KJ Elizabeth

Australia’s 2006 Census was released today. My question is: why are we celebrating the increase in birth rate when we are in a situation where essential resources such as water are dwindling at an alarming rate? Isn’t it clear that we don’t have the resources to sustain continuous population increases? One of the main arguments for a birth rate increase is that we need more people in order to care for our aging population - but I for one think we need to revitalise a discussion that occurred over 10 years ago in the 1990s on ‘Sustainable Population’, and consider other strategies for taking care of the elderly.

A birth rate increase is likely to lead to a population increase, and this means an increase in resource consumption. Responsible public policy is geared towards reducing our resource consumption in order to preserve those resources and reduce our negative impact on the environment. This is no longer the lofty demand of environmental groups, it’s government policy. Isn’t population increase counter to these aims?

The more we increase our population, the more demands are placed on resources. As resources are depleted, the less sustainable the population becomes. Surely, one of the avenues for preserving water and reducing our impact on the environment is to reduce population, or at least retain current levels. Why is the concept of ’sustainable population’ absent from public discourse on these issues?

This discussion is uncomfortable for some because things such as limits on immigration and China’s ‘One Child Policy’ come to mind when issues of controlling population are raised. However these measures do not need to be part of the equation. Birth rates of many Western nations are in decline because women are choosing not to have children, and thus limits on immigration are not necessary.

Those more cynical (such as myself) might suggest that an increase in population is desirable to authorities because it means an increase in the consumer base, and the only entities that benefit from that are corporations and their profit margins. Peter Costello’s mantra “one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, I’ve always understood to mean ‘one for mum, one for dad, and one for the corporations‘. How about not having one, for the environment. That’s what I intend to do.

Filed under Environment No Responses. Leave yours?