Annoying stories

I was browsing through the Young Adult section in Borders bookstore today, and came across a series by a Gemma Malley that aroused my ire. Beginning with The Declaration and continuing with The Resistance, they are set in a dystopian future, a drug to prolong life has been discovered, and naturally is used by a lot of people. With an increasing population, though, this puts a great burden on society, so the solution is to ban those who take the drug from having children, with harsh penalties for those who disobey this. Fair enough, but from my brief skimming through the novel, the plot takes the irritatingly predictable theme of Resisting Authority, a trope that infects a lot of YA and adult novels.

In the year 2140, it is illegal to be young. Children are all but extinct. The world is a better place. Longevity drugs are a fountain of youth. Sign the Declaration, agree not to have children and you too can live forever. Refuse, and you will live as an outcast. For the children born outside the law, it only gets worse – Surplus status. Not everyone thinks Longevity is a good thing, but you better be clear what side you’re on… Surplus Anna is about to find out what happens when you can’t decide if you should cheat the law or cheat death.

Anna does not have a last name. She has no right to one. She is Surplus – an unwanted burden on fragile Mother Nature; a child born after the Declaration which outlawed all children to control the rising human population. The most she can hope for in life is to Know Her Place and be a Valuable Asset to Legal humans, who stave off mortality with daily doses of Longevity drugs. At age fourteen, she has learned to accept her bleak fate – but then Surplus Peter arrives at Grange Hall, and turns her world upside down. Peter refuses to accept that he is Surplus. He insists that Anna has a family – and he plans to escape from Grange Hall to reunite her with them.

The first novel has a website [edit: now an Archive.org link]; from the “Inspiration” page:

I decided to put the questions to some friends. Would they, if given the chance to extend their lifespan considerably, give up the right to have children? The result was fascinating. Initially, all of them dismissed the idea out of hand; then, gradually, they started to consider it, to consider the temptation of a long, long life. After this consideration, about fifty percent still rejected the idea outright – some because the idea of living forever was abhorrent (“what would you do with yourself?”), some because the idea of not having children was too terrible. The others, to varying degrees, saw the temptation. Men were slightly more likely than women to agree; single men and women were more likely to agree than their married counterparts. Some older couples with grown up children thought long and hard and said that whilst they adored their children and wouldn’t be without them, they might perhaps have done things differently if given the chance again. Recently married couples were those most likely to be aghast at the idea; those who considered their chances of conceiving to be low (those who were resolutely single and those who had been (unsuccessfully) through the torturous route of infertility treatment) wanted details – how healthy would their extended life be; how would they feel physically and mentally a hundred years from now – but were generally open to the idea.

I realised I had the makings of a potentially terrifying new world, and one that many would recognise as only too credible. But I needed a protagonist, someone to lead us into this world, to expose its inner workings, its temptations, its horrific dark side. Everything comes with a cost; Longevity’s “cost” would be the end of new human life, the end of new thought, new energy; the end of youth with its naïve ambition, its determination, its belief in itself. And yet, I realised, as I mulled my new, inner world over in my head, there would, no doubt, be people who broke the rules, who ignored the Declaration. There would be mistakes; there would be rebels. In short, there would be children. Children that no one (except their parents) wanted; children who were considered a threat, a burden, a problem. Children who were Surplus.

There’s always an irrational few who spoil things for everyone else! There seems to be a vague preaching against population control, but I can’t verify this without reading the novels. I am certainly not buying them, but I may borrow them at my local library (if I can force myself to read them).

I can’t see much wrong with this; I don’t find such a world “terrifying”! I would certainly choose longevity over having children (I have done little in my life so far, and would like to have more time than the normal lifespan!). If society is to be sustainable into the future, some form of population growth control is a necessity, whether citizens like it or not.

“Mumbai faces acute water shortage”, BBC News 7/7. A city of 20 million with a water shortage – a nightmarish scenario, and a justification for population control. What happens if all water dries up?

“Sink immigrants’ boats – Griffin”, BBC News, 10/7. A member of the far-Right BNP made a statement that illegal immigrants’ boats should be sunk on sight, and to “Throw [the occupants] a life raft and they can go back to Libya”. I suspect this comes out of increasing exasperation at the never-ending flow of illegals, and many might agree with him (though not admit it). The U.K. is seriously overcrowded, and stress due to this will result in many adopting harsher attitudes towards immigrants, despite this not being politically-correct. Australia has the same problem of illegals coming in from the north (though not in the numbers that Europe gets). The brutal truth is that a country can’t take in everyone who wants to go there – it has limited space and resources, and should put its own citizens’ interests first. There should also be a U.N. taskforce to intervene in dysfunctional countries and take over their governments forcibly if need be, so the citizens of those countries won’t feel such a need to leave.

“Australia’s overseas education ‘a scam’ ”, AAP, 14/7. Not surprisingly, the growing international student market is also become an immigration racket. There are 500 000 students in Australia – using up resources. In my view the program should be ended – surely the education system in their home countries is not that bad?

My published letter – 28/1

First letter of the year in The Age, 28/1 :-). A response to an opinion piece about the book Overloading Australia, the subject of “Population Australia’s ‘big threat’ ”, The Age, 24/1.

It’s all about impact

For Brigid Delaney (Comment & Debate, 27/1) to imply that those who oppose excessive immigration are racist misses the point of the book Overloading Australia. The reason for limiting numbers is that Australia (or any nation) cannot continue to import huge numbers of people – no matter where they come from – without harmful social and environmental impact (already evident in Victoria). If we want to keep Australia liveable in future, we must reduce population growth.

– Suzanne McHale

Growth is the issue

Brigid Delaney trots out the usual spurious arguments against Overloading Australia.

The authors focus on immigration simply because it is the main driver of population growth, and it is population growth, not immigration per se, that is the problem.

No one who supports the basic thrust of the book denies that immigrants have made a contribution to this nation. No one wants to end immigration.

What we want is immigration that approximates emigration in size so you still get a flow of new people that can enrich our society, but not so many as to overload it in environmental terms. We are certainly on a trajectory for overload, if we have not passed it already. We should stop living “high on the hog” but, as well as getting off the hog, we need to get our numbers stabilised (and even reduced) as soon as possible.

– Jenny Goldie, president, Canberra region, Sustainable Population Australia, ACT

Sheila Newman also has a response on her blog: “Growthist responses to Overloading Australia”.

“Eight Is Enough”, New York Times, 27/1. A woman recently gave birth to 8 premature infants, no doubt with the assistance of fertility treatment. There is an option to reduce (abort) the extra foetuses. Creating such pregnancies is an irresponsible use of medical science as it puts great strain on the mother, as well as the taxpayer-funded medical system that is obligated to take care of the usually ill and sometimes defective infants. I agreed with this comment:

There is no way that people who push litters of fragile humans into our nation, society, and ecosystem should be accoladed and rewarded. I am weary of paying for this sort of thing, then facing demands that I also jump up and down and coo.

Repeal the tax deduction for adding more humans to the planet. If people want to be rewarded for breeding, then let them prove when their ONE kid is 25 that they raised a productive, healthy contributor to society. Then we can pay them a successful parenting annuity for 18 years amounting to what the tax break/deduction would have been.

I’m sick of the baby fetish, and I’m sick of pretending. Natalism has become our nation’s most disturbing fetish.

– Michael

I hate to think of the damage such a pregnancy inflicts upon a woman’s body:

The mother was initially admitted to the hospital at about her 23rd week of pregnancy – which is fairly early – because she was suffering from severe back strain. “Her stomach was huge, indescribably huge,” Dr. Henry said. “At a certain point, we don’t even measure.”

As an example of such damage, a photo montage (possibly NSFW) of a woman who is “merely” pregnant with triplets!

Overloading Australia – the critics attack

“Murky agenda behind this green debate”, The Age, 27/1. A negative opinion piece by Brigid Delaney in response to the Saturday article featuring the book Overloading Australia. She expresses the usual counterarguments (and misses the point of the book).

Yet, if we want models of innovative and successful cities, we need look no further than New York and London, metropolises with high immigrant populations. It's clear that if you stagnate population growth and diversity, you run the risk of slowing not only economic growth, but also the development of our inner lives: the new voices that join the dialogue citizens have with one another.

Economic growth cannot be contined indefinitely without harming the environment and using up resources. At some point it must end.

The “diversity” argument is one I am increasingly finding tedious (usually delivered in lecturing tones by earnest Lefties. I am a Lefty in some things, but sometimes want to punch certain others of that inclination in the nose!). Too much “diversity” and excessive encouragement of multiculturalism ultimately leads to social fragmentation. By all means welcome (a controlled intake of) migrants but support their integration. Also, New York and London are (like many other large cities) horribly crowded and stressful places to live, as noted in the article “London’s a rat hole”, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 August 2006:

His scathing assessment was being submitted to the main opposition Conservative Party’s policy group focusing on quality of life. “Putting 10 million aggressive hominids into close proximity and inviting them to engage in serial acts of competitive individualism…for jobs, schools or parking spaces, could not be considered a reasonable idea,” Bayley said. “You put rats in claustrophobic circumstances and they become homosexual, murderous and cannibalistic in no time at all. Instead humans find ingenious solutions, underground car parks, coffee shops, Chinese takeaways, one-man buses, cycle lanes, tall buildings.”

She then brings up the usual accusation of those who oppose excessive immigration as being “racist”, and, for good measure, mentions neo-Nazis. Which is getting rather off-topic as the point of the book is, that Australia has a fragile environment (mostly desert) that cannot support a large population, and even now it is overpopulated; capital cities are on water restrictions, and the south-east of the continent has been in drought since 1998. Continuing to bring in huge numbers of people – wherever they are from – will make things increasingly unpleasant.

The logical conclusion of the argument put in Overloading Australia is a reduction in personal responsibility: let the Government fix it, continue, even accelerate, our wasteful ways, and screw everyone else. How utterly depressing that argument is.

This was obviously a response to a comment in the original article:

Predicting Australian cities will suffer more congestion, pollution, loss of biodiversity and diminished services, the authors argue there is no point conserving water “until we get restraint in population”.

The “not conserving water” comment came out of exasperation with the current government’s water restriction policies. If the government won’t slow population growth, why should the people already here bother with observing restrictions? A rebellion, of sorts.

Overpopulation book

“Population Australia’s ‘big threat’ ”, The Age, 24/1. A recently-released book, Overloading Australia, is the subject of this article; it’s unusual for the overpopulation issue to get such attention.

In a provocative attack on water conservation schemes, such as Melbourne’s Target 155, the book Overloading Australia urges Australians to ignore water conservation, forcing politicians to rethink population and immigration policy.

Focusing on perhaps the most taboo aspect of environmental debate, authors Mark O’Connor and William Lines have argued that pro-immigration and “baby bonus” policies are at odds with plans to reduce carbon emissions and secure water supplies.

“The task of simultaneously increasing population and achieving sustainability is impossible,” the book argues.

Predicting Australian cities will suffer more congestion, pollution, loss of biodiversity and diminished services, the authors argue there is no point conserving water “until we get restraint in population”.

“Overloading Australia – new book about Australia’s overpopulation problem”, We Can Do Better, with some extracts (and at one of the authors’ website).

“Target 155” is the latest Victorian Government attempt at water conservation (rather than going to stricter Stage 4), in which each individual is encouraged to use no more than 155 liters a day. While one should not waste water, the fact that cities in a First-World nation have to go on these measures demonstrates poor planning by State and Federal Governments.

Ignoring water conservation seems sacrilegious, but if the government won’t reduce population growth, then more water will be used by these increasing numbers of people no matter how stringent restrictions are. Gardens should not be denied water as the plants and trees provide shade and a cooling effect in urban environments that otherwise have too much concrete and paving (“It’s time literally to go green”, The Age, 23/1).

There was also a related article in The Age A2 section – not online, annoyingly, so I scanned it in below. Liberal MP Ms. Louise Asher criticizes the unreasonable water restrictions, saying that with proper Government planning, a First-World city should not have been reduced to this. I agree with her, but am not inclined to vote Liberal, who are just as untrustworthy as the Labor Party – it was Jeff Kennett’s Liberal Government who privatized public utilites such as water and public transport, something I regard as a crime against the State.

Staying alive

Denise Gadd
The Age, 24 January 2008

When Age photographer Penny Stephens took a picture of Louise Asher watering a tree in her front garden, the Opposition water spokeswoman pointed out that it was recycled water from her kitchen sink, not straight from the tap.

The bits of coriander and spring onion that she had washed in a bowl the night before for an Asian salad could be seen floating in the watering can and were proof enough.

These days it wouldn’t pay to be caught using tap water for your garden outside the prescribed watering times. And certainly not for someone in Ms. Asher’s position.

While she adheres to the stage 3a water restrictions – using automatic drip systems and watering by hand for two hours, twice weekly – the member for Brighton is unimpressed by the State Government’s response to these dry times.

Governments, she says, are elected to provide five basic services: police, transport, schools, hospitals and water. A failure to provide the last, instead resorting to tough water restrictions and now a daily target for each person of 155 litres of water, is outrageous, Ms. Asher says.

Targeting the domestic user – in particular, gardeners – and some industries such as turf growers, who had lost up to 90 per cent of staff because of the ban on watering new lawns, is beyond the pale, she says.

And the strain of being asked to adhere to a daily water usage of 155 litres has added another dimension to the crisis.

“Gardens add to what Melbourne is – we were once the Garden State – and I do object to people inferring that there’s a hierarchy of water use and gardening’s low. In the end, I’m a liberal and it’s about choice.

“I think the Government should supply water for a metropolis like Melbourne. It has a constitutional responsibility to provide adequate water, and this one hasn’t.”

Ms. Asher says that since the 155-litre daily target was introduced in November, people have had to choose between personal hygiene and keeping their gardens alive. She wants to know how the figure was arrived at.

“Where did they get figure from? Was it plucked from the air or a guess – which I think it probably was. And does it account for overnight visitors? It’s a very tough figure, especially if you’ve got a garden.

(It is calculated using the city’s daily water use by its population. The usage increases on hot days.)

Ms. Asher says the target is not mandatory unlike water restrictions. “Most people in my electorate will be good citizens who want to do the right thing. So sometimes there will be circumstances where plants will unfortunately die, which is a great shame.

“We do have to abide by the restrictions and there is the legal power to be fined if you don’t, but not the 155 target. The trouble is, there will be some in the community who will use as much as they want (despite the target).”

Ms. Asher and her husband chose not to install a water tank, believing they could keep their garden alive with the twice-weekly watering sessions and by reusing water from the shower, washing machine and kitchen sink. But since the introduction of the 155 target, the situation has worsened and they are now contemplating a tank.

“I had an expensive spray system, which was converted to a dripper system once the 3a restrictions were introduced, but now I don’t think we can do basic cleanliness and have the dripper system running on the allotted days.”

Ms. Asher says she gets angry with the Government every time she lugs a bucket from the shower “like Third World conditions” to either throw down the toilet, instead of flushing it, or on the garden.

“Every time a person fills a bucket from the shower or reuses theft water from the kitchen sink, they should think of John Brumby and the massive system failure to provide water to a sophisticated international city like Melbourne.”

Former premier Steve Bracks’ pledge in 2002 that water was a major issue for his government, and the subsequent appointment of John Thwaites as the country’s first water minister to solve the problem, have not amounted to anything, Ms. Asher says.

“The Government has been condemned by its own rhetoric. In my opinion, they should have built a small desalination plant, a dam and also made more recycled water available.

“The Eastern Treatment Plant at Carrum still hasn’t been upgraded to produce class-A recycled water and it won’t come online until 2012.”

The restrictions have also come at a cost to many, including those in the turf industry, nurseries and consumers who have been urged to buy less water-hungry washing machines and dishwashers.

They have also affected gardeners’ pockets she says, not just when replacing dead shrubs and trees or turning to different species to cope with the drought and lack of water, but also when upgrading irrigation systems as the restrictions have increased.

While Ms. Asher does not believe we should go back to the bad old days of people hosing their driveways and overwatering their gardens, she says the Government also has to demonstrate that it is committed to providing Melburnians with a modern, first-class water supply that does not involve restrictions or a daily water target.

Failure to install water tanks at Southern Cross Station and Federation Square, despite their inclusion in the original designs, was bad planning, Ms. Asher says.

“We don’t live in a desert and even Dubai doesn’t have restrictions. The Government has deferred investment and thought it could get away with it, praying for rain – and it hasn’t come.”

Allocating water is not an option, she says. “Melbourne is a modern city. There should be water for people to have showers, clean clothes and wash your hair. That’s basic hygiene. What’s wrong with that? If people don’t want to wash every day that’s their choice.”

The long-term use of grey water on gardens was an issue for plants and Victoria’s water tables, and Ms. Asher does not blame people for sinking bores to keep their gardens alive.

“It’s about amenity and lifestyle and if someone wants a garden and a swimming pool, they should be able to have one.

“We live in a society where people are allowed to choose and if gardening is your leisure activity and you like to have one, that is your right.”