Sustainable population
Allen Myers in his contribution to the population debate (Write on, April 20) states that capitalism will always cause symptoms of overpopulation such as unemployment and environmental destruction, regardless of the actual size of the population.
Put another way, if we solve the population problem but retain capitalism we will stuff up the world. I think that everybody in Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP) would agree with this general idea. However, AESP was formed because there was a dogmatic refusal to accept the converse principle: if we don't solve the population problem but do get rid of capitalism we will stuff up the world. I recognise that there are links between overpopulation and capitalism but I believe that it is naive to think that the pressure of an ever growing population will automatically disappear with the disappearance of capitalism.
Allen challenges me to respond with a figure for the level of population that is ecologically sustainable. Of course any such figure will be rubbery as it will depend on value judgment as to how much of the environment should be preserved or returned to its natural state, how much consumption we should be entitled to and guesses about the size of the natural resource base and the efficiencies of technologies available to turn natural resources into products for human consumption. We should also recognise that it is safer to aim too low than too high — after all what virtue is there in packing the maximum number of people into our earth, and eventual catastrophe awaits us if we aim too high.
However, I will respond to Allen's challenge by suggesting that a figure of about 10% of the existing population, roughly equivalent to the population 200 years ago, would be sustainable. I base this guesstimate on the following considerations. At the moment we provide a decent standard of living to only about 25% of the world's population and provide an extravagant standard of living to a tiny minority, and in doing so account for most (75%) of the world's resources. However, even in providing a reasonable standard for 25% of the population we are obviously not functioning in a sustainable way. Perhaps if we used the technologies that were the most environmentally friendly rather than those that were the most profitable we would come a lot closer to providing for this 25% in a sustainable way. Without expert knowledge it is hard to know. Allowing for a safety factor, a figure of 10% may be reasonable.
David Kault
Townsville Qld
New Theatre
The piece by Frank Enright "The Illustrious Life of Sydney's New Theatre" (GLW #138) was of very great interest. Courageous and dedicated people have made theatrical history in Sydney. I was surprised that there was no mention of the musical play Reedy River, one of its big successes which has been revived several times since it was written by Dick Diamond in Melbourne in the early fifties.
It was equally successful at Melbourne's New Theatre in which Dot and Ted Thompson were very prominent, and I recall with pride and pleasure my part in the 1956 revival. It ran for 3 months and toured intermittently for 9 months. Around 1980 I saw Sydney New Theatre's very successful revival.
Its instant success was due to the story being woven around an important historical event, the shearers strike of 1891. Very appropriately the shearing and droving songs of the time were introduced and Australians were delighted with the enjoyment and satisfaction provided by a colourful and musical depiction of an important historical event accompanied by many memorable songs including one which like many others had been forgotten for many years. Burl Ives cane here and heard it as a result of Dick Diamond's work. He picked it up and made it world famous; the song was "Click go the shears"!
Norman Taylor
Henley Beach SA
Unjustified distinction
The distinction that Griffith University has gained in the 20 or so years since inception of the Environmental Science Faculty is in danger of being negated by a series of foolhardy decisions that defy both the university's mission statement and an EIS sponsored in light of recent development proposals.
The Site Planning Committee (SPC) is committed to an extension of the Nathan campus which will result in the destruction of areas of Toohey Forest described as "ecologically significant" by an Environmental Impact Study carried out by Loder and Bayly in 1992. Tax payers money was spent on a report that will effectively be ignored by the university.
There is also the concern that SRC endorsed guidelines on development within the university show a blatant disregard to environmental aspects of building design. For instance, a height restriction on buildings leads to a sprawling campus that will destroy far more of Toohey Forest than is justifiable.
The planned development also defies the logic of the university's mission statement by teaching one environmental reality and developing for another.
Mention need not be made of the soon to be opened Environmental Science building that lacks both solar water heating panels and even rudimentary passive solar design. It is clear from these examples that Griffith University carries a moral code in one hand and a chainsaw in the other.
Guy Lane
Griffith University Qld
Animal testing
The National Heart Foundation will be staging Heart Week May 1-7. As part of this week donations will be called for to continue the Foundation's research into heart disease.
Evidence shows that in most cases heart disease is a disease of lifestyle and therefore, largely preventable. Studies indicate that by quitting smoking and adopting a vegetarian diet, the clogging of the arteries can actually be reversed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate death from heart disease increased in 1992 seeing heart disease as the second leading killer of Australians (after cancer).
The Heart Foundation, as part of its fight against heart disease, funds research which uses animals as models for human maladies. These once healthy animals are subjected to artificial traumas in a bid to mimic the spontaneously occurring human condition.
The Baker Medical Research Institute, for example, is in part funded by the Heart Foundation, enabling it to continue its animal based research. Pound dogs and greyhounds which have outlived their usefulness to their owners are amongst some of the different animals used by the Baker Medical Research Institute. These dogs are used because of their good temperaments and convenient size — factors which are useless when one considers the fundamental flaws in extrapolating results from dogs to humans.
Dogs coronary arteries differ from those of humans — in dogs the left coronary artery dominates, while in humans the right does; the body chemical acetylcholine dilates the coronary arteries in dogs but constricts the coronary arteries in humans, leading to heart spasm; the blood coagulation mechanism in dogs differs from that of humans; a dog's reaction to shock is very different from that of humans. These few anomalies highlight just some of the difficulties using an animal experimental model for the human clinical situation, throwing a grave blanket of doubt upon this method of research.
The fact is, regardless of the animal model used, the species differences are substantial enough to make reliable interpretation impossible.
Australians' ailing health is further adding to the financial burden our society faces, while at the same time taxpayers' dollars are being wasted on animal-based research into human conditions. It seems ludicrous at a time when more and more hospitals are being downgraded and even closing, and the public is finding it harder to obtain basic health services, thousands of taxpayers dollars are being swallowed up by erroneous animal based research.
For the sake of the health of our community, we should not donate to this type of research but call for its immediate cessation and support only valid research.
Dianne Warren
People for Valid Research
Melbourne
ACF queried
The reported remarks by the executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Tricia Caswell, after she visited the McArthur river silver-lead-zinc mine, that they "recognise that the mine should proceed" show that either the ACF is a front organisation for the Federal Government or that it has an extremely shallow understanding of basic environmental issues.
Her proposal that the pollution associated with the sea transport of the ore be transferred to the Darwin harbour ignores the atmospheric pollution that would result from the burning of fossil fuels by the trucks carrying that ore — after all we are supposed to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions — ignores the documented heavy metal pollution already detected in the harbour from the bulk-loading of lead ore from the Woodcutters mine and ignores the fact that the majority of Aboriginal elders in the area have already happily accepted dollars as recompense for any local environmental degradation. (So much for the myth of indigenous conservationism.)
What the ACF should be opposing, if it wants to salvage any credibility, is the construction and operation of the mine itself, which is a totally unnecessary operation given the world over-supply of the minerals it will produce.
C.M. Friel
Alawa NT