Right Pulse

In response to Cardinal Pell’s call for an increase in the Australian fertility rate, ‘your’ ABC recently reported:

…prominent economist Jeffrey Sachs says the global population is rising too dramatically.

“The planet, everyone can feel, is just right at the limits right now in terms of food, in terms of energy supply, in terms of land use,” he said.

Professor Sachs says population projections, which also take falling fertility rates into account, are already too high at around an extra 2.5 billion people by 2050.

“I do think that the world would be very wise on its own welfare and for saving the physical earth to be trying to stabilise through voluntary means the world’s population at around 8 billion, not the over 9 billion which is our current trajectory right now,” he said. “It’s a serious problem.”

Economic doom and gloom forecasts, how original. Thomas Malthus would be proud. People are always the problem for the left, never part of the solution. Can you feeeeel it? And you sure will if the fertility rate does not increase, with an increased tax burden to care for the elderly falling on a smaller group of workers. And speaking of Malthusian policies, study this article and then decide your feelings on the matter:

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million “missing” girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

Mosher, the first American social scientist allowed into China, puts much of the blame on Beijing’s one-child policy, which took effect in 1979.

The policy encourages late marrying and late childbearing, and it limits the majority of urban couples to having one child and most of those living in rural areas to two. Female infanticide was the result, he said.

“Historically infanticide was something that was practiced in poor places in China,” Mosher said. “But when the one-child policy came into effect we began to see in the wealthy areas of China, what had never been done before in history — the killing of little girls.”

Have you felt it yet? The article goes on to deal with selective abortion and other gender selection practices.

However, China has pledged to keep its one-child policy in place until the year 2050, a policy which it admits is “related” to the large sex imbalances in the country.

“The implications are potentially disastrous,” Mosher said. “The answer is economic development, not restricting the number of people.”

Read the rest of this entry »

From the Australian Medical Association on the government’s budget decision to increase the medicare levy threshold:

AMA national president Dr Rosanna Capolingua says the Treasury modelling which suggests that 500,000 people will drop private cover as a result of the changes falls far short of what the figure will actually be.

“The AMA’s modelling was much higher than half a million. It was more like 700,000 to a million people,” she said.

This comes on the back of complaints made by Catholic hospitals. They argue that increasing the levy will just disadvantage those that most need the public hospital system - the poor, disabled and elderly - by increasing waiting times for treatment. In other words, the public system should just be a safety net for those most in need, not for people that could afford private coverage.

Treasury have also admitted, at Senate Estimates, that they have little idea as to the fiscal impact on the public system from the levy decision. That’s policy dudd 101 from Rudd. No wonder NSW Treasurer Costa is asking for Federal $$$ for the future budget impact.

Given the divide within the ALP on this issue, the opposition would be justified on blocking the policy in the Senate by explaining to people that it will not save them money, but increase the burden on public hopsitals, which invariably will require more tax $$$ to fix. Public health care is not free.