Shrinking towns

A thread at MetaFilter, “Wolves, neo-Nazis and Germany’s population crash”, had links to articles about towns facing demographic collapse (in this case, parts of Detroit being bulldozed into farmland, and some towns in East Germany being deserted). I can’t see this as a bad thing (and bear in mind that the world’s population continues to increase inexorably). There’s a comment comparing population control to eugenics:

Exactly. More evil has been done in fear of a Malthusian crisis than has ever occurred from a Malthusian crisis. The Irish Potato Famine was partly a result of British policy that allowed it to occur – while millions died, the Brits exported food from Ireland – all those starving people were a “natural” purging of over-population, they thought, Malthus said so! Many other examples of self-fulfilling Malthusian prophecies. A lot of modern-day environmentalism is (uncomfortably) rooted in Malthus and Eugenics. One can see it even in some of the posts in this thread – it’s hard to touch Demographics without sounding like a colonial-era racists, so much of what we take as common truth is actually a holdover from 18th and 19th century racist and colonial mindsets.

There hasn’t been 7 billion people in the world before, though, so such a crisis is only a matter of time. A more informed comment:

One of the worst consequences of the imminent population peak would be if we lost our nerve and started encouraging more reproduction.

We’re – that is to say, all of humanity in general – is poised to dodge a bullet, if we don’t (in some sense literally) fuck it up.

Population growth cannot continue forever. We’ve pulled a bunch of neat stunts to keep the unprecedented population boom triggered by the Industrial Revolution going, but they have come at extremely high ecological cost. Those bills are just starting to come due, in the form of anthropogenic climate change, topsoil depletion, salinification, aquifer and groundwater depletion, soil and ocean nitrification…it’s a long list.

It would be incredibly stupid to encourage people to breed in order to preserve economic systems that were stupidly premised on continual population growth, rather than fixing those economic systems to cope with decline. A growing population is nothing to brag about.

We’ve held off Mr. Malthus for centuries and in all likelihood we can probably do it for a few more, with sufficient cleverness: built a ton of nuclear reactors, bioengineer salt-tolerant crops, desalinate seawater when the groundwater runs out, learn to love carp. Climate change might require some desperate measures, since it seems doubtful we’ll resist the temptation of all that coal and shale oil…I wouldn’t want to own real estate in Bangladesh. But most of our current problems probably can be solved, at least individually.

But many of those “solutions” will inevitably create their own problems – just as the Haber-Bosch process, which saved first Europe and later Asia from famine in the 20th century has created a host of problems that we’re going to need to tackle in the 21st – and there will be other, completely new issues. More and more balls to juggle, and we only need to drop one to create a true disaster.

So the question is not whether we can keep the whole growth mess trucking along for another century or so, the question is why would we want to. Why, when we have it within our reach to go another route: let the population begin to slowly decrease, while using productivity gains to maintain and spread the standard of living that right now only a small minority of humanity can hope to have.

If there is one thing – one single thing – that Western civilization has figured out in the late 20th century, it seems to be a way to stop population expansion without going down the traditional, bloody paths of war or famine. Women’s rights, reliable contraception, secularism, environmental awareness, retirement systems – whatever the magic ingredients are, they seem to finally be working.

It absolutely floors me that there are people who, when faced with what looks to me like the triumph, the saving grace of high-impact technological civilization in the face of so many obvious downsides and failings, so much oppression and industrialized death, want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by encouraging people – paying them outright, in some cases – to have more babies. Insanity.

My suburb, and city, are experiencing just the opposite – a demographic explosion. Traffic is horrendous; we seem to live in a semi-permanent construction zone due to constant demolition of houses and gardens with big ugly crowded dwellings built to replace them; violent crime and vandalism are increasing drastically no thanks to a higher population of ill-disciplined youths. For me, all this is extremely unpleasant and stressful. I find myself fantasizing about much of humanity being decimated by some virus epidemic; or of waking up one day to find all other humans had disappeared. Of course I would not last long either, but at least my environment would be peaceful in the interim. I want this chaos to end, to be destroyed.

Letter, The Age, 22/3:

We all pay a high price for growth

Alan Davies called for a more evidence-based analysis of the issues associated with growth (“Problems with fringe-dwelling are peripheral”, The Age, 19/3). He failed to offer any evidence that growth, either by sprawl or infill, improves any aspect of our lives.

Although Davies regards it as trivial, urban development claims more arable land globally than desertification, salination and erosion put together. Ten per cent of all arable land was lost to development in the 15 years to 2000. Australia’s high-quality horticultural soils are scarce and mostly localised, not coincidentally, near (or now under) our major cities.

The only argument for population growth is economic, but it benefits few at the cost of the many. A Florida study found that every dollar of benefit generated by new development cost between $1.38 and $1.72 for required additional services.

Another Florida report found that the fastest growing counties had the highest growth in taxes — to pay for all the infrastructure. The costs of growth, in environment, lifestyle, climate change or even just cold, hard cash, are much greater than the costs of ageing.

– Jane O’Sullivan, Chelmer, Qld

Crowding us in

“Two good to be true”, H-S, 14/3. Some scientific evidence demonstrating that smaller families (one or two children) are better for parents’ health!

“Overpopulation the great unmentionable in Queensland politics”, Courier Mail, 16/3. Queensland is one of the most populous states and the strain is showing (as with Victoria), yet its deluded politicians still promote growth.

One of the comments below that article:

Well, SCOTTY OF QLD, have you ever lived in China? Or that skyscraper capital of the world, Hong Kong? Have you any idea what effect it has on people’s psyche to live like crabs in a basket? To constantly fight over resources and space? To bring up children in a tiny flat situated a hundred or more feet up in the air? Nah, I thought not. Well, you might want to live like that, but I’m damned sure I don’t want to. Nor do I want this for my kids and grandkids. Instead of comparing Australia with Third World countries (and saying, god forbid! that we should ape them), why not look at examples of intelligent population and lifestyle and resources management, such as we see in the Scandinavian countries? It is not our fault if countries choose to overpopulate. Likewise, it is simply RUBBISH to say that if overpopuilated Third World countries can scrape along, Australia (which has more than 76% desert, in case you hadn’t realised!) should be able to manage a huge population too. Why do you think migrants want to come here? To escape the overcrowded, chaotic countries they are leaving behind – duh!

Various developers have been making the usual alarmist statements about housing and land shortages (of course, they stand to profit from this). In “High-rise push to halt urban sprawl”, 16/3, some are promoting high-rise towers as a solution – not a desirable one for reasons stated in the comment above. I certainly don’t want Melbourne and its suburbs to end up as nightmarishly crowded concrete canyons. “Australia faces housing affordability ‘time bomb’: developer”, 17/3 – another developer pushes for smaller and more dense housing. There is only so much land, and covering it with housing estates is not acceptable – open space is necessary for environmental and mental health reasons. Crowding people into towers is not acceptable either.

Greens leader Bob Brown is pushing for a population strategy inquiry – at last his party seems to have realized it is a simmering issue that won’t go away.

“For a new generation, Alpha will be better”, The Age, 20/3. The generation born this year has been dubbed Alpha. Their future could be difficult, and shows how misguided encouraging a high birth rate is – it means more strain on resources, and competition for jobs.

The last of the Alphas will be born in 2024. Australian National University head of demographics Peter McDonald says they may be our biggest generation yet. He says the number of births could be higher in the future because of large numbers of migrants having babies.

In 2050, when the eldest Alphas turn 40, the population is predicted to reach 35 million. Professor McDonald refers to the “echo effect” – if there is a larger population that will trigger another baby boom because there are more people to have babies. Mr McCrindle, however, predicts one in three Alpha females will not have children. Professor McDonald says the bigger generations generally face greater competition in the labour force, but with Australia’s skills shortage this is less of an issue.

“The aging population scare debunked” at PublicPopForum. Quoted below:

Pamela Kinnear’s 2001 study for the Australia Institute, “Population Aging: Crisis or Transition?” concludes:

Conclusion: Alarm over the ‘ageing crisis’ is not justified by the evidence. The transition to an older population can be facilitated by promoting the well-documented benefits that accrue in societies that have equitable access for all citizens to healthcare, education, employment and retirement income. Policies should also focus on overcoming discriminatory attitudes to older people, ensuring security of employment over the life-course, and making a commitment to gender equity in both public and private spheres. Population ageing is not a threat to Australia’s future but an opportunity to ensure decent living standards for all.

Judith Healy’s Study for the Australia Institute 2004, “The Benefits of an Aging Population”:

Far from being net receivers of help and support, older people are, in fact, net providers, at least up to the age of 75 years. They provide childcare, financial, practical and emotional assistance to family members including helping people outside the household with the tasks of daily living. Such unpaid caring and voluntary work adds up to a significant proportion of GDP, around seven per cent on some measures (Ranzijn et al. 2002; De Vaus et al. 2003). Grandparenting has become an important social role in an age when people tend to have more living parents than children. Not only does it benefit grandparents themselves who find that grandparenthood is an important aspect of their lives, but it also appears to benefit grandchildren substantially.

In addition, it is likely that older communities will be more law-abiding communities since older people are less inclined to commit crimes against property and people. The Australian Institute of Criminology (2002b) estimates that homicide rates will fall by around 16 per cent between now and 2050 and there is likely to be less crime altogether resulting in substantial savings in prison and policing costs in the future. Older people are involved in the community as active members of clubs with a large Melbourne survey reporting that one-third of men and one quarter of women aged 55-75 years belonged to a sporting club (Howe and Donath, 1997). They also attend musical concerts, theatres and art galleries more frequent ly than younger people, read more and visit libraries more often. Thus it is probable that the arts will benefit from an older Australia.

Letter from the H-S, 19/3:

I agree with Ian Thomas (50/50, March 17), the world should be practising zero (or even negative) population growth. Governments promote population expansion purely for monetary reasons, not the environment. The world cannot sustain such a large population.

– J. Meulblok, Buckley

Ageing alarmism

The topic of Japan’s shrinking and ageing population seems to be brought up on a regular basis in the news. This lengthy article (via) at a Japan blog is a somewhat gloomy portrayal of a town with a declining population. But the country’s population is still over 127 million crammed onto 4 small earthquake-prone islands, so surely a population decline should be viewed positively! As for the ageing component: “Japan is the robot capital of the world. They will be fine in my opinion” remarks one commenter.

“The Singapore Solution”, National Geographic, 1/2010. On the success of Singapore.

Perhaps the most troubling problem facing the nation is a result of its overly successful population control program, which ran in the 1970s with the slogan “Two Is Enough.” Today Singaporeans are simply not reproducing, so the country must depend on immigrants to keep the population growing. The government offers baby bonuses and long maternity leaves, but nothing will help unless Singaporeans start having more sex. According to a poll by the Durex condom company, Singaporeans have less intercourse than almost any other country on Earth. “We are shrinking in our population,” the MM says. “Our fertility rate is 1.29. It is a worrying factor.” This could be the fatal error in the Singapore Model: The eventual extinction of Singaporeans.

“Overly successful”? Again, with a high population density – nearly 5 million crammed into a small living space – a successful birth rate reduction program should be cause for celebration. But the “aging population” alarmist hype has led them to unwisely encourage an increased birth rate again.

“Congestion the ultimate cost of people ingestion”, The Age, 28/2. The dismaying fact that politicians are addicted to growth because it makes the economy look good. The immigration rate last financial year was an absurdly high 285 000.

Despite changing rhetoric, the reality is our leaders remain hopelessly addicted to population growth. It is a drug they are unlikely to kick any time soon. Size, for some misguided reason, has long been equated with importance. But there is another, more intrinsic reason for the addiction. Population growth is one of the simplest ways for a government to boost economic growth, which is in turn regarded as a key measure of political success. More people means more houses, more cars, more food consumed and more petrol burnt. All this is dutifully recorded by the Bureau of Statistics as an increase in Australia's gross domestic product, which is in turn associated with prosperity. An apparently circular need to feed economic growth with population growth represents a significant flaw in our political system.

Letters, The Age, 2/3:

Wonderful news for investors

Melbourne’s property market record sales (The Age, 1/3) is wonderful news for investors, real estate agents and land developers, not to mention all the stamp duty revenue for the state government. All this population growth, manipulated by Kevin Rudd’s fetish for a “big Australia”, has created a land and housing “boom”, and people in this growth industry are becoming wealthy. The demand for housing is caused by population growth driven mainly by immigration.

We used to be a land of home owners, the “lucky country”. But not any more. Even professionals are being locked out due to excessive competition. Where is the justice if a few elite become wealthy at the expense of the general public?

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Population policy now

Here’s a simple solution to the ever-deepening problems of housing affordability, suburban sprawl, high-density development, traffic congestion, over-development of our beautiful natural surrounds and an increase in Australia’s carbon footprint: an independent population policy.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

SMH, 6/3:

Limit immigration and our traffic woes will ease

The Herald’s front page article (“Life not so great in the fast lane…but now Labor wants to fix our cities, too”, March 5) shows graphically what can happen when a metropolitan area, in this case Sydney, has an uncomfortably large population: bumper-to-bumper traffic. Thirty years ago Sydney had space. You could drive around comfortably and buy a home without selling your soul.

Opposition political parties will tell you that governments are failing to maintain and upgrade infrastructure to keep pace with need. But what they and the governments won’t tell you is that the need is generated by population growth, and the main source of that here is excessive immigration numbers. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with numbers.

Seeing what Australian governments over the past 30 years have failed to do, and noting the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for another 15-20 million residents over the next 15 years (and be assured, the Libs intend the same), do you believe any future government will do better ? Already Rudd has raised the need for new taxes to fund hospitals. He and the opposition know that population growth creates increased demand for services but does not deliver the extra money to pay for them.

If population growth causes congestion and infrastructure problems (to name just two of a long list of negatives), why are federal governments persisting with immigration policies delivering record high numbers here?

– Vince Patulny, Kambah (ACT)

IVF timebomb

“Infertility time bomb: IVF children have higher risk of infertility, obesity and diabetes”, Daily Mail, 23/2. There is some evidence that infertility problems can be passed on genetically for IVF-conceived children, as well as health problems caused by the procedure itself.

“There are genetic causes of infertility that you can pass on,” said Dr. Van Steirteghem. “It means that the next generation may be infertile as well and this is something all clinics should mention to the patients – that if there is a genetic origin that this genetic origin of infertility may be transmitted to the next generation.”

Fertility treatment is so common that one child in every primary school year group is thought to have been conceived in a fertility clinic. But the growth of IVF may have come at a cost to a small, but significant, minority of children. Studies have shown that test-tube babies are slightly more likely to suffer from birth defects. Because so many are twins and triplets, they are also at greater risk of low birth weight, obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure later in life. Doctors fear many IVF babies will also inherit the genetic mutations that caused their mother or father’s infertility.

So those are more problems that the public health system will pay for – which would have been unneccessary if IVF were never invented. That’s a major issue in the debate – this extra burden is preventable by banning IVF.

As usual the comments are heated (IVF brings out similar polarized opinions as abortion does). IVF in the UK and Australia is partly funded by the public health systems in both countries, which makes the issue more controversial. The point is usually raised that as various illnesses are paid for by public health care, why shouldn’t IVF be? The argument against this is that treating other illnesses don’t involve bringing another human into the world (who otherwise would not be there). IVF is unneccessary – it can’t be justified in an already-overpopulated world. At the very least, it certainly should not be taxpayer-funded.

A few comments (agreeing with my opinion):

There is a BIG difference betweem treating illness and having IVF. Yes, of course I have taken antibiotics, for ILLNESS. However, no-one has died from INFERTILITY!!! Your argument that just because people take treatment for illnesses means that IVF is necessary is ridiculous!

– linda Duncan-Adam, West Des Moines

This is what happens when humans tamper with nature – nature will always win. There are good reasons why a percentage of all mammals – including humans – are infertile. Having a child is a privilege, not a right as so any infertile couples seem to believe! Let’s hope sanity finally prevails on this issue. I resent my taxes going on NHS funded treatment for the infertile, it is an obscenity and an outrage when there are children starving in the world.

– Goldie, Sussex, 23/2/2010 4:23

Surely common sense (yet again) should prevail in this issue. Just why does nature let some couples conceive naturally and some not? Maybe because those who can conceive naturally and easily have the best genes to pass on. And maybe nature is telling those who can’t conceive naturally that there could be problems with any offspring if nature allowed them to do so. But of course, to some people, a baby is the ultimate “must have”, and so they will go to any lengths to have one.

– linda Duncan-Adam, West Des Moines

An entry on another blog annoyed me to the point of commenting – then I got castigated by some self-righteous females. Women like these seriously irritate me – they are of a leftist political view in which they think public health care should pay for everything. I am Leftist in many respects (and certainly support public health care), but my opinion diverges on this issue for previously-stated reasons. Such people are too focused on individual rights, and not on responsibilities to the society they live in.

I hate that term – “socially infertile”, as if someone who wants to become a parent so badly that they’re prepared to undergo the trauma of IVF has to justify why. It’s like the old debate on whether being gay is “genetic” or “chosen” – why on Earth does it matter? The point is that it’s not wrong, and that no-one should be discriminated against because of it. Same with those who, for whatever reason, cannot become parents without the aid of a particular medical treatment – they’re not going to apply for it unless they need it, are they? The reason is “I want to become a parent and can’t do so without this medical treatment”. It’s not a cosmetic procedure people are choosing to undergo because it sounds like fun, now, is it?

“Socially infertile” refers to lesbian couples and would-be single mothers who could otherwise concieve children naturally by mating with a man. There is no way IVF should be publically-funded for this – if they want children that badly, either adopt one – or mate in the normal fashion.

Population political party

“How many is too many? Australia’s people problem”, SMH, 19/2. A Sydney businessman named William Bourke is, like Dick Smith (see 26/1/2010 entry), concerned with overpopulation, to the point where he says he is launching a population-focused political party, named the Stable Population Party of Australia (some details at this entry in the PublicPopForum; they have an as-yet-unused site registered).

“Grey expectations not nearly as alarming as climate change”, The Age, 3/2. Criticism of the alarmist hype made by some politicians about Australia’s ageing population.

But even the remaining 40 per cent of the increase can’t be attributed to ageing. It includes allowance for the expected growth in the population from 22 million to 36 million. Obviously, 14 million extra people means (greatly) increased spending on healthcare, but this has nothing to do with older people’s increased need for healthcare purely because they’ve got older.

36 million is not inevitable! Such a population increase can be prevented if politicians have the will too (which none currently in power do).

Kelvin Thomson speech

MP Kelvin Thomson, one of the few politicans concerned about overpopulation, made an excellent speech at a Sustainable Population Australia meeting on 10/2 (also reproduced at the PublicPopForum). One of the points he makes is that the alarm over an ageing society is misguided.

“New party wants population debate”, SMH, 8/2. Another concerned businessman, William Bourke, proposes a new political party focused on overpopulation.

Although he has never been involved in politics, Mr. Bourke, 39, said his instincts told him Mr. Rudd had slipped up badly last year when he said, “I actually believe in a big Australia – I make no apology for that. I actually think it’s good news that our population is growing.” Mr. Bourke says the huge increases in population forecast by the federal Treasury in its third intergenerational report are a direct result of government policies, including record immigration levels and the baby bonus. Yet the only public debate is on how to deal with the consequences of so many more people, not whether such growth is desirable. He said “the extreme and radical rate of population growth” meant more high-rise apartment blocks, overcrowded transport networks and loss of parklands were inevitable, and it was time for a national debate about whether this was what people wanted. Mr. Bourke said he and a small group of like-minded people expect to reveal the name and plans for the party within three weeks and where they want to run candidates.

Letter, The Age, 6/2:

Norway can do it

Lindsay Tanner says that unless our population grows rapidly, we will suffer “lower productivity and less economic growth”. But from 1997 to 2007, 13 OECD nations had higher per-capita economic growth than Australia, but lower population growth. The suggestion that population growth is necessary for a vibrant economy is unsupported by any empirical evidence, and contrary to the examples of countries like Norway and Germany, which are doing fine with stable populations. If they can do it, why can’t we?

– Charles Berger, Australian Conservation Foundation, Carlton

SMH, 9/2:

Immigration policy must reflect our country’s fragility

Your editorial says there “is a popular opinion that holds Australia must rein in its population growth or suffer severe environmental consequences” (“A big Australia needs even bigger investment”, February 8). I presume this opinion is popular because our population growth to date has already led to severe environmental consequences.

There is a vast amount of scientific evidence to suggest we have stuffed up our environment at every level, and continue to do so. Those who say adding millions more people to the equation will not harm the environment if we do things the right way are the ones who are burying their heads in the sand. While we have the current system of buying, selling and developing land, the environment will always suffer.

You say “we have been adapting to higher populations since day one of the colony”. I respectfully suggest you should have said we have been “adapting poorly”. And when you say “we occupy one of the largest land masses in the world”, you should have said “one of the driest and most infertile land masses in the world”.

You could say we “enjoy” one of the world’s lowest population densities if we liked to live throughout our continent, but we don’t. We largely stick to the coast, so the population density in our cities and towns is similar to many other countries. Those trying to get to work on the Sydney road system would no doubt vouch for this.

“But since when have we given up so easily?” That is what I would say about those wanting a population debate and, heaven forbid, a population policy. Going along with governments who are hooked on high immigration simply because of an unproven economic benefit is the easy path.

Being against massive immigration does not mean you are anti-immigrant. We are all immigrants somewhere along the way, but we should not let that allow us to give up on fighting for a better way for this ancient and fragile country.

– Andrew Cronin, Robertson

Community disillusionment

I am increasingly irritated with the Childfree Hardcore LJ community. I posted an entry about a woman musing whether to have more children (a 4th). There have been similar entries from others concerning overpopulation and/or large families (example: “Octomom”), so I thought it relevant. Apparently not, according to some commenters.

I find it strange that a community that exists for people who do not wish to have children has become a place to post about anything regarding other people having children. This isn’t an anti-overpopulation comm, even though a lot of it’s members are VHEMT members and the like. How does this directly relate to you being childfree? Yes, having four children is selfish, and I’m sure we all agree on that. You’re kind of preaching to the choir, here.

Yes, I thought members might like to read and debate it?

I come to this comm precisely because I don’t have to pretend that I give a shit one way or the other if people have kids. Because I really don’t. As long as the sproggen don’t get up in my face or ruin a movie for me, I don’t care if you have one or a baker’s fuckin’ dozen. Just keep that shit away from me. And frankly, how is this about being CF (hardcore or otherwise)? I mean if you want to talk about whether her waffling makes it harder for others to seek sterilization, that’s relevant to those of us in the comm who have been bingoed and denied reproductive rights. But asking if her decision is greedy? If I’m going to ask parents to refrain from considering my reproductive choices to be “greedy” or “selfish” – I figure I owe them the same consideration when it comes to their choices. So long as she can afford the kid and isn’t going to abuse it horribly how is this our damn business?

Most community entries are gripes about various children’s bad behavior! Also reproductive choices – in this case, having a lot of children – do affect others, in that it means there are fewer resources to share, and taxpayers will end up supporting those children in some way, such as (in Australia) through the baby bonus or government-funded health care (Medicare).

The community is not “hardcore” enough for me anymore (as in Pentti Linkola hardcore). There is inconsistency on what topics can be posted, and posts may be deleted at the whim of the moderators. There is much complaining about how child-centric society is, how women are judged by whether or not they have children, rights to contraception and abortion, a lot of examples of bad parenting, and so on. All of which I agree with. But if topics such as forced sterilization are brought up (an example being drug-addicted women who keep having children while on welfare) it brings down the wrath of the community. Rule №9: “This community, along with being pro-reproductive rights and against fat wank, does not endorse the idea that a group of people are inferior, evil, scary, or generally deserve to have their reproductive rights taken away for the good of society.” I disagree with the “reproductive rights” – as society usually ends up paying for the actions of irresponsible mothers in the form of welfare, society does have a right in this case to take away her means of having children (or more children if she already has any). There is too much emphasis on rights – identity politics – and not enough on responsibilities in our society, an issue that seems to elude a lot of forum members.

I will not bother to post there anymore; a lot of members come across as snarky bitchy females. I encountered those types at school; I do not want to have to tolerate them on the Internet. I have yet to find a community to my liking (there are none on LJ that I know of).

[Edit: I deleted the entry then quit the community. Here is a screenshot of the entry, just over 1 MB.]

“Is it greedy to want a large family?”, The Age, 19/1. The original article which got me irate. To repeat what I said in the LJ entry: This columnist is mulling over whether to have another child (she has 3 already). My opinion: yes, it is greedy! She lives in a 1st-world country where her children are virtually guaranteed to survive to adulthood, and with access to birth control, so large families in this case are a selfish indulgence. Most people’s genes are not so special that they need to produce multiple offspring. There is also the damage multiple births do to a woman’s body. Most of her commenters (linked in the article) show the same selfishness, and encourage her to have another (there are a very few dissenting comments concerned about overpopulation).

Educating women and giving them access to family planning and contraception is generally supposed to result in them having smaller families (1-2 children), or no children. Unfortunately, in Australia this effect seems to be reversing!

Population debate

Published letters collection. Some of the following letters refer to a series of population debates held on The 7.30 Report last week (which can be viewed in the January 2010 archive). I did not watch these as I would only feel frustrated – a lot of talk, but nothing serious done to reverse population growth.

SMH, 3/2:

Today’s migrants are tomorrow’s seniors

Yes, we have a looming crunch as the Australian population pyramid morphs into a population towerblock, and retirees threaten to outnumber the economically productive (“Injection of youth slows down the ageing process”, February 2).

But the short-term solution of importing young workers is borrowing against the future. What will we do when they retire? No country can support an unlimited population. At some stage we have to adapt to the reality of greater longevity and a static population.

We are not just living longer – we are also healthier beyond 60. If the retirement age must be gradually raised to 70, then so be it. But even in the good times it is hard to get a job when you are over 50. Business must adapt, too.

– Derek Bolton, Birchgrove

Wayne Swan says the population may not be allowed to hit 36 million by 2050: the economic benefits of a large population would have to be weighed against environmental and infrastructure impacts.

Swan’s words sound familiar. The 1994 inquiry into Australia’s population “carrying capacity” recommended adopting a formal population policy, which would be informed by these considerations. The Keating government could not summon the courage to respond, and the Howard government’s response was finally revealed in 1999. It argued that no formal policy was needed because its policies would result in a stable population of about 23.5 million by 2051. Our population has already exceeded 22 million, and the results of the past 10 years of population growth are in: infrastructure is failing, our environment is in decline, with water security a major concern and attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions thwarted.

The Rudd government would do well to start work urgently on a population policy.

– Gordon Hocking, Oyster Bay

Wayne Swan again recommends that the ageing members of the population gird up their loins and prepare to work into their twilight years. If only it was that simple.

I would like to see any of our relatively well-heeled “suits” find themselves in their late 50s trying to compete for semi-professional jobs such as office work with gorgeous young things – male or female – 20 or 30 years younger. There are 600,000 of us officially out of work, plus those the statisticians ignore – the underemployed, the unincluded and the totally demoralised who have given up hope of employment, no matter how much they have to offer.

Let’s talk honestly about finding jobs for everyone who needs one. Let’s start thinking about no-fault unemployment and adjust the demands of our social security system accordingly. And let’s not ask older people to humiliate themselves, yet again, trying to secure jobs in our youth-obsessed culture that many employers, young or old, are most unlikely to offer them.

– Virginia Rose, Verona

Come on Kev, don’t pussyfoot around. Legalise euthanasia and be done with it (us).

– Trevor Knight, Gilles Plains (SA)

The Age, 29/1:

Balanced approach

George Brandis has had a cheap shot at Julia Gillard over her decision not to have children (The Age, 28/1). With the world population rocketing towards 9 billion, leaving environmental devastation and significant human suffering in its wake, people who don’t reproduce are doing the world a great favour.

Aberrations in female fecundity like the vocal Angela Shanahan, who has had nine children, must be counterbalanced by women who have one or no children or we would be in a terrible predicament in a very short time.

The decision not to give birth does not indicate one dimensionality of a woman’s character as claimed. No human can have all possible life experiences. With empathy and imagination we can still put ourselves in the positions of others who have had a different life path.

– Jill Quirk, East Malvern

30/1:

Stop this madness until we have a plan

I have seldom seen a politician more comfortable with himself than Kevin Rudd explaining that neither the government, nor the other side of Australian politics has a population policy. And thus will take no responsibility for the consequences of Australia at 35 million.

However, if you look at the programs in place – social and financial pressure for more babies, unlimited immigration, and even legal sanctions against voluntary euthanasia – you would hardly know it. It appears a little disingenuous to me.

It may just be possible for Australia to cope with this number of people at this rate of increase but not without carefully co-ordinated management of our infrastructure. And that is simply not possible without a well-articulated and agreed policy framework. This has to be understood by all levels of government, the Opposition and by the electorate in general. There is a fat chance of this happening.

The fact is that the Government does have the means to influence our population. At present it is using this to encourage unlimited growth and is doing so in a policy vacuum. Simply hoping it will all work out in the end is not good enough. Could we please stop this madness until we have a plan.

– Kyle Matheson, Mont Albert

Not set in stone

It was apparent, watching Kevin Rudd being interviewed on television, that his enthusiasm for “a big Australia” was tempered by his realisation that the electorate is beginning to understand that the calibration of annual immigration is a matter of his Government’s policy and is not cast in stone.

The electorate is eager to know whether a “big Australia” is in the national interest. This question will continue to bedevil the Government and Opposition until an informed case, for and against it, has been transparently heard in the political and public arena.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

Aim to be self-reliant

One simple fact always gets lost in the climate change debate. That it is far better for humanity to act as if it is a reality. Reducing reliance on basic services, now provided by governments and multinationals, such as water and power, and changing to non-polluting, home-based systems, and reducing the use of fossil fuels must have an overall beneficial effect. It will also greatly increase the power of the individual to avoid being reliant on monopolistic, rapacious organisations.

Of course those who pay the deniers’ bills, and governments bent on perpetuating obsolete systems to benefit special interest groups and wealthy investors, do not like that idea. It is not climate change they aim to deny, but to constrain the power of the individual to act independently against it, and to restrict any ability to deny large organisations massive profits.

With a Government in thrall to the coal and oil industries, with its fuel-hungry desalination plants, and massive polluting power stations, we will continue to see decisions taken that ensure that all citizens pay their hard-earned cash to the rapacious for their basic services with ever less opportunity to opt out of the scam.

– Martin Dix, Healesville

It is worrying that Kevin Rudd thinks nothing can be done to control immigration numbers. Perhaps a population policy would be a start.

– Beverley Broadbent, East Brighton

2/2:

Less wasteful living

Kevin Rudd says we need a big Australia to fund services for our ageing population. Commentators have also argued we need to work longer to enjoy the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.

What Australians really need to do is consume less, waste less, drive less often and in smaller cars, and generally reduce our material wants. We will be happier and not supporting an economy that chokes our cities and wrecks the environment. We will have “quality of life” rather than just the “high standard of living” so beloved of politicians and economists.

In a land of finite and dwindling resources, repudiating the policy of economic growth as the solution to our problems is the only rational and morally defensible course of action.

– Rob Buttrose, Moonee Ponds

3/2:

Fill ’em up won’t work

Wayne Swan has joined the chorus of Kevin Rudd and Lindsay Tanner for a big Australia, based on an ageing population. These mindless pollies make out that this is the solution when, in fact, it only makes a bigger time-bomb.

What happens when all the additional migrants age? We then have an even bigger ageing population. Based on Rudd’s and Swan’s principles, we will need even more people in the following 40 years, after 2050. So will we march on to 70 million people?

Not to mention that the skyrocketing cost of essentials such as food, housing, energy and water will drive an even greater socio-economic divide in a decimated environment. Standards of living will continue to fall, especially for lower-income families, as our resources are stretched to the limit.

We need a realistic sustainable solution to an ageing population, as opposed to filling up the country beyond breaking point. Pollies seem to view population growth and consumption as endless, no matter what the consequences, so long as the big end of town is rewarded. It is high time for a referendum on this so that at least all current Australians will have a say in this country’s population destiny.

– Tony Smith, Burwood

Stop breeding!

“Dick Smith says Australia should cut population by slashing immigration and encouraging women to have only two babies”, H-S, 26/1. A businessman who is against population growth is a rarity! The well-known entrepreneur has incited controversy by his comments, but discouraging large families should be a key population policy. While banning is probably a bit strong (and would probably evoke resentment), more passive measures could be used: no government benefits after a woman’s second child (and, more drastically, no access to government services for child #3 onwards), no baby bonus after two children, making large families socially unacceptable, and so on. Those who chose to have three or more children would have to financially support those extra ones themselves.

We live in a first world country where virtually all children are guaranteed to survive to adulthood, so the redundancy argument is no excuse to justify large families here. Most people’s genes are not so special that they need multiple copies of themselves. Those who have many children are also taking more than their fair share of resources.

The ageing population is brought up again as a problem – namely, supporting them. Population increase to solve this is only a short-term solution, as those extra people will in turn need to be supported by an even larger population, until numbers reach ridiculously high levels. A line has to be drawn at some point. Perhaps euthanasia will have to be legalized as an option – it does seem preferable and more dignified in comparison to withering away in a nursing home, senile and incontinent. Developing robot helpers and exoskeletons are also another solution.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wants a “big Australia” so no guidance can be expected from him. In his Australia Day speech he raises the usual alarm about an ageing population and states as a fact that our population will increase to 36 million (a nightmarish prospect).

In the newsprint article (which was a bit different in wording) there was criticism from “family groups”:

Football identity and father of eight Grant Thomas has joined family groups in attacking Mr. Smith’s suggestion to discourage women from having more than two babies.

[…]

Thomas, the former coach of St. Kilda, was shocked by Mr. Smith’s comments. […] He said his big family brought him much joy. “Dick’s a much better man than me. I couldn’t face going through life only having made love to my wife twice,” he said.

This ignoramus obviously hasn’t heard of contraception, judging by the ridiculously large family he has. How can anyone justify having 8 children in a First-World country?

Family Council of Victoria secretary Bill Muehlenberg said it was scaremongering. “We had Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s saying exactly the same thing, that in the ’70s and ’80s millions of people would die of famine and starvation. Really, I would take him with a grain of salt.”

There are millions dying of starvation; does he not watch the news? These family organizations tend to be conservative religious fanatics, so they should not be listened to.

“Australia ‘must plan new city’ to cope with population”, The Age, 26/1. Demographer Bernard Salt, whose opinion is of dubious value, asserts that we need another city in the north, and that we are obligated to take in more people:

By 2050, the global population is set to grow to 9 billion from about 7 billion today. As a nation of 22 million with the resources of a continent, Australia had a moral imperative to take its share of migrants, Mr Salt said. “We need to project that we are a generous nation,” he said. “You might get away with no growth for the next 10 years, but then those pressures build up. “The rest of the planet says, ‘We’re drowning in poverty and here’s Australia sitting on 22 million people, and they don’t want to accept migrants because it compromises the quality of their lifestyle’.”

Bugger that! Much of Australia is arid desert, so a large population is unsustainable – its environment is already severely damaged with the numbers we have. Other countries should take responsibility for their own problems and not expect to keep exporting their surplus people.

“Populate and pollute”, H-S, 20/1. An obvious way for Australia to cut its emissions levels is to reduce immigration levels.

The report said the Government was unlikely to meet its target of cutting year 2000 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 if high population policies continued. “The Government is in a diabolically difficult policy situation,” the two demographers wrote. “The implication is that it regards population growth as more important than the achievement of greenhouse abatement targets.” Dr. Birrell and Dr. Healy said the Government had limited power to control fertility rates, but it could take decisive action on the migrant intake.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been unapologetic about his support for a much bigger population, branding himself a “big Australia” man. “I think it’s good…for our national security long term, it’s good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation,” he said recently.

A collection of published letters from The Age:

18/1:

Population fantasy

John Bayly (Letters, 16/1) is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that Australia can sustain a population of 70 million, even if the “dead centre” can provide solar and geothermal energy to support people living on the habitable fringes of the continent.

Day-to-day life for ordinary folk in Melbourne is fast becoming intolerable due to failure by the Brumby Government to provide efficient public services, plus pressure of increased population: more than 2000 settlers are arriving here each week. We are seeing the breakdown of public transport; regular road traffic jams; water shortages; overstretched hospital accommodation; unaffordable housing; and loss of residential amenity with increased density. All this is being compounded by climate change with extremes of weather, such as record high temperatures with threats of bushfires.

Just how many people can Australia sustainably support without destroying the environment and without affecting our standard of living?

The new warning “populate and perish” should be broadcast to all state MPs.

– Lewis Prichard, Hawthorn

No road to utopia

Michael Danby (The Age, 14/1) implies perpetual population growth is the pathway to utopia, but on what planet?

Time and time again, Mother Nature has wreaked revenge on those who forget that humans are but a small part of the world’s ecosystem, wiping out whole civilisations whose leaders acted like grasshoppers rather than ants, living for today and forgetting about tomorrow.

Profligate squandering of her resources has created sterile moonscapes where once there were verdant forests.

History has shown we live beyond our means at our peril. Yet Mr Danby and his ilk want Australians to grow ever larger and richer.

Dying rivers, rising sea levels, diminishing soil fertility, intolerable traffic congestion, sprawling urban development, increasing social alienation - no problem. All we need is a bit of smart planning and a desal plant.

Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man’s world.

– Rosalie Counsell, Harkaway

19/1:

Michael Danby, here’s a novel idea. Why don’t we better train more people who are already here so we don’t need to bring in so many extra workers?

– Lorraine Bates, Surrey Hills

20/1:

Rudd warns that the ageing population will “drag” down our growth rate. How disgusting that he considers ageing to be a threat. Nobody stays young, and even the young migrants he lures here will age. Older people may not add to the gross domestic product - but if they worked most of their lives, they have contributed to the economy. Also, many retirees are self-supporting, and they often care for the elderly and children, as well as do volunteer work. The economy is supposed to serve us, not be our master to devalue people as unproductive burdens when they are no longer doing paid work.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

21/1:

A simplistic view

Peter Cosgrove, there are many valid reasons for wanting to stop the population growing that have nothing to do with racial tolerance. Water, for example, or some of the world’s worst species extinction rates, or how ongoing urban sprawl is eating up farmland and green space, or the inability to reduce greenhouse gasses while increasing the population. None of these are perspectives born of racism, yet any suggestion that we should limit our population to help deal with these problems is described as racial intolerance. I look forward to the debate about our population moving beyond this simplistic level.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Poor, poor boomers

Thanks, Kevin Rudd, for asking younger generations, particularly “working families” to work harder for the older one. Let us work harder for the baby boom generation, who had free tertiary education, had their property values explode, milked the pension system dry and left the planet’s environment on the verge of disaster. It is becoming tiring being part of a generation that is held ransom for another generation’s voting population.

– Sarah and Brett Wilson, Ashwood

22/1:

Show us respect

Planning Minister Justin Madden has been charged with overseeing “the Government’s Respect Agenda, which aims to reduce alcohol-related violence” (The Age, 21/1). If Madden and John Brumby respected what Victorians value about our cities and environment and planned for future generations, young people might be inspired to follow their “respect agenda”. Protect our grasslands, forests, heritage, green wedges and streetscapes from developers who are the main objects of Government respect.

– Rosemary West, Edithvale

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”.