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 > The CSIRO and the myth of progress > Comments

The CSIRO and the myth of progress : Comments

By Cameron Leckie, published 5/7/2010

Busting the myth of progress is a precursor to changing industrial civilisations' current unsustainable path.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The CSIRO does indeed seem to have lost its way with the fundamental notion of more from less.

This seems to be quite at odds with Graham Turner’s thesis on limits to growth, written under the CSIRO banner (the link to which is provided in the last paragraph of the article) and a somewhat similar detailed submission to Australia’s Population Carrying Capacity Inquiry, conducted in 1994.

It should indeed be the primary role of the CSIRO to work towards securing a sustainable future for all of us in Australia, and to advise the government on scientific and research directions accordingly. They need to get it right.

<<… increasing efficiency is subject to declining marginal returns. Many technologies and industrial processes are mature. Thus it becomes increasingly costly to make relatively minor improvements in efficiency.>>

Indeed. It will be very hard to gain significant increases in efficiency in many areas, as the relatively big and easy gains have already been made.

<<The idea that we can obtain more from less is simply not plausible.>>

Absolutely. CSIRO is getting it gravely wrong.

Good article Cameron.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 July 2010 11:31:26 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 author has a lot of certainties which I do not share, nor do many others. Muttrering about the "myth" of progress is all very well until you try to stop economic growth. Just try to persuade businesses to cut revenues rather than strive to increase them, or insist that people take pay cuts, and see how far you get.
As for the "myth" of resource limits the resources industry stopped paying attention in the 1980s. The issue was briefly revived with oil a couple of years back when prices spiked, but has since died again - although oil prices have remained high for issues that have not mcuh to do with an oil peak.
The CSIRO exercise in forecasting megatrends has some curiosity value, but those sort of exercises have never proved to be of any use in the past so why should this exercise be different?
The author is welcome to mutter away, he will find the future quite different to what he thinks it should be
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 5 July 2010 11:40:29 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
Funny how the CSIRO is god-like in its wisdom regarding global warming, but when it deviates from your average green doomsayer's worldview, then it's just wrong.
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 5 July 2010 1:54:01 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
The author's outlook is a defeatist view. The world has a long history of "doom sayers" and they share one common feature, they have all been proved wrong.

Being informed about a technology means we know how much we don't know.
Any part of these limits can see considerable changes in even mature technology.

Has the author realized that most low yield deposits are far larger than his high yield deposits. The retrieval technology will be different and in most cases new technology which is far from mature.

Just a simple example; like oil, phosphate fertilizers are claimed to be approaching peak production. However, Australian agricultural soils contain far more phosphorus than ever has been applied as fertilizer. Technologies are in the development stage to allow plants to access these reserves. These reserves are far larger than the reserves tapped for commercial fertilizer production and the technology could be far cheaper.

Concerns about progress seem to arise more from ignorance than from an understanding of the science.

The main limit to CSIRO's view of the future is under resourcing of research and development. In agricultural research Australian public research has declined at a time when the UN has called for a five fold increase in agriculture research and development.
Posted by For Choice, Monday, 5 July 2010 1:59:49 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
Achieving more for less is quite possible. In many cases it will require changes to procedure, and not necessarily changes in equipment.

An example is safety in the workplace, where more companies are now getting over 1 million man hours between lost time injuries, and more often than not, this has come about through refining and improving procedures.

The same can be applied to reduction in waste, where changing procedures can certainly reduce waste.

Technological research can also be geared towards getting greater efficiencies, or obtaining more output from less input.

However I am afraid that Australia will be left behind in much of this, as most things purchased in Australia are now imported, and most Australians have become faceless consumers with little say regards the future of the world.

An education system that imports nearly everything it uses, and indirectly trains students to do the same is not helping in the slightest.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 5 July 2010 6:20:23 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
Hello For Choice,
you may call me 'defeatist' however I consider myself to be pragmatic or a realist. Nor am I a doomsayer, it is just that in my view that perpetual economic growth is not possible on a finite planet and if this is the case we need another way of organising society and the economy to ensure that it continues to meet our needs. And there other ways than our existing systems.

I think you should read Michael Lardelli's article reference in the article. Of course as the quality of a deposit declines the available resources grows, but so to does the energy required for extraction and processing. I would also suggest that you read the following report: http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/giurcoetal2010peakmineralsreview.pdf which shows that the energy intensity of mineral production has increased significantly over time as ore quality has declined.

So if the quality and amount of energy available declines and the energy required for extraction increases it follows that we will have 'less' available to run an economy on. This will force us to change the way that our economy functions whether we like it or not. From a risk perspective it is far safer to adapt by focusing on using less energy and resources, hoping that 'technology' will save us is a dangerous and unnecessary risk.

Cameron Leckie
Posted by leckos, Monday, 5 July 2010 8:56:33 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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