It is nice to see someone looking and planning beyond the next election date. In the end our future will be made up of those dreams, the wishfull thinkings, in which new inventions and new ways of doing things will pave the way and technology weed out the impracticallities.

I see the biggest thread to mankind not in energy, not in global warming and not food production, but in a society that has no vision for the future.

We need those "dreamers" to provide the challenges to rise above the level of seeing the everyday struggle to make ends meet as a meaning for life.

I wonder, though, would we in 2050 still have the annoying Medicare pop-ups grinning at us?

alfred

It is New Years' Eve 2050! Happy new year as we enter the next half century of this tumultuous era. Let us hope that we have learned much from the past half century. We are only now emerging from the disasterous decisions made in the first two decades of this century. With the collapse of the Euro in Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy by 2020, and with the increasing volatile national debt in the United States reaching $23 trillion dollars, the GFS of the late 1990's is being described as "the good times." Global depression coupled with ever-increasing natural disasters have created a world of national and international instability.

Europe has become again more nationally insular, reverting to border-controls and national currencies to stave off being sucked into the "Euro vortex" as it became known. The collapse of China's economy due to the lack of support for its products brought on by the fiscally distructive policies of both Europe and the United States has triggered social unrest in that country on a unprecedented scale.

With the virtual disappearance of "our Mineral economy" Australia was hit hard! But we are Aussies - and we have managed to find our soul within the direst of conditions. Our president, Bronwyn Rudd (no relation to that other past historical figure) in her address to the People of the Republic of Australia, stated in her New Year's address speech that we are on track to "Move Forward Again" to a better and brighter future.

In her national address she believes that job stimulus will be successful in ensuring that every house in Australia is solar-panelled, and that the NNBN (the NExt National Broadband Network) will provide adequate schooling for ALL Australian from K - U (Kindy to Uni). We approach 2050 with a spirit of hope that our 37 million citizens will see a new Australia boern from the ashes of the past 50 years.

As a consumer of future history - there is a surprising amount of it about - I was entertained by Julian's shot at Australia in 2050. I can say with certainty that it will be proved wrong, but in what way it will be wrong is impossible to say.

One quibble I had with it is the export of energy. Not because I doubted the super efficient direct current link, but because recent energy industry developments indicate that most electrical energy will generated by gas turbines outside the major cities were it is consumed. At least that is a more likely senario given recent developments with fracture cracking, or fracking, technology.

As for generating heaps of green power from alternative energy and geothermal projects, and for that energy to be cheap enough for other countries to want to buy, well if Julian wants to put that forward as a scenario that's up to him..

Anyone who is looking at the future in a constructive way deserves an accolade. My only comment is that I doubt that algal based fuels are more likely to be based on a technology where there is more control such as brine. And the good news is, we have buckets of that, and better still, we know how to grow and extract lipids already. Not far off and certainly before 2050. THIS could well drive our food production.

As for exporting energy, the folks at Desertec have framed this well and we already have the beginnings of efficient HVDC cables under the sea and the odd patches in Australia. Why not look at large scale solar thermal with molten salt storage to contribute. Gee, even hydrogen powered trains where the H2 comes from a solar process.

Earlier I said:
"I doubt that algal based fuels are more likely to be based on a technology where there is more control such as brine"

What I really meant was that sewage is variable and the nutrient control maybe a real challenge (as might the water in drier areas). On the other hand, brine as might found in a seawater salt works is more reliable. The salinity can be adjusted with seawater. And in case anyone is thinking energy balance, some thorough work has been done in Australia and algal biofuel is positive.

I was sent a flyer earlier this year advertising a series of conferences for ICT in schools and universities.

I though it was a classic.

There were to be over 170 sessions, and over 2000 people were expected to attend.

As far as I could see, every session on the program had to do with imported technology or imported equipment.

There was everything from Hitachi Starboards through to the iPad, with nothing at all from Australia.

How can the Australian economy become knowledge driven, when the education system wants everything to be imported?

Where do Nokia phones come from i.e. the hardware? Korea I would guess.
Where was the IP developed and the R&D done? Finland. I'd take a shrewd guess that even the Finns import Nokia phones.

A knowledge based economy generates just that. It does not necessarily have the means or the skills to generate the hardware that manifests itself from the knowledge.

I, like others salute Julian for his optimistic view of Australia and its future. Reality check. World fossil fuel (oil) production (including all liquids) has plateaued and is now in decline. Financially Europe, the UK (Ireland) and the US are broke. When Portugal goes down, its inevitable, the $650 Trillion of CDS that banks world-wide have committed to, will blow the worlds economy and any hope for a transition to a renewable energy future. There will be opportunities for growth and changes in the way we live but the elephant in the room (population growth and its resultant draw down on our finite planet) will see a systematic and slow die-off. Nature will adapt as it always has, whether we can transition through this is another matter. Technology will not be our saviour, think about substitution and efficiency, they both have limits and so does this planet. The ride is getting rough and will get rougher, hold on!

renew,
If you go to a coal mine site you might see a dump truck. They can be massive and also high tech, and nearly all are imported.

The Australian driver just sits in the cabin, and supplies the arms and legs to drive the truck and haul the coal out of the pit. The value adding has been done when building the dump truck.

Similarly, when a student uses an iPad, the student is just supplying the fingers. The value adding has been done elsewhere when building the iPad and installing software into it.

The more we import, the less likely we are ever going to value add, and the knowledge based society is just a pipedream.

Unfortunately, I have never yet found anyone in the education system who understands this.

OK, I'll bite.

>>When Portugal goes down, its inevitable, the $650 Trillion of CDS that banks world-wide have committed to, will blow the worlds economy<<

Just out of curiosity, Geoff of Perth, how would that occur?

Where would the money go? More importantly, where would it come from?

I use a simple test for these things. It's called "follow the money". That means describing both its source and its destination.

Rather than hiding behind a throwaway line you probably picked up from some conspiracy web site or other, show us all how those "CDS" thingies will cause economic collapse, if and when Portugal "goes down".

I'm genuinely interested in your reply, because it helps throw some light on the level of understanding that is out there about really important things like the world economy.

Forgive me if I anticipate "not much", from your response.

A question, vanna.

>>...the knowledge based society is just a pipedream. Unfortunately, I have never yet found anyone in the education system who understands this.<<

I agree with you, of course. If Australia wanted a knowledge-based society, we would have had to start a century or so ago, and the chances of creating one now are somewhere between zilch and zip.

But I know this is a hobby-horse of yours, so I'll ask anyway.

What would you propose that we teach our students?

And who would teach them?

OK Vanna,

That dumptruck might, I have no time to find out now , have in its drive train say a component or a series of components were designed and built in Australia. Or designed here. e.g. the airport taxiway tugs that pull aircraft off airbridges - guess where the coupling link system for the A380 was designed?

We are a very large exporter of car parts for example. The days are gone when things were invented local, built local and sold local.

This is just obscure commercial stuff that never surfaces and if it finds its way into universities - well and good but unlikely.

Pericles,
If someone looks around the world, we are being left behind.

There are plans to create 800 new universities in India alone, not even mentioning the mega billions that countries such as China are spending on education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/international/asia/28universities.html

We will simply not be able to compete and create a knowledge based society by importing.

To create students and teachers that are innovative and likely to create a knowledge based society, there has to be a stop to how much the education systems are importing.

If they want to spend taxpayer funding on technology, they have to start spending that money within this country.

There also has to be an ethos to produce something, and not taking the laziest approach and import everything.

Unfortunately, I can’t see that occurring in the current education system.

Renew,
There might be something someone in Australia has installed into an imported dump truck.

An "I Love Catapiller" sticker perhaps.

Pericles here is my "Not Much" Derivatives are the $600 trillion or more gorillas in today's financial room. There would very and quite simply not be anything remotely approaching the tense talks on Greek debt that we see if not for the derivatives exposure of some of the main parties (banks) involved in these talks. It's not about a handful of billions of dollars the IMF will or will not fork over; that's what these guys literally pay for their peanuts. The problem lies in the bets, the wagers, in the shape of default swaps, to the tune of trillions of dollars, that are out there, and that risk being triggered by a default being declared a "credit event", either by the ratings agencies, or the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, or both. A mjaor part of this is that nobody knows how big this is.

Credit-default swaps are the kind of derivatives that were behind the blow-up of the American International Group and the near meltdown that followed in the global financial system.

In his recent confirmation hearing to be the next leader of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, the central banker of Italy, warned that no one really knows who is on the hook for these risky financial instruments. “Who are the owners of credit-default swaps? Who has insured others against a default of the country?” he asked.

Warning of a potential “chain of contagion,” he argued against requiring banks to restructure Greek debt — which could involve extending repayment terms or writing off principal — even though Greece’s apparent inability to pay in full makes a restructuring all but inevitable.

It's 2050 in the old Christian calendar, year 3 in the new world order when every person over 16 years had the opportunity to cast an electronic vote for the world government.

The world's richest woman Gina Rinehart Junior won the World presidency by popular vote on the strength of her acclaimed efforts in exceeding the old United Nations millenium goals, a project achieved in collaboration with her independently wealthy partner Maxim Sinalot.

The new world order was a long time coming, but when it came, people asked why it took so long for the human race to wait for the catastrophe before getting its affairs in order.

I notice that you carefully avoided the question, Geoff of Perth.

"Where would the money go? More importantly, where would it come from?"

I suspect the reason for is that you do not have an answer.

But don't feel bad. If "Mario Draghi, the central banker of Italy" doesn't know, there is no particular reason why you should, I guess.

For myself, I'd be amazed if the risk hasn't been hedged into oblivion, especially given the length of time that has elapsed since CDSs were discovered to be toxic.

And vanna, there is one small problem in your reasoning.

>>If they want to spend taxpayer funding on technology, they have to start spending that money within this country.<<

But we don't have any suppliers, do we? And if we did, the cost would be prohibitive which would render it unaffordable. There is a reason - in fact, there are many reasons - why we don't build stuff here. The main ones are that we don't have the labour force, nor the economies of scale that they have overseas.

Don't think we haven't tried. In 1990 there were somewhere around 350 individual manufacturers of PC hardware in Australia, mostly mom-and-pop outfits plugging boards into chassis, but a few were quite significant for a while. In the end, though, it just didn't make sense, as the price of overseas finished products kept falling, and local costs did not.

The future for us is far more likely to be as the destination of choice for middle-class Chinese tourists, of which quite soon there will be hundreds of millions, than "the clever country".

Assuming that we lift our game substantially, that is. Being a service industry is not something we are very good at.

And it occurs to me that you didn't answer the question either...

"What would you propose that we teach our students? And who would teach them?"

Pericles,

a couple of very simple facts that you need to take note of:

Global finance and banking (all money whether paper-coin/electronic) is derived from "Fractional Reserve Banking System" i.e. released at interest.

To permit this economy to function you need to have growth, its imperative to pay off the interest on money loaned into the system.

To permit growth you need cheap energy, energy above about 6% of GDP stalls growth in all economies.

Hence, loss of cheap energy, loss of growth, then the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart. Pretty basic when you think about it. How's that for answering your question?

So Vanna we should go back to paper and pens cuase we don't make computers here?

To the Author great vision but we don't have the political foresight to make it happen. We have n't got a governement whom ever is in power to either make it happen or get out the way to let someone else do it. oh well

Pericles
What would you propose that we teach our students? And who would teach them?"

They have to be taught to produce something useful, and this might also mean producing something that other students would find useful or an aid to their studies.

That type of thing produces exponential growth, as one thing builds upon another.

So the students in every class can simply be told that there will be a class project to produce something useful by the end of the year.

That can be done for every class in every school or university throughout the country each and every year. That introduces the student to the concept that they have to produce, and not just import like their teachers.

There reaches a point where the more someone imports, the less likely they will ever export something, and I believe many in Australia have reached that point right now.

You've been on those conspiracy sites again, haven't you, Geoff of Perth.

>>Global finance and banking (all money whether paper-coin/electronic) is derived from "Fractional Reserve Banking System" i.e. released at interest.<<

Only the portion that is borrowed, is "released at interest". All the rest pay cash.

Our sovereign debt in Australia is around 24% of GDP - that's three months worth. Think of it this way - it is the equivalent of you earning $80k, being in debt of $20k, paying interest to the bank at (say) 7%, or $1,400 p.a.

Not exactly a disaster, wouldn't you agree?

>>To permit this economy to function you need to have growth, its imperative to pay off the interest on money loaned into the system.<<

You wouldn't need "growth" to pay $1,400 a year, would you?

>>To permit growth you need cheap energy, energy above about 6% of GDP stalls growth in all economies<<

Bunkum. See above.

>>Hence, loss of cheap energy, loss of growth, then the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart<<

I was working in London in 1973 when the first "oil shock" occurred. The price went from $3 a barrel (yes, look it up) to $5.11, a 70% increase. By the end of 1974 it had reached $12, then in 1981 went up to $35. That was a nearly twelve-fold increase, in eight years. The world did not come to an end then, just as it didn't when oil reached $150 three years ago.

The part you're missing is that money does not exist in its own right. It only has value when it is exchanged for something.

>>Pretty basic when you think about it. How's that for answering your question?<<

You didn't. You just went off on a tangent, hoping I wouldn't notice.

Australian Universities are falling in world rankings. Funding for research and development is collapsing and manufacturing just about gone....

To turn your dream from wishful thinking and into reality........first the structural social design must change.

There is always billions of dollars for real estate growth infrastructure..which is an investment in pollution....while there is no capital for PhD's to do their research and later to take developments through to manufacture and protect our intellectual property.

By rapidly stabilising the population ( current growth rate is over 1 million more people every 3 years ), those billions that would have been spent on more people, can alternatively be spent on the utopia you envisage. That is the "opportunity cost" of population growth.

Without addressing this structural problem......your dreams will turn to dust.

Best regards,

Ralph

Oh dear, P., do we really have to go through banking 101 again?
“Only the portion that is borrowed, is "released at interest". All the rest pay cash.”
All the rest of whom, pray tell? “Cash” ie printed money represents on average about 3% of all new money. The rest (97%) is borrowed into existence by banks and their victi.... sorry, customers; including entire nations.
“Our sovereign debt in Australia is around 24% of GDP - that's three months worth. Think of it this way - it is the equivalent of you earning $80k, being in debt of $20k, paying interest to the bank at (say) 7%, or $1,400 p.a.”
Well actually, no. GDP (Gross Domestic PRODUCT) is not the same as GD PROFIT, and is certainly not interchangeable with GNI (Gross National Income). In fact, small matters like catastrophic floods in Qld, or bushfires in Vic actually increase GPD, by stimulating economic activity.
“You wouldn't need "growth" to pay $1,400 a year, would you?”
If it was an EXTRA $1,400 a year, well then yes, you would.
“The part you're missing is that money does not exist in its own right. It only has value when it is exchanged for something.”
Absolutely true. The question is, how much money do you have to exchange for something? In an inflationary period (too much money) such as we are undoubtedly entering now, a bloody lot. If however, the PIGS decide to drop out of the EU, and (either literally or effectively) default on their loans, we could see a deflationary effect (maybe).
Where does the money go? The same place everyone's superannuation and stocks and bonds value went 2 years ago.
Away.
As to the article, my compliments to Julian Cribb. It's a lovely dream. Unfortunately, the answer to insoluble national debt has historically always been the same.
War.

A weekly roundup from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, the UK registered charity dedicated to raising awareness of peak oil.

The oil market was plunged into turmoil as the IEA announced it will tap its strategic reserve for only the third time ever. The agency had hinted in the past months that it might be prepared to release stocks to offset the shortfall in production from the Libyan crisis, to calm prices and avoid a "hard landing" for the global economy. But it was widely expected that Saudi Arabia was to be given time to make up the difference. Instead the IEA will release 60 million barrels over the next 3 months in order to "bridge the gap" until new OPEC or Saudi supplies are available.

Prices dropped sharply — as intended — and Brent ended Thursday at $107/barrel. Whether the action can balance the markets in the longer term however is surely in doubt. There is no end to the Libyan conflict in sight, and so far oil prices have remained stubbornly high even in the face of weak economic data including the Greek debt crisis stalking the Eurozone. Everything rests on Saudi Arabia being able to deliver the extra capacity — although many doubt it can, at least not in time. Their announcement suggests even the IEA agrees.

In the UK this week the government published a clutch of National Policy Statements making the case for new energy infrastructure — fossil plants, renewable and gas and electric grids - and a list of eight sites proposed for new nuclear stations. The papers are intended to guide planning authorities about the national interest when considering new energy infrastructure projects.It does no fit into the 2050 which willfail.

vanna, I almost agree. I don't mind using imported computers and basic programs and suites such as MS Office and the Adobe Creative Suite. Innovation comes from building on what already exists, and those programs are among the easiest to use (and most widely used in the 'real world').

The trouble is what students are asked to do with them. This is due to a combination of stubborn teachers and short-sighted educational policy. The latest catchcry is that we should be encouraging students to 'create, collaborate and innovate' with ICT. It's no longer enough to type up assignments, insert pictures into documents, research on the web and use PowerPoint to aid speeches. We must harness opportunities available to us to use ICTs to improve educational outcomes; we also need to empower students to harness those opportunities. Doing that would be taking a step in the right direction and contributing to, rather than simply consuming, the digital world.

Two things get in the way. One is the policy that has integrated ICTs into every subject and deprived it of any stand-alone value. As well as teaching English, I teach kids how to use ICTs. I feel well-equipped to do that, but some of my older colleagues don't. I don't blame them. There is little professional development here, so teachers are left teaching kids to do what they themselves can do. The kids tend to be more advanced, but can't use their skills in the classroom because many teachers can't keep up. Thus skills are devalued and stagnate.

The second is a negative attitude I have encountered with many teachers. They have taught for 30 years without having to do this 'ICT stuff', so they don't see why they should start now. They can point to all sorts of literacy, numeracy and social statistics to 'prove' that computers are bad for us. I find it frustrating but, when I consider how little support they receive, I can sort of understand where they are coming from.

Meanwhile, these opportunities to take good ICT resources and make them great go to waste.

Note that I'm not absolving teachers of any responsibility to educate themselves here. I said I'm well-equipped to use ICTs in the classroom and to enable my students to do the same. I got there by practising, researching and teaching myself, and am sure many others could do the same. There is the whole 'digital native/digital immigrant' idea that suggests people of my generation have the skills and attitudes to teach ourselves about ICTs, while older people do not. I don't know how true that is (after all, I have taken those skills for granted since I was a little kid), but I concede that it may be harder for some.

Life wasn't meant to be easy, and working life in particular rarely is.

this article seems somewhat opposing the general flow
[of the authers previous writings]

""Fuelling the next terror..June 3,2011
Time for a new focus on food..June 2,2011
Why is nobody talking about safe nuclear power?..May 4,2011
Time for an independent voice for science..April 12,2011...""

but i note elements of them
within his words

i like beginnings..and endings
so naturally focused on this

""Australians..as a diverse and enterprising people
were able to seize*..and develop the new opportunities
of the 21st century..as they emerged.""

here julian enters fanticy land

[private money..is too self obsessed
to gamble with its own money....the money
wants what govt has
and wants govt..to seize it or build it..for them]

then take it..from the people
and then double the costs of delivery...
making sepperate..'business'..of its parts...

but mainly just running it down..
while maximising its proffets
into their own..private pockets

""The grounds..for every single one of them
were already laid,,*in 2011""

when juliar..seized the union movement
revealing the real ju-liar..

then barefaced stating..no carbon tax slush fund
for greenie capitalists...*in my party...

then selling out
to the greenie bankers....
wanting public cash...by public debt

while selling..every important bit of real/value
land farms water gas rights

to china and middle east oil sheiks
or frontmen..for overseas money men

i like this helpfull
carbon tax slush fund/hint..

""all that was wanting..was the courage,
the vision and the investment to achieve them.""

and the bleach bottle redhead liar
deliverd in spades
thus was the future sold to corperate intrests...

[using the compulsory superTAX fundies]...
to lord it over the peons
forced to pay..as they earned less and less

made in australian peons*
*owned by coorperation

big business bonus
public burdon...by one sided...'mutual obligation'
and private mates/rate deals...where odious governance
created odsious debt burden..upon their landless peoples

ya just gotta love
the predictability of colonisers
thinking to proffit from stolen land

then...jointly loosing it to those who claimed higher right..
by bits of paper/private prisons and threat of punitive punishment or plain force

tax em till they drop
their love of govt subsidies...never stop

Julian, I see a much brighter, freer, less fearful, harmonious and rewarding future for humanity.

It is all based upon energy. By 2050 we will have low cost, compact energy units based upon a mixture of Gen VII fission and fusion.

These will be supplied firstly to third world and developing nations. They will use these for power, desalination and transport fuels, probably hydrogen. The power will liberate them from the tyranny of carbon fuel restrictions imposed by developed nations. Desal will give them water for domestic, commercial and irrigation applications.

Their food production will increase; they will trade amongst similar economies and then gradually compete in a sustainable way with the developed nations. Conflict within and between will be reduced as they increase education, development of their own social equity and justice and stabilize their politics based upon reduced intervention and western dependency.

Australia will by then have come to terms with the silliness of fanciful dreamers that tried to convince us we could lead the world in climate adaption, food production water management, urban design and knowledge export, when we should have concentrated on core competences to produce things that other nations might actually buy.

We will reach this conclusion because we will have realised that to export such “soft” products and services we would actually need “customers” for these. We will also have realised that in each of these disciplines we have not yet actually done any of this for our home markets and are currently 10 to 20 years behind those who have. We will have also have recognized the extent to which such dreaming has utterly devastated the otherwise strong economies of those who have gone before, like the EU.

Sadly, we are likely to see a continuation of the March of Folly, the pursuit of that which is contrary to self interest. This will happen because of the “plausible” dreamers, lots of information, no knowledge and no common sense.

Otokonoko
“these opportunities to take good ICT resources and make them great go to waste”

It doesn’t matter much whether an ICT or anything else is good or bad to start with.

What matters is how quickly it can be improved upon.

There are now schools and universities using almost nothing produced in Australia, and I’m sure that companies such as Apple, Microsoft, SAS, Cisco, Lenovo, Hitachi etc need to be given a lot more money from the Australian taxpayer via the education system.

Although I haven’t heard any words of thanks being said to the Australian taxpayer from companies such as Apple, Microsoft, SAS, Cisco, Lenovo, Hitachi etc.

Maybe they will say thanks to the Australian taxpayer in the year 2050.

Or maybe Australia will be completely sold out by the year 2050.

*The more we import, the less likely we are ever going to value add, and the knowledge based society is just a pipedream.*

Not really Vanna. It seems to me that you are failing to acknowledge
how the world has changed. Manufacturing has become more complex,
more automated and more specialised. Take an Apple Ipad, there are
parts in there from all over the world. Specialist companies, some
make the touch screens, some the memory, some the processors etc.
If the Japanese tsunami did one thing, it showed how the global
supply chain is interlinked.

Trying to make everything here not only increases costs to consumers,
but also raises costs for efficient exporters.

It is pointless for us to try and reinvent the wheel, better to
find new niches, where we have a comparative advantage. That will
really come down to the entrepreneurial skills of the 5% of the
population who have that aptitude.

I gather that around 80'000 people in WA are still employed by
manufacturing, so its a myth that we make nothing.

Matrix Composites makes specialised stuff for the oil industry.
In Fremantle they build ferries, exported globally.
Truffles and their production is a new growth industry. At 3000$
a kg, well worth doing and we are doing it.
We sell Sandalwood oil to the world's perfume houses and the remains
of the wood for incense stick production. Far more profitable then
growing food on that land.

Slowly our niches are developing, but it will take a while, given
that our past attempts to produce everything, were a dismal failure.

Yabby,
We are manufacturing things, but not in the education system from what I have seen.

My gripe/complaint/observation is that teachers are hoping that by importing everything, they will produce students smart enough to export something.

Not likely.

More likely the students will never export anything, because they are being trained to import everything.

Meanwhile, India also wants to be the “knowledge powerhouse” of the world, with plans to increase its university student numbers from 12 million to 30 million in a few years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12597815

That’s more than the entire population of Australia, and they will be churning out 30 million university graduates about every 4 years.

Having worked with a few Indian students, they will not be satisfied with importing everything from somewhere else. They will want to produce something or make something.

Australia has minimal chance in any niche when faced with that type of competition.

There is one thread that runs through these the comments and to some extent Julian Cribb's "future". We are still consumers, and at the bottom of the consumer chain is a range of resources that are all finite. If by 2050 we haven't recognized this then we are stuffed. Totally. They say the mining industry in WA is booming, but the iron ore quality (for example) is getting lesser and lesser right now. There are very few resources I can think of - if any that have infinite availability. Some can be substituted by a "solar" version e.g. biodiesel and ethanol, but others will never be such as iron, bauxite, rare earth minerals, even uranium and thorium. And as we scrape the barrels the cost rises as does the risk of recovery.

The consumer "society" will have limited things to consume so instead of passionately urging students to "produce" things, better they might follow Julian's line of thinking and focus on developing resilience both personally and in communities. If you have no fossil based diesel, you have no agriculture so what then? We still import groceries from China? Of course not - we will have reflected on this land and its vegetation, its animals and all its limitations and begun to work with that both for its benefit and ours.

*Australia has minimal chance in any niche when faced with that type of competition.*

Not really Vanna, because of course India has all sorts of problems
that we do not, like simply too many people!

Where you have a point, is that we certainly don't train enough
engineers and apprentices etc. Too many Australians are unqualified
at all, so as Pericles points out, will most likely be catering
to Chinese tourists or similar.

Our problem comes back to Affluenza/Dutch disease. We have it too
good for our own good. Asia has a history of being poor, they
still remember the realities, so are not complacent as we are.

I guess Australia will eventually need a bit of pain to learn,
for in my experience people usually don't learn the easy way,
but the hard way.

“I don’t understand it, Granpa” said Bruce a 15 year old, in 2050, “How did Australia which in 2000 hosted what is still is regarded as the best Olympics ever, and in 2010 was the richest country in the G20 in terms of income per captia, become the poor white trash of Asia in 40 years?”

His grandfather, now 75, said that it was the fault of his generation. Unfortunately in 2007 we changed governments, who immediately began to roll back economic reforms, engage in grandiose projects and impose economically devastating taxes.

The worst two taxes were the carbon tax and the mining tax. Now we all know that global warming by CO2 was a great furphy and indeed the lack of sunspot activity over the past 40 years has meant the earth is cooling. Unfortunately, this meant that all our major mining companies closed their mines moved overseas. The supposed replacement by renewable resources such as wind and solar was a joke. Wind power costs twice as much as coal and only works one day in three, while solar is six times as expensive. We all felt good as we got poor. In addition we did stupid things like ripping up our perfectly serviceable copper networks and replacing them with fibre optics. This was done to satisfy politician’s whims with no economic rationality whatsoever.

Then the US went isolationist. After the triple defeats of Vietnam, Iraq and Afgahistan, the US started to revokes its treaties and although ANZUS was the last to go in 2030, it still went.

Unfortunately Australia still had its phobia about nuclear power and the bomb. Australia with no major nuclear ally and no bomb was defenceless. In the end, just like Russia and Germany did in 1939 with Poland, India and China decided to ally and jointly invade Australia. India took the south and west, and China the north and east. So Brisbane became Brisning and Adelaide became Adelpur.
Still think of the bright side, you now live in a truly multicultural society.

Alas, vanna, you credit teachers with too much influence in the acquisition and distribution of resources. Blaming teachers for the use of imported computers is akin to blaming bank tellers for the cheap and nasty pens on offer in branches.

That said, I have absolutely no problem with our students using, for example, the MS Office package on their computers. When they go home, they use that suite on their own computers. When they go to uni, they will use that suite there, too. In many workplaces, they will use Office. What Australian-generated alternative do we have, that offers the same functionality?

Additionally, I have no problem with the fact that my current group of students is supplied with HP computers. They are good, robust, functional, cheap and do everything our students need to do with them. What Australian-made (and by that I mean MADE, not just assembled) computers can compete? And please, if you're going to go down the path (again) of blaming teachers for this, please at least try to rationalise your argument this time.

My point, as I said earlier, is that in order to innovate we need to start with what others have developed and equip our students with the skills and attitudes to make them better. Japan didn't jump to the cutting edge of technology by re-inventing the wheel. Japan took what the Americans were doing and did it better and cheaper. We need to adopt a similar mindset if we are to become the innovators Mr Cribb wants us to be.

Otokonoko
Microsoft started in a garage, and now the Australian education system swoons at its feet.

I first did computer studies over 20 years ago through a university. Every text book was imported and all software was imported. Now languages such as C++ are being taught in high schools, and I have seen the textbooks and software being used in one school, and all textbooks were still imported and all the software was still imported.

There are estimates of up to $14 billion could be spent on computers in schools, but to date the education system can’t seem to produce one textbook or computer program from that huge amount of money spent, and are just using the money to import everything.

The idea that if more funding is poured into education it improves growth or innovation was called into question in the US by this report.

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/OK_Report_2011.pdf

They found that if more money was spent, it was mostly “absorbed by university overhead.”

Similar for education in this country, such as the Grattan report which found that investing in regional universities makes no difference to regional economies.
http://www.grattan.edu.au/pub_page/086_report_regional_development.html

So extra money being poured into education can simply go nowhere.

That goes back to my simply idea, that each class in every school is required to produce something useful each and every year as a class project.

It could be anything from a better way of telling the time, to producing a better watch.

The students are then engaged in innovation from Grade 1, and one year we may even get a textbook written in Australia on a computer programming language (after the $14 billion spent on computers in schools)

You know what, vanna? I agree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your previous posts have given me the impression that you're a Queenslander. You may remember a little under a decade ago an ambitious project called 'New Basics'. It was flawed in design and even more flawed in its implementation, and never got beyond the trial period in a select few schools. It was met with a resounding 'boo' and 'hiss' from the public and, like the now-defunct critical literacy focus, savagely attacked in the media. Our curriculum developers, never ones to exhibit any staying power, enacted a full-scale retreat rather than trying to rationalise their program or responding to feeedback by improving it. Such is the history of curriculum in Queensland - always retreating from the cutting edge.

The point of New Basics was to apply knowledge rather than simply acquire it. Students engaged in multidisciplinary 'rich tasks', drawing on each Key Learning Area to complete parts of the project. Say a group of Year 7 students was checking water quality in a nearby catchment. Their science skills would be used to test water, identify contaminants, conduct line transects along riverbanks, etc. Their maths focus would be largely statistical, as they develop and use maths skills to interpret their data. Their English focus would be on communicating their data - presentations, submissions to newspapers, scientific reports, brochures ... hell, even songs and poetry if they saw the need. Social sciences identify the human causes of poor water quality and so on. Ultimately, they would produce something useful - affordable home testing kits, filtration devices, the list goes on. While it isn't perfect, it is a starting point for innovation as students identify problems, find solutions and market them. After a few years of such programs, higher levels of innovation are possible as skills develop. Sadly, such new ideas take a couple of years to polish, and the QSA seldom waits a couple of years before shelving ideas.

Otokonoko

“The point of New Basics was to apply knowledge rather than simply acquire it.”

Well that seems a very good idea, and I think it should be extended to every grade in every school.

There are universities that advertise their research (eg http://newsroom.uts.edu.au/themes/technology-and-design)

However it is not often much, and there is minimal coming from secondary schools and primary schools.

Perhaps with some of the $14 billion handed over to schools for computers, they could develop a website that lists the things that have been developed by students in the high schools and primary schools.

It might even make the students more interested in their school work, with evidence now showing that one of the main reasons why students are dropping out of university is boredom.

Learning for the sake of learning without producing anything, and then importing everything has now produced boredom.

Julian Cribb wrote 24 June 2011:

>Welcome to 2050 ... new Terra Australis ... biggest export, far and away, is knowledge ... climate adaptation ... energy... sustainable, healthy food ...

An excellent article, which reminds me a little of my own "Canberra 2020: World Information Capital", written in 1993 for an ACT Government study: http://www.tomw.net.au/1993/cnbfut.html

Education is already a major export industry for Australia. This is currently done by students coming to Australia (mostly from China and India) to attend our universities and vocational institutions. However, I now teach more students online than face-to-face at the Australian National University, which given them the option to do the course without leaving home: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/graduate_education/

The idea of energy being Australia's second largest export is an interesting one. This is, in effect, the case now, but the export is dirty coal, and cleaner natural gas. Rather than a cable, I suggest that Australia could instead export energy virtually, by being a site for renewable powered data centres (IT causes about 7% of carbon emissions currently and the figure is increasing). Australia could also export synthetic zero net emission fuel, using the current pipe and tanker infrastructure.

Another major export could be governance. Australia is a world leader in the use of IT for running everything from a town council to the whole country. An example is "Planning Alerts" a service which advises citizens of planning applications in their area and allows them to make a submission online: http://www.planningalerts.org.au

"That said, I have absolutely no problem with our students using, for example, the MS Office package on their computers."
Hi Oto., why?
Openoffice software is compatible with microsoft products, and is free. Being open source, students can not only use the software, but they are free to adapt, modify and improve the software. Likewise the Linux operating system.
How much money does Australia waste on Microsoft products, when open source software and operating systems are not only free, but generally more stable and secure?
IT students could be making useful contributions to the open source (free world) community as they learn, in much the same fashion as your "new basics" program, which I agree, should have been developed further.
In effect, our education system (particularly in TAFE colleges) is not much better than Bonaparte's system of digging holes and filling them in again.

Julian - many thanks. This is typically visionary. What worries me is the continuing brain drain and failure of public sector investment in R&D. Queensland and Victoria have done a little in biotechnology and will be rewarded but these efforts are tiny in a global context. China, in the next 5 year plan, intends to spend a thumping 2.2% of GDP on R&D. Here is the golden opportunity for your vision to start to unfold in the knowledge export economy. I hope you have sent this to our political leaders Julian. Would it be asking too much for them to realise that this is a story worth supporting, and that the electorate might actually get it despite the fact it isn't about the short term and the hip pocket?

Congratulations Julian on a bold attempt at a vision that has some sense of internal integrity; due to your many years no doubt as broad ranging journalist. We are very much in need of construction of a vision that is truly forward looking and strategic.

That we have the current capacity to get there is questionable. I fear too much of government policy is Tactical rather than strategic, pursuit of short term political or economic advantage. And how long have we clung to obsolete habits such as self sufficient auto manufacturing, investing superfunds offshore in dodgy financial institutions and their derivative products; Or pursuing the pipedream that Australia can be a food basket for the world with one of the worlds oldest landscapes and soils in the face of global warming. By most soil measures, the current trajectory is downwards, a decline masked by production only sustained by ever increasing: inputs of energy and landscape wear.

Self sufficiency with food will be the best we can ever do, sustainably; but only providing we make a quantum leap in social capital that is education. The complexity of sustainable ecosystems requires a very broad and deep understanding not only of bioproduction technology by also the philosophical and spiritual depth to frame enterprise within a sustainable value system; such as that suggested by permaculture.

When will we learn that the driving force in learning, is not coercion but the joy of discovery and unfolding of the joy of what it means to be human. This all means investing as a society in the personal development and life skills of youth, young families and early development so that this can happen, Only government can facilitate this but every step must measured in the quality of experience of every learning individual, not abstract in statistical and intellectual measures only coincidentally connected to learning.

I’ve just received another flyer for a conference. This time for IWB’s in education.

Of course all hardware and software at the conference is imported, mostly from the US.

And not surprisingly, there will be a number of guest speakers at the conference, also from the US.

By the year 2020, I would predict a complete sell-out of Australian education to US companies and some companies in Asia.

By the year 2030, most of the utility services once owned by the Australia public will be sold off, and the vast majority of Australian industry will be foreign owned.

By the year 2040, well who cares anyway.

Vanna,
If you want home grown Aussie stuff then attend Solar 2011 in NSW. Not that we exclude Americans and American technology, but this is a showcase of local R&D. www.auses.org.au will take you there and you will find plenty of local software, wetware and hardware.

Vanna,

Here is another purely Aussie story that could change the rooftops of the world.All of this was derived from R&D done right here.

I have no doubt that it will see most sales in the USA. So much for the knowledge based economy.

http://innovation.anu.edu.au/casestudies/chromasun.php