Dear Friend, I have read hundreds, possibly thousands of articles appertaining to the degradation of the environment, in fact my last book, ‘Lethal Legacy 2’, deals specifically with that issue. We have all become aware of Global Warming and of the colossal changes that are taking place all around the world – from the melting of the ice caps and glaciers and the effects of melting ice at the north pole, with the resultant effects on the functioning of the Gulf Stream and the disruption of European weather patterns.
We are all possibly aware that if all the ice in the world melted the seas would rise by 230 feet, or 70 m – an event that is not likely to happen, however we are heading in that direction. We have all read of the shifting bands of weather patterns with the creation of new deserts, flooding and major disasters. We know that with those disasters will come massive population migrations that will inundate more temperate countries causing turbulence and disruption.
The scenario of doom and gloom has been well documented and propagated by the Stern Review and El Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which was one of the most successful documentaries of all times. Most of us have heard of the many societies dedicated to myriad causes in an effort to save the whales; save the elephants, the lions, the rhino, the pandas, bears, et al. The list is exhaustive and employs the efforts and minds of hundreds of thousands of well meaning people throughout the world.
We have other societies dedicated to saving the starving people of Africa and many others of the millions of underprivileged – indeed, all noble causes. Every facet of the news media have been vying with each other to bring us the latest news of the effects of global warming and there can be hardly one household where the occupants are unaware of the gravity of the situation.
It is arguably the most discussed topic in the world today; universally accepted, except by those with massive self serving interests. We listen to the endless discussion on the merits of nuclear versus fossil derived energy; the countess debates on the problems of salination and water shortages. We hear of the terrible housing shortages and of the thousands of homeless who sleep where they can and are desperate for accommodation. We see more and more land being cleared to grow food and we create more and more marine reserves to save the world’s fast disappearing fish populations.
We know that we, in general, are consuming the world’s resources many times faster than they can be replaced. The natural problems that we are facing are far greater than all other man-made disasters such as terrorism, al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden; it is more important than the rising street crime or the cost of petrol. It is more important than AIDS or the atom bomb or indeed any other of the many problems that beset us.
We have thousands of scientists around the world who are working on ways to reduce pollution, often against the wishes of major corporation executives who want to maintain the status quo and their profit margins.We have governments belatedly aware of the problem who are striving to catch up, often against vested interests.We have parks and wildlife experts dedicated to breeding programs to preserve disappearing species. We talk of desalination and water rationing and recycling; we work on designer crops, genetically modified seed to increase production – all to support an increasing population.
WHILST ALL OF THESE THINGS HELP, WE ARE TACKLING THE RESULTS AND NOT THE CURE! WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE THE OBVIOUS? There is only one reason why animals are being pushed into extinction. There is only one reason for land clearing to grow more food; there is only one reason for depleted fish stocks; there is only one reason for urban sprawl and a shortage of housing; there is only one reason for water shortage; there is only one reason for the massive production programs that produce pollution; there is only one reason for clearing our forests of trees; there is only one reason to generate and produce countless millions of tons of waste that fill land sites, kill animals, and produce methane; there is only one reason to produce millions vehicles that burn fuel and produce CO2.
There is only one reason for 90% of all our ills. THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON EARTH! According to the U.S. Census Bureau statistics of 11.1.07 the world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999. a doubling that occurred in just 40 years. The Census bureau’s latest projections imply that population growth will continue to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion in 2042; an increase of 50% that will take only 43 years. China’s population is currently 1,318,072,951; India 1,103,344,764 and USA 299,880,263.The total world population today is 6,564,503,633. Of these 93,487,303 are over the age of 80 years. This will rise to 324,987,303 by the year 2040. In Australia the resident population at June 2004 was 20.1 million and that is projected to increase to near 33 million in 2051. The age composition is projected to change considerably. In 2004 people aged 65 years and over made up 13% of the population, this is projected to increase to 28% in 2051.
A considerable proportion of these increases are, and will be, due to immigration and the larger families associated with this sector. We have a treasurer, backed by a prime minister, who recently stated that we needed to increase our population, “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country.” He also went on to hand out a ‘baby bonus’ of $4,100 for every baby born. This, in spite of statements by the Minister for Families, encouraged young unmarried girls to get pregnant in order to cash in on the bonus. It also proved to be an unnecessary boon to large immigrant families who would have large families regardless of the bonus. Whilst I can understand the treasurers concern over the an increasing number of aged being supported by a dwindling workforce it is axiomatic that future generations will become increasingly self sufficient in retirement and therefore they will not be a such burden on the taxpayer. It seems that it has always been a policy of governments to import cheap labour; it feeds a labour market and allows choice whilst maintaining a conservative wage.
It also creates a demand for housing and commodities and goods and services which fuels production and employs more workers. So it is a closed circle. Increase your population to increase the demand to fuel industry and commerce, to produce more goods that the newcomers need, to make more profit for the business sector. THIS IS PATENTLY THE WRONG PATH TO TAKE. We should be decreasing the population in order to diminish the demand for goods and services, to reduce energy use and reduce all those things already discussed.
This will inevitably be a system of natural attrition and as the population decreases so does the demand. The manufacturers and entrepreneurs will suffer the same attrition . The net result will be less immigration, fewer babies, less consumption of goods and services and less pollution.
There will also be less demand for houses, fewer trees cut down, less land clearing, less encroachment on native habitat, and above all, less pollution. As cruel as it may seem there are obvious steps that should be taken progressively in the years ahead. The first immediate action should be to discontinue the baby bonus. This was ill conceived and is seriously compromised – and added to the corruption of young girls. Then the family allowance should be stopped for any but the first child. Later this should be totally discontinued.
After all the children are the parent’s responsibility, not the government’s – and they do have a choice. There should be a massive advertising program encouraging birth control and the ‘snip’. We should support and emulate the Chinese’, ‘one child program’. Basic wages should be increased to compensate for the loss of family allowance and the superannuation contributions increased. We should press on with research into immunocontraception; as explained in a paper written by P. David Griffen on behalf of WHO/World Bank Special Program of Research into Human Reproduction, where it was discovered that viruses could be genetically modified so that the immune system responses to viruses also acted to inhibit the fertility of the host.
The reduction in the number of children would also add to a family’s financial status and allow greater super savings. The gratis grants to many organisations should be reviewed as should our overseas aid programs, many of which are corrupt; all with the intention of subsidising super funds. All these things would be introduced incrementally and people would adapt. Businesses, in excess to requirement would go into decline and close. All over the world the aim should be to cut current populations by at least 50%; with a corresponding decrease in greenhouse gasses and pollution. Yours sincerely,