When i first saw this article i thought puhleeease, not another self loathing, hate piece, gimme a break.

Then i thought Howler will be all over this one so i don't need to.

Then a day later i realised every ANTI capitalism, econazi, consiracy theory has been quoted in one article, along with the usual ANTI white male, diatribe about everything being our fault.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12495#216070 then i read the comments as well & even after Graham Y admitted the article was a joke some of the closet communists are still in there swinging away at the evil bourgoisee for daring to live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_6tIwuoco&feature=related you guys need to lighten up a little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMZTt4p1ahc&feature=related get a life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related smell the roses.

But here is my favourite http://www.carbonconservation.com/ Juliar will tax us all, give billions to these guys, they will laugh all the way to the bank & ocasionally send us a photo of the forest they promise not to chop down, so that "clever" Loony Left, Humanities "academics" can see the carbon sequestered there.

But wait there is more, "blood & gore" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management these guys are in on the scam as well, "cleaning up". Does it get any better than this? Could hollywood have written a better script?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDMXe_BY9Y maybe now you understand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFzhHeatRA0&feature=related have you got your Go Card?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKBnN8i-tfk&feature=related perhaps this is working for you.

Graham,

This article from 2009 is a little more recent from NASA (was published in Nature by Matthew Rodell) on the disappearing groundwater in India.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

Grim - excellent post earlier in the thread.

Guilty as charged, Squeers.

>>Not only does he resort to ridicule of those he designates "the guilt-ridden, lookit-me Greenie brigade" (as though they had nothing but moronic naivety to support their tree-sitting)<<

It was the whole "we're guilty of wrecking the world" self-flagellation bit that got me started. Then the complaint that "the dominating species on the planet are consumers", whose corollary, presumably, is that we should all stop "consuming". And start the long, painful march to the level of the lowest common denominator.

How will that benefit anyone?

If we have a communal task, it surely is to help those less fortunate, to better themselves? How does the whole "hair shirt" approach make their lives more comfortable? Where's the value in denying others the benefits of our technology, via a blanket resistance to nuclear power, GM foods etc. etc.

So yes, I did resort to some inappropriate terminology. For which I apologize. At least, that's what I shall say here.

But I most definitely don't apologize for the sentiment, which is basically anger. Directed at those who wilfully ignore the ramifications of their anti-progress stance, and instead simply adopt a fashionable, inner-city dinner-party posture designed to make them feel, somehow, worthy.

This was fun, though:

>>The logic's tantamount to upgrading passengers in "steerage" to "first class" on the Titanic.<<

Le mot juste, Squeers.

If we're all going to hell in a handbasket, isn't it better to make the basket as comfortable as possible, for the maximum number of people?

But I must object to the idea that I'm the one pulling up the ladder.

>>...offer us more than fatalism and "pull the ladder up" to put our highly-strung mind's at ease?<<

Denying others the fruits of the "progress" that has brought us to this point, is the epitome of ladder-pulling.

Not only that, but it is poor form, and thoroughly bad manners.

It could also encourage some people, who don't necessarily see us as the guardians of the world's morals that we clearly want to convince ourselves we are, to construe our dog-in-a-manger approach as provocative, or even aggressive.

Formersnag
You refer to our Prime Minister as Juliar. As a woman I find it offensive. You wouldn't insult a male PM so don't insult a woman PM. I have some problems with one or two of her policies but I think she presents well and deserves to be treated with respect.

Thanks Poirot, very informative link. Would be interesting to know what they might find over Australia. My understanding is that the Great Artesian Basin is in fact not replenished from the surface, so that we are in effect mining it http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1215. But it would also be interesting to know what the recent rains have done for subterranean water in the Murray Darling system, which are replenished from the surface.

Popnperish, as moderator I don't propose to do anything about people calling Julia Gillard "Juliar". I don't recall doing anything about people calling John Howard a liar, so it would be inequitable for me to do anything now the boot is on the other foot.

I have a friend who established the site "John Howard Lies". I don't think it helped his cause. I don't think Juliar helps anyone either.

Pericles,

What about those who willfully ignore the ramifications of their pro-progress stance? How does it benefit Indians to have their arable land degraded and their water table depleted and polluted?

It's not a matter of denying the developing world of first world agri-technology. Its a matter of limiting the raw profiteering by corporations in cahoots with governments in partnership with the World Bank and the IMF who fail to take a measured approach. Hyper-intensive agriculture is "not" sustainable, fullstop.
Pesticides, fertilisers and synthetically developed seeds are the wares plied by multinational corporations. It's fairly obvious that the these corporations have little regard for the long-term ramifications of overly intensive applications of the two former or the debt inducing effect of the latter. Profit is really their only motive. Nothing wrong with corporations profiting from their wares, however, developing countries don't have the sort of environmental controls that Western countries take for granted. The disaster in the Punjab wouldn't happen in the U.S.

You error in your assumption that our "progress" is the same dose given to developing countries. It's a completely different playing field...or do you think the Punjabi experience should be emulated in the West?

Squeers,

I agree, well said