SIR — I am writing in relation to the contribution from G Bull, 'Halt the population growth if we want a land worth living in' (Your Ltters November 11).

Although I appreciate the issues that the author has raised with regard to the increased use of scarce world resources, I would like to question his approach.

In discussing the problem as an international issue I can only assume he is referring to a reduction in birth rates. Alarmingly, Mr Bull also suggests the ideal would be Britain 'virtually unchanged forever thanks to common sense and life far nicer'.

So, Mr Bull is proposing West Somerset be frozen in time and, if his suggestions were followed through, we would be at risk of total stagnation.

Maybe a wall, or even moat, around West Somerset could keep that dastardly 'change' out? Although Mr Bull would then find himself on the real-world side of the fortress.

To give him credit, potentially West Somerset's problem of unemployment, particularly youth, could be solved with the creation of an effective UK Galapagos Islands - a microcosmic Australasia with alien Minehead marsupials. Tourism would be sure to boom then!

I propose a change of tack. Mr Bull correctly identifies the increasing strain on resources but chooses to naively isolate his rhetoric from the issue of 'money and economic growth', effectively rendering his ideas unfeasible on this fictional basis.

To consider the same over-population issue but also take into account fiscal issues (two birds, one stone) perhaps the target should not be the young but the old?

If birth rates were to decline, who would remain to pay pensions? The situation would be simply unsustainable in every sense.

To compound the point, elderly people, on average, consume more fuel in their often singly inhabited homes, contributing less in tax, and are largely unable to use, for example, carbon free modes of transport such as cycling, not to mention the increased strain on health services.

Rather than a halt on birth rates, a cull on the elderly then!

I rightly anticipate the suggestion of such ridiculous prospect may offend, but the implication that young local people, including myself, should sacrifice our potential family life, career opportunity and housing prospects mainly due to the mistakes of the previous generation is also offensive and equally absurd, while those who have benefited from reliable employment, university grants and the property boom sit back, enjoy the view and say, enough fun now.

Jenny Matravers,

Minehead.