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)

(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.

<< 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.

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.

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

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.