The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Economic growth: is it worth having? > Comments

Economic growth: is it worth having? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 22/11/2012

Despite the Club of Rome we've never been better-off and better-fed than we are now.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
We are better off!?
Really!?
Back in 1973, two and a half times the average family income would buy a house on a traditional quarter acre!
Now its somewhere north of seven times; or, roughly triple!
And the quarter acre, 1,000m, has shrunk to around 600m.
Back in the late fifties/early sixties, we were the third most prosperous nation on earth and a creditor one at that.
Just prior to the GFC, we had tumbled to around number thirty, with record growing foreign debt, already well over a trillion?
The gap between the haves and the have nots, has never ever been wider, with well over 40% living below or just above the poverty line; and, its a demographic that appears to be growing exponentially?
The "we", as alluded to, appears to be a still shrinking, self serving, selfish, I'm all right jack, demographic?
Like baby Boomers, with two or more investment houses, paid for by tenants and negative gearing, {or middle class welfare,] and set up for a lazy lay about retirement, living in a gated community; or, a very high class prison of their own making?
If we put our baby boomer blinkers on, well may we claim, we have never been better off, or better fed!
[And adopting the advice of the club of Rome, has already been trialled in places like drought and famine ravaged Ethiopia!]
It must be like living in a bubble ,surely?
And the Greeks, the Spanish, the Irish and the disfranchised Yanks etc/etc, all now know what happens to bubbles!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 22 November 2012 9:51:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don, you seem to be implying that those who are against population growth are against all growth.

It is just the opposite. We (and I think I can speak for most of those on OLO who oppose continuous population growth) want an end to population growth, or at least a considerable lowering of the growth rate, so that economic growth can translate into real quality-of-life improvements, instead of battling to duplicate services, infrastructure and everything else for ever-more people.

You wrote:

<< Economic growth is not a goal in itself. Rather it is the means to good social ends. In particular, it should be the outcome of policies whose aim is to improve the living standards of the Australian people. >>

Yes, but let’s add a couple more things; not just good social ends and living standards but also a good quality of environment, and most importantly, it needs to achieve these things in an ongoing sustainable manner.

<< Don't attack economic growth… >>

Too right, we shouldn’t be attacking economic growth. That is; REAL economic growth that will achieve the right goals and do so without significant negative factors.

And if we can stop population growth, we will have a MUCH better chance of achieving real economic growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 November 2012 9:59:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty
Loathe as I am to correct your learned dissertations, we are not number 30 in terms of per capita wealth.. we are still top 10. Maybe you should take a closer look at your source on that one. My recollection is that in fact we've moved up recently because of the mining boom, although just where we are in the rankings escapes me..

As for the bit about housing, that may be right although remember that the average house now is much better than the average house of decades ago and the price may include things like swimming pools, air conditioning and landscaping. In fact, the real increase has been in the price of land for geographical reasons..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 22 November 2012 10:13:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few reality checks Mr Aitkin.

--Concern about global warming does not equate to being anti-growth as you imply. This is pure poppycock. Not all, not even most, people who recognise the dangers of global warming are Greenies. What is more, most Greenies are not so much environmentalists as recycled Stalinists and their acolytes.

--Economic growth is good but there is an important qualifier. The benefits must be spread across society. It doesn’t help if the economy as a whole grows while an actual majority find themselves getting worse off as has happened in the US over the past decade or so. Once that happens you lose the consensus that makes growth possible in the first place.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 22 November 2012 10:34:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Concern about global warming does not equate to being anti-growth as you imply"

This is a loaded statement; most of the 'growth' associated with AGW and in particular renewables is totally non-productive and also a vast opportunity cost.

Literally $billions has been been spent subsidising renewables which are a scam; distortions of resources occur as well as cost cascading through the economy and community.

Apart from this I would query that most who believe in AGW are not 'greenies'; if they are not 'greenies' then I would submit they have a vested interest, financial, ideological, in AGW. Everyone else who supports AGW I would classify as suckers.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 22 November 2012 11:22:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

You're always accusing me of wanting to live a misguided "natural" existence.....as if anyone who questions "rampant" growth wants to take us all back to caves.

What about the notion that economies don't have to be "on the boil" constantly - that it's possible to achieve a simmer and still have a decent lifestyle without so much despoiling of the environment - a form of moderation, if you will?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 22 November 2012 11:28:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I'm all for moderation and I despise corporate behaviour on most accounts; in fact I spent most of my life suing the mongrels; but I also grew up on a farm and have spent some time in 3rd world countries, so I know how rotten 'natural lifestyles' really are when you don't have the resources of a modern society to run to when your little experiment with nature goes wrong.

I think it is a monstrous hypocrisy for 1st world sensibility such as in AGW to prevent the SOL enjoyed in the 1st world to the 3rd world.

As for population growth the best social contraceptive is prosperity; the only condition to that is religion which is the cause of far more wealth inequality than corporatism; which is why I am bemused by anyone who defends islam.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 22 November 2012 11:46:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the author should read the CSIRO paper from 2008-09 which revisited the seminal 1973 Club of Rome report.

The CSIRO found that nearly all of the indicators, assumptions and outcomes from the original have come to pass, the green revolution and technology did have some impact and this is why it has just taken a little longer for things to come to fruition as originally estimated.

If economic growth is so great and the US is supposed to be the greatest economy on earth, why do they have 50 million people (approximately 16%) of their population living in poverty, something seems to be awfully wrong if you ask me.

I would also proffer the advice that the author should read a recent book by Richard Heinberg, 'The End of Growth' available here: http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book

I guess if you are part of the 1% or even top 10% things probably do look just dandy, pity about the other 90 odd percent!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 22 November 2012 12:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What economic growth can buy is choice, and choice is power. Thanks to industrial and technological development. for instance, I can work from home. I don't have to drive a ten-tonne London bus through heavy traffic like my father, or carry a bag of carpenters' tools from one building site to another, like my grandfather. Is there anyone on this forum, I wonder, who seriously thinks they have to work harder -- PHYSICALLY harder -- to make a living than their parents or grandparents did? And is there anyone who honestly believes it would be a good thing if they did?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 22 November 2012 1:54:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Wikipedia re Club of Rome:
"In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

And, in 2009: “Limits to Growth” are even more severe and urgent today." The project has five issue areas: Environment and Resources, Globalization, International Development, Social Transformation, and Peace and Security."

Don Aitkin asserts that growth is good, and 'we' have never been better off, but his 'we' surely does not include all of humanity - those pushed off their land, their native forests and water resources destroyed, their cultures trashed; or the 'slave' labourers, refugees, dispossessed and conflict-stricken.

Humanity requires a paradigm shift in aspiration, in resource exploitation and distribution, in 'inclusiveness'; for greed is NOT good, and power at any price IS the root of all evil.

WE ALL would do well to heed The Club, and aspire to universal peace, harmony and equity - the Turning Point. Look around: sex slaves, pedophilia, child-soldiers, rubbish-dump squatters, homelessness, drug abuse, domestic violence, ratbag-ery. Civilisation?
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 22 November 2012 2:05:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love the weirdos on this site; Saltpetre leads the charge today with his panegyric about that vehicle of utopian totalitarinism, the Club of Rome.

All utopias are tyrannies because the only way the 'problems' of humanity can be solved is to deny and oppress the very qualities of being human.

In any society there will be screw-ups, failures and complete and utter implacable losers. What the club of Rome, and all ideologies which seek to perfect humanity, does is use those inevitable losers as excuses for control.

Control is the deus ex machina and only purpose of such organisations as the Club of Rome; all the predictions and concerns are just window dressing to suck in hand wringing dopes like Saltpetre with his aspirations to "universal peace, harmony and equity"; what Saltpetre is describing is heaven, or a perverted and non-existent vision of communism or some such totalitarian state.

The best example of how phony the Club of Rome is illustrated by Erhlich with his continual failures in predicting future gloom. AGW is just the latest and most pernicious of a long line of end of the world scenarios which can only be solved by ceding power to a bunch of usually rich, academic creeps who couldn't scratch themselves [with the exception of Bill Gates who is doing good work with malaria control].

The best way of dealing with the ills and inequities is an individual rights based democratic, capaitalistic society.

All the other 'methods' have been tried with calamitous results.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 22 November 2012 3:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre
Slave laborers? Wrong century and please don't quote anti-Nike propaganda which you imagine refutes that point. What you want to do is look at just how economic progress has transformed the prospects of places like South Korea, India, Vietnam and China. Sure one result has been to increase inequalities, but there are still many millions of dirt poor who are less poor because their government's embraced growth.

They are still poorer than the west you say? Quite right, so lets encourage economic growth in those areas and they will catch up, and the resulting increase in trade means that everyone will be richer. How does that sound?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 22 November 2012 4:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Before your write people off as dopes and weirdos, perhaps you should assess your own foibles. In principle it's fine to wish everyone in the world the sort of luxurious lifestyle of the West via a capitalist system, but in reality it would take several more earths to achieve such ends universally under any system.

Curmudgeon,

India and China have huge problems accompanying their thrust into the global growth game - the environment being number one. If you believe that either country's present efforts are sustainable in the long run, then you're living in fairy land IMO

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 22 November 2012 5:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Outrider
We should distinguish between GDP and GDP per capita. The Stable Population Party has recently pointed out that GDP per capita has hardly grown over the period of the ALP government. We have all the inconvenience of infrastructure trying to cope with increased population, mainly due to high immigration, with no benefits, while our environment is further degraded. No wonder people are baffled when they don't feel better off despite what the the commentators are telling them.
All parties are in favour of high immigration, You can voice your opinion by writing "Reduce Immigration' across the top of your ballot paper.It will be valid if you do not obscure numbers.
Posted by Outrider, Thursday, 22 November 2012 10:20:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, spot on Outrider.

<< All parties are in favour of high immigration >>

Yes, including the silly Greens, for goodness sake!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 November 2012 10:32:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure I need to add anything, but let me just say that I went back to the 1973 Treasury paper, and summarised it. Yes, by and large I agree with its message. Yes, not everyone will cheer about how much better off they are than their parents were. Benefits are relatively widely shared in Australia, less so in the USA. And the paper did make the point that growth is not a good or a goal in itself: it ought to be the outcome of possibilities and policies that improve general wellbeing.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 23 November 2012 7:49:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Aitken is correct in his assertions despite the fact that a positive assessment of the state of the world is seen as as some form of treachery these days.

The Club OF Rome resurrected a discredited Malthusian philosophy.

The following is true

1. There is more food available for people than ever before. Food has even been dumped in the past because of excesses.
2. Malthus was mathematically wrong because he made certain mathematical assumptions which cannot be substantiated in relation to population growth and food availability.
3. The Club of Rome was and still is primarily a grouping of the wealthy and influential individuals who seek to further their personal aims and have done so through the UN. Many of the members are ex Oil and Coal company bosses and former politicians. The Rothschilds were and still are intimately involved in the Club of Rome. Global Warming originated with them.
4. Every person in the world could fit into an area the size of Texas with a 20 metre x 20 metre block of land for each 4 person family. Check out the maths!
5. Doomsayers such as Ehrlich have been comprehensively wrong yet he commands respect amongst those who seek disaster scenarios. Including politicians like our own Bob Carr (who is a director of a Carbon Trading company).
Posted by Atman, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:04:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,

Re: point 4.....just because you can stuff a certain amount of humanity into a given area doesn't mean they can sustainably support themselves - especially employing methods dependent on fossil fuels - (the soil becomes devoid of life - the groundwater is depleted, polluted...etc,etc)

Never mind the maths - we're dealing with humans here.

Check out the reality.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:14:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason we are now number ten is largely down to the GFC, which forced many former wealthy countries down below us; rather than a mining boom, which shifts billions offshore annually, where is does us absolutely no good whatsoever!
And as always, I check facts, which verify, pre the GFC, we had slipped down the rankings from a high of three, to around number thirty, in the national pro rata wealth stakes.
Bigger air-conditioned houses, with barely enough room for the almost obligatory backyard pool, invariably equate to bigger mortgages, higher rates, larger insurance bills, higher energy usage, and vastly more personal or domestic debt, which just prior to the GFC, was apparently larger than our record foreign debt!
None of which equates to, or verifies increased wealth, just increased indebtedness and increased consumption, which by the way, did make a very few of us actually better off!
And indeed, as the housing bubble deflates, many will find the so-called equity, largely delusional, with many Mac'Mansions, worth considerably less than the mortgage loads they still carry!
Massively overvalued and over-leveraged assets are never ever increased wealth, merely massively increased indebtedness!
To reiterate, some of us were better off, but only if you count Billionaire bankers, insurance brokers, real estate resellers, unproductive tax practioners, share holding politicians, and franchise builders, like a now rapidly going backwards, Harvey Norman?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:32:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

Point is that in terms of physical space we have no problems. The world population could fit into an even much smaller area if we built high rise and use the left over space for services etc. I'm not saying its the most desirable outcome but humans are not infesting the planet like rabbits, that is a complete myth. Nor are they polluting the planet to death. I don't have the same aversion to fossil fuels as yourself. And the maths adds up whether we are 'talking about humans' or not.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:33:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,

"The world population could fit into an even smaller area if we built high rise and use the left over space for services etc."

I realise the above is merely a (nightmarish) projection, but the reality is that humans - who have a penchant to view themselves as separate and "above" the verities of the natural world - have the capacity to manipulate environments far beyond wise action.

Driven as man often is, by profit and greed as well as necessity, a healthy environment is more often than not a secondary consideration.

"...in terms of physical space we have no problems."

As for the maths, every human has an impact beyond the physical space he takes up - he's not a static entity, and nor is his psychological outlook - or his appetites.

Check out "Small is Beautiful" by E.F. Schumacher...written around the same time-frame as the of subject of this article - shame more notice wasn't taken of his ideas.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 23 November 2012 11:03:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, what do you think about space exploration and possible human settlement of other planets?
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 23 November 2012 11:07:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cumugeon, you are right, economic growth has literally lifted millions from endless, enduring, generational, soul and ambition destroying poverty.
More than that, it has ended the usual feast or famine nature of living from hand to mouth, that resulted in so much death and dying!
Which by the way, some green advocates would impose on all of us, if their real if largely unspoken agenda, were ever possible or actionable?
If anyone has proved you can have quite spectacular economic growth, all while quite literally depopulating, then surely it is a now, much wealthier, more prosperous and smaller China!
Economic growth, which has by the way, has literally lifted millions out of poverty!
This is a successful formula, which can surely work for all of us?
Yes we can, set about stabilising then lowering total population numbers, while still growing an endlessly sustainable economy!
All we need do is ensure, as first cab off the rank, that everyone everywhere has the benefit of an education and up skilling, as and when required, in a rapidly changing, work environment!
Just this much alone, will put ever increasing downward pressure on population growth, or put it in reverse!
After that, all we ever need do, is attack and remove poverty in all its forms and guises, wherever we find it.
Sometimes all that is required is a reliable well to ensure water surety, and a buffalo or a cow, to pull a plough and provide milk; and or, a few solar cells to power pumps, sewing machines, or a few lights that allow education opportunities, where none are now possible.
We have an aid budget, let's simply redirect and make much better use of it!
The ultimate benefit for nations like ours, will be increased trade opportunities etc, like those that occurred and accrued for/to us, as China grew and lifted millions out of poverty!
And yes, we do need to ensure that essential Environmental lessons, learned in China, are applied, wherever possible, to all future economic growth!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 23 November 2012 11:18:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,

Without profit there are no jobs. Even Govt employees have a job because of profit made somewhere in the community. There would be no medical advances nor internet or many other benefits you take for granted.

Humans are 'above' the natural world but not independent of it. That is of course unless you see yourself as equivalent to a worm or fish which you are most welcome to do.

You say people are motivated by greed and profit but greed and profit are not related. Buyers and sellers can be equally greedy.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 23 November 2012 12:49:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman,

If humans are not independent of the natural world, then they are not "above" it. They are embedded in it. They have abundant intelligence and the ability to manipulate and exploit their environment to a great degree. However, they are also beholden to baser instincts which mitigate their "intelligent" actions.

Hence, moderation is wise action. However, restraint and judicious forbearance is not a notable attribute of human behaviour, particularly when it comes to the environment.

cohenite,

I think cosmology is fascinating - colonisation of other planets is not something I think about.

Real wisdom would be learning to respect the planet we're part of - considering we grew out of it and we're fashioned according to its properties and its organisation.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 23 November 2012 1:44:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Economic Growth - is it worth having?” It’s a bit like fertiliser: in excess, it not only stinks but also becomes poisonous to the recipient. The question is a classic of depauperate thought.
It is in the same league as the “look to other planets in the cosmos to colonise when we have finished wrecking our own” - an exercise which would take two hundred and eighty Airbus 380 flights (if they were outer-space capable) per day to deal with the world’s current daily increase in human numbers (all economy class passengers of course).
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 23 November 2012 3:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see with colinsett's Lilliputian comment that Poirot is not the only biological determinist patronising here.

Colinsett's sneering condenscension is most ironic sinces he enlivens it with sesquipedalism and his choice, "depauperate thought", perfectly captures the green oppression, misanthropy and Ludditism now enslaving the world.

AGW, whereby the Eden myth is repackaged with fraudulent science, is the dominant manifestation of this misonewistic Zeitgeist but the peripheral issue of growth also demonstrates the smallness and meaness of the green psychology.

The greens, as shown by the comments here, regard growth purely in economic terms as part of a system which offends their moral and ethical egocentricity; the idea that growth can mean an apotheosis of humanity whereby humanity can distance itself from the horrors of nature, disease, pestilence, fragility etc, never enters their skulls.

For them, as shown by colinsett's equating of space exploration with a chance to merely to wreck other planets like he says we have done here, exploration, discovery, invention, the nonpareil qualities of humanity, are merely means of expressing humanity's worst side; he wears his misanthropy like a badge of honour instead of the pathology it is.

Poirot's symptoms are more poetic; she thinks "cosmology is fascinating"; one can only assume it is the same fascination which infests Joan Vinge's The Snow Queen, where the summer matriarch forbids technology and rules by superstition, the limitations of nature and the need to look after the poor before exploring new worlds.

What small minds they are, and how sad for mankind that their type holds sway.

At least Obama wants men on Mars before 2030. Perhaps Poirot can cast a spell to stop it happening.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 23 November 2012 4:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Regarding colonising other planets. You appear to overlook the fact that we evolved as part of this planet......and unless we come across another with similar properties, well........

Yes nature is unforgiving, but it's also sustaining. You, like Atman, seem to think we're separate from it. Look at the earth from space. We're "it" as much as the blue of the oceans and white of the clouds. Our smear of intelligence endows us with much, but our arrogance is equal.

I suggest tonight when you're tucked into beddy-byes, you put aside "The Snow Queen" - and perhaps indulge in a little poetry. Shelley, I think will be just the shot:

http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 23 November 2012 7:16:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

I don't think I said we were separate from nature. You seem to assume that we are somehow an equal partner with worms and toads etc. I don't think of humans as being on the same 'level' as these barely sentient creatures.

Cohenite is merely describing the misanthropic Greens who are against all forms of economic development as far as I can see. Green logic is unfathomable because it doesn't add up on any level. Thinking is anathema to the Greens.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 23 November 2012 7:45:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How original of you Poirot, to link to Shelley; I'm surprised you didn't go for Hardy who promulgates the theme of the dominance of nature over man's petty little ambitions much more emphatically.

That's it then; let's all give up, sit in a puddle and chant to nature.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 23 November 2012 10:11:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

"...sit in a puddle and chant to nature."

You can if you want.
All I'm suggesting is that we moderate our extremes, live a reasonable existence and respect our environment.

Btw, regarding other planets. Why the bloody hell would anyone wish to set up a colony on a desolate planet like Mars - apart from for the purposes of scientific research? We have a life-sustaining and bountiful planet already - a planet from which we sprang and to which we are perfectly biologically attuned.

Atman,

You're right, you didn't say we were separate (apologies for that) - you said we were dependent but at the same time above.

I don't believe we are equal with worms or toads in our experience, however, we are equally dependent on the health of our environment as are all species.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 24 November 2012 11:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many in this world are dying (literally) for the merest chance to live with some dignity, security and certainty for their families and their culture; and how many others are propelled to exploit such simple aspirations by offering, nay insisting, that they pursue a different way, a glorious way, the capitalist way. Forget the fields and the goats and kill just one elephant, or rhino, gorilla, or tiger, or collect heaps of shark fins, and some wonderful person will give you money, money, money! The marvelously benevolent, kind and 'civilised' (who treasure the ever so wonderful efficacy of such trinkets to amuse, entertain or glorify their own existence) will give you money - out of the goodness of their hearts. Oil Palm, not sago; a forest is timber (money) not a larder of life; more is good, and money is best; wealth and commodities the new paradigm, the zenith, the ultimate purpose of existence and the sole determinant of success. Such is the new religion; bring on the super-trawlers.

Electricity, the life blood of the world; oil the gift of the gods; Internet the gateway to the stars; blood diamonds, blood drugs, blood food, clothing and minerals; welcome to the new reality.

The new 'civilisation' - a gift, or a curse?

AGW may be a myth, a symptom, or a salutary caution against unbridled arrogance. Even a pig knows not to crap where it eats.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 24 November 2012 1:13:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy