Livable – for now

Adelaide was voted Australia’s most livable city, with Sydney getting the most negative votes. Population growth has contributed to the latter, and Melbourne is not far behind in increasing unliveability. The surveyors were the Property Council of Australia, a body which has a vested interest in promoting growth. Adelaide has a comparatively small population – a major factor in its livability – but if the PCA has its way (one representative on a TV news report was all but foaming at the prospect of the city’s growth), the city too will be ruined by inflated house prices, overdevelopment and lagging infrastructure.

“Baillieu Government releases land for two new Melbourne suburbs”, Herald-Sun, 23/1. This gets me foaming at the mouth in rage – the Liberal Government is continuing the reckless growth policy of its predecessors. More open land (and carbon sinks) around Melbourne will be smothered in housing estates, contributing to the environmental degradation of the region. It won’t result in lower house prices, not with investors and developers looking to make profits. It also further jeopardizes the city’s food security, with arable land disappearing under housing estates.

“Population 7 Billion”, National Geographic, January 2011. An overview of the world’s population numbers, but the article optimistically suggests that reducing consumption and good old “human ingenuity” will solve our problems rather than reducing growth.

But one can also draw a different conclusion—that fixating on population numbers is not the best way to confront the future. People packed into slums need help, but the problem that needs solving is poverty and lack of infrastructure, not overpopulation. Giving every woman access to family planning services is a good idea—“the one strategy that can make the biggest difference to women’s lives,” Chandra calls it. But the most aggressive population control program imaginable will not save Bangladesh from sea level rise, Rwanda from another genocide, or all of us from our enormous environmental problems.

But aggressive control certainly would help mitigate such disasters! Only a totalitarian world government could implement such a policy, though.

“No 11 - and yes, it was the milkman”, H-S, 21/1. If this isn’t a flagrant abuse of government-funded IVF, I don’t know what is! 11 children – plus 3 from a previous marriage (natural or IVF is not stated) – and she still wants more. Apparently she’s got nothing better to do than contribute to overpopulation. Educated women supposedly want smaller families – that is one of the benefits stated for family planning aid in developing countries – but Australia appears to be going backward in that regard. Whether the children are “wanted” or not is irrelevant – her having so many is selfish and irresponsible. Removing government benefits for having 3 or more children (i.e. the 3rd child onward would not receive benefits) would prove a big disincentive, as well as providing IVF funding only for a woman’s first child. No government seems to have the courage to do that, however.

The year of 7 billion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collected letters

A selection of letters from The Age, most on the planning issues mentioned in my previous entry.

Land grab

If there is one job occupation I have come to loathe and despise above all others, it is that of property developer. Opportunistic scum who care nothing for the environment or sensitive architectural design and are only out to make a profit – I would like to see them rounded up and burned at the stake! My neighborhood, like nearly all others, is being ruined by developers buying up homes, razing them and their established gardens and building enormous eye-gougingly-ugly monstrosities (I have a website page about this). On a wider scale, the open land around Melbourne is being concreted over with new housing developments by developers; this has future implications for food security (prime farmland being built over) and the environment (the loss of vegetation). The city is growing like a metastasising cancer and nothing is being done to stop it – yet again, population growth is the prime cause of this.

Some articles from The Age on this topic:

“In defence of the suburbs”, 12/10/2010. The loss of backyards barely rates a mention in urban policy, but they provide valuable room for vegetation and wildlife.

“State's boom on ‘shaky ground’ ”, 28/10/2010. Victoria’s recent growth has been due to population growth and construction – neither of which can be sustained indefinitely. “But the researchers warn this population increase to approximately 90,000 people coming to Melbourne each year has ‘led to delusions of endless growth’ within the Brumby government and the business community.” And residents are paying for this dearly as quality of life degrades.

“Developers scramble for land”, 6/11/2010. Developers are greedily buying the land released by the expansion of the urban growth boundary. “RMIT associate professor of planning Michael Buxton said sprawling cities were energy-consuming, economically inefficient, environmentally destructive and led to social polarisation. ‘The Victorian government has abandoned planning and is handing the city over to developers,’ he said.”

“Growing pains: Victoria’s population explosion”, 20/11/2010. An overview of why Victoria has had so much growth. The author regards it as a positive. I certainly don’t – being popular is not a good thing in this case as it is making life increasingly stressful for residents.

“Labor’s high-rise dystopia”, 24/11/2010. One reason that the Labor government was voted in was that they promised to discard Jeff Kennett’s free-for-all urban planning. But they well and truly reneged on that promise, and proved to be just as bad as the Liberals in favoring developers.

“Design trend takes child’s play out of backyards”, 25/11/2010. As house sizes have increased, backyards have all but vanished. Playing in the backyard was one of my favorite activities when young.

“Land shortage, price hike link a myth, claims academic”, 6/12/2010. Claims by developers that more houses need to be built because of shortages are misleading; the main factors are negative gearing that favors investors, readily-available home loans and the first home owners’ grant are factors.

“Planning must be for people, not developers”, 6/12/2010. Both the Kennett and Bracks-Brumby governments were influenced in planning policy by developers, who donated to both parties (a law should be brought against this!). Unfortunately the new Premier Ted Baillieu is also developer-friendly, so the ruination of Melbourne and its surrounding lands looks to continue.

“Melbourne heads north to Kalkallo”, 8/12/2010. More of the depressing same. Future generations are going to curse us.

Deceptive advertising

Haven’t been posting a while for the usual reasons, so I have another backlog of articles. I just get so frustrated that so many people, including those in power, are in denial about the population issue.

Found an organization, PopDev, through a blog entry. At first glance they appear to be concerned about population growth, but reading through it reveals they are more the opposite – namely that growth is not the issue, that population control is a violation of reproductive “rights”, that starvation is caused by unequal food distribution rather than numbers, that sterilization is eugenics by stealth, opposing excessive immigration is racist, and so on with the usual fallacious arguments. Groups like this are just as bad as the more blatant growth advocates such as those in business and politics. The blog entry itself, by some female, predictably associates opposition to excessive immigration with racism. I have come to loathe many leftist/liberal/feminist women because of such views, which are diametrically opposed to mine (though I consider myself feminist and liberal in some other areas) – see my 4/2/2010 entry.

Anti-growth push

A grassroots movement against population growth has emerged as more people feel free to debate immigration without being called racists, says a new study. Up to 87 per cent of Australians now reject further growth, according to an analysis of opinion polls by Swinburne University sociologist Katharine Betts. Growing concern over crowded cities and environmental damage had led to a new openness in discussing population, she said. Dr Betts said the latest polls showed that between 50 and 87 per cent of Australians wanted an end to growth. Her study will be released today in People and Place, the journal of Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research. (Herald-Sun, 1/11/2010)

“Big families damage Australia – survey”, H-S, 27/10/2010. One in 3 Australians in a survey think that families should limit the number of children they have to minimize environmental impact. The informal website vote, though, indicates more out of the 476 who voted think the opposite.

“Stem the population growth – Australia’s already full”, Advertiser, 5/11/2010. Interview with Professor Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. He says that the general public is more aware of population-caused problems than politicians and businesses.

“Aboriginal population booms”, 26/9/2010. I have mixed feelings about this: it’s good that their culture is not dying out (as was though it would in more racist times decades ago), but alarming that so many younger people (teenagers) are falling pregnant, with the attendent social problems – I doubt they would have education/access to birth control in remote communities. Given the neglect of Aboriginal health in general, I suppose it’s not surprising.

“Foreign investors buy up Australian land”, Yahoo News, 15/11/2010. Of food security concern is the ownership of agricultural land by foreign businesses. Perhaps if things get dire the government could seize back the land – they should take responsibility for their own food supplies and not expect to be able to strip other countries for these (again, population growth is a cause of this).

“PM has to think big on population, warns Treasury”, 14/11/2010. With dreary inevitability it looks as though the Prime Minister will not hold to her election promise of reviewing Australia’s population policy. A big Australia is not inevitable; the government could take measures to restrict growth.

Environmental atrocity

The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve has been decimated as the Frankston Bypass freeway construction now cuts through the once-pristine bushland. A photo gallery documents the destruction; it is a depressing sight. Two photos below show before and a simulated after (once the freeway is built):

Shame, shame, shame on this heartless uncaring government. Its environmental credentials are a farce. Australia’s disgraceful record of environmental destruction continues unabated (another example is the logging of old-growth forests in Victoria). Some letters in response below:

7/8:

Paradise paved over

John Brumby pledged last week to cut Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 through cleaner power generation (The Age, 26/7).

Simultaneously his government signs contracts to construct more freeways, which will increase carbon emissions. In the process the historic Westerfield sanctuary and Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve for the Frankston Bypass, and Coomoora Woodland Reserve for the Dingley Arterial will be sacrificed. Yet in each case there is a viable alternative route that would preserve these invaluable environmental assets.

Why set a target to cut emissions, but authorise the destruction of natural carbon sinks. Is the Premier genuine or just a pretender, creating a smokescreen for short-sighted and unsustainable development by setting a long-term target for which he will never be held accountable? Even if emissions are eventually contained, what natural heritage will be left for future generations to enjoy once paradise has been fully paved?

– Damon Anderson, Keysborough

30/9:

Dark day as state shows its might

To say Tuesday was a sad day for democracy and for the environment is an understatement. But it is hard to adequately express the significance of the freeway protesters’ defeat at Westerfield, near Frankston (“Police arrest freeway protesters”, The Age, 29/9).

That 100 police are brought in to subdue protesters sends a message that no matter what people do to protect what they value, the state will bring in stronger forces to overpower them.

At that point there is nothing further that citizens can do to protect their environment and the only reasonable reaction is despair. A disengaged populace without hope fits best into the Brumby government’s “plan”.

– Jill Quirk, Malvern East

No more softly, softly

The Brumby government will not tolerate any interference with Peninsula Link freeway plans, even if it means the compulsory acquisition and destruction of pristine, privately owned, heritage-listed bushland complete with endangered species of fauna and flora.

This was carried out before a VCAT hearing pertaining to the historic site.

I was witness to the extraordinary events at the Westerfield site on Tuesday, when 100 or more police, including mounted police, arrived on the site equipped in riot gear, ready to defend construction workers against a tiny group of peaceful protesters, many of whom were in their 60s or over.

It appears that since former chief commissioner Christine Nixon retired, the era of softly softly “community policing” is over. We are well and truly back in the strong-arm-of-the-law era of the Kennett government.

– Rod Binnington, Brighton

No trust for Pallas

Roads Minister Tim Pallas should resign. Last week he assured the protesters that the bulldozing would not go ahead until the VCAT ruling was handed down.

On Tuesday, Mr Pallas suddenly switched. It is shameful when a minister of the state cannot be trusted.

These incredible protesters have picketed this area all through the cold winter. They deserve medals; instead they are arrested.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell

Bullying shifts south-east

John Brumby, not satisfied with bullying Footscray residents affected by the $4.3 billion new rail line, from Southern Cross through Footscray to Little River, now bullies southern pensioners and retirees.

Mr Brumby’s message to residents in the west that the new rail line will go ahead regardless of the findings of any study on its impact on residents and the environment reeks of the bully-boy tactics well practised by his government.

Charging in to break up the Westerfield picket line, manned by locals in their senior years, is the latest new low for this government. Once again, Brumby’s mantra – regardless of residents and the environment – wins the day, but perhaps not the next state election.

– Darlene Reilly, Sunshine

3/10:

Biting the hand

If the ALP want to win votes from the Greens (“What’s eating Labor”, 19/9) they should not have bulldozed the Westerfield heritage bushland last week. And they should not bulldoze the environmentally significant Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve (also in the Peninsula Link reservation at Frankston) or the Coomoora woodland.

Nor should they be dreaming of putting a north-east link freeway through the Yarra Flats at Banyule. Nor should they have voted, with Coalition support, to take 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development.

– Rosemary West, Edithvale

4/10:

Woodland lost, questions remain

State Roads Minister Tim Pallas justifies destruction of the Westerfield property’s heritage bushland to construct the Peninsula Link freeway with the claim that “work commenced in this area with all the necessary heritage and environmental approvals and permits in place following extensive planning” (Letters, 2/10).

Wrong, Mr Pallas. You must surely be aware that VCAT – our civil justice court – is hearing questions as to why native vegetation is being cleared from the site before “vegetation offsets” have been secured to comply with Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management Framework (“vegetation offsets” provide like-for-like vegetation at another location in lieu of that to be destroyed).

Westerfield’s rare and pristine “grassy woodland”, which has been destroyed in 48 hours, should have had the question of offsets resolved before clearing of any vegetation. The government should follow due process and not change soundly based laws that protect our environment.

– Joyce and Simon Welsh, Westerfield, Frankston

We are misinformed

Tim Pallas’s claim that the heritage-listed Westerfield land was available for clearing in June is misleading. Heritage Victoria’s final decision regarding the property was handed down on July 28. An appeal committee found the initial approval of March 17 was flawed. Final approval was given on September 9, meaning that if work was started in June it would have been without the necessary approval of Heritage Victoria.

There is a history of misinformation. In August 2007, Mr Pallas announced the statutory offsets for native vegetation cleared for EastLink and claimed that a parcel of land in Langwarrin was “now Crown land”. This statement was false then and remains so now, despite the law that these matters are to be finalised 12 months after construction starts.

The land remains in private hands and the $600,000 payment for its improvement remains in limbo, pending a planning scheme amendment and its subdivision from a larger site.

There are laws that govern the preservation of our landscape and heritage and norms that apply to truth and sound governance. These laws and norms have been treated with contempt.

– Jim Kerin, Frankston

(I also posted this at Avatar-Forums.com.)

8 million too many

“Time for Melbourne to think about its population surge”, Herald-Sun, 19/10. An alarming prediction that a population of 8 million in Melbourne is inevitable by 2060. A “business think-tank” is promoting such growth.

Committee for Melbourne chief executive Andrew MacLeod said a doubling of Melbourne’s population over the next 50 years was a “normal” rate of growth. He slammed suggestions the city’s population spurt should be capped, rejecting arguments by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and activist Dick Smith that Australia didn’t have the infrastructure to cope. A population cap was one of the “greatest threats” to Melbourne’s future as it would allow governments turn a blind eye to the reality of growth.

Well he is deluded (and greedy) – a lot of residents don’t want such a huge population as the city is under serious strain from its current numbers. Growth is not inevitable; governments have it in their power to contain it. Excessive growth is by far a greater threat to Melbourne’s future livability.

Demographer Bernard Salt also weighs in with his usual inane generalizations – does anyone take him seriously?

H-S letter, 20/10:

I have a question for Bernard Salt, who says Melbourne has the capacity to double in size.

London and Paris may have eight million people now, but what do they also have?

Answer: brilliant metros, undergrounds and vast, efficient commuter rail lines (plus lots of water).

They also have thousands of unhappy people trying to emigrate to Australia. Go figure.

– Sheila Walkington, Mornington

“Plan for hundreds of kilometres of new freeways”, The Age, 11/10. Governments seem to be obsessed with building roads, and the current State Government is no exception. This proposed plan will scar the landscape with yet more freeways, adding to pollution and will not lessen traffic congestion. There seems to be no enthusiasm for building railways instead, which would have less environmental impact.

“The Yarra monster is killing us”, 23/8. Melbourne (and Sydney) are sucking up resources.

“Melbourne is a parasite economy,” says Bob Birrell, the doyen of immigration and population studies in Australia. “Increasingly, the fiscal dividend from Australia’s mineral boom is having to be distributed to Victoria to pay for the needs of Melbourne’s population boom. That’s why the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, is constantly having to go cap-in-hand to the federal government for assistance.”

But the mining boom involves scarring the landscape with open-cut mines to strip the land of minerals, so it is parasitical in its own way. Both types of economies are unsustainable and environmentally damaging in the long term.

• Labor’s immigration net intake of 270,000 people last year drove a multiplicity of stresses, which forced the “big Australia” debate:
• By far the greatest beneficiaries of high immigration are the immigrants, not the resident population.
• High immigration lowers per capita productivity growth, a key to sustainable growth.
• It retards the growth of per capita wealth. It accelerates the rate of food importation. (Australia imported a record $8.5 billion worth of food in 2008-09.)
• It accelerates the increase in urban overcrowding and traffic congestion.
• It increases Australia’s greenhouse emissions, per capita.
• It makes it unlikely Australia can meet its targets of greenhouse gas emission reduction.
• It lowers Australia’s food security.

In short, there is nothing good about high immigration rates.

Collected letters

A collection of letters from The Age:

6/8:

Proponents must prove benefits

I agree with Ross Gittins (“Stop beating about bush and talk about Big Australia”, 4/8). Bipartisanship on immigration has prevented Australia from having a formal population policy.

The size and rapidity of Australia’s population growth affects just about every aspect of Australian quality of life. Australia should have a population policy explicitly setting out a range of options for long-term population change, as recommended by the 1994 federal parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s carrying capacity.

The inquiry noted that every increase in population imposed extra environmental and social costs. It therefore recommended that proponents of radical change to immigration policy should bear the burden of proof in showing what policies they intended to adopt with respect to consequential impacts of the population changes.

The case for a big Australia has neither been heard nor answered.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

Rampant development

The doubling of Melbourne’s population in the next 50 years would be disastrous for the city. Already our planning schemes are gearing up for such a population explosion with rampant high-rise development, the development of arterial tunnels, towers competing for views and light and the over-redevelopment of supposedly heritage infrastructure. What does this do for the quality of life in our city?

The Committee of Melbourne’s criticism of current planning may have some merit. However, reform should focus on the need to increase the certainty of current stakeholders – resident and business – that their suburbs will not be subject to excessive upheaval, and, not, in allowing uncontrolled wholesale redevelopment for suspect reasons, by greedy developers in concert with our political elites.

The “hurt” to Melbourne will come from excessive redevelopment, not from failure to double our population. There may be some scope for increasing density, but let it be done sensitively, without the wanton destruction of neighbourhood character and community, as well as in a way that protects our cultural heritage.

Hopefully, The Age will use its membership of this group to ameliorate the committee’s unsustainable views.

– Bill Cook, West Melbourne

Ponzi-style mentality

The Committee for Melbourne describes an 8 million population for Melbourne as part of “normal growth”. It is crystal clear that most residents are against our ballooning population yet business keeps pressing for more.

The argument that we need more people to fund the retirement of our ageing population has at its foundation a Ponzi-style mentality that we need ever more consuming units to support the existing. The accepted wisdom of never-ending growth is also a nonsense on a finite, overpopulated planet that implies a magic pudding of resources where everyone can aspire to a Western lifestyle without leaving the earth a barren shell.

I pity the other creatures trying to eke out an existence on this planet.

– Chris Owens, Lysterfield South

14/8:

Population

Dick Smith, you ripper. Populate and perish.

– Peter Liston, Southbank

Bravo Dick Smith. With every environmental indicator going south, someone is finally pointing out the bleeding obvious to our politicians.

– Ian Johnston, Boronia

Sustainable growth is the ultimate oxymoron, whether it is an ever-increasing population or extraction of finite resources. Anyone with a basic science background can see the problem. If only such people existed in our Parliament.

– David Blair, Healesville

5/9:

Too many to save

Asylum seeker/refugee advocate Marilyn Shepherd believes every person in the world fleeing internal conflicts has the “absolute right” to enter Australia. I would hope our own government would be the only authority with this absolute right to decide who comes into our country .

The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants World Refugee Survey 2009 put the total number of refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2008 at 13.6 million. Does Ms Shepherd suggest adopting an open door policy similar to many countries in Europe, which now face the huge social problems their relaxed attitude has caused.

The Iraqi and Afghan asylum seekers Ms Shepherd refers to could easily be resettled in the many neighbouring countries, all of which have similar language and culture – more practical than travelling all the way to Australia.

– Michael Burd, Toorak

10/9: This letter comments on a worrying trend of foreign companies quietly buying up land and water in Australia for their own food security. Why is the government allowing this? If the environmental situation gets dire, I hope the government will seize back the land in the interests of national security.

Tackle regional fire sale

The independents, who profess great concern for regional Australia, should now turn their attention to the accelerating takeover of regional Australia by foreign interests. At what point does foreign “investment” morph into a land/water-rush and handover of Australian control over basic land and water patrimony to foreign control? Are land/water reverse “investments” permitted in other nations? Are we being manipulated by overseas interests? Should farmers be routinely outbid at property sales by cashed-up foreign consortiums? Should there be tripartisan policy, with direct input from a concerned electorate?

Off the political radar is any public register of accelerating acquisitions of land and water rights by China, Singapore, Malaysia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, US and Europe to feed their own growing populations in a world adding an unprecedented four Australias each year.

Come on, Messrs Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter, or any politician concerned at regional Australia’s fire sale: demand answers to these vital questions.

– John O’Connor, Cottles Bridge

Bad decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

Collected letters

A selection of letters from The Age, most on the planning issues mentioned in my previous entry.