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. 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
So much commentary today is based upon a false premise. If one asserts that the future sustainability of humanity depends upon the extraction of non-renewables, then it can be easily demonstrated that there is limited sustainability.

If on the other hand we insert the word “currently” (depends on the extraction of non-renewables), then this is also true however, it does allow us consider the possibility that our technology will need to develop in area’s that might mitigate the loss of non-renewables.

The human imagination, creativity, ingenuity and sciences should be directed to real issues and not ideological false assumptions.

Leckos, your assessment of our current dependency on non-renewables is probably valid. What I have difficulty with is your dismissal of possible technological solutions as merely “hope”. That indeed reduces your commentary to defeatism and hopelessness.

Why not address the technologies that offer the prospect of avoiding our “hopelessness”, this might encourage debate, feed through to our politicians and drive funding? It’s not about modifying our economies and our societies because they are “products” of our technologies and not the sources
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 9:35:05 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
Cameron Leckie wrote 5 July 2010

>... CSIRO’s recent Our Future World ... increasing efficiency is subject to declining marginal returns ...

One of CSIRO's megatrends where the technology is improving rapidly is the "i World". It takes less material and energy to build computers and provide communications. At the same time these can be used to replace dwindling energy and materials supplies.

So here are my five megatrends:

1. Something for nothing: Virtual goods and services replace real ones reducing energy and material needs, while increasing economic activity.
2. Global workforce: As jobs move online well educated workers everywhere compete for the same jobs.
3. Glocalisation: Factoring the real cost of transport and environmental effects into goods produces a global-local strategy.
4. Right Tech: A donkey equipped with GPS will not be unusual.
5. Debate 2.0: A continual debate about what direction the community should take uses all of the communications technologies available.

CSIRO's is a relatively short readable report, written in the sensationalist style of popular science books, rather than a scientific report. As the authors admit there is nothing really new or surprising in the document, it being a summary of thinking on the topic.

While providing a useful summary, it was not clear to me what the point of the report was: It presents the trends and the problems, but does not provide any unifying theme or present any solutions. Perhaps the implicit message is that CSIRO can help solve the problems by harnessing the trends. If so, the authors needed to say that explicitly and provide some evidence to support the claim.

Despite its limitations, this is a useful report. I am a visitor at the CSIRO's ICT Centre in Canberra and one of those working on what is described here as the "i World", accelerating "On The Move" and "More from less". It is useful to have the work put in a global context, not just some little thing you do each day.

My book "Green Technology Strategies" is one attempt to address some of these issues: http://tomw.net.au/green/
Posted by tomw, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 10:15:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tomw
"A continual debate about what direction the community should take uses all of the communications technologies available."

I'm affraid Australia has missed the boat regards IT as a possible industry, as nearly all software is now being imported. The latest being $240 million handed over to a German company to install administrative software in NSW schools, on top of the imported software now running most government departments.

That software is basically permanently installed, and an IT industry in Australia is now pie in the sky.

To reduce consumption of resources, industry and the public have to reduce waste (and there are many ways to reduce waste), but I don't think Australia has much of a future if we continue to import nearly everything we use.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 10:55:51 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
Very interesting article and one that gets to the nub of the problem.
I have never been able to find much research on the survivability of
telecommunications or indeed electronics in an energy depleted world.

Those that speak of all work being on line and service industries are
really away with the fairies.
As the cost of energy escalates priorities will shift to ensuring
food production.

Think about this from one article I read;
A farmer with a tractor and a multifurrow plough can plough a 100
hectare paddock in a day.
A farmer with a horse and plough might get 5 hectares done in a day.
It has been calculated that to feed us all will require that we will
need about 100 times the number of farmers that we now have.

So all those service industry employees and system analysts will find
plenty of work as farmers.

Now you can rave on against those thoughts, but geology is not
listening to you.
What is going on in the Gulf of Mexico is no more than an early swallow.
At present many are concerned as to the future of deep oil well
drilling because it is thought that government regulation and
decisions by the ultimate law makers, the insurance companies, will
make further ocean drilling uneconomic.
However, why are they drilling there ?
It is because that is where the oil is !

Welcome to the post peak oil world !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 11:57:10 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
vanna wrote 6 July 2010 10:55:51 AM:

>Tomw ... I'm affraid Australia has missed the boat regards IT as a possible industry ...

It is not all bad news. Australia is a world leader in e-learning software due to the development of Moodle. This was developed in Perth and is now used around the world by leading universities. I use Moodle to teach students from around the world, generating export income for Australia.

On the hardware front there are fewer positive examples, but one is WiFi, where some of the fundamental technology was patented by CSIRO and they are now collecting fees.

>To reduce consumption of resources, industry and the public have to reduce waste ...

Another way to look at this is to use resources more effectively. As an example, a mobile phone accessible bus timetable can make the transport system more efficient. This does not require much extra hardware: we just use the phones and buses we already have, but better.
Posted by tomw, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 12:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tomw,
Moodle is open source.

It is estimated that over $11 billion of taxpayer’s money will be spent on computers in schools (both hardware and software). Nearly all of this money went to 3 US companies.

And then $240 million has been recently given to a German company to install administration systems in NSW schools.

So there is a long way to go to repay these costs through Moodle.

There is a need to get away from fuel intensive industries such as mining, but due to the almost complete use of imported software, an IT industry in this country has become a hopeless proposition.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 2:35:42 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
vanna wrote 6 July 2010 2:35:42 PM:

> Tomw, Moodle is open source.

Yes, because Moodle is free, it may be distorting the statistics on the cost of imported versus local software. Educational institutions are not paying for Moodle (from Australia) or Mahara (from New Zealand), making purchases of local software appear lower.

> It is estimated that over $11 billion of taxpayer’s money will be spent on computers in schools ...

$11B is a small proportion of the cost of education.

> So there is a long way to go to repay these costs through Moodle.

For 2007/08 international education was estimated to contribute $13.7 billion to the Australian economy: http://www.idp.com/research/statistics/education_export_statistics.aspx

> ... due to the almost complete use of imported software, an IT industry in this country has become a hopeless proposition. ...

Figures for imported software are not likely to be a true reflection of the situation. Some educators are using free open source software packages. As a result there is no direct software fee associated with this. However, they are likely to be investing in local support for those packages.

In my view, the government could usefully encourage local development of educational software and content, using an open source model. If nothing else, this would reduce the expenditure on imported software and courseware.

As portable hand held devices come to be used more for education this may also reduce the amount of imported software used. The new crop of $200 tablet computers and netbooks are likely to run some version of Linux, not Microsoft Windows. The mobile computers will come with a suite of free software and not need any software to be purchased (I find I don't need to use Microsoft software, or other non-free software for teaching). This will not necessarily reduce the cost much, as software support will still be required, but that support can be from local Australian industry.
Posted by tomw, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 2:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tomw,
The situation is that the $11 billion went offshore, when that money could have been spent on developing Australian manufacturing industry, so that Australia would not have to rely so much on industries such as mining.

If you are not a producer, you are not a player.

That is the reality of the world, and because almost nothing is produced in Australia anymore, (and almost everything is imported), Australia will have a difficult time maintaining some type of relevance in world affairs in the future.

Regards computers in education. There is minimal empirical evidence that computers actually improve student marks, it depends entirely on how the computers are used.

The huge expenditure on computers in schools may easily become one of the greatest economic disasters in Australian history, producing no gains for the huge amount of money spent.

The NSW education department placed about 30 programs on the laptops going out to students, and all software came from the US, with nothing from Australia.

Other states have done similar, and by never or rarely using any software from Australia, schools and universities have taught students to believe that Australian software in inferior in quality, and also taught them to import software only.

After such an exercise by the education system, the posibility of developing an IT industry in Australia is pie in the sky.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 7:24:52 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
vanna wrote 7 July 2010 7:24:52 PM:

>Tomw ... developing Australian manufacturing industry ...

I am not sure that an Australian IT hardware industry is one to aim for.

>If you are not a producer, you are not a player.

I suggest Australia concentrate on software and services. As an example, Adelaide is focusing on the Defence industry, of which software is a large component.

>Australia will have a difficult time maintaining some type of relevance in world affairs in the future. ...

Making physical goods has little to do with world relevance. New York city makes few goods, but is well know for finance and cultural industries.

>There is minimal empirical evidence that computers actually improve student marks, it depends entirely on how the computers are used.

Yes. I suggest more is needed training of teachers in the use of computers for education and in development of content.

>The huge expenditure on computers in schools ...

The investment on computers in schools is small compared to salaries and buildings. If followed up with investment in training and support for teachers this could improve education and reduce costs.

>... schools and universities have taught students to believe that Australian software in inferior in quality, and also taught them to import software only.

At the ANU in Canberra, myself and my collogues teach students to write software in Australia for export. We use Australian developed software to help do this. The students go to work for the government, as well as companies like Google, who write software in Australia.

>.. posibility of developing an IT industry in Australia is pie in the sky.

Australia has an IT industry. But much of it involves developing software for overseas companies. As a result you may not be aware this software was developed in Australia, by Australians, earning money for Australia.
Posted by tomw, Thursday, 8 July 2010 12:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tomw
"The students go to work for the government, as well as companies like Google, who write software in Australia."

Most of the software in government departments is being imported (EG SAP, Oracle, Microsoft etc, most of which is US).

Google is not Australian (but US).

As for the education system, there is hardly anything left that has been made in Australia.

There appears to be a universal ideology within education that as much as possible should be imported in the hope that one day the education system will produce someone smart enough to export something.

Considering the trade deficit, it has not worked yet.

The education system is teaching students to import and be a consumer, but not produce, and there are many, many millions of consumers with very little say regards what occurs in the world.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 9 July 2010 12:53:38 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
Tomw,

BTW.

“more is needed training of teachers in the use of computers for education and in development of content.”

This does appear to be true, and I personally know of teachers who don’t even know how to operate email.

So now we have a situation whereby billions of dollars of taxpayer's money was spent purchasing imported software and imported hardware into schools, when many (if not most) teachers do not know how to operate it.

Furthermore, the computers only have a life expectancy of 4 years.

So now the taxpayer has to spend more money training teachers how to use the imported software and hardware, and by the time they have been trained, the computers will have to be replaced, and billions more spent.

Has the minister involved been sacked for this catastrophic waste of taxpayer’s money, and perhaps the greatest economic bungle in Australia's history?

No.

The minister involved has actually become Australia’s Prime Minister.

Has any teacher or university academic highlighted this catastrophic waste of taxpayer’s money.

No again.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 9 July 2010 3:49:08 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. All

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