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 > Rio+20 and a Green Economy > Comments

Rio+20 and a Green Economy : Comments

By Shenggen Fan, published 14/6/2012

Ensuring food and nutrition security for the poor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Yet another example of the UN attempting to exert control over sovereign governments and their economic development in order to accumulate vast amounts of money for themselves under the guise of 'justice for the poor'. Remember Bob Browns 'One World Government'? This is another step on the road to form one.

Beware its NOT about 'food security' or 'food justice for the poor'. It IS though, about banning technologies which are useful for increasing food production under the guise of protecting the planet.

It wants to ban:

“any technologies that might imply a serious risk for the environment or human society, including in particular synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy and nanotechnology”

The very technologies which are being used to increase food production.

Also developed nations would be required to donate 0.7% of their GDP every year to the UN ie about $2000 per family per year simply to the coffers of the UN. They are getting some of the Carbon Tax money, now this is their next big money play.

The faceless men of the UN, who are so inadequate at dealing even with predictable famines and disease epidemics, are trying to impose their Green Dream which be ultimately a nightmare for the rest of us.

They are an unelected organisation which seeks to promote a far Left agenda, Global Warming now this simply to accumulate power and money for their insiders.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 14 June 2012 9:37:45 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
Without measures to control population growth such as access to contraceptives and information on their use, education for women and access to abortion attempts for sustainability will fail. Such measures are necessary.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 14 June 2012 9:43:15 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
Atman. Could not agree more, the very tools available to increase food production quality and volume are 'banned' by this crowd.
David. F. I agree on the measures you suggest, but would also suggest the most effective method for stabilizing a population is lifting the impoverished from their current position. Observations would indicate that as a population increases in wealth, the birth rate drops correspondingly.
Food security would not be a problem in most third world countries if governance did NOT include dictatorships and corruption which interrupts food distribution networks.
Posted by Prompete, Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:12:58 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 sensible comment by devid f on population was refreshing after the ludicrously paranoid comment of Atman.

Food security must be discussed in the context of population growth, land availability and energy supplies, particularly oil. As oil becomes increasingly more expensive, it will be more and more difficult to provide food for seven billion, let along nine or ten billion. It is critical that population is stabilised as soon as possible so we can avoid outright starvation. More food will have to be grown in cities and diminishing oil supplies directed towards farmers and those transporting food.
Posted by popnperish, Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:16:08 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
popnperish

Both prompete and Atman made valuable contributions, although you seem to think they are contradictory.

Indeed, Atman is correct in that this UN lunatic is trying to tell us that black is white and that really the green approach to intensifying agricultural productivity will work. Does that mean he doesn't want farmers to use the new generation of pesticides, or genetically-engeered crops? But why bother with any of this? Why not simply persuade certain governments to drop market and price controls, and to stop robbing their citizens. Far that matter why not persuade those governments to provide sufficiently stable conditions, including basic law and order? They will be surprised by the increase in productivity, and never mind bather about the green approach.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 14 June 2012 11:35:07 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
Err.. popnperish have you read the document or a review of it? No. Obviously not. You have a child's notion of the UN as being full of benign 'do gooders'. Have you read their 'Agenda 21'? The UN is populated by people seeking inordinate influence over our lives by using environmentalism and feelgood concepts such 'economic justice' as a lever to control land usage, food production, energy supply and wealth redistribution.

They have already succeeded as they will get money from our carbon tax, have controlled fishing around the world and want to limit crop production because of supposed 'environmental concerns'. Yet these people are not elected by anybody. Is this OK by you?

It pays to do some research, even by reading the documents you blindly support.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 14 June 2012 3:28:50 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
Atman and Curmudgeon

Normally I’d agree with many of your points, but this article doesn’t seem to be from the loopy green fringe. Pricing costs and benefits is a standard economic response to externalities. “Promote innovations in biological sciences, food technologies, and natural resource use ” surely includes technologies such as the green revolution and biotech, including GM. “Ensuring open trade” is more likely to be opposed than supported by the anti-globalisation zealots.

The 0.7% target is for total aid spending, not the UN budget

Or am I missing something?
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 14 June 2012 3:32:11 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 UN is not the warm and cuddley organisation it pretends to be.They want the New World Order so they can have total control.Drastic population reductions are high on their agenda.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 14 June 2012 5:16:07 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
I have a great idea for increasing food production: since plants love carbon dioxide, why don't we do our best to add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as we possibly can?

What do you mean, 'someone's already thought of that'?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 14 June 2012 5:23:58 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
Reads like a perfectly sound and sensible article to me, with profoundly sensible and balanced objectives - excepting perhaps to the knockitdown, plough it up, hate the environment lobby - the same people who want to fish our oceans to destruction and pollute the planet to asphyxiation in their mindless egotistical pursuit of 'development' and a plasma TV in every home.

Those who do not appreciate the significance and value of biodiversity should stick to their knitting.

As for UN knockers, what other organisation would be better placed to set forth effective and manageable policies to ensure the future comfortable and affordable sustainability of our voracious species on this fragile planet? Ms Gillard and Co? The United Federation of Underwater Basket Weavers?

More power to the IFPRI in my book, and may they live long and prosper.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 14 June 2012 6:46:33 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
Reading articles like this sets my teeth on edge.

So many words.

So little meaning.

"In [a green] economy, the pursuit of growth is reconciled with sustainable development through increased resource-use efficiency, with the ultimate objective of simultaneously promoting economic development, environmental protection, and social welfare."

Impressive-sounding words. Yet nowhere in the article does the author give the faintest hint as to how this might be achieved in practical terms. Nowhere are any problems or impediments described, or even alluded to. But more importantly, there isn't even a half-hearted attempt to describe the means by which any of this might possibly come about.

"...eight policy actions are recommended"

To whom are they addressed? Do the report's authors actually live in the same world that we do?

They clearly don't, as they are based in Washington D.C., the world's capital for bludgers, hangers-on and gravy-trainers.

Who paid for this, I wonder. And are they impressed with its earth-shattering recommendations?

"Integrate food and nutrition security into sustainable development"

That is a goal, not an objective. Let alone a strategy, a plan or a tactic. And not a hint of "how".

"Establish social protection systems to protect the poor when food prices go up"

Who will do this, and with whose money? Presumably it will be funded by the farmers, whose crops will - apparently - suddenly become very scarce and extremely desirable.

"Identify new indicators to evaluate impacts and policy implications of a green economy"

Ummm... that's a good one. Presumably the current "indicators" are insufficient to evaluate the impacts. Yet the author is quite happy to witter on about policies, despite confessing that no-one has the tools to evaluate their efficacy.

So is it possible that I'm deep-down envious that these folks have a cushy job on the public's tab, and can get away with publishing meaningless dross like this?

Nah, don't think so. I have at least a modicum of self-respect.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 14 June 2012 7:27:04 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
Rhian, you said

“Promote innovations in biological sciences, food technologies, and natural resource use ” surely includes technologies such as the green revolution and biotech, including GM.

No, it doesn't, it considers synthetic biology, geo-engineering, genetic modification, nuclear energy and nanotechnology as high risk industries to be restricted."Open trade" is about the FREE transferral of technologies to developing countries through the UN without the normal commercial processes operating. See paragraph 31
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 14 June 2012 9:29:30 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
Aargh, this is so terrible. I just throw my hands in the air with despair!

Shenggen Fan, please, do not just accept that;

<< The world's population is expected to surpass 9 billion people by 2050.. >>

Let’s strive to make that level a whole lot lower by 2050.

Come on, all your efforts are aimed at one side of the equation – increasing the supply of food, and completely ignoring the ever-increasing demand for food, or just blithely taking it for granted.

This is crackers!!

We have GOT to address both sides of the equation… and put at least as much effort into halting population growth as we put into increasing food supplies.

Crikey I get sick of saying this, in response to so many OLO articles.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:08:28 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
True, Ludwig.

>>Let’s strive to make that level a whole lot lower by 2050... Crikey I get sick of saying this, in response to so many OLO articles.<<

You do indeed.

But you fall somewhat short on the "who", and a very long way indeed on the "how".

We have become accustomed to the sight of wringing your hands every time someone mentions the future without including a homily against people having children. But it does wear a little thin after a while.

On present trends, according to some pundits (and not others, of course; this is the future we're talking about after all) world population will peak in the middle of this century, and then begin a catastrophic decline, until we disappear completely under the weight of our own doom-mongering.

I made the last bit up, of course. But it is as likely as any other scenario, is it not.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 15 June 2012 10:17:56 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
Dear Pericles,

I think we have a choice. We can reduce our population to a reasonable size (A reasonable size is dependent on how we decide to live, the resources we have etc.) in a rational manner or we can let the old standbys of pestilence, conflict and famine reduce it. Somehow it will be reduced. However, any consideration of sustainability must consider population size for it to be a meaningful consideration.

It will not mean doom if our population is reduced to zero. I doubt that we will take all other life with us. Without us they will get along.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 June 2012 10:34:30 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
"It will not mean doom if our population is reduced to zero. I doubt that we will take all other life with us. Without us they will get along."

Well David.F, I suppose worse things could happen than the elimination of the human race by putting our future in the lands of the sterilisation lobby. Try getting a plumber on a Friday night. That's a tough one. Or remembering your frequent flyer pin number.

I'm all for sustainability. I use the word a lot when I don't know the facts that precede the term or the consequences of using the term. Soon it will be used as a catch all reply.

Q. Did you have a good night out?
A. It was barely sustainable.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 15 June 2012 12:00:26 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
I wrote;

<< Crikey I get sick of saying this, in response to so many OLO articles. >>

Pericles, you wrote;

<< You do indeed. But you fall somewhat short on the "who", and a very long way indeed on the "how". >>

Well, that’s not true at all. I have many times expressed the things that need to be done in order to address population growth and sustainability, and who should be doing them.

I have often thought that in most of your posts you are good at having a fine old critique but poor in offering alternatives.

As old CJ used to say; pot calling kettle black!?

Fact is; we just keep on seeing articles on OLO in which the authors demonstrate the most amazing blind spot towards population growth.

And in their efforts to address only one side of the demand / supply equation, they are actually facilitating population growth and hence arguably taking the planet further away from sustainability and towards a bigger crash event.

I point this out wherever I see it. And rightly so. But I’m not the only one on this forum who does it.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 15 June 2012 1:36:18 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
What is the evidence we have too may people on the planet? Simply asking because people are generally healthier and better fed then there were when had 1 billion.
Posted by Atman, Friday, 15 June 2012 2:14:20 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
I have some sympathy for you Ludwig.

You have been one of the most strident members of the anti-pops, asserting that over-population has caused everything from genital herpes, rising sea levels, famine, pestilence and every nasty found in the Book of Revelation. You are dedicated.

I wonder though if your stridency of only selecting people (and especially people who eat and live in a capitalist societies) as being the sum cause of all agents of evil change, isn't driving potential advocates away from your door?

Would not a wiser policy be to admit a raft of social, economic, historial and political influences are also at play rather than to simply blame it all on people?
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 15 June 2012 3:10:28 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
Atman,

>>..people are generally healthier and better fed then there were when had 1 billion.<< ?

How'd you like to live in Soweto, or Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, the Congo or any one of the rubbish tip resort establishments or manual mining facilities scattered throughout South America, India or Africa? Etc ... World Freedom from Hunger Campaign ring any bells, or Medicin sans Frontiers, Care International and the Red Cross? Etc... Malaria, dysentery, tuberculosis, Aids, etc?

All hunkydory living comfortably in Oz with the blinkers firmly affixed.

So, we're all right Jack, and that's all that counts? Yeh, right.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 15 June 2012 3:22:38 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
Saltpetre

Surely the question is, which policies are most likely to deliver improvements in living standards in countries like those you mention?

Atman is right. Living standards for most people around the world are better than at any time in history, by any objective measure. Life expectancy is longer, infant mortality is lower, literacy is higher, nutrition is better, and access to clean drinking water is more prevalent. This is not only true in rich countries like Australia, but also in poor ones, on average.

Therefore, Ludwig’s argument that the solution to poverty is to cut population is not compatible with the evidence.

This is not, of course, to say that we have nothing to worry about. There are far too many poor and hungry people in the world, and probably many things that we could and should do to address those problems. The question is, what?

If we take a standard green position that western industrialisation and population growth are the causes of poverty in developing countries, it will lead us to one set of policy prescriptions.

If we take a standard economic perspective, that industrialisation has raised living standards in both developed and developing countries, that trade is good for the poor and technologies such as the green revolution and golden rice can contribute to human welfare, then it will lead to virtually the opposite set of policy prescriptions.

I believe both sides of the argument are sincere in their desire to raise living standards in developing countries, but they differ radically in their interpretations of its causes and therefore the best measures to address it. Which narrative best fits the facts is therefore a vitally important question. In my view, the economic one does.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 15 June 2012 3:45:01 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
Folks. The continuing submissions on population control both here and in innumerable publications is ok but, where are the realistic/practical/workable suggestions as to what to do about it?

Perhaps the Chinese solution? Will never happen in a democracy.

The Chinese government is currently facing a Gordian knot problem with an 'unintended
Consequence'.

Those couples now ageing, with only one child to provide for them, are looking for help to survive from a government without an 'old age' infrastructure, retirement villages, pension system etc etc etc.

Atman, a ripost worthy of an Olympic fencer. Indeed, most of us are indeed healthier and better fed now than when the planet had 1 billion. Think you may be onto something there.

Cheryl, I fear you have indeed identified the new and latest 'catch all' for any action we may need to justify! I fear that a google word count on the use of this multi defining word will skyrocket post Rion +20 conference.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 15 June 2012 3:49:25 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
*Therefore, Ludwig’s argument that the solution to poverty is to cut population is not compatible with the evidence.*

Well you could try it, Rhian. Throw away that pesky family planning
and have another baby every time you feel like sex. Then tell me
if its easier feeding, clothing and educating two or ten.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 15 June 2012 4:14:05 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
You would possibly have had more credibility, Ludwig, if you had picked just one example from the "many".

>>I have many times expressed the things that need to be done in order to address population growth and sustainability, and who should be doing them<<

Being specific about something - or at least attempting to be specific - often has the effect of providing some clarity to the issue. One specific is the situation in China. Here's an excerpt from a recent article in The Economist.

"In the traditional Chinese family, children, especially sons, look after their parents... But rapid ageing also means China faces what is called the “4-2-1 phenomenon”: each only child is responsible for two parents and four grandparents. Even with high savings rates, it seems unlikely that the younger generation will be able or willing to afford such a burden. So most elderly Chinese will be obliged to rely heavily on social-security pensions."

http://www.economist.com/node/21553056

Another specific is the situation in many parts of Africa. Each year, the increase in the population of Africa exceeds the total population of Australia. Indeed, one fairly reliable estimate has the continent housing nearly 22% of the world's population in 2050, up from around 15% today.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/06/africa-faces-explosive-population-growth/

To me, that indicates that in order to make any significant progress, the Ludwig Solution should not concern itself quite so much with Australian immigration.

>>I have often thought that in most of your posts you are good at having a fine old critique but poor in offering alternatives<<

But at least I don't pretend to have an answer, unlike some people.

I hope you don't mind if I quote you, from an earlier post.

"The most important thing can be done with the stroke of a pen, without any new laws being introduced – simply reduce immigration to about net zero."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13492#233703

Yeah, that should do it.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 15 June 2012 5:02:58 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
>>and a very long way indeed on the "how".<<

I hear that wearing a little rubber thingy on the end of your cock can prove quite effective.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 15 June 2012 5:21:41 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
Now let’s see Cheryl, how many things did you get totally wrong in your last post?

1. Anti-pops.

2. << You have been one of the most strident members of the anti-pops, asserting that over-population has caused everything from genital herpes.. >>

Erm. No I haven’t asserted any such thing. That’s one hard and fast assertion about me that you’ve invented out of thin air.

3. << I wonder though if your stridency of only selecting people (and especially people who eat and live in a capitalist societies)… >>

I have repeatedly quoted Paul Ehrlich’s famous equation; I = PAT, which immediately demonstrates that it is not only people or population growth that needs to be addressed. But it is the factor that so often gets left out. You know that. So that’s your second deliberately false assertion.

But hey that’s your style isn’t it Cheryl. You don’t just jump to the end of the spectrum in your responses, you deliberately INVENT STUFF… which really does amount to defamation.

Wow. Any subintelligent goose can do that. But it takes a bit of nous to be able to acknowledge a person’s true position and then debate them on that basis. Nous you don’t have, so it seems.

Your style is very strange, given that your alter-ego, Malcolm King is an article writer on OLO and apparently wants to be taken seriously on various other subjects.

Hey BTW, that was a hooter of statement you made in your previous post:

<< I'm all for sustainability. >>

Mmmmwaa hahahahaaaaa!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 15 June 2012 9:48:44 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
Wow, I can certainly see why this snippet of an article has raised the hackles of posters here, it's the perfect example of what, by analogy, in literary jargon used to be called New Criticism, or formalism, translated to the real world. That is, the author of the article completely ignores the context of an increasingly desperate planet, focusing on the text (the issue) in isolation, or as if the planet was infinite.
I just love the culmination of the first paragraph of the article—“simultaneously promoting economic development, environmental protection, and social welfare”.
I've heard of optimism but this is ridiculous! s/he even uses the "win win solution" slogan to help this gargantuan turd pass--it's worthy of Matt Ridley! As if s/he's actually said anything, or solved something, beyond mixing-up a dirty great magic pudding!
S/he's got to be an economist; either an undergraduate or a 30-year maestro (there's no qualitative difference).
In one respect though s/he's quite right; s/he takes the context for granted, capitalism, and as "I'm" tired of saying, it can only grow, folks. It doesn't do contraction.
You cannot have modern capitalism (based on a bourgeoisie) without economic/material growth; at best it must devolve into feudalism, or in modern parlance, the rule of corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Corporations_Rule_the_World
I wonder which one Shenggen Fan works for, or is aiming for...
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 15 June 2012 11:27:13 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
"Promote innovations in biological sciences, food technologies and natural resource use that prioritize the needs of smallholders in developing countries.'

But innovations in biological sciences and food technologies "don't" prioritise the needs of smallholders in developing countries......mostly they prioritise the profits of multi-national mega-corporations in the Western world - often at the expense of smallholders in developing countries, who are driven into debt while their land is degraded, their water tables are polluted and depleted and their ancient knowledge of biodiversity is lost.

Here's an oldie, but a goody, from Vandana Shiva - "Poverty and Globalisation".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 15 June 2012 11:57:19 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
Everything ain't equal. My heart really bleeds for poor old China with its 8-10% GDP growth maybe having to turn around and support some of the olds arising from its one child policy. (Or, do you think they might do another Mao Grand Experiment and just let the olds starve and die 'for the greater good'.)
One way or another, China's population may continue to decline to genuinely 'sustainable' levels - but maybe not so its industrial development. (Or, are those two possibilities mutually exclusive anyway.)

In Oz of course, with our 3% growth, we have no compunctions about supporting our older citizens - it's just with finding jobs for the young that we seem to have a problem.

There's growth, and there's growth. It seems to me that for any population to be truly sustainable, one has to draw a line - numbers vs quality of life. If one adds the maintenance of forests, rivers, oceans and biodiversity into the 'quality' component, we have some very serious concerns ahead of us.

"Open" Trade I can see becoming totally controlled and restricted trade (maybe the world can do with less Madagascar sisal, so that the lemurs could have a bit more habitat). Sustainable produce means a closed equation - with an end to degradation, exploitation, pollution and forest/habitat destruction, the rationing of fertiliser resources, and an end to wishful thinking about GM being able to overcome all obstacles to exponential growth.

Immigration not a problem? Try Malaysia, Italy, Germany, etc, with its rise of Supremacist or ethnic cleansing movements (and football "heroes"), try Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Sri Lanka, .. Try the European financial crisis generally.
So, we could take a few more refugees in Oz, and that will achieve, what exactly?
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 16 June 2012 1:02:45 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
An absurd jumble of self-contradictory statements.

Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests.

A so-called green economy just means that everything people want more of will be made more expensive so as to provides taxes to pay for things that people want less of. That's why they need "policy" (= control based on threats of force) to make it happen; otherwise there'd be no need for government to anything, would there?

"Sustainable" is just the new meangingless catchphrase meaning communist. The government will tell everyone else to do. It's a garbled mixture of the Christian concept of paradise (all economic problems of scarcity permanently banished in a morally superior wonder-state), and communism (government will rationalise scarcity better than the market ever could.

But the even more stupid part of the article is the idea that, by restricting food production or giving more control of it into the hands of government, we're going to provide greater food security! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The socialists showed what happens last time they took over food production - millions of people died of starvation. How can central planning be in any better position this time around.

Those who approve the article are merely displaying their economic ignorance, moral conceitedness and stupidity to the point of dangerousness.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 16 June 2012 1:03:14 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
An absurd jumble of self-contradictory statements.

Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests.

A so-called green economy just means that everything people want more of will be made more expensive so as to provides taxes to pay for things that people want less of. That's why they need "policy" (= threats of force) to make it happen; otherwise there'd be no need for government to anything, would there?

"Sustainable" is just the new meangingless catchphrase meaning communist. The government will tell everyone else what to do or not do. It's a garbled mixture of the Christian concept of paradise (all economic problems of scarcity permanently banished in a morally superior wonder-stasis), and communism (government will rationalise scarcity better than the market ever could) - without ever saying how this is to be brought about, except by "policy".

But the even more stupid part of the article is the idea that, by restricting food production or giving more control of it into the hands of government, we're going to provide greater food security! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The socialists showed what happens last time they took over food production - tens of millions of people died of starvation. And that was when they *didn't* think how wonderful it would be if billions of people just somehow became dead, as the modern socialists do. How can central planning be in any better position this time around?

Those who approve this article are merely displaying their invincible ignorance and moral conceitedness to the point of dangerousness.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 16 June 2012 1:07:40 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
Jardine K. Jardine wrote: "Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests."

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

Both governments and corporations do economic planning. In fact the same planner may move back and forth between government and the corporate world.

To assume economic planning is somehow good when it is done by a corporation and bad when it is done by government is ideology not common sense.

The emphasis in corporations is the maximisation of profits. The emphasis in government is how to keep and retain power.

Neither emphasis is for the benefit of the general public. One of the mechanisms by which governments keep power and corporations maximise profits is to persuade the general public that corporate and government actions are in the interests of the general public. Public relations professionals who manipulate the public to accept government and corporate acts also move back and forth between the government and corporate worlds.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 16 June 2012 10:03:20 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
david f
The difference is that the retention of power by monopolists of power is not, of itself, any indication of a good for anyone but them; and there is plenty of reason and evidence that it's a being used to produce bads.

But it's not valid to assume, as you seem to, that the making of profits automatically proves a misallocation of resources. This idea comes ultimately from Marxist theory that, since all value is imputable back to the labour factors and only the labour factors of production, therefore profit self-evidently proves a rip-off of the working class as a class.

Marx was wrong but even if you believe he was right then it's not consistent to tolerate any profit at all, or any private ownership of the means of production at all, the result of which would be mass starvation and other major abuses.

Putting aside the making of profits by virtue of government interventions, the making of profits can only be done by the voluntary payments of the consumers. The consumers will only hand over the money if they evaluate the final product as better in satisfying their wants than the factors of production that went into making it, or anything else they could've bought with the money, obviously, else they'd buy those other things instead.

Therefore the value they get is self-evidently greater than the profits, and it is not valid to assume that profits self-evidently show a misallocation of resources. Profit, of itself, does not evidence a private or public bad at all.

Not only that, but without profits, the connection between the consumers and the producers further up the line of production would be severed. The result would be mass starvation.

It's not government planning that's stopping the population from starving, it's private ownership of the means of production. It's you who are blinded by ideology.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 16 June 2012 10:24:07 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
<< Therefore, Ludwig’s argument that the solution to poverty is to cut population is not compatible with the evidence >>

Rhian, the critical problem with your conclusion is that you have not considered the longer timeline. Yes, to date average poverty has been reduced somewhat while at the same time we’ve had massive population growth.

But that cannot continue. Sooner or later we will come up against the limits. We won’t be able to keep increasing supply to meet an ever-growing demand for food (and everything else that gives people a half-decent quality of life), especially with peak oil looming.

I wonder how much more of an improvement in quality of life we would have seen over the last two or three decades if we’d been able to implement significant family planning and other population-growth-reduction measures around the world.

Population growth has greatly reduced our ability to improve the lives of the world’s poor.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 16 June 2012 10:33:55 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
Aww gee Pericles, I haven’t got the balance quite right for your liking. A little more lobbying about global population control and a little less for a reduction to immigration in Oz, you reckon!

Well, old friend, it seems to me that whatever I did, you’d find something to be critical about, and you’d concentrate on that and be very sparing indeed with supportive comments! ( :>)

Of course I lobby more frequently on Oz immigration and pop growth, because it’s both closer to home and more often in the discussion arena on OLO than world population issues.

You wrote:

<< But at least I don't pretend to have an answer, unlike some people. >>

This is quite amazing! You’re a very intelligent and articulate fellow. So…. why don’t you have any answers, or at least some pretty good ideas of how to face these issues? Where’s the Pericles Solution?

You constant criticisms of those who are trying to put forward ideas and solutions to our enormously ominous problems falls flat if it is not backed up by positive alternative courses of action.

You quoted me:

<< "The most important thing can be done with the stroke of a pen, without any new laws being introduced – simply reduce immigration to about net zero." >>

Thanks for remembering this or putting in your folder titled ‘Great quotes from Ludwig’! I hope you’ve got heaps more, that you will bring to light in future posts!

Fact is that if we were to get our government to reduce immigration to about net zero, which could be done with the stroke of a pen, we’d have Australian pop growth just about dealt with, just like that, and well and truly be on the right path towards a stable population.

<< Yeah, that should do it. >>

Huh?? You aren’t suggesting that I’m trying to assert that a reduction in Oz immigration would be a cure for world population growth are you??

Are you??

Yes, I think you are.

How very strange!

( :>|
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 16 June 2012 11:13:45 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
People like this author should have enough sense to stay out of print. While we do not know of their existence, & have no idea what these shadowy organisations are up to, they can continue to chip away at the foundations of our viable civilisation.

They have nothing to put into civilisation, they just want to control it. They obviously feel that to control it, they must first destroy it.

Once they burst forth with stuff like this article we can see the creeping scourge trying to destroy our lives.

It shouts out to anyone with even an atom of grey matter, get out of supporting NGOs & the UN, & get them out of our lives.

This article could not contain more bull dust, if we were to cram the entire annual production of the Oz heard into it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 16 June 2012 12:28:44 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
This commentary thread seems to have really hit the Fan…

I don't have any 'answers' either and it is sadly true that not all three-year-olds in emerging economies face the same future:

http://tinyurl.com/7razoyn

Problems associated with poverty and overpopulation are variously confronted at local, regional, national and global levels depending on what you're measuring - and all of these are modified by the shared variable of time.

Globally we are 'inside' an unprecedented experiment with carrying capacity - of course a continental flood basalt event could end it before humans do - just one of those time variables which can't be factored.

It's easy to forget the Permian wasn't permanent.

It's also easy to state that, whatever the future holds in store, those humans who survive will have adapted.

Since there is no prospect of humans agreeing to together pull ourselves out of any consequences of overpopulation until catastrophe is staring us in the face and we risk coming to a sticky end, the best anyone concerned can do in the meantime, is to start with themselves…

This is akin to fiddling while Rome burns.

Though, it should be added, I can't think of any potential catastrophe that is improved by having even more people caught up in it.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 16 June 2012 1:36:29 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
Jardine K Jardine wrote: "But it's not valid to assume, as you seem to, that the making of profits automatically proves a misallocation of resources. This idea comes ultimately from Marxist theory that, since all value is imputable back to the labour factors and only the labour factors of production, therefore profit self-evidently proves a rip-off of the working class as a class."

What are you taking about? I assumed no such thing. Misallocation of resources? Marxist theory? I am not a Marxist and was not critical of corporate economic planning as such. However, I did claim that neither planning may be for the public good.

A free market may be an excellent mechanism for an efficient allocation of resources. However, corporate monopolist practices and government restraint of trade may both mitigate against a free market. In modern economic practice a free market is a rarity generally confined to commodity futures. The accumulation of capital is a necessary condition for continued industrial activity whether such accumulation is achieved by the corporation or the socialist state. However, the accumulation by the corporation or the socialist state may be done in a manner not in the interest of the general public.

You claim a lot of things I didn't say and then accuse me of being an ideologue.

I repeat: "To assume economic planning is somehow good when it is done by a corporation and bad when it is done by government is ideology not common sense."

Argue with what I write. Don't put words in my mouth and argue with what I didn't say.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 16 June 2012 3:49:29 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
Jardine K. Jardine distinguishes initially between government and corporate will to power, casting the former (democratic capitalism) as detrimentally and the latter (those disinterestedly-devoted to profit) as beneficially self-serving; blithely providing for the common good through its obsessive activity—like dung beetles.
JKJ offers no evidence that a market free of government intervention would provide for the common good, it seems to be an article of faith—it could easily be argued of course that it “would” be BAD—yet he dismisses Marx’s labour theory of value, his straw man, without a hearing: “Marx was wrong”. Excuse my demur, but how so?
JKJ says that even if “he was right then it's not consistent to tolerate any profit at all”. True, though Marx had nothing against hiving-away surplus-production; indeed the capitalist era spelled the end of the practice and the exploited live hand to mouth. “Mass starvation” would indeed ensue, but that’s “because” of privateering. Private profit begat the problem JKJ claims it forestalls.
JKJ,
None of your “self-evident” claims stand up and I’ll say why when you explain why “Marx was wrong”. I don’t believe he was, at least not on that score. We are indeed dependent now on the privatisation of the means of production, but this impasse—including our prodigious numbers and consumption—was cultivated by capitalism. It’s you who’s “blinded by ideology”.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 16 June 2012 5:27:05 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
"Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse-tung), and commonly referred to as Chairman Mao" did a lot to demonstrate the limitations, the failings and the inhumanity of Marxism with his 'Great Leap Forward' and with his '100 Flowers' deception. Maybe he did bring China a long way forward, but at considerable cost to ordinary people, and he may well be considered a mass murderer. What price progress, and does the end truly justify the means?
Mao, an even greater mass-hypnotist than Hitler. (And responsible for at least as many deaths, it would seem.) And, was Mao's tutor, Joseph Stalin, any more successful, in the end result?

david f,

>>A free market may be an excellent mechanism for an efficient allocation of resources.<<

I wonder. I'm glad you said 'may', but I still wonder. What can be the best 'free' mechanism, and can it ever really be free, considering how much of the world's resources is being annexed (one way or another) by the affluent powers, even as we speak?

JKJ, profit is essential for development, innovation and productivity improvement. Few governments make a profit, although most would be expected to invest in innovation, like our CSIRO for example.

Perhaps the greatest limitation to government innovation and enterprise is the seemingly endless need for talkfests before deciding what to do or how to do it - over, and over and over again. 'Bureaucracy' conjures up many derogatory connotations. But, free enterprise must also be subject to appropriate restrictions and requirements, if only to minimise the advent of 'unintended consequences'.

A delicate balance would seem the only certain way forward, and to my mind the current philosophy of 'level playing field' and 'free trade' really operate as a form of blackmail - with self-interested governments calling the shots.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 16 June 2012 8:19:20 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
Dear Saltpetre,

Even when the free market is the most efficient method of allocating resources the most efficient method of allocating resources is often not the most important consideration. Social justice (which has no universally agreed definition), minimising human suffering, preservation of the environment and biodiversity and limiting population growth may all be more important than the most efficient allocation of resources. Bear in mind that the free market as defined by Adam Smith rarely exists.

His definition requires:

1. No producer is big enough to affect the market by itself.

2. No consumer is big enough to affect the market by itself.

3. The commodity produced by one producer is indistinguishable from the same commodity produced by another producer.

Brand names, advertising, large corporate entities and many of the other components of a modern economic system are incompatible with Smith's vision of a free market.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 16 June 2012 8:40:03 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
Squeers, if someone pays $10 million for labour to dig a gold mine, and the mine ends up producing only one ounce of gold, the value of the ounce of gold isn’t $10 million, is it? No. So the labour theory of value is wrong.
And if you're out walking your dog and idly kick a rock, which turns out to contain a kilogram of gold, the value of the gold isn’t the market value of the labour that went into it, is it? No.
Or if I hire a top QC to knit doylies, and it takes him a day to make one, the value of the doylie isn’t $10,000, the value of his labour for a day, is it?
If the LTV were correct, no business would ever make a loss, because the value of its product would be the accumulated value of the labour that went into it.
Therefore the LTV is wrong and since Marx’s entire economic theory rested on it, Marx was wrong.

David f, I have argued with what you writ. Private and state economic planning are categorically different, for at least three reasons:
1. private revenues are obtained voluntarily which shows that the payers place a higher value on what they get than what they give; the reverse is true for states.
2. property owners have an incentive not to waste it, whereas those who dispose of public property have no such incentive, and indeed have an incentive to try to increase taxation
3. states are, to the extent of state ownership, incapable of economic calculation in terms of money prices of capital goods, which means
a) there is no way that they can know what or how is rational to produce in terms of any lowest common denominator of consumers’ evaluations, and
b) the bigger the state the greater the economic chaos and waste it generates.

Can you define monopoly in a way that describes any real-world business, and explain why it’s bad? I don’t think you can.

On the other hand, states are by definition monopolies, so that’s no improvement.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 16 June 2012 11:13:12 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
Dear Mr Jardine,

Let's return to what you wrote: "Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests."

A person looks for a job as a central planner. That is a bureaucratic function. The opportunities for such a function are in government or the corporate world. He or she can also go into a university and teach.

Central planning is done in both corporations and government. What is your evidence that any of those who function as central planners think that "humans are a plague of pests?"

What is your evidence that those who do central planning for government are essentially different than those who perform the same function for a corporation?

You attacked central planners as such. You have cited no evidence to justify your attack?

"You fool" is insulting and rude. You were not civil. I hope you will be civil. This is a discussion group where such language is out of place.

Please cite evidence to justify your attack on central planners.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 17 June 2012 3:27:18 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
I make no apologies for being a realist, Ludwig.

>>...why don’t you have any answers, or at least some pretty good ideas of how to face these issues? Where’s the Pericles Solution?<<

If I were so inclined, I could dream up any number of schemes that would stabilize the world's population, and ensure that everyone is properly fed. Sadly, due to the nature of the problem itself - in that it involves human beings, and not merely numbers on a spreadsheet - none of those well-meaning fancies would have the remotest chance of success.

The logic behind this is as follows.

Any "solution" would need to be mandated by government.

Any government who interfered with their citizens' lives to such an extent, would not be elected.

Any non-elected government would discover that even they do not have sufficient control over their citizens' lives to achieve the desired result. Even well-intentioned actions, such as China's one-child policy. Note its effect on gender balance in the community, and ponder what actually had to happen, in order to cause that imbalance.

What we are left with is, in its purest sense, the will of the people. To impose any "solution" is in direct violation of this, and simply a matter of nanny-knows-best.

Or Ludwig, in this instance.

>>Huh?? You aren’t suggesting that I’m trying to assert that a reduction in Oz immigration would be a cure for world population growth are you??<<

Not at all. But consider the problems associated with even that one small policy step. Creating "Fortress Australia", and repelling all boarders, would be interpreted as an act of belligerence, and would have many economic and social repercussions. You might like to think some of these through, alongside any internal population-control mechanism you may have in mind.

>>Fact is that if we were to get our government to reduce immigration to about net zero, which could be done with the stroke of a pen<<

The stroke of a pen? That's pretty impressive. What would be the words on the piece of paper that is being signed, do you think?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 17 June 2012 9:55:37 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
Saltpetre, there's a big difference between Marx and Marxism.

Jardine K. Jardine,
That's very amusing, but like I said, only a strawman. Marx's LTV is far more complex than that. Besides, your scenarios take the already existing, utterly corrupted, state of affairs as the real data, like treating a cancer "as" the organism it's invaded. This isn't fair to Marx or to the kind of free-market ideology you favour. If we had a genuinely free market, QC's wouldn't earn $10,000 per hour, unless it was the kind of neo-feudalist/corporate-rule I alluded to.
As you well-know, speculation is part of the entrepreneurial process and is a calculated, science-based, statistical-investment whose losses are gambled against projected profits. Reckless gambling produces bankrupts (small speculators), but this has minimal effect say on the price of gold overall as it's anticipated, in fact amounts to a dividend, driving up the price, for the big players whose own investments are virtually guaranteed. In order to analyse the crime scene, Marx went back to first causes, life, whereas you analyse the tumour.
The sophisticated state of late capitalist economics has the illusion of having transcended quaint notions such as the LTV, yet it is ultimately reducible to the "surplus value" derived from underpaying or overworking labour, or some such fundamental inequality/exploitation. Profit can't be created from nothing, it depends on exploiting need, both at the level of production (labour) and consumption.
But I'm more interested in your economic/anarchist ideology, the economic utopia of pareto optimality, which even if achieved would surely prove a dystopia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCuI-2LI6-M
and couldn't be sustained in a closed system anyway. It's not a matter of whether or not to regulate the capitalist cancer, but of killing it before it kills us.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 17 June 2012 10:05:08 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
One attempt at finding an answer has been around for nearly 300 years – though limited to addressing issues in Ireland, it was at least written by the Dean of St Patrick's in Dublin, so combines a religious perspective with local knowledge.

It is a modest proposal.

No really, that's what it's called – "A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public"

It is not a particularly long, but it is a particularly rewarding read.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 17 June 2012 10:17:41 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
*Profit can't be created from nothing, it depends on exploiting need, both at the level of production (labour) and consumption.*

Squeers, healthy profit can be generated, by simply cutting waste.
No need to exploit anyone.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 17 June 2012 11:13:43 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
Soviet collectivization of agriculture? Rudd and Gillard’s pink batts? You’re already looking at loads of evidence: you’re not understanding its significance because your theory is wrong.

I just showed three reasons why private and state economic planning are categorically different. Your last post pretends it didn’t happen. Can you show why my three reasons are wrong? If you can, please do; and if you can’t please admit them.

I also challenged you to give a meaningful definition of monopoly that applies to any business in the real world and show why it’s bad. You just pretended it didn’t happen. If you can’t do it, then admit it; and if you can, please do.

This means that I’ve shown why private and state economic planning are categorically morally and economically different. You responded by just re-asserting your erroneous belief that the economic planning that corporations and that states do is essentially similar.

“A person looks for a job as a central planner.”

The basis of your mistake is that you’re looking at it from the point of view of the employee. You have to look at it from the point of view of the person directing their operations.

Your belief that they are both “bureaucratic” is wrong, because one operates by profit and loss, and the other doesn’t. They are fundamentally different. You won’t be able to understand why, unless you can show reason why my 3 reasons are wrong. All it means is that you’ve just lost the argument.

The green movement, by shutting down production all over the world on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests, is already causing the deaths of large numbers of people.

Considering your belief system is violence-based and killing large numbers of people, the fact that you don’t understand what you’re talking about is no excuse, because I’m showing you rational disproofs and you’re evading them; and the same goes for the author of the article and Ludwig and the green movement in general. Being called fools is the least of the backwash you should expect.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 17 June 2012 1:07:24 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
Jardine wrote: "Considering your belief system is violence-based and killing large numbers of people"

To paraphrase my dead mother-in-law, you know as much about my belief system as an ox knows about art.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 17 June 2012 1:29:05 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 green movement, by shutting down production all over the world on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests, is already causing the deaths of large numbers of people.*

Nothing like the Catholic Church, who through their anti condoms,
anti family planning policies, are causing the untold suffering
and starvation of millions, let alone death through hiv in Africa
and other places.

At the end of the day, without an environment, their won't be a humanity. We are not above nature.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 17 June 2012 1:36:10 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 green movement, by shutting down production all over the world on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests, is already causing the deaths of large numbers of people.<

JKJ, it's not about 'shutting down production', it's about doing better with what is already developed, and in working better with the remaining 'environment'. Arguably it is environmental destruction for short-term gain to keep already unsustainable populations growing to even greater un-sustainability which is now responsible for so much famine and starvation. Deserts have been created by de-forestation, erosion and salinity caused by loss of ground cover, weed proliferation caused by loss of soil fertility - all by excessive and destructive exploitation. There are better ways to work with the environment and with remaining agricultural resources to achieve sustainable outcomes - including applying technology, resources and planning to restore degraded land to productive capacity.

Humans a 'pestilence' on the face of the planet? It appears to be getting that way, and a 'more of the same' approach to housing and feeding the masses is just not going to cut the mustard.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 17 June 2012 2:51:18 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 squeers, the labour theory of value is right because capitalism is exploitative, and capitalism is exploitative because the labour theory of value is right?

FAIL.

But even if your theory were right, and it's obviously illogical, all it would mean is that you believe that private property should be abolished. So what did you have in mind to feed the masses, the collectivisation of agriculture? Perhaps if you socialists kill another 100 million people, it will work eventually?

david f
The honesty of an admission that you can't show reasons answering my argument, and can't defend, or even understand your own, would suffice.

yabby
I don't know where you got the idea is that the issue is about being "without an environment". Absurd hyperbole. It's about competing human values on the same thing, and whether the decisions are to be made on the basis of freedom and property and mutual advantage, or demagoguery and violence and zero-sum bullying.

If it's not about shutting down production, then all those green laws restricting production don't exist I suppose?

And it's no use asserting that central planning makes better use of resources. That's precisely what's in issue. I've shown why it doesn't and can't, so unless you can show reason why that's wrong, all it means is that you've lost the argument and are going round in circles.

Saltpetre
"and a 'more of the same' approach to housing and feeding the masses is just not going to cut the mustard"

You personally aren't volunteering to starve - you just think it would a wonderful idea for other people to do?

Anyway thanks for your demonstration of the fascism that underlies your deluded religion of statism. Perhaps if you keep worshiping at the anus of government some holy manna will come out eventually?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 17 June 2012 6:14:21 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
*on the basis that the environment has value over and above (other people’s) human interests*

This was my point, Jardine. The environment does in fact have value
over other peoples interests, at times. In fact it can't be valued,
because without it, there is no humanity.

I am hardly one who supports central planning. I am hardly one
who supports Govt interference, when it is not required. But I also
understand basic biology and without sustainable ecosystems, not
much will live.

Just look at the global fish population to see what happens when
nobody sets limits. Or go to Japan to the areas where nuclear power
went wrong, too see when human stupidity rules. The list is endless.

Too many people is a far bigger threat to the human race then too
few people.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 17 June 2012 6:31:39 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
WmTrevor,
The essay is a favourite of mine. In fact I've aired my own modest proposal on OLO re overpopulation. I've suggested we develop a nano-virus that arbitrarily kills one human in say every five. We could go for equality in terms of gender and age group etc., but otherwise programme the nanos to eradicate one fifth, painlessly and preferably hygienically, but with no regard for demographics. We could conduct such a human cull to coincide with census dates, in the name of efficiency.
This is the recourse we'll be driven to (though it won't be nearly so "civilised") if we don't learn to live within our means.
A downside of the Enlightenment is the logic that everything can or should be systematised, that we should turn ourselves over body and soul to one rubric or another. We don't conduct our individual lives along such lines, according to some preordained regimen; we leave room for spontaneity, not for spontaneity's sake, but because every step is uncertain. It's what makes life worth living--cutting the coat according to the cloth, but doting on the buttons and the frills and the arrangement. I abhor all the systematisers, left and right, who would devote life to some model; who would model human life and consciousness according to an abstract, numerical model, as if any political economy could, Hari Seldon-like, anticipate the utter contingency of life. If I want that, I might as well be reborn an ant.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 17 June 2012 7:13:03 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 environment does in fact have value over other peoples interests, at times."

There's fundamental problems with this view. If we take away all the humans, there's no value in the environment to speak of. And if there is, it only begs the question why this, rather than that, human should have the overriding right to say what it is. There would automatically be a conflict between his human interest and that of the environment. If your statement were true, then no human would have a right to say what that super-human value is, obviously.

So the question must always ultimately resolve to conflicts between humans over how to satisfy inconsistent interests and values in the usage of a particular earthly thing.

And nothing you have said has given any reason in favour of the theory of super-human values in the environment. The depletion of natural resources is only relevant because it adversely affects some people's interests. Those who deny this merely assert their own inconsistent interest; and thus prove me right and you wrong.

Besides, did you notice that *both* the examples you cited involve cases of goods in common, not private ownership?

So it is no solution to conjure solutions from the state, as if in the state we had discovered a race of disinterested angels. It's an absurd idea. The fact is, the state is faced with all the same problems of knowledge, capacity and virtue as everyone else, AND has additional insuperable problems as well that necessarily cause more waste and injustice, as I have shown above.

The idea that problems of scarcity, or misplaced values, can be presumptively solved by vesting power in a territorial monopoly of aggressive force, incapable of economic calculation to the extent of its ownership, doesn't make sense. And that's why no-one here has been able to defend it without blatant illogic like squeers and david f.

There are already people going hungry in the world. Obviously restricting the production of food is going to cause people to die. That's what the greens and statists are in favour of.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 17 June 2012 7:30:15 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
*If we take away all the humans, there's no value in the environment to speak of*

Given that humans cannot survive unless they have a suitable
environment, the environment is therefore priceless, unless you
want to put a price on humanity.

**both* the examples you cited involve cases of goods in common, not private ownership*

Well no. The nuclear power station in Japan was privately owned.
Only now that the company is basically bankrupt, the State will have
to pick up the tab and the 100'000 homeless, well its just too bad.

Private and State ships have plundered the oceans and depleted fish
stocks. Private and State corporations and have dumped their toxic
sludge into rivers around the globe. Those rivers have a value to
others, even if they don't own them. So the environment has to
be considered, before the interests of others, because the consequences affect others.

*There are already people going hungry in the world.*

They could try family planning. In nature, more of any species will
be created, then will ever survive. Darwin was correct
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 17 June 2012 8:01:10 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
It just occurred to me, Squeers, that A Modest Proposal could be an ultimate benchmark of the Austrian School of economics. What greater statement about the private ownership, control, calculation of value and disposition of what one produces could there be?

It inherently puts at a further remove any argument for external or statist interventions… eg, "Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown."

Extending your Seldon reference, in supporting such a proposal I am like The Mule… in "that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good…"
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 17 June 2012 8:06:27 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
I agree with Jardine. Central planning is an unmitigated disaster and proven to be so. The Russians had to consistently set 20 million prices correctly without recourse to supply and demand characteristics which they were of course, unable to do. Being unable to match supply and demand you either get wastage or starvation. Marxism is simply a luxury of Western Leftist intellectual musing which they never need to experience because they would never choose to live under that system. In fact most 'Marxists' have never read Marx.

There is no environmental crisis. It is a manufactured myth of the Left which provides the opportunity to centralise control through organisations such as the UN which they have successfully done. They have successfully turned the human race against itself, which was the original and stated purpose, with the purpose of reducing the worth of human life to that of simply another animal in the ecosystem. Pathetic, really.
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 17 June 2012 8:31:50 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
WmTrevor,
of course we mustn't forget Swift was a satirist. The disturbing reality is the JKJ's of the world are in earnest!
I loved the Asimov series and while I was fascinated with the concept of psychohistory, I was even more intrigued by the Mule--a symbol of stubbornness, of wilfulness and unpredictability.
In retrospect it's absurd to think only a mutant could elude Seldon's science, that contingency could be tamed. Asimov was clearly a satirist too--whether he knew it or not.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 17 June 2012 9:11:23 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
Yabby, you need to compare apples with apples. Only things that are exchanged against money have a price, so the “the environment” (ie the whole environment) is literally priceless (and for that matter so is “bread” if by that we mean “all bread”) because no-one ever buys or sells “the environment” or all bread.

But that doesn’t prove that private or governmental decisions about the environment are superior; it only proves that such huge abstract aggregate concept are not useful, because no-one is ever confronted with a choice about “the environment” but only with particular aspects of it as they affect particular aspects of human existence, e.g. whether pollution of a river affects someone’s enjoyment of it.

But to compare apples with apples, it’s also priceless for any government. So there’s no reason to presume that governmental decision-making about using the environment is in any better position.

But there are lots of reason to think it’ll be worse, of which I have mentioned only three, and which no-one has been able to answer, except by evasion, circularity, sarcasm and misrepresentation – the stock-in-trade of leftist argumentation.

Fukushima might have been privately owned, however no-one considers the problem to be the destruction of the owners’ property, but the negative externalities – personal injury, pollution of air, property damage etc.

But how would governmental ownership or control be necessarily any better? That’s what no-one is answering. All they’re doing is identifying problems rooted in common ownership, such as pollution of rivers (state-owned), depletion of common (not private) fish stocks, and then alleging that the problem is not enough common ownership.

Obviously if they consider they stand for values over and above human life, the solution is simple – just kill large numbers of people, as Squeers and Divergence are openly fantasizing about doing. Then they can hardly blame capitalism because it does feed people! But that’s precisely what they’re doing!

So they have in common:
• Leftists
• Environmental problems they blame on capitalism are problems of common ownership
• Can’t rationally defend their theory or answer mine
• Anti-human
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 17 June 2012 11:22:52 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
We appear to have entered the Twilight Zone on this thread, with one amongst us who appears to have a very different view of what it means to be human in the greater context - I can only presume an Alien Predator intent on the downfall of human civilisation and the rise of the Planet of the "Apes".
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 18 June 2012 1:34:03 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
<< Sadly, due to the nature of the problem itself - in that it involves human beings, and not merely numbers on a spreadsheet - none of those well-meaning fancies would have the remotest chance of success. >>

Oh what a dismal outlook you have Pericles! One has got to wonder why you spend so much time involving yourself with all this stuff on OLO if you think the situation is hopeless.

I agree that the big stumbling block is the human psyche. The answers to all our woes are out there. It is just a matter of getting them implemented. Where there is a will, there is a way. But there isn’t the will at present. So that is the big challenge.

<< The stroke of a pen? That's pretty impressive. >>

I’m sure you know what I mean here: A big reduction in immigration in Australia would be a very easy thing to do compared to most other things that we need to do to achieve a sustainable society.

And it would be political tenable too, as most people are opposed to high immigration.

<< What would be the words on the piece of paper that is being signed, do you think? >>

I envisage that the policy under a Carr Labor government would read something like:

<< We will reduce immigration by 40 000 per year until it reaches a level that is equal to the total emigration of the previous year and then adjust it annually to equal the previous year’s emigration, hence making it net zero overall. >>

Signed: Robert John Carr
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 18 June 2012 10:19:18 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
What is "hopeless", Ludwig, is the concept that any form of government intervention can solve your problem.

>>One has got to wonder why you spend so much time involving yourself with all this stuff on OLO if you think the situation is hopeless.<<

I say "your" problem, because I believe it exists only in your mind. The weight of evidence is that the world has become more congenial and supportive of human lives than at any stage in its history. Easily demonstrated, incidentally, by the fact that the world's population continues to increase. If you have evidence to contradict this, please, let us in on it.

Along these lines, here's another train of thought for you to consider.

The most effective means to reduce third-world population - and, according to your theory, increase their overall prosperity - is to terminate all forms of overseas aid to those countries. No money, no food parcels, no medicines. The population would eventually settle to a point of self-sustainability, governed entirely by the laws of self-generated supply and demand.

"Our" problem, in this context, is that we produce too much. We have a surplus of all three commodities, which we happily export to these communities, thoughtlessly prolonging their miserable existence, and perpetuating the cycle of over-populating countries unable to survive on their own.

Is this fair? Is it humane?

Is it fair that some people are born in Ethiopia, and some in Turramurra?

Is it humane, to continue to provide the means whereby so many people are kept alive, at a subsistence level that would be totally intolerable to someone born in Turramurra, simply so that Western charities can say "we have saved x million lives this year"?

It is entirely legitimate to describe our feeble efforts to help these people as being utterly inhumane. And to recognize that we are simply reacting to our own personal guilt at being well-fed and cared-for.

I'd appreciate your observations on this line of enquiry.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 18 June 2012 11:37:21 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
Pericles, further to your previous post:

<< To impose any "solution" is in direct violation of this, and simply a matter of nanny-knows-best. >>

This is the critical flaw with your line of thinking. You are branding my solutions or suggested policies as impositions.

Not true. As I said I agree with you that the will needs to be there for things to succeed. So it is a matter of governments leading the way in getting the message out there that we need to change, especially regarding population growth.

As far as a big reduction in immigration goes in Australia and the desire for a stable population not too much higher than the current level, both the scientific fraternity and the general populace are predominantly supportive. It is the terrible in-bed relationship between government and vested-interest big business that is the main stumbling block.

And also in the third world, it shouldn’t be too difficult to convince people that having fewer kids is a very good idea, if the right support mechanisms are in place. With good government guidance, good education and the right sort of aid, sustainability-oriented policies could be implemented all over the place…with the will of the people behind them.

<< Creating "Fortress Australia", and repelling all boarders… >>

Come on Pericles, you know that net zero immigration does amount to a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality. We’d still have quite a sizeable immigration program, big enough to double our refugee intake and also allow for essential skills.

<< …would be interpreted as an act of belligerence, and would have many economic and social repercussions >>

It would most probably be interpreted as an act of common sense, especially if it was seen to be a fundamental part of a sustainability strategy. So I can’t see any significant economic or social repercussions.

What ones can you see that could be spurred by the introduction of a net zero immigration program?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 18 June 2012 1:24:40 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
*thoughtlessly prolonging their miserable existence, and perpetuating the cycle of over-populating countries unable to survive on their own.*

What we are really doing, Pericles, is lotfeeding humans in the name
of our religion. Our missionaries flooded places like Africa with
vaccines, boatloads of food etc and then told them "if you dare to
have sex, you will have another child". The third world does not
have the family planning choices and abortion facilities which we
have, the Vatican does its utmost to deny it to them. They don't have
their people stationed at the UN, for no reason.

How far these tentacles spread is evident even in Western Australia,
where the new Midland hospital, bankrolled by the taxpayer, will be
run by the Catholics and if a woman wants her tubes tied, it will
just be tough titties.She will have to find a non Catholic hospital.
At least here she can find one, unlike the third world, where UN
funding is used to run Catholic hospitals, enforcing their dogma,
at our expense.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 18 June 2012 2:38:37 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 UN's thoughts and ideas on food and population and all its
pontifications in Rio plus most of the discussion here is redundant.

How many of you have seen that graph showing population increase since
the start of coal consumption in the 19th century followed shortly by
the consumption of oil. If you have you will have noticed how very
very close the population and oil consumption graphs track.
They might in fact be considered to be the same.
They are exponential curves and we all know what happens with them.
No matter what the UN or anyone else does the population will follow
the energy curve down back towards the one billion mark.
It might lag by a 1/2 generation but it will follow.

About the only possibility of salvation will be if cold fusion comes good.
Other wise female malnutrition will take care of it all.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 18 June 2012 3:23:37 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
Problem is, Ludwig, apart from any and every other consideration, we're at the wrong point in the economic cycle for your net-no-immigration policies to be either desirable or effective.

Right now, there is a skills shortage of some significance in the key growth engines of our economy. The same growth engines that have protected us from the near-disasters that have befallen many other economies around the world. Turn the tap off now, and we will be less well-off, and horrendously under-prepared when the world economy picks up again in ten years time.

In the meantime, as the situation worsens in, say, Europe, the tendency will be for Ex-pats to return in large numbers. Ask any recruitment firm, and you will find that their books are full of professionals looking to come home. And there are half a million Aussies in Europe alone.

Your balancing act is not going to be helped if you give a returning Sydney Banker preference over a Chinese mining engineer.

Idealism is a wonderful thing, Ludwig, and it would be all very wonderful if your ideas on balanced population had the faintest chance to succeed in the real world. But they don't. And anyone who has ever run a business will tell you the same.

You see it as:

>>It is the terrible in-bed relationship between government and vested-interest big business that is the main stumbling block.<<

I see current immigration policy to be the only glimmer of understanding of the business environment that our government - or any preceding government - has ever shown. Admittedly it is only because big business has a particularly loud voice at the moment. But it is a start.

And their "vested interest", by the way, is economically extremely close to your own.

Jobs. Financial security. Stability.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 18 June 2012 4:11:50 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
Pericles,

The effects of high population growth, largely fuelled by goverment imposed mass migration, on people's quality of life in the cities and suburbs where most of us live are all too obvious: more crowding and congestion, skyrocketing utility bills and housing costs, less open space, overstretched and crumbling infrastructure and public services, permanent water restrictions, etc., etc. Furthermore, the government's own Measures of Australia's Progress reports have shown progressive deterioration in almost every environmental indicator apart from urban air quality.

You want to claim that there is some enormous economic benefit to compensate for all of this, and this may well be the case for you and your friends, but the government's own 2006 Productivity Commission report on immigration has this to say so far as the general public is concerned:

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grows more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages. The economic impact of skilled migration is small when compared with other drivers of productivity and income per capita." (p. 154, see also the graph on the next page and the graph on p. 147 showing the expected decrease in real wages).

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

Their 2010/2011 annual report says:

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite
mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
* immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
* immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing." (p. 6)

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

Furthermore, I am amazed that you feel that citizens of a country are entitled to no special consideration. We don't have a world government, and when countries go to war, it is their citizens who are sent off to fight and maybe come back with pieces missing or not come back at all.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 18 June 2012 7:02:55 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
I wrote:

< Come on Pericles, you know that net zero immigration does amount to a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality >

Ahhh ffffurballs!

Now there’s a classic example of missing word syndrome if ever there was one. Of course that should read:

< Come on Pericles, you know that net zero immigration does NOT amount to a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality >

MWS is my OLO curse! It’s the thing that bugs me the most about the whole OLO experience - that every second post I write has to have one or more missing words, that don’t get picked up in the spell and grammar checks that I do religiously for every post and which my highly wonky brain just reads straight past…. but somehow manages to pick up instantly upon re-reading after posting!! !! !!

Aaarghh!!

Alright…… end of dummy spit!

Now lets see, which post will I respond to, Pericles?

You’ve got two big fatties there full of juicy stuff to pick to pieces that I haven’t ‘attacked’ yet!

I’ll start with your post of 18 June 2012 11:37:21 AM:

You wrote:

<< What is "hopeless", Ludwig, is the concept that any form of government intervention can solve your problem. >>

Oh no. I totally disagree. Government intervention is essential. But again, it has to be seen to be the right thing by the majority of people or else they risk getting kicked out at the next election…unless the opposition is also committed to the same sort of policy.

Crikey, what’s the alternative to government intervention? Just a blind pandering to whatever the majority want, with no effort to steer us towards a better longer term outcome??

<< I say "your" problem, because I believe it exists only in your mind. >>

Wow! Now you’ve really flipped out! The problems of high immigration, continuous population growth and the need to head towards sustainability are only in my mind are they?

That's a very strange assertion!

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 9:10:23 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 weight of evidence is that the world has become more congenial and supportive of human lives than at any stage in its history >>

Yes Pericles, but do you think this can continue as the population burgeons?? Not likely. And there is no doubt that if population growth had been considerably lower over the past two or three decades, the average quality of life around the planet would have increased considerably more than it has.

<< The most effective means to reduce third-world population … is to terminate all forms of overseas aid to those countries >>

No. The most effective means is to reallocate a large portion of this aid into family planning, reducing the fertility rate and implementing support systems for those who might be adversely affected by a considerably lower birthrate.

Unfortunately, the aid regime has indeed exacerbated the problem. I understand that very little if any official Australian aid goes into schemes to help poor countries reduce their population growth rates.

Yes you could say the same about our food exports.

Perhaps the greatest human paradox of all time was the implementation of western medicine in the developing world, which quickly lowered the very high infant mortality rate and thus raised the population growth rate enormously.

So yes, if we are going to provide food for the world, we should also be providing sustainability-oriented aid, rather than antisustainability-oriented aid, which is largely what we and the western world has been offering for many decades now.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 9:12:56 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
Ludwig, some questions:
1. How do you reconcile these two statements:
“You are branding my solutions or suggested policies as impositions. Not true.”
And
“Government intervention is essential.”

The government interventions are not going to be enforced or enforceable, and not funded by taxation? Is that it? No? Then they’re going to be imposed by force and threats, aren’t they?

2. “Crikey, what’s the alternative to government intervention? Just a blind pandering to whatever the majority want, with no effort to steer us towards a better longer term outcome?”
In case you haven’t noticed, the theory of representative government, and the justification of democracy, is precisely that it does represent the majority.

But if that’s not what you want, then clearly you are trying to impose what you want on the majority.

3. How did you and Divergence get to be so fully confident that you know what values everyone else in the world should have in preference to their own? What if you are wrong?

4. You keep talking about “we” and “us”. But “we” [the people of the world] are already doing what we want, so far as we are able, given the constraints. This means that when you say “we” what you really mean is “the state”.

5. “Unfortunately, the aid regime has indeed exacerbated the problem. I understand that very little if any official Australian aid goes into schemes to help poor countries reduce their population growth rates.”
Yes indeed. The outcomes could hardly be worse if they dropped the money on the target communities by helicopter.

6. BTW what’s your take on the refugee intake?

7. Despite your confidence in government, nothing you say gives any reason for thinking that they can do anything worthwhile even in your own terms. What, apart from blind faith, is your reason for thinking that government can aid in attaining sustainability at all when a policy’s sustainability-pluses and sustainability-minuses are both taken into account? For example if your Australian migration policies were granted, how do you know what wouldn’t make the world situation less sustainable?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 10:24:16 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
Ludwig & Divergence are spot on.
There is no hope that many parts of the world will not be able to
reduce their population voluntarily and we will have to take steps to
protect ourselves as we go down the energy curve.
Unless we do it ourselves nature will do it for us by starvation.

Population will fall to match resources so just accept it !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 11:02:23 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
Jardine K. Jardine,

I find your suggestion that I somehow advocate a cull of population to be highly defamatory. If you click on Forum and then Users, you can find my complete comment history. Either link to a single post where I have advocated a cull or expressed glee at the prospect, or admit that you lied. My actual feeling is that there will be a population crash, at least in the poorest countries, but my reaction is one of sick horror, such as you might experience from watching a lunatic beat his head against a brick wall.

The Global Footprint Network is an international thinktank composed of scientists, engineers, and economists. They have actually conducted an inventory of global resources on the basis of statistics from the UN, the individual countries, and research papers. Of course, the results aren't perfect, but it is pretty obvious that we have 7 billion going on 10 billion people (from the UN medium projection) on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps 1-2 billion in modest comfort. See especially the graph on p. 21 of their 2010 atlas, where they plot environmental footprint (consumption) against rank on the UN Human Development Index (human welfare).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47405935/The-Ecological-Footprint-Atlas-2010-Global-Footprint-Network

Before 1800 global population was never as much as 1 billion. The present numbers are almost entirely due to a one-time bonanza of cheap fossil fuels and other resources that was unlocked by the Industrial Revolution. As Bazz has been trying to tell us, the party is nearly over. Food prices on the global market have skyrocketed, largely due to high oil prices, and there are serious problems due to our impact on the environmental systems that are keeping us alive, although to people like yourself, the scientists saying such things have to be deluded or part of some vast conspiracy.

(cont'd)
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:25:51 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
(cont'd)

Yes, life has improved for some, and no doubt you and Rhian would also feel great while running through an inheritance or lottery winnings, but what happens when the money is gone? Even now, most people are living in appalling povery, and according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, there are 1.1 billion people who are chronically hungry or malnourished, up from 770 million in 1996 and a greater number than the entire global population in 1800.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:28:02 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
<< How do you reconcile these two statements: “You are branding my solutions or suggested policies as impositions. Not true.” And “Government intervention is essential.” >>

Thanks for asking, Jardine.

Policies that the majority of people disagree with and which would negatively affect a lot of people are the work of an impositional government. They are the sorts of policies that put governments out of favour and get them kicked out at the next opportunity, with a reversal of policy undertaken by the next government!

However, government must surely be interventionist inasmuch as they need to guide the nation to a healthier future. They can’t just sit back and do exactly what the majority of people want all the time without trying to play a part in guiding us in a certain direction.

Hence, governments must be interventionist to some extent, and can be without being ‘impositionist’.

<< …the theory of representative government, and the justification of democracy, is precisely that it does represent the majority. >>

Well, we don’t have that in Australia, do we. We’ve got vested-interest-in-rapid-continuous-expansionism big-business and pseudoeconomist-controlled government!

And there are many things that have been implemented which the majority of people have always disagreed with, such as high immigration, the baby bonus and the re-initiation and ongoing facilitation of onshore asylum seeking.

Anyway, I would disagree that fully representative democracy is the right sort of government. It would essentially be pandering to what the majority of people want all the time, and could be even more hamstrung than it currently is in forging the right policies for our future.

We need a government that will lead, but in such a way as to garner the majority support of the people.

Now, I can’t see why this cannot happen as far as the development of policies for a sustainable future is concerned, except for one factor – the crippling stranglehold that vested-big business has on government decision-makers.

More later.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 2:06:12 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
We are all really wasting our time as ultimately we have no control.
Neither do the politicians. All we can hope with them is that they will
wake up and try and ease us down a little easier.

Here we are, James Kunstler can say it better than I can;

http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/06/hazardous-games.html

He has a way with words that does leave you with a grim smile.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 3:20:09 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
I agree, BAZZ. Capitalism is taking us to hell in a hand basket. This interview from a recent Late Night Live is edifying:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-end-of-trust3f/4066648
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 3:42:09 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
Sqeers,
I am listening to the program you recommended while I am typing
this. My opinion of Philip Adams is that he is a pompous ass.

I believe that capitalism is ending as we know it.
In the future private enterprise will be on a much smaller sale and
there will be much more of it than now.
If you want a piece of furniture, you will not go to Harvey Normans
but go down to your local shops and ask the local furniture maker how
much he will charge to make it for you.
You may even pay him in local currency, eg Hornsby quids.

This actually starting already. I bought a lounge recently and I asked
where the showroom furniture came from and was told that the only
imported furniture was a small table and chairs.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 4:20:00 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
Once again, Ludwig, you fall dramatically short on the practicability test.

>>The most effective means is to reallocate a large portion of this aid into family planning, reducing the fertility rate and implementing support systems for those who might be adversely affected by a considerably lower birthrate.<<

True. But reallocating the money will create the same level of starvation as withholding it, will it not? And your "aid" programme would be plagued by newsreel footage of starving people, begging the pilots to bring them rice, instead of condoms. A definite lose-lose situation, I would have thought...

But the truly Pollyanna part is this:

>>Government intervention is essential. But again, it has to be seen to be the right thing by the majority of people or else they risk getting kicked out at the next election…unless the opposition is also committed to the same sort of policy.<<

And "the majority" wants what, in terms of international aid? My assessment of the hoi polloi is that the majority would vote in a government that eliminate foreign aid altogether, and reallocate the savings to tax breaks for themselves.

There goes your "save the world with condoms" fix.

Errrr, hang on a minute. You also said:

>>Crikey, what’s the alternative to government intervention? Just a blind pandering to whatever the majority want<<

Isn't that exactly your definition of the sort of intervention we want? The kind that "has to be seen to be the right thing by the majority of people"?

That's a clear case of simultaneous consumption and retention of baked confectionery, if you ask me.

And I'm very sorry, you cannot possibly assert this as fact:

>>And there is no doubt that if population growth had been considerably lower over the past two or three decades, the average quality of life around the planet would have increased considerably more than it has<<

Yeah, right. If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

So, a smaller population could have achieved all the gains and efficiencies that a larger one has achieved. How on earth can you guarantee that? It's just pure speculation.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 4:38:46 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
Pericles, can't you see that it is crueler to send them just enough
food to get them to the next insufficient harvest ?
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 6:04:37 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
Divergence
Sorry, my apologies, I meant to refer to this quote by Saltpetre
“Humans a 'pestilence' on the face of the planet? It appears to be getting that way, and a 'more of the same' approach to housing and feeding the masses is just not going to cut the mustard.”

No scientists don’t have to be “deluded”, they only have to share a mistaken assumption.

The mistaken assumption shared by them and you and the author, and all the statists in this thread is that if only “we” could get enough power, we could issue directives (“policy”) which would make the economy and ecology sustainable.

This belief has no scientific or rational basis whatsoever; and I can prove it, and I say you can’t disprove it.

For starters, “we” obviously doesn’t mean everyone in the world, because the purpose of policy is to stop them doing what they want to do, otherwise the discussion would not be about policy, but voluntary actions.

However even if you personally were vested with total power over all natural resources on earth, you still wouldn’t be able, by issuing commands, to achieve economic or ecological sustainability IF that is defined to include the value of human life.

(That’s a big IF. Squeers has shown that if you scratch a green leftist, you uncover a dream of genocide – which no-one in this thread but me even remarked, let alone condemned. Why not?)

But assuming that the definition of a successful outcome does not countenance CAUSING human death, there is NO WAY that the state can do what you are assuming it can, for three main reasons.

Firstly it doesn’t have the disinterestedness. It’s not a collection of angels. They will divert the massive wealth they control to their own benefit, durr.

Secondly, the state doesn’t and can never know how to combine the factors of production in a complex civilisation in order to satisfy the most urgent wants of dispersed billions of people. And even if it could know, it couldn’t calculate economically how to do it. I’m pretty sure you don’t understand ...
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 7:43:26 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
that last point – statists never do - which involves a total demolition of the interventionists’ assumptions.

Thirdly, it doesn’t have the capacity. The part of human freedom that is not controlled by the Grand Plan of the Great Know-it-Alls will keep mucking up the plan; unless each person has an armed guard to watch over him 24/7 – the totalitarians’ dilemma.

This means that the state, far from being a selfless superman, will be faced with all the same problems as originally AND will be positively more wasteful of natural resources to achieve a given result. Thus its interventions will necessarily, not possibly, make the world less sustainable and be self-defeating EVEN IN ITS OWN TERMS.

And if it is not to achieve the same given result as is now being achieved by capitalism, it will be because it has defined a successful outcome to include causing human deaths – lots of them, just like Squeers just did, and many environmentalists openly talk about.

If complete vesting of total control over all means of production in the state is not able to achieve your purpose, then vesting of less control obviously won’t cut it. Wooly thinking and garble words like “social democracy” will not answer this point.

Now unless you can prove that the state does have the disinterestedness, the knowledge, the ability to calculate economically, and the capacity, don’t bother replying. It just means you, and the author, and Ludwig, and Squeers, and the green movement, have lost the argument, have nothing rational to reply, and are merely assuming a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent state that does not exist – a concept that truly owes more to religion than science.

For example, take the native vegetation acts; exactly the kind of “integrating” of agriculture with sustainability approved by the weasel-words of the author. These laws have massively shut down – oops “worked better with” (by stopping) the production of food in Australia. Now many people in the world are going hungry. Okay, so how do the “scientists” reconcile these two things without countenancing policy causing human deaths?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 7:47:07 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
*These laws have massively shut down – oops “worked better with” (by stopping) the production of food in Australia. Now many people in the world are going hungry*

Jardine, nobody is going hungry because Australia is not producing
more food. People are going hungry because they cannot afford to
buy it. Children are going hungry, because parents have far more
children then they can ever hope to feed and our religion denies
many of them the opportunity to do something about it.

Now if you think that capitalism will produce enough food to feed
every child that anyone ever produces, accidentaly or on purpose,
then you clearly don't understand capitalism or the laws of nature.

Pretending that you have a band aid to cover the problem and make
it go away, is deeply flawed thinking, IMHO.

So if I have twelve children, will you feed them all for me?
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 8:22:17 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
Jardine, continuing my reply to your post of Tuesday-19-June-2012-10:24:16-AM:

<< How did you and Divergence get to be so fully confident that you know what values everyone else in the world should have in preference to their own? >>

I’m not questioning peoples’ values or trying to change them. Most people, given the opportunity to have fewer kids and help steer their societies towards a better future would jump at the chance.

It’s not about changing values to any great extent, it’s about helping people get what they want in the longer term, by a person’s old age and when their children are in their prime, for example… and doing it within their cultural and religious framework.

<< What if you are wrong? >>

If I am wrong, nothing is lost. People won’t have worse lives because of efforts to reduce the fertility rate. I’m not talking about imposing a one-child policy or anything like that. But if I’m right about the impending disaster that will be caused largely by overpopulation, then we’ll be regretting that we didn’t act to reduce population growth and engender stable populations when we had the chance.

<< You keep talking about “we” and “us” >>

Yes. And….what’s wrong with that? I think the context is pretty clear whenever I am using these terms. It’s not too hard to figure out just what I am referring to. But if ever it is, then please just seek clarification.

<< Yes indeed >>

Ah, good to see we have agreement about something!!

<< …what’s your take on the refugee intake? >>

Within a net zero immigration program we should increase our refugee intake to about double the current level. But they should ALL be drawn from our offshore refugee programs and not from onshore asylum seeking which should be decisively shut down.

<< What, apart from blind faith, is your reason for thinking that government can aid in attaining sustainability… >>

How can it be done without strong governance? It can’t. Reducing immigration and all manner of other steps need a government to implement them.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 8:23:47 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
> nobody is going hungry because Australia is not producing
more food.

How do you know?
How do you know what would have happened to all that food production prevented by the NVA, and all the similar laws like it throughout Australia and the western world, and the shortage of food that it caused in a knock-on effect further down the line into other markets? You don't. I think it's almost certain that people have died of hunger because of them - probably lots. Economic phenomena are inter-related. Only the statists indulge themselves in this fantasy of re-ordering the world at whim with no downsides, like Ludwig.

"Now if you think that capitalism will produce enough food to feed
every child that anyone ever produces...

I'm not saying it will. And I'm not pretending, as all the statists are, to have the solution to the world's problems. What I'm saying is that the idea that the state can make the economy and ecology sustainable, or more sustainable, has no basis in reason or evidence, and the only reason the statists are so confident that it can, is because they
a) don't factor in the value of feeding people because they don't agree with it, like Saltpetre; and
b) don't count the downsides of state actions, like Ludwig, or blame them on "capitalism", like Squeers

> Pretending that you have a band aid to cover the problem and make
it go away, is deeply flawed thinking, IMHO.

I'm not pretending that but the statists are, and worse: they pretend they have a solution to completely solve the problem, when, like everyone else, they are completely unable to provide any rational answer to my splendid argument showing that that belief system is irrational.

>So if I have twelve children, will you feed them all for me?

No. Did I say I would? What's that got to do with the price of eggs? I'm having enough trouble fulfilling my life's mission of inseminating as many women as possible.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 10:28:25 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
*How do you know?*

I know Jardine, because I happen to be involved in the food production
industry and we always have millions of tonnes to spare for sale,
if your cheque book is large enough.

*No. Did I say I would? What's that got to do with the price of eggs?*

It's got everything to do with it. For if people keep popping out
children without worrying about how they will be fed, there will
always be hungry children. Don't blame those of us who say its
unsustainable.

* I'm having enough trouble fulfilling my life's mission of inseminating as many women as possible.*

Well exactly and you arn't the only male with the same goal. Which
makes my point that the answer is not to trash the environment to
feed all those children, but to give women the choice of family
planning. If your inseminations produce hungry children, why should
I feed them for you?
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 11:08:00 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
JKJ,

So, you don't have any solution(s) (and you even appear to deny that there is a problem), but you continue to harangue we 'statists' with an insane proposition that government (or 'state') intervention is either not possible or not warranted, or in any event doomed to failure. And your only argument in support of your denialist position is that 'free-will' will inevitably act to undermine any and all national or international policies aimed at preventing population over-run. I think you just hate government intervention of any kind, and paint yourself clearly as a Libertarian extremist.

Viz Your Post:
*>I'm not pretending ... to have the solution to the world's problems. What I'm saying is that the idea that the state can make the economy and ecology sustainable, or more sustainable, has no basis in reason or evidence<*

Gosh, the G20 obviously must be terribly mis-informed.

But, You Say the statists fail because they:
*>a) don't factor in the value of feeding people because they don't agree with it, like Saltpetre; and
b) don't count the downsides of state actions, like Ludwig, or blame them on "capitalism", like Squeers<*

Don't agree with what? Feeding people, or the value of people? My, you have an extraordinary interpretation of other people's posts. Not interested? You must be joking. What a laugh, here we are thinking we're conscientiously addressing a real and present danger to human and planetary sustainability, but you confidently assert we are just 'not interested' or just blowing off hot air.

If you expect us to defer to your masterly approach, dear maestro, you are (unhumbly) mistaken.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 1:07:21 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
<< True >>

Wahoo, Pericles! It is so good when we occasionally find something to agree on! ( :>)

<< But reallocating the money will create the same level of starvation as withholding it, will it not? >>

No of course not. I envisage that we would reallocate aid as best we can without leading to starvation or any significant negative impacts. I’m sure there is plenty of scope to do that. We certainly wouldn’t stop aid on which people depend for their very survival.

You do have a strong tendency to see things in a very black and white or all-or-nothing manner.

<< That's a clear case of simultaneous consumption and retention of baked confectionery, if you ask me. >>

Not at all. Again, you are seeing things in a very polarised manner. It’s a balancing act between government showing initiative and doing what the majority of voters want. It shouldn’t be all of one or the other.

So if the Australian people did vote for a complete cessation to international aid, then I would say it should be the duty of our government to not obey this wish and to allocate at least a little aid money to the global sustainability effort. Don’t forget that aid is not just about helping the desperately poor and grossly unsustainable, it is also about building bridges and maintaining good relations between us and many other countries, which has positive implications for trade and defence.

<< So, a smaller population could have achieved all the gains and efficiencies that a larger one has achieved. How on earth can you guarantee that? It's just pure speculation. >>

Again, it is neither absolute fact nor absolute speculation. It is somewhere in between. Not absolutely undeniable but pretty damn close to it I would think!

Please feel free to build a case against it. I’d be interested in your analysis of why you think it wouldn’t be true.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 2:52:16 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 reason that I tend to write in such a black-and-white manner, Ludwig, is to provide contrast to the sheer wishy-washy, "wouldn't-it-be-great-if" nature of your suggestions.

On every single topic, you do seem to want your cake, and eat it too.

>>I envisage that we would reallocate aid as best we can without leading to starvation or any significant negative impacts<<

"Reallocating" surely involves sending condoms, and instructions on how to use them, in the place of food and medicine. Do some calculations. How many handfuls of rice can you get for the dollar value of a condom. How many condoms would you need to ship, in order to establish a culture of safe sex practices that prevent unwanted pregnancies. How many people would have died by then, as a result of the displacement of food by condoms, eh.

These are real-life calculations, Ludwig. And real lives, too. You are trying desperately to play God, but without an infinite number of loaves and fishes to help you out.

>>It’s a balancing act between government showing initiative and doing what the majority of voters want. It shouldn’t be all of one or the other.<<

That's even more of a cop-out.

Whatever happened to:

>>Government intervention is essential. But again, it has to be seen to be the right thing by the majority of people<<

As I see it, you want some government intervention, but only that which is approved by the people, except for some of the time, when they should "show initiative" instead.

The problem would be knowing which tenet you are following at any given time: showing initiative, or obeying the will of the people.

No wonder you force me to occupy the hinterlands of absolutism.

>>Please feel free to build a case against [the potential of a smaller population over the past two or three decades]<<

Ok.

GDP per capita has increased steadily over the period. Therefore, the more people, the greater the growth in individual wealth.

Sure, it may not hold true for ever. But that's a different proposition to proactively taking action to reverse our progress.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 4:00:16 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
Ludwig, I've been following your comments for a day or so now re aid and you need aid more than our rabbit breeding neighbours.

"So if the Australian people did vote for a complete cessation to international aid, then I would say it should be the duty of our government to not obey this wish and to allocate at least a little aid money to the global sustainability effort."

That's big of you. The people of Australia elect the Government to make those decisions. Why the hell do you think that concerns the polity?

Have a little read of this: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13640

The anti-pop argument is now the equivalent of drunk dialling.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 4:34:13 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
*How many handfuls of rice can you get for the dollar value of a condom. How many condoms would you need to ship, in order to establish a culture of safe sex practices that prevent unwanted pregnancies*

Pericles, you are clearly not so well informed about secret
womens business :)

It doesen't work that way. What you have is organisations like
Marie Stopes, who operate family planning clinics in the third
world. Women get to choose between IUDs, norplants, tubal litigation
and all the rest. Condoms are a kind of last desperate resort.
These clinics had great success, but sadly when Mr Bush came to
power, lobbying by Catholics ensured that funding to many of them
was shut off. So in places like Ethiopia, it was back to feeding
any unwanted babies to the jackals.

Given that the Catholic Church operates many hospitals where women
are denied any kind of family planning, the answer is to provide
funding for speciality clinics like Marie Stopes, which do. Given
our 4 billion $ aid budget, a couple of hundred million a year or
less then 5% of aid, could help an awful lot of women have a choice
about the size of their families. Double it at the results would
be even more dramatic.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 6:51:10 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
Cheryl, that article to which you refer me, by Malcolm King, erm.. you… was a shocker!

I duly commented on it at the time.

See :http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13640#236045 and my subsequent posts.

I’ll also note that 23 people commented on it, of which practically all were in strong disagreement with you and broadly in agreement with me.

What does that tell you Malcolm…er, Cheryl?

That maybe you are just a tad out of touch with reality?

You wrote:

<< The people of Australia elect the Government to make those decisions. Why the hell do you think that concerns the polity? >>

What?? This seems like two totally contradictory statement strung together!

Yes the people elect the government to make this sort of decision; things like international aid. So as I said to Pericles; even if the majority of voters don’t want any Australian money to be spent on international aid, the government should still make the right decision and maintain an aid program.

Of COURSE this sort of thing ‘concerns the polity’! It is fundamental stuff that our politicians should be dealing with. I disagree entirely that aid should be confined to donations administered through NGOs.

<< The anti-pop argument is now the equivalent of drunk dialling >>

Like I said to you last time (and time before that and the time before that…):

< Cheryl, the huge problem with your article [and posts] is your amazing anti-people and eco-fascist rhetoric. It destroys your argument [and credibility] right from the outset >
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 8:31:58 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
<< For example, take the native vegetation acts; exactly the kind of “integrating” of agriculture with sustainability approved by the weasel-words of the author. These laws have massively shut down – oops “worked better with” (by stopping) the production of food in Australia. Now many people in the world are going hungry. Okay, so how do the “scientists” reconcile these two things without countenancing policy causing human deaths? >>

Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 7:47:07 PM.

Ah Jardine, you’ve hit a raw nerve. It may be an aside to the subject of this thread, but I cannot leave your comments unanswered.

What an almighty overstatement [read; WRONG statement] it is to say that these laws have massively shut down food production in Australia!

The sarcastic parts of your comment are in fact the truth:

These laws are aimed at integrating agriculture with a sustainable environment, with ecological values intact. Not at favouring the natural environment over agriculture, but rather; finding the right balance.

They’ve achieved this, to a fair extent. But agriculture has still prevailed. Environmental values, although much better considered than prior to this sort of legislation, have still taken a lower priority.

So what would you have had us do? Maximise food production at all costs to the environment and without any thought for the sustainability of this food production, in order to feed the world’s hungry, now, without considering the longer term?

Alright, you are only quoting this as an example. But it’s a very bad one. Take it from me, as a principle botanist and ecologist who worked in that field for more than a decade.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 20 June 2012 9:14:32 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
Yabby,

There have been some recent articles on the work of Melinda Gates and the Gates Foundation on supplying contraception to women in poor countries.

http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=AA4BAB34368965D10E689DF7E9DBA662?page=1&sy=afr&kw=director&pb=none&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=150&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=SHD1205131V6713656CC

Melinda Gates had been meeting with groups of African women in connection with the foundation's vaccine program, and she asked them what else the Gates Foundation could do for them. Again and again, they wanted access to contraception, especially long-term injectable types. These injectables can have some nasty side effects, but their advantage is that a woman can slip off to have an injection every few months with her husband and in-laws none the wiser.

This created a problem for Mrs. Gates, as she is a Roman Catholic, but she and the foundation decided to get into supplying contraception in a big way. Needless to say, she has copped a lot of criticism from conservative elements in her church, including that she was subverting the Africans' culture and conjugal relationships (by helping women to opt out of compulsory childbearing).
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 21 June 2012 9:47:34 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 reason that I tend to write in such a black-and-white manner, Ludwig, is to provide contrast to the sheer wishy-washy, "wouldn't-it-be-great-if" nature of your suggestions. >>

That doesn’t wash, Pericles, because it just doesn’t fit reality. Things are simply not black and white and are all too often delicate and very difficult balancing acts somewhere in the grey, well removed from either end-point of possible approaches.

<< "Reallocating" surely involves sending condoms, and instructions on how to use them, in the place of food and medicine >>

Yes, to some extent.

<< These are real-life calculations, Ludwig. And real lives, too. >>

Yes, and any planned reallocation of aid would need to be very carefully analysed first.

So do you think it is the right thing for us to use our aid money to just feed the poor and to not make any attempt to implement population stabilisation and sustainability strategies? Surely not.

<< As I see it, you want some government intervention, but only that which is approved by the people, except for some of the time, when they should "show initiative" instead. >>

I think I’ve explained myself adequately. I’m sure you are smart enough to know exactly what I mean and are just filibustering here for the sake of an argument!

<< GDP per capita has increased steadily over the period. Therefore, the more people, the greater the growth in individual wealth. >>

Hold on… GDP is a pretty rotten measure of wealth, when it includes a whole lot of negative stuff and counts it as a positive, such as economic activity spurred by smoking-related illness or by a flood or cyclone, etc, etc.

And there are many things other than GDP that affect our quality of life, such as congestion, environmental health, increasing crime, ever-more restrictions on what we can lawfully do, etc, all of which are connected to population growth.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 21 June 2012 1:45:35 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. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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