened open plains”, The Age, 31/5. The grassy plains surrounding Melbourne are under threat from overdevelopment; they are important to the environment but get overlooked.

Dad emmigrated from England in the 1960s and it is not a place he would want to return to now. According to one report the country is more dangerous than the Balkans in terms of crime! As politically-incorrect as it is to say it, England’s huge growing population (mainly through excessive immigration) would be a contributing factor – crowding millions of people together on a relatively small island is asking for trouble, especially when they come from disparate cultures. (The Optimum Population Trust focuses on overpopulation in the UK.)