Albeit in a somewhat clumsy way, the article does highlight the basic conundrum of human life on this planet.

The aspirations of people, that have been developed and refined over the past dozen centuries or so (a mere blip, of course, on the earth's overall timeline, unless you are a Creationist) have resulted in a no-win situation vis-à-vis our natural habitat.

The purist view of this is that we are raping and pillaging the environment, and this must stop.

The realist view is that while idealism has its place, "man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery."

To continue to live at our present stage of civilization requires an "us or them" attitude, where the "them" are various flora and fauna that may need to be sacrificed to our requirements.

The alternative is, of course, a form of regression. Of unlearning. Of returning to a way of life that is more "primitive".

Just as there can be no progress without sacrificing the environment, there can be no protection of the environment unless we halt progress.

That's the basic dilemma.

We all have our lives to live. As do folk in China, India and the African sub-continent. Placing the issue of "survival", or "growth" or "preservation" or "sustainability" in an Australian-unique context is to ignore the fact that we live on a planet with six-plus billion other people.

Some time before the sun starts to cool and the earth freezes over, we will have to reach some form of equilibrium. But that equilibrium will be global. Any attempt to take unilateral action will founder on the rock of other people's ambitions - even if these ambitions are no more aggressive than mere personal survival.

Is it a problem? Yes.

Will we solve that problem by giving nature priority over ourselves?

No.

Bernie

Obviously the landscape would change with the disappearance of humans - that was not the point I was trying to make. After a period of imbalance among plant and animal species, natural order would eventuate. But that is not going to happen any time soon.

Humans aren't likely to go extinct (notwithstanding nuclear, massive meteors and the like). Therefore, we have a damaged environment that we must adapt to if we are retain and hopefully mend what remains.

This does not mean returning to live in caves, we are much smarter than that. It does mean moving towards sustainable clean energy sources. And reigning in our populations - else we lose what wilderness is left.

I am sure that there is vital knowledge with the elders of our indigenous people - is it too idealistic to envisage a collective solution or will narrow vested interests retain dominance?

Amicus - try reading the article properly, he does explain why wilderness will become more important. you're way off track if you think the author is advocating increased protection of wilderness just so we can see how it "used to be". Also, have a look at the catchment for waragamba dam, and then have a look at the catchments etc that will be impacted by this new mine.

Hasbeen, you make ME sick. grow a brain.

We need more people like Keith to bring some balance to the debate and to highlight the fact that the world's resources are not infinite and that our current model of growth and "development" is grossly unsustainable.

Actually, mbd, the numbers don't stack up particularly well.

>>We need more people like Keith to bring some balance to the debate and to highlight the fact that the world's resources are not infinite and that our current model of growth and "development" is grossly unsustainable.<<

From where I sit, there doesn't seem to be much of a shortage at all, of people pushing this barrow.

However, there is a substantial absence of people who can indicate what we need to do about it. Short, of course, of the simplistic notion of locking the nation's doors and letting no-one in.

Nobody seems to be able to follow through on any one individual strand of this argument.

What would happen if we stopped digging up and exporting coal? Or if we imposed unilateral restrictions on imports? Or if we "manage" our population growth, with all the intervention that such a policy would entail? Where will the "sustainable clean energy source" that Severin talks about, come from, if we leave ourselves short of money to invest?

All we get when we question these warm-and-fuzzy, wouldn't-it-be-great-if-only scenarios, is just a bland shrug, a pitying smile, and a "she'll be right, we could all adjust".

But we never actually get even a stab at a proper examination of the economic and social issues involved.

Would we be financially better off? Unlikely. So just how much "belt-tightening"should we expect? And which socio-economic group would bear the brunt? The young? The elderly? The rich? The poor? The unemployed? There will certainly be a few more of those to worry about.

It is oh-so-easy to say "protect the wilderness" and feel warm and gooey inside with the righteousness of it all.

But quite frankly, when the chips are down and it's me or (metaphorically) the Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat, my kids would not thank me for giving the smelly little beggars house room.

Why can't Australian's find room in their hearts (or landscape) for (metaphorical) hairy nosed wombats? We've already cleared and degraded a significant proportion of the continent. Are we really so sad, self obsessed and avaricious as a species that nothing else is allowed to co-exist?

Its strange that some people want everything accessible by vehicle, or want to ruin most of nature (what little is left) for human use.

Lets face it, if I live in a city and never see another wilderness view, who cares!

Well I care! We CAN share the world with nature. We can make some small modifications to how we we make money, how we travel and how we farm in order to accommodate nature.

And why wouldn't we? Because not only does nature give us clean air and water and new drugs and countless other direct benefits, but it also gives us wonderful plants and animals, great vistas to immerse ourselves in, wild beaches and lakes to enjoy and mountain tops to climb.

This is about offering something unique to humans, and to acknowledge that other forms of life are important too. It is clear that some of the other correspondents are struggling to accept that. Thankfully they are not in the majority.

Keith Muir, thanks for alerting us to this important problem.