Oh dear, so you're a misanthrope Poirot, as described in these 2 articles:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/kids.html

But let me clarify something; in your disgust at humanity:

"It's a shame we've evolved to exist on this one - and with our advancing ingenuity we don't even possess the wisdom to get that right."

Do you include yourself; or, as I suspect, do you regard yourself to be exempt from the failings of the rest of humanity which make them unworthy to continue to exist?

Don't be so puerile, cohenite.

What's wrong with looking after the planet we evolved on?

I mean, we are what we are because of the properties on this planet.

And my reference to not being wise enough to manage things was more along the lines of this:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

Wow cohenite, you are actually trying to completely poo-poo the very principle of sustainability!

That is really most extraordinary!

<< What is sustainable depends entirely on technology and ideological interpretation of what technology is appropriate or acceptable. >>

Dear oh dear! What is sustainable depends on the demand and the supply capability of resources and on the scale of the negative factors associated with our activities.

Technology is but one small part of the picture.

You really do have absolutely no regard for balance between demand and supply. Unbelievable!

At least now I can understand why you are a total AGW denialist!

Please, reconsider your whole position, right from scratch, bearing in mind what would happen if the demand for energy keeps on growing while the supply capability doesn’t. And remember; the supply capability doesn’t actually have to decline. If it grows at a rate that is a little less than demand, thus creating upward pressure on prices, thus critically affecting economics on all levels and affecting a person’s capacity to purchase that energy, then it will start to cause major problems.

In fact, if the energy-provision growth-rate keeps right up with demand, but the price continues to increase, due to increasing costs of extraction, it will still cause major upheavals.

And no, we cannot rely on technology alone to get us out of this looming energy crisis.

Do I support thorium power? Yes. But with the provisos that it is safe, clean and economically viable. Same sort of thing applies for GM.

The human population should not be cut, but we should make every effort to stabilise it and then encourage a long-term slow reduction, due to the birthrate being less than the natural deathrate.

Your she'll-be-right business-as-usual position is very hard to fathom.

But then, your position does seem to be pretty close to that of one A. Abbott, and only slightly removed from one J. Gillard.

"Dear oh dear! What is sustainable depends on the demand and the supply capability of resources and on the scale of the negative factors associated with our activities."

No. The main factors are, firstly, technological discovery and enhancement of resources and as a corollary mitigation of negative side effects, primarily real pollution not AGW which alarmists like you are fixated on.

Secondly and most dominantly, policy decisions on what is an acceptable use and deployment of resources. For instance we have seen the catatastrophe of managed social and economic use of resources in communism, in pol pot's agrarian revolution so beloved by academics like Hamilton and finally North Korea.

In those societies there was no strain on natural resource supply and demand never exceeded supply, did it?! They all had elite people telling others what to do, didn't they?!

You are a pessimist who thinks that the universe is exhausted and that humanity should live within its means. Your imagination is stunted and your moral outrage enormous. Inevitably your solution consists of these elite people restricting use of resources for reasons other than availability through technological enhancement.

I really think these are the characteristics which inform AGW believers.

Go away and read Says Law. And read about space exploration and the serendipity of technology

<< No. The main factors are, firstly, technological discovery and enhancement of resources… >>

No no no, cohenite. The MAIN factor is achieving a balance between demand and supply in such a way that it can be maintained, and with a big safety margin.

The great flaw in your thinking is your worship of technology, and your complete lack of concern about this balance.

I presume from your support of technology that you are a great advocate of human ingenuity.

But hold on… technology is only part of human smartness. We need holistic human intelligence to prevail here.

And when we see technology, such as cars, better ways of extracting oil and coal, better agricultural methods, etc leading us towards massive future problems, we need to exercise a different part of our smartness in order to mitigate the looming downsides.

Technology has been used overwhelmingly on the supply side of the equation (and as an advocate of Say’s Law, you should be able to appreciate the importance of demand and supply in the discipline of economics).

It has facilitated the increase in demand. It has allowed our population to burgeon. It has directly led us into a situation where we now have to be very mindful of the highly unsustainable nature of our activities.

We have NOT used technology well in terms of our longer term future. We need to exercise our intelligence to a similar extent on the other side of the great economic equation. That is; on the demand side.

Primarily that means controlling population growth, globally, nationally and in some regions and cities.

Hey, this is not new to our politicians. Both Bligh and Beatty made noises about this with reference to southeast Queensland. Carr was on about it in relation to Sydney for the whole time he was NSW PM. And Gillard said she wants a sustainable Australia.

So, what we desperately need is a political leader and party to go with it…. which I reckon would draw a great deal of support from the general populace.

Says Law says that a production or supply can create a demand.

You seem to be interpreting this as a source of frivolous items and/or greed.

This is not the case; great utility and improvement, often unintended or unexpected, hence serendipity, comes from the inherent creativity of new, improved or even transported ideas and goods and services.

What you are doing is imposing a value judgement on demand which is akin to saying anything above the bottom rung of Maslow's pyramid is a luxury and unsustainable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg

This explains your confusion about population; population in itself does not increase demand; the masses of India put less demand on resources than the much less population of the US; the difference is quality of lifestyle.

In this context quality can be reduced to the satisfaction of the bottom 2 rungs of Maslow's pyramid and only then can the top 3 rungs be available.

Religion aside, the greatest check on population growth is prosperity; that is the satisfaction of the bottom 2 rungs.

You, like many Malthusians, put the cart before the horse and seek to reduce demand by reducing population, the necessary method of achieving prosperity. Ironically this involves reducing prosperity so in effect you would cause the very problem, population growth, that you seek to avoid.