The author's collectivist approach involves fallacy for a number of reasons.

For example:
“The total cash cost to buy all the world’s remaining areas of high biological diversity at current local land-sale prices is estimated at $20 billion per year for ten years. This is less than annual US expenditure on soft drinks. So yes, the world can afford it.”

It’s like saying the value of the housing stock in Australia is $x billion, a figure derived by adding up the notional cost of each house. Since as a matter of fact no-one is ever in the position of buying all the housing at the same time, consequently the price data are a fiction. They have no application, and no meaning, either in theory or in practice.

It is not valid to regard all the world's property as held in common, and “the world” as a decision-making entity, with the author exercising a God-like supervision, and a power to decide for everyone in the world including all those who disagree with him.

If it were true that the author represented everyone in the world, the solution would be simple: just buy the remaining areas of high biological diversity. The fact that people aren’t doing that is because they are motivated by different values from the author, a well-fed westerner using a long time-frame, and purporting to decide the fate of the whole world. The author doesn’t agree with their values, but then, he doesn’t know what they are either, does he?

He is right that private businesses should not be publicly subsidised. But how anyone can think that natural resources will be better conserved by expanding the tragedy of the commons is a mystery.

You are exaggerating the importance of wilderness. While wilderness does provide the benefits that you claim- such as acts as a filter of air and water, provides a resource of exotic chemicals useful for medicine and also provide tourism dollars- the extent is not as important as you claim.
Firstly, wilderness does clean the air of man made particulate pollution- however, the VAST majority of particulates are removed by gravity (for large particles) and precipitation. Also, it is ANY tree that removes pollution- not just wilderness, ie: planted forests and farmed crops and planted ornamental/recreation space trees will also remove pollution. Indeed, since high levels of pollution occur in cities, planting more trees in and around a city has a much greater effect on air quality than preserving a native wilderness area hundred's of miles away.
Secondly, I agree that many medicines are derived from compounds found in other species. However, since we have areadly found cures for the diseases that used to cause the greatest problems (such as polio, small pox,..,etc) we are now left with diseases that effect much smaller sets of the population (except possibly for AID/HIV). So we are getting diminishing returns on medical research. Hence it becomes a question of greatest good, ie: will destroying a wilderness to produce food and materials keep more people alive/healty than would die/be sick from an illness with a cure potentially availalbe due to some species unique to that wilderness. I think any rational person will see that the answer is yes because this is what the evidence tells us-- there are now more people alive today than at any other time in history-- because we have destroyed the wilderness are replaced it with farms and industry. Also these days computer modelling for drugs is used more and more in medical research reducing the need for perserving exotic naturally occurring compounds. ... continued below...

... continued from above..
Thirdly, the tourism point is just an economic question of which is more profitable: the tourist dollar or the money made from "destroying" the wilderness. This question is best answered by the economic practice of the population- since if people want a wilderness then they will pay tourist dollars to keep it is kept as a wilderness. It is not answered by an individual or a small group who thinks that they are high and mighty and know what is best for the rest of the population.

Oh no Ralf, people with policy analysis skills are on to you. Hide!

I know where you're coming from but honestly, we're not consuming several times more (insert subject) of what the earth can produce. One reason is that logically it can't be done. We only consume what the earth produces, no more, no less. I think you're trying to say we're eating the future.

Someone recently hit the nail on the head and talked about the amount of pollution that developed nations are producing. Here you're on strong ground. The problem never has been the NUMBER of people, it's the waste that high consuming developed nations produce and their inadequate waste disposal policies.

Why is it that these blokes always talk about trees, when ever they talk wilderness. By far the greatest wilderness is the ocean. Always was, even when the dinosaurs ruled, & always will be. This wilderness does five times more than all the trees, in cleaning up polution, & oxygenating the air.

Then we get this love of wild jungle, as if it was something warm & cuddly.

What rubbish. Unless Ralf is 100 times more practical than he sounds, I could kill him real quick, just by dumping him a kilometre from the coast of a few of the Whitsunday tropical paradise islands. He'd never be seen again. Cuddly is one thing wildenress aint.

It can be funny though. I was part of many search & rescue missions for people who did not think wilderness would bite.

On one occasion a couple of German back packers, wandered off from Palm Bay, at lowish tide one afternoon, down the foreshore of Long Island. They spoke to no one, as they were only going beach combing.

Two hours later, & only 1500 yards from the resort, they found the beach they had combed, was now under a a lot of warer, with the incoming tide. They tried returning just above the tide line, & although they wore sneakers, & had large towels to wrap around themselves, in just shorts, & a top for her, they were soon ripped to bits, & gave up.

When the tide was low, in the early morning, they found it too dangerous on the foreshore, in moon light.

They had been missed, & at first light next morning, 4 boats, & a couple of aircraft set off looking for them. An Air Whitsunday plane called that he'd found them, even mentioning the girl was wearing a black bikini. I was nearest, in a 23 Ft shark cat, & went around.

I found a snall herd of goats, one of them black & white. That pilot was known as Goaty for months. A little later a large ferry spotted them.
Continued

I was in the only small boat that could get in close, so I picked them up. It was hard to see any spot of skin, on either of them, that was not scratched, or bitten. Typically tough german tourists, there was not a word of complaint, just gratitude at being rescued, & perhaps some excitement at their adventure.

I have been involved in a number of these rescues from the mild "wilderness" in that area. In many other real jungle places, it's not worth looking.

So If you want a real wildernes experience, rather than a nice safe national park walking track, stick to the wet one, at sea, those trees can get nasty.

Oh, & if you are ever on one of those national park walking tracks, don't ever try to take a short cut through the bush, even if you can see your destination a few hundred metres away, more than a few have died doing that.

My experience with wilderness is that, too often, it is a ploy to give seclusion to the physically fit. This means that there can be no tracks to enable management vehicle access.
Here in Victoria there is supposed to be no management within Wilderness parks so when we get ferocious summer fires there is abnormal loss of native flora and fauna.
By all means have wilderness if you want it but insist upon a fire management regime that suits that bio diversity.

This sort of writing with inflated figures actually undermines the case for environmental protection.

The author shows his ignorance when he states that wilderness areas help to absorb atmospheric carbon to mitigate human-induced climate change. He confuses atmospheric carbon particles with carbon dioxide, which is a colourless, odourless gas that is essential to plant growth. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no green wilderness areas. Even allowing for this oversight, he unquestionably accepts anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He needs to become aware that the arch proponent of AGW, the IPCC, has been unable to find any irrefutable scientific evidence of AGW despite searching for over 20 years . Ideology is no substitute for scientific evidence.

"You are exaggerating the importance of wilderness."

I would say you are exaggerating the importance of humanity. What is so special about us that it is worth adding another billion or two to our numbers?

If we want to be rational, as the commenters to date seem to demand, then I would ask what absolute value has been supplied to the earth, per capita, through our existence as a species? Apart from self-serving activity, what do we really do?

Every comment so far seems to be driven by selfishness and greed, the hallmarks of the modern human.

The primary purpose and value of wilderness, over and above any utilitarian value, is to act as a foil to that selfishness and greed, to constantly reaffirm that there is more to life.

Unfortunately it would seem the majority in their concrete jungles, who, sadly, drive these issues through weight of numbers rather than sense, are so out of touch that they have lost all appreciation for the natural world. This then leads them to the delusion that it would be quite alright to plough under all the forests and dredge all the oceans just to support a few more people that they'll never interact with, a few more people that will likely as not have no beneficial impact upon the world.

"But how anyone can think that natural resources will be better conserved by expanding the tragedy of the commons is a mystery."

How anyone can think anything will be conserved by succumbing to the capitalist approach of exploit now, suffer later is the real mystery.

"but honestly, we're not consuming several times more (insert subject) of what the earth can produce."

But we are, as explained in the paragraph that follows in the article. We're not living off production, we're living off the natural capital, and as anyone who has had marginal contact with economics knows, that's a losing proposition.

"The author shows his ignorance when he states that wilderness areas help to absorb atmospheric carbon to mitigate human-induced climate change. He confuses atmospheric carbon particles with carbon dioxide, which is a colourless, odourless gas that is essential to plant growth."

Perhaps it's you in this case? Is it hard to reach the conclusion that he refers to gas rather than particulate? In my reading of the article I assumed the former rather than the latter, so perhaps you are crafting a humanoid figure from dried monocotyledonous materials?

"Without carbon dioxide, there would be no green wilderness areas."

And without green wilderness areas, among other sinks, there would be no oxygen and even more CO2, wouldn't there?

"he unquestionably accepts anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He needs to become aware that the arch proponent of AGW, the IPCC, has been unable to find any irrefutable scientific evidence of AGW despite searching for over 20 years . Ideology is no substitute for scientific evidence."

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and a risk based approach is always preferable to spouting the ideology of anti-AGW despite lack of evidence to support that particular stance.

The demand that everyone question AGW, that everyone includes qualification in every article and opinion piece to hedge their bets, is just another attempt to waste everyone's time and energy. If some have looked at what evidence is available and determined that the safest stance is to concede AGW, why should those people constantly be garbling messages with vacillation just so as not to offend those who choose not to make such rational analysis, or have ulterior motives driving their objections?

geoffc
"The species" is not a decision-making entity.

Peter Hume: "The species" is not a decision-making entity.

The implication is not that the species is a decision making entity, but rather that the members of a species, through the sum of their individual decisions, has a collective impact.

It would seem fair to say that in many cases we as individuals make decisions that fall closely into line by virtue of exposure to common information, propaganda, education, as well as misinformation and mis-education, resulting in a situation where the appearance of at least a socio-politico-economic group-wide decision making entity presents itself. This appearance, whilst not constituting a real entity, is in possession of enough emergent properties that render it entity-like enough to allow us to discuss it as a real phenomenon.

If a town decides to conserve water, that is of course a collective decision made by individuals. Insisting that we cannot say "the town has made a decision" but must instead address the individual decisions of each person regardless of whether they collectively point in the same direction, seems to be muddying waters just for the sake of getting the stick wet.

Peter Hume collectivist attitude? Pete have you heard of things like communities, cities, states, nations in fact society(s). They all are collectivist by nature.

You come across as a capitalist ideologue. Sadly as stated elsewhere argument by contrary extremes and petty semantics (reductionist approach)is at best an intellectually sterile exercise likewise.
Both of us know exactly what the author meant and it was nothing like your attempted demolition.

It was all about priorities, including lack of appropriately allocated resources.
____________________________________

Hasbeen,
Yet your opinion is based on anything but the topic.
Your clear belief, that the only people who should be listened to are those with your *version* of hard science.
In so doing you, missed the point and you flatter yourself about the level of your relevant expertise.

Fact: There is a *lot* of hard science that goes into understanding ecological and associated processes.

You constant berating of them is insultingly childish to all who study and work in that environment. As I said at the time your third person anecdote is worthless as fact/proof. One girl is hardly representative of the science as a whole. I could point to several Engineers etc whose degrees, were on closer examination little more that attendance certificates. Does that justify slagging off several related science disciplines and therefore the people. All because you have skill qualifications and experience, in a totally different area!

In truth if push come to shove you wouldn't be able to match the author in his field any more than he in yours.

The author's article has nothing to do with survival skills a la Bear Grills. his argument is based on proven research whether you emotionally agree or not. Please, state your views with out the misplaced contempt.

geoffc
The fact that people have a collective impact is not itself the issue. The issue in policy is always whether to use force or not; otherwise, the resolution could be voluntary and there’d be no need for the government to do anything.

For example, Ralf Buckley and all those who agree with him, and there must be millions or tens of millions who do, could simply form themselves into a voluntary association, and buy the lands in question, themselves foregoing soft drinks as the price.

But that's not what Ralf is suggesting, as I read him. He's suggesting that *because* wilderness is in scarce supply, *therefore* political management of it is indicated. It's a non sequitur of course but even if it weren't, it would still be based on a collectivist fallacy.

A town council is a decision-making entity. A town is not.

“This appearance, whilst not constituting a real entity, is in possession of enough emergent properties that render it entity-like enough to allow us to discuss it as a real phenomenon.”

True, but that doesn’t justify the conclusion that the author is contending for. Society is collaboration. That doesn’t mean the collaboration should be based on force.

examinator
That is the point you have missed. You confuse society with the state, and the state with society. They are not the same thing. Adding argumentation by mind-reading and assuming bad faith doesn’t improve your position either. You come across as a socialist ideologue, how 'bout that? There will be an earthly paradise if only we can have full government control of everything. Got a problem? Government is the answer.

“It was all about priorities, including lack of appropriately allocated resources.”

Well guess what? You’re not the only person with priorities, or views about how resources should be allocated. What makes you think you’ve established a justification for forcing everyone else to comply with your opinions?

Peter Hume "True, but that doesn’t justify the conclusion that the author is contending for. Society is collaboration. That doesn’t mean the collaboration should be based on force."

So how do you propose we deal with the problem where only a minority know what's good for humanity (generally not including the political parties and their lobbyists) and another minority is actually cashed up enough to exploit these natural resources, and does not have membership in the former group?

I don’t understand what you mean by a minority who know what’s good for humanity. Who would that be, and how would we know?

Who would that be? Anyone who cares to consider it carefully enough.

How would we know? Logic would dictate clearly based on scientific evidence and a prudent risk analysis where evidence is clouded or inconclusive.

Your comments indicate an anti government-control agenda, which is fair enough insofar as people really know what's good for them with respect to the outside world (and entirely fair when it comes to judgements about their own lives that have little to no impact on others). The current era of individualist capitalism has illustrated that in general we don't care as long as our desires are satisfied and any problems created have no impact upon us which implies that collectively we are poorly equipped to make decisions on such important issues.

What is even more evident is that anyone thinking to exploit whatever resources we might be considering are by their nature even less well equipped to make such decisions.

Essentially, if a satisfactory outcome cannot be obtained via non-force methods, then force must be resorted to, and I contend that when it comes to resources that provide us with non-monetary essentials of existence that we will not see satisfactory outcomes other than by government preservation of wilderness by way of tax money.

Certainly it's true that sometimes the government is the people's worst enemy when it comes to preserving wilderness so issues like this which go to the heart of the issue of the sustainability of humanity should really be determined based on sound scientific principles and moral axioms that all political parties adhere to regardless of transient, propaganda driven voter sentiment or monetary inducement.

What would be the difference between using a resource and exploiting it?

"What would be the difference between using a resource and exploiting it?"

"exploit" typically carries with it negative connotations. American Heritage has it as "To make use of selfishly or unethically", and Collins contains a similar result, but also provides a second meaning: "to make the best use of {eg}'to exploit natural resources'" which illustrates a contrast that I find interesting: that we're unethical if we exploit a person and make the best of their resources for our own gain, but we're not unethical if we exploit non-human resources for similar ends, but which is beside the point.

So exploiting a resource is using it in an unethical fashion (implication being that an unsustainable or fundamentally destructive use is unethical) There is then the non-destructive or degrading use, and the non-use that is still use, such as having wilderness to provide oxygen, filter runoff, prevent erosion, create rain etc. We avail ourselves of these services or uses without actually using the resource in a conventional sense.

geoffc: you are 100% correct when you say "...and the non-use that is still use, such as having wilderness to provide oxygen, filter runoff, prevent erosion, create rain etc. We avail ourselves of these services or uses without actually using the resource in a conventional sense."
HOWEVER, we can also get all these benefits in sufficient quantity by otherways from land where the wilderness has been destroyed.

For example: We get all the oxygen we need from the vegetation that we replace the wilderness with. We filter all sewage water in cities in processing plants to near drinking quality and divert storm water without causing erosion. Farmers in rural areas actively seek to minimize erosion and increase soil health because it is in their best interests to since it increases profit. etc,..

The truth is that we (and also our descendants) don't *need* wilderness to live a healthy life - an example of this Ireland, Ireland doesn't have any sizeable pristine wilderness left yet 6000,000 million people live there with a very high standard of living.

What pristine wilderness does have is an aesthetic value. People like to visit/look at the wilderness. So it comes down to a question of what people want more-- a wilderness to look at or land to use. This is best answered economically by the population: if the people want to keep the wilderness than they will pay to keep it that way. There is nothing stopping you from donating and raising funds to buy land to keep it as a wilderness.

"HOWEVER, we can also get all these benefits in sufficient quantity by otherways from land where the wilderness has been destroyed."

We have only the most superficial knowledge of the damage done by destroying wilderness. The diverse ecosystems that we destroy are replaced with either monocultures or handicapped polycultures. Species extinction and plagues of vermin are some of the results. The recent dust storms are perfect examples of how we fail as a species in this regard.

We rarely use fertile soil for growing food (because we have destroyed most of it), finding it easier to utilise fertilisers injected into a barren substrate, leading to a raft of nutritional illnesses that are becoming ever more prevalent in western society. Farming via in-the-ground hydroponics is entirely dependent on cheap fossil fuels/abundant nitrogen fertiliser.

Nature is more complex than we can appreciate, and the effects of our short term desires on the long term viability of the ecosystems that support us are far reaching and often hidden until it is too late.

"The truth is that we (and also our descendants) don't *need* wilderness to live a healthy life - an example of this Ireland ... yet 6000,000 million people live there with a very high standard of living" [there are only 6 million odd people in Ireland]

Their existence at the numbers quoted is entirely dependent on the continued abundance and access to fossil fuels, most especially as fertiliser. This is worlds away from sustainable. That high standard of living has nothing to do with the natural world, and everything to do with predation on cheap labour from second and third world countries. Environmental destruction outsourced.

The real truth is that most people have no idea what is important and needed to survive. Spending so long in the city where everything is shipped in from "out there" and appears miraculously in the supermarket has allowed people to entertain dangerous illusions like those you promote.

I would advise you pick up a copy of "The Lorax" by Dr Seuss for a rudimentary primer on the knock-on effects of resource exploitation.

Geoffc
When I studied ecology, they taught us that for an animal or plant to 'use' or to 'exploit' a resource meant the same thing.

Yes, to exploit has a negative connotation, but I think the point is, there are no objective criteria by which the distinction could be made; it depends on the opinion of the person making the call, and in that sense, is arbitrary. If you eat a sandwich you might think that is good and perfectly harmless, but by that act someone else can't eat the same sandwich, so they could say it's 'selfish'.

Do you agree? If not, what do you think the objective criteria could be?

Ecology is a scientific discipline that relies on constrained terminology, sadly for us, politics and "environmentalism" is a lot more free and easy with the language!

Objective criteria can be established if we are willing, the only reason they aren't is because the current ambiguity suits people's diverse purposes. Perhaps you've heard of Permaculture, which sets out a prime directive and three ethics:

PD: The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children.

Ethics
1: Care of the Earth: Provision for all life systems to continue and multiply.

2. Care of People: Provision for people to access those resources necessary to their existence.

3. Fair share: By governing our own needs, we can set resources aside to further the above principles.

With a framework like this it would seem to be a good deal simpler to make such objective decisions as opposed to the current all-for-one and none-for-all approach determined by the framework of unfettered capitalism. Without a moral and ethical code we are lost upon a sea of competing desires with only what amounts to a might-equals-right methodology to distinguish the quality of any particular decision or action. In the past state-wide religion has offered such a code, for better or worse, but we have left those days behind and science has not stepped in to fill that moral void.

The question of the sandwich is dependent on many factors. Who made the sandwich? Does the potential consumer have fair right to consume said sandwich? Would their consumption of the sandwich mean that they have taken their fair share, and provided fair recompense to those involved in the lifecycle of the sandwich, or not?

Similarly for the wilderness, ethic 1 would indicate we leave it alone because it is a life system. Ethic 2 might lead us to consider exploiting it, but ethic 3 would balance against that consideration because there are already enough of us humans so such use would be considered greed.

Okay, now considering that there are six billion people, and each one is making multiple resource-use decisions every day, which affect the resources available for other people and other species: how could those objective criteria be applied?

If someone doesn't agree on a given point, then how would you figure out whose view should prevail: the person affected, or the person who is assumed to know better what is important or necessary? For example, how would you decide in an individual case whether a particular resource use were 'necessary' or not? Considering the poverty in the world, would it include your internet usage, and if so, why?

I don't think it can be maintained that there are objective criteria, because a) it still comes down to the opinion of the author of those criteria, and b) even if we accepted that one person should have the right to set down what the criteria are for everyone else, it would still be necessary refer to other factors, such as whether the consumer was taking more than their fair share, who else was affected etc.

Thus even if it were conceded in principle, in practice, the whole world couldn't just stop while waiting for the elite to decide who had the right to take what action.

So will you agree that the criteria distinguishing resource use from resource exploitation cannot be objective, and that they are arbitrary, depending on individual opinion?

But if not, then how do you answer the questions I have posed?

geoffc: Your last post in reply to mine is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel:

"The diverse ecosystems that we destroy are replaced with either monocultures or handicapped polycultures. Species extinction and plagues of vermin are some of the results." -- yes we do cause species extinction but what does it matter to our overall health and prosperity if a species that we have hardly any interaction with goes extinct? We (generally) don't eat polar bears, pandas, furry nose wombat, etc.., We don't use them to create goods. We don't use them as part of a system to help us create food or goods (such as we use honey bees or ladybird beetles). Infact the only thing that we use them for is to look at-- and the vast majority of the population don't even do that! (eg.have you been bothered enough to travel to see them in their "natural" environment?)
Also, yes we do get plagues of vermin but these very rarely cause any great problem in the big scheme of things. For example, when was the last time Australians were dying in mass due to starvation - you'd have to go back to the time before major civilization here to see that! Even with the plagues caused by modern civilization we still have on average healthy, longer and safer lives with a exponentially larger population as compared to peoples who use to live before civilization.

"The recent dust storms are perfect examples of how we fail as a species in this regard."-- actually the recent dust storms originated in the Lake Eyre Basin-- ie: in an area closely resembling your idea of wilderness. In reality dust storms gobally have been decreasing and the reason is: because we have been protecting and improving the productivity of the land. Infact, the reduction in dust storms has had knock-on effect in contributing to reducing fish stock in the sea. The frequent naturally occuring storms use to fertilize the sea with iron particles which increased plankton production which fish ultimately live on. ... continued below...

... from above ...
However, this is a problem which we can easily correct- we just have to throw/spread iron ore over the sea mechanically. Indeed, there are companies that do just that.

"We rarely use fertile soil for growing food (because we have destroyed most of it), finding it easier to utilise fertilisers injected into a barren substrate, leading to a raft of nutritional illnesses that are becoming ever more prevalent in western society."-- this sentence is just plain crazy. We always use the fertile soil in preference to infertile, eg: there's not many farms out in the desert is there. It would be stupid not to! Contrary to what you seem to think, farmers try to protect and improve the soil because it is their livelyhood-- why would they what to destroy it? What are these "nutritional illnesses" that you speak of? Developed societies have the longest life spans, if you wish to see nutritional problems- visit an undeveloped country. In contrast to our lives, many tribal people who use to live "in the wilderness" had constant nutritional problems due to the daily challenge to find enough food to live on. Starvation was common because they had never developed farming and water security-- when droughts or long winters came they died in large numbers.

"Farming via in-the-ground hydroponics is entirely dependent on cheap fossil fuels/abundant nitrogen fertiliser." -- nope, not true. Even, the environmentalists agree (indeed, they are constantly telling us) that we can meet our energy requirements from non-fossil fuel sources: although it would cost a LOT more to do so. As for nitrogen fertilisers-- these commonly use natural gas as an ingredient- however, we don't have to use gas- it is just that gas is the cheapest, there are alternatives. The nitrogen itself comes from the air and is part of the nitrogen cycle- it will never run out as far as humunity is concerned. ...continued below..

.. from above..

"....That high standard of living has nothing to do with the natural world, and everything to do with predation on cheap labour from second and third world countries."-- we don't prey of second and third world countries, they voluntarily trade with us (ie, slavery was abolished a long time ago). The reason why they trade with us is because it improves their standard of living!

"I would advise you pick up a copy of "The Lorax" by Dr Seuss for a rudimentary primer on the knock-on effects of resource exploitation." --hmm, well personally I would prefer to read textbooks and articles in scientific journals. If you prefer to form your world view from children's books then perhaps that reflects the level that you're at?

*by the way: when I typed "6000,000 million people live there with a very high standard of living" that was just a typo- initially I wrote "six million" then overwrote it with digits but obviously I only selected the "six" part. There are other typos in my comments, eg: in the first comment I wrote "effect" instead of "affect" and there's probably some more in this comment.

Thinkabit
"If you prefer to form your world view from children's books then perhaps that reflects the level that you're at?"

LOL

The resource use decisions of those billions are regulated by resource accessibility among other things, which is generally dictated by government. They release land for building, they regulate timber harvesting on private land etc. These are rudimentary mechanisms for managing decisions about what is considered sustainable use and unethical exploitation. Regulations and laws limit supply so use is already limited by certain criteria, whether they're objective or not.

Is it fair to say that for the range or scope of use of particular resources there is a point at which the use becomes damaging to the resource and/or ecosystem in which the resource exists?

ie. We can take fish from a pond to feed ourselves at a certain rate, and at some rate, which is scientifically determinable, we damage the population of fish in that pond such that within a certain timeframe we will no longer be able to take fish from that pond.

This implies (if it is fair to say) that there are objective criteria to distinguish sustainable use from exploitation.

I will admit that in most cases determination of that objective boundary between the two states is beyond our understanding, but then that was one of my premises all along, that we don't have the capacity to know what damage we're doing.

What you have pointed out is that we cannot wait for determinations from some elite, nor will we ever agree as a species. My premise, given these facts, is that we follow the precautionary principle and minimise our impact. A number of commenters here have indicated that they would prefer to ignore any such considerations and allow exploitation to proceed with all haste without even attempting regulation to ensure sustainable use.

Having studied ecology I guess you'd be well aware that nature has the final say. Any population that exceeds carrying capacity always suffers the same fate. I personally have no illusions that we're going to save ourselves from the operation of these natural laws by way of reigning in our greed.

thinkabit: "but what does it matter to our overall health and prosperity if a species that we have hardly any interaction with goes extinct"

Say no more! You can tell a lot about a person by the things they value.

I won't cover all the items you raise as it's pointless really.

"actually the recent dust storms originated in the Lake Eyre Basin"

The dust storm is an illustration of what we don't see, but is happening so much of the time. Every time they plough the fields around here I can see soil blowing away. Just because you don't see it blowing away doesn't mean it isn't blowing away.

Yes, they use fertile soil in preference to infertile, but we ain't got much of the former and I doubt there'd be a place in Australia where they'd plant a crop and expect profitable yields without fertilising it.

"we don't prey of second and third world countries, they voluntarily trade with us (ie, slavery was abolished a long time ago)"

It's comfortable for us to maintain this illusion, but that doesn't make it reality. Look up some of the IMF/World Bank conditions on development loans, read about the movement of capital and labour across borders to countries where labour laws are lax and minimum wages substandard. Fulfill your desire to read adult literature.

"hmm, well personally I would prefer to read textbooks and articles in scientific journals. If you prefer to form your world view from children's books then perhaps that reflects the level that you're at?"

When dealing with people who hold the attitude that if a species doesn't give us something then it's not worth having around, children's books offering a deeper insight than all the textbooks and scientific journals you're obviously reading are the best place to start.

* Yes, it was understood that it was a typo, but it was also important, given the context, that the accurate figure was presented for other readers.

Yours in despair for our future.

My point was that, although we are having a collective impact, the relevant decision-making is not happening at the collective level. It is happening at the individual level. Even the decisions of collectives, such as governments or corporations, ultimately take place only through individuals; almost always because they think they will benefit themselves.

There is no saying that the decisions of collectives will necessarily be any better than those of individuals. For example, I read a letter in The Land yesterday that said “[I]n the last 10 years the NSW Government has locked away about one million hectares of national parks. About half this area has completely burnt to the ground, destroying anything in its path, including endangered species of flora and fauna.”

And often collective decisions will be worse, because they will increase moral hazard - the ability of some people to take the benefits for themselves while imposing the costs or risks on others.

Examples abound. The government had the idea to stop us all boiling to death from global warming, by installing pink batts. But you try getting something done through a bureaucracy – it’s like picking up matchsticks with boxing gloves. In the result, the scheme killed people, burnt down houses, increased emissions, and wasted billions of dollars in corruption.

At base, the original problem is that natural resources are scarce. We can’t use a particular piece of land for wilderness *and* for growing crops *and* for building houses *and* for mining coal. Ultimately, these conflicts – and all objective measures relating to them - boil down to differences of subjective values in human beings, and often, they won’t even be different groups of humans, they will be conflicts of values within the same individual humans, just as you and I want to enjoy the beauty of nature, and to use the internet, and to eat sandwiches.

Peter, I totally agree. The question, as pointless as it is, is how do we escape from that self-destructive cycle? I doubt it is through larger doses of individualism and more unfettered self-interest. I personally believe we will only escape when we can establish objective measures free from personal interest for our decision making processes.

Everything you have said points to the very reasons this will never happen. The rule of self-interest precludes such determinations.

> I personally believe we will only escape when we can establish objective measures free from personal interest for our decision making processes.

I think that objective measures are not possible either in theory or in practice. Since we would be looking at all possible resource-use relations not just between all humans, but between all humans and all other individuals of all other species, and remembering that most species are microscopic, even if we devoted the entire GDP of the human race, it would be impossible in practice.

But it wouldn't even be possible in theory, because the subjective values, and vested interests, of the humans in a particular resource use would continue to affect the knowledge produced, both in framing, and in answering the question.

>The question, as pointless as it is, is how do we escape from that self-destructive cycle?

It's only self-destructive when viewed at the species level. At the individual level, people live, reproduce, satisfy wants, and then go on trying to satisfy more. We don't expect any other species to apply a 'whole-of-species' criterion to their actions, and humans are part of nature, so I don't see any reason why we should do so for humans. Besides, most of the things we worry about never happen.

"But" it might be said, "they need to, else sooner or later we'll run out of resources."

But that is to say no more than that resources are scarce. It's still not a reason either to view, or to decide, the problem at the collective level.

"I doubt it is through larger doses of individualism and more unfettered self-interest."

It is probably larger doses of individualism and unfettered self-interest that has given rise to that long-term perspective in the first place. Hunter-gatherers typically had a much shorter time-frame: just a few days. We are able to look at things by a much longer time-frame because we have accumulated the capital that enables us to extend the time-frame for our production decisions decades into the future. In pre-capitalist societies it is way down on their list of priorities.

"But that is to say no more than that resources are scarce. It's still not a reason either to view, or to decide, the problem at the collective level."

If it's not decided at the collective level then it must be decided at the individual level. In order to facilitate such a system wouldn't we need to do away with prior collective decisions that tip the balance of value toward one group of individuals over another?

Hunter-gatherers, as far as I've read, had horizons at least as long as a year, to accommodate seasonal patterns of food and the movements of migratory animals at least.

"If it's not decided at the collective level then it must be decided at the individual level. In order to facilitate such a system wouldn't we need to do away with prior collective decisions that tip the balance of value toward one group of individuals over another?"

Well these are weighty matters because we're talking about entire nation-states and so on. But yes, certainly there are entire collective power blocs built on prior unjust decisions that we should do away with. However the problem is not whether a decision is collective; it's whether it's unjust, whether it's morally wrong. There are all sorts of criteria we could use to decide whether a use of resources is morally wrong, but the minimum is that it should not be based on violence or threats of violence by one human or group of humans against another. The primary distinction is between resource-use decisions, whether collective or not, that are based on coercion, versus those based on consent. As the nation-state itself involves a claim of a legal monopoly of the use of violence and threats, we have good moral grounds for calling for the abolition of large slabs of it. The result would be better for the natural environment as well as people.

"Hunter-gatherers, as far as I've read, had horizons at least as long as a year, to accommodate seasonal patterns of food and the movements of migratory animals at least."

Yes fair enough but nothing compared to 25-year mortgages common in our society.

Governments in Australia (both State and Federal) give mixed messages in response to the question of the sustainability of wilderness. ON the one hand they want to pander to 'green' voters and expand the area of land protected as wilderness, but on the other hand, they are not prepared to purchase privately owned land or compensate owners when their land (generally farm land) is locked up as wilderness. without such purchases or compensation, the message given is that the Australian community and economy cannot actually afford to expand the area retained as wilderness; thus they put the burden of cost on the unfortunate landowners. Some would call this outright theft.

G’day everyone, many thanks for all your comments. This is the first time I’ve written specifically for an online site where people can post comments anonymously. I’m not sure of the protocol, so I should start by saying, no offence intended to anyone and I am glad that everyone finds it an interesting topic.

The main discussion is between Mr Peter Hume and Mr Geoffc, largely about structures of human societies. That’s a very large and interesting topic, but rather outside the scope of my article, so I won’t try to comment. My thanks to Mr Geoffc for his many responses. I’ll try to answer everyone else in turn.

To Mr Peter Hume, 10 March. I don’t think that I’ve adopted a ‘collectivist approach’. Actually, I said specifically in the very next sentence that most wilderness isn’t for sale. It is indeed useful to know aggregated costs, because governments and large corporations actually do buy things at multi billion dollar scales. For example, there are very real questions at present about governments buying back water rights in the Murray Darling Basin, or potentially buying out coastal landowners at risk from sealevel rise. Banks and insurance companies actually do add up the value of every house, to calculate their own financial assets, exposure and market penetration. And of course, governments, corporations, and individuals are indeed buying remaining areas of high biodiversity, where they are for sale. But often they are not.

.. continued in next post.

..continued from previous post..

To Mr/Ms thinkabit, 10 March. (a) As noted by Mr Geoffc on 11 March, actually I was referring to carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, not carbon particulates. Sorry if this wasn’t clear. (b) Actually, it’s not so much the trees that remove carbon from the air, it’s mostly the soil, in grasslands and swamps as well as forests. As I said, farming systems which increase soil organic matter do the same, but most current farming systems worldwide have the opposite effect. (c) Yes, it’s true that drug design programs also use computer modelling. But by far the majority still rely on so called natural products, chemicals screened from plants and animals and microorganisms. (d) I did actually discuss the tourism issue later in my article.

To Ms Cheryl, 10 March. (a) Umm, comments (1) and (2) are hardly policy analysis. (b) As noted later by Mr Geoffc on 11 March, we are indeed consuming more than the earth produces, because we are using past productivity. That’s why ‘peak oil’ exists, for example.

To Mr/Ms Hasbeen, 10 March. (a) Absolutely correct in pointing out the importance of the oceans. (b) Umm, I never mentioned jungle, cuddly or otherwise. (c) Yes, as it happens, I can swim a kilometre in open ocean, find water on a granite island with pocket beaches, and collect enough shellfish to eat. I have also driven solo across the Simpson Desert several times, walked extensively off trek through rainforest full of lawyer vines and stinging trees, kayaked first descents of rivers in Tibet, and so on. Oh yes, and I can use an axe and a rifle, and first fired a machine gun at age nine. And all of this, as noted by Mr/Ms examinator on 12 March, is completely irrelevant to whether or not we can ‘afford’ wilderness.

… continued in next post.

..continued from previous post..

To Mr/Ms phoenix94, 10 March. Certainly, parks need fire management strategies. And they do in fact have them.

To Mr David Jennings, 10 March. If you have better figures, let’s see them, and their sources. Mine are quoted from Cambridge University, UK.

To Mr/Ms Raycom, 10 March. Ideology is indeed no substitute for scientific evidence. But the weight of evidence is in favour of anthropogenic climate change. And wilderness is valuable with or without global warming.

To Mr/Ms fedupnortherner, 20 March. The question of governments buying privately owned wilderness is indeed a very important one. Areas of high priced agricultural land in developed nations are indeed too expensive for taxpayers to buy in bulk. Governments do indeed try a range of mechanisms to get private landowners to conserve native bush without selling it. Our former federal government supposedly spent three billion dollars on incentives, but nobody has ever been able to determine what actual conservation gains were achieved. Many cynics (myself included) have suggested that the aims were more political than ecological. The same has been reported for environmental subsidy programs in Europe. Some wilderness is difficult to afford. But it is valuable none the less.

And finally, to anyone who would like to see some of the research sources for my original posting. I have an open access article in PlosBiol, the Public Library of Science refereed online Biology journal, which contains references to most of the statistics cited; and another in the journal Biodiversity which discusses wilderness policy issues. The former is
www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000143. The link to the latter is at www.tc-biodiversity.org/biodiversity_e, but it requires a subscription to download. But I can post up just the reference list if anyone wants

The author asserts that "the weight of evidence is in favour of anthropogenic climate change". However, there is no such evidence. The IPCC has been searching for 20 years, but has failed to find any convincing evidence. It is surprising that the strongest endorsement that the IPCC could give in its 2007 Report, was "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Although IPCC bureaucrats claim that their understanding has improved to the point that they are 90% confident that humans are responsible for climate change, this claim is unfounded as it relies heavily on the unvalidated IPCC computer models. Even the IPCC scientists admit in the 2007 working group report that they have not validated the models. Independent scientists have tested the models against actual outcomes and found them to be unrepresentative. Despite continually increasing CO2 emissions, the IPCC has been unable to explain the global cooling trend from 1940 to 1975, and why there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years -- the latter is acknowledged even by the scientist at the centre of the Climategate scandal, Phil Jones.
The IPCC case for AGW is being dismembered by the 'gates' that have been opened as a result of Climategate. The IPCC itself has made several embarrassing retractions since the 2007 report. It would surprise if the IPCC were not forced to make further retractions, as its methodology for influencing politicians has comprised alarmist assertion.
Even if global warming were proved, this does not prove that it is human-caused.
The IPCC has not made any serious effort to study natural causes of climate change, such as variations in solar activity, and El Nino and La Nina.
Models are not science. Models are not evidence. Assertion is not evidence. Environmentalist ideology is not evidence.
If the author has some hard evidence, let him table it and share it with us.