Clive,

A timely piece for us to consider here but I fess up, I am guilty of being attracted to expensive gadgets and gizmo's and my shed is full of things that are now useless to me but I dare not throw them away because of there price. And it appears my son is doing the same. His draws are full of yesterdays toys and 'have to haves'.

But even I would not buy a 7 thousand dollar BBQ!

Frugality was clearly a part of the fiscal culture of my parents and I do remember those wise words of "waste not, want not" being uttered on many occasions during my youth. But this was also part of the wider community ethic. Waste was looked down upon.

But while the need to display status and modernity can be accredited with this unrealistic spend-up, I also sense that this phenomenon is linked to a need to compensate for a sense of community.

Urban family reaction outside the home days costs a bundle. I’m sure country families don’t sit around the box for hours on end or buy the latest model BBQ to impress themselves and their neighbors.

The home entertainment system has become that place where parents who are working too many hours a week can sit down with their family and enjoy something together.

The scary thing is that the next generation of parents will think this is what the cost of parenting and family is all about

Gosh, Clive, you've discovered that "fools and their money are soon parted". It is not new. I think it was Fernand Braudell, in his history of European commerce over the past millenium, who pointed out the fundamental difference between consumers and investors, and why the former are comparatively poor while the latter are comparatively richer.

Consumers exchange labour for cash to obtain goods while investors exchange labour and cash for goods to convert back to more cash. So compared to "the millionaire next door", who drives a 15 year old vehicle and sensible clothes, conspicuous consumers are poorer. And the primary reason for their condition is the fact that they insist on advertising their gullibility.

But they are also the prime beneficiaries of their exploitation. For the speed with which their money parts company is the same engine that keeps them employed at a higher salary than their efforts might merit. And the extremely adverse economic, social and environmental consequences of slowing down that engine for any sort of higher public good have been modelled with far greater accuracy than any of the doomsday scenarios that have been used to justify stringent curbs on economic activity.

You are also seriously mistaken in describing housing, as distinct from furnishings, as "consumption". In Australia housing has become the dominant form of superannuation savings. It is the subtle mechanism by which even the most conspicuous consumer is converted into an investor. They exchange labour and cash from their existing house for the purpose of converting it into a more valuable house that can be liquidated easily for subsequent downsizing.

But what about the cost to the environment? I hear you say. Well some of the most conspicuous housing consumption in the country can be found on the canal estates of SE Queensland. And it is these same canals that have by far the most abundant and diverse array of marine species this side of the Barrier Reef. Why do you think they are so dangerous to swim in and so full of sharks?

A few thoughts...

There's more to life than money... says the one who has not much.

Money isn't everything... says the one who has more than enough.

Rich and poor have become relative concepts that politocos can redefine to encircle the majority for the purpuse of advancing political agenda, rather than the very small minority at the top and the bottom to whom these terms actually apply.

Why are concepts of rich and poor only defined on the basis of a limited geography, such as one country. The poverty line in this country is living rich in say the philipines.

Rich and poor are political concepts.

Why is money the only basis for measuring so called rich and poor?

What is the difference between a need and a want? Do people need more dough or do they want more?

Has life become so empty and meaningless for the money oriented consumer junkie that one's happiness is measured by the price tag on one's belongings. Sometimes l wounder why folks buy $100k cars and wear $20k diamonds, when wot they really want to do is drive around with a wad of cash strapped to roof of their car and a fist fall of dollars in their hands, saying to the world... 'look at me.'

l guess that such vain honesty would be tacky.

Articles like this one might get people thinking for themselves and decoupled from the god of consumption. Can't have too much of that going on, otherwise the house of cards known as 'the economy' built on fiat currency, deficit spending, living on borrowed time and stealing from both the future and thy neighbour, might crumble.

Its easier to up the dose rather than get off the junk.

In trying to take a positive spin on affluenza, I'm all for it ... I used to feel left out being one of the 'Have Nots' but feel now that it's more a battle of the "Needs It"s and "Doesn't Need It"s. Being on the side of doesn't-need-it that warm, smug feeling is all mine when I ride my $50 bicycle past all the range-rovers in Toorak and attain the same sense of satisfaction from a free BBQ in the park as those losers do from a $7,000 BBQ. There is also so much more variety and quality in the second hand store these days, with the Needs-Its having to perpetually upgrade. I completely agree with Clive, but feel it doesn't have to entirely be an anti-consumption message because it's still just as possible to enjoy all the same goods as the affluenza-afflicted but at half the price. We don't necessarily have to buy less, just re-define our sense of value.

All of this pointless consumption provides jobs. I mean, if people were to stop buying junk they don't need, how many businesses would go broke? Unemployment would then skyrocket, and bored people with a lot of time and not much to do would then turn to destructive behaviours.

I found myself recently in a situation with no car. No car meant that I was literally stranded. I could'nt go to the shops to purchase junk as I pleased. I brought out the mountain bike bought years ago and never used, and realised how unfit I was.

I'd give my eyeteeth to get off the affluenza treadmill, but I've recently moved to braodband, and upgraded my computer, and I think I feel happier that I can read this forum more quickly than before!

The term "conspicuous consumption" was invented over 100 years ago so it is hardly a new phenomenon, however it seems that in the last 40 or so years it has become a pandemic affecting almost all of us. It is ingrained in society, and the economies of the developed world are now almost totally depedent on it for their growth and prosperity. Much of our scientific and material progress has been driven by the desire to consume ever more and better, and so at least there are some positive side affects of affluenza. The question I have is how do we cure society of the disease without killing the driving force behind it ?

"Affluenza: The new illness in Australia"

One of the good things about living in a democracy is - we do not have to care what the "jones" have or need to keep up with them.

Equally we do not care what the Jones think of any supposed displays of ostentatious on our part.

"Affluence" is not an illness -
Considering other peoples "affluence" and questioning their right to display it is far more sickening and sounds to me like an overindulgence in envy and sour grapes.

Now - back to the stainless steel BBQ whilst I decide which investment properties to buy down on the coast.

Perseus:

I happened to reside on a Canal on the Gold Coast, and your shot about the sharks is baloney. Trouble is too many wannabees never tire at criticising the 'affluent' of their unhappiness, smugness, flamboyancy, and a plethora of less descriminating invectives **XX ?? which I find quite disconcerting.
My husband and sibling row and paddle out each morning in the Canal, and have never come across anything resembling a Bull Shark, shovel-nose or wobbygong that journalist love publishing about. The small incident two years ago where our neighbour drowned after being bitten by one caused undue alarm and sensationalism - which cast a poor impression of the area as a whole. The Fisheries Dept laid baits and subsequently gaffed 3 - meter long Bulls, which may not have been the culprit in this ongoing saga.
Council are so adamant no sharks exist, they have NOT erected signage to alarm visitors and tourist to forego bathing or frolicking in 'those' waters ! Need convincing ?
As for Affluengentcia, the display of wealth is capriciousness and blase. Having 3 cars in the garage, a canal walkaway to berth the Family Cruiser, and a swimming pool overlooking the canal may be what many 'battler's' from suburbia envy - reality check, it's an atypical myth. The majority of Canal owners bought their properties 15/20 years ago - some cant even pay their Rates. Some have troubles paying off the mortgages. They are no different than the rest of Oz. Have a happy Day mate.

Overconsumption of 'have to have' items is undermining our national economy. While there may be a number of benefits to retailers, the sad fact is that nearly all of these consumables - from DVD players to fancy mountain bikes, bbqs and luxury cars - are produced overseas. The massive trade imbalances we have with countries like China is the cause of our growing foreign national debt (more than 50% of GDP).

Apparently Australians have contracted the 'affluenza' bug more than most: we spend $107 for every $100 we earn. Surely this kind of 'plastic' economic growth is unsustainable.

TimM

You are probably right and I wouldn't give up my CD collection for anything. Somewhat partial to my PC as well.

At least I don't own a car/4WD/Plasma TV. I didn't even know you could spend $7000 on a BBQ - what does it do? The washing up?

Have a feeling reality is gonna catch up with we the aspirationally affluent. Just so long as I get to keep my CD's and something to play them in of course.

Those interested in "cross-dressing" might like to tune in to the later article entitled "Its the best of times, but the party's peaked" for comments that are also pertinent to "Affluenza".

Regarding the comment made by Perseus,"And the extremely adverse economic, social and environmental consequences of slowing down that engine for any sort of higher public good have been modelled with far greater accuracy than any of the doomsday scenarios that have been used to justify stringent curbs on economic activity".

I can't imagine any adverse environmental consequences that could possibly occur as a result of curbing our current levels of economic activity. A reduction in our rabid consumerism and the levels of production required to feed it would only help the environment not harm it.

Every country likes a bit of a lifestyle "blowout".

The English go to Ibiza Ryanair and take loads of pills, drink, throw up, pull a bird, and have a fight.

Americans have 2 weeks off a year.

Europeans never work in summer but are unhappy (well at least in France where they vote "Non" even though they have a big lifestyle).

Australian's often like boats, pillars on houses, holiday homes, big TV's, material things - a bit different I grant.

Would I rather a big TV or a holiday in the sun in Spain - well I suppose I'd want both! Gotta love plane travel.

TimM “Overconsumption of 'have to have' items is undermining our national economy”

undermine it indeed? – Afraid not – the national economy not only relies upon consumption, the national economy IS part "production" and part "consumption" (if no one consumes – no point in producing - first princiapl of "trade").

As for curbing it – if a central authority knew better than individuals what those individuals want to “consume”, communism would have worked – as it is that was a total and absolute failure which wrecked billions of lives.

As a member of the growing "downshifter" demographic, I agree with Clive Hamilton's point that increasingly conspicuous consumption in Australian society bears little relation to the actual quality of life of individuals and families. However, he and most of the commentators above fail to extend this analysis to address another fundamental aspect of consumerism - i.e. that it is the engine of capitalism, which depends upon continuous economic growth to sustain itself. The logic of capitalism requires exponential growth of markets and production, which is of course the root cause of most the environmental degradation and resource depletion that drive global and internecine conflict.

Inevitably, the bubble will eventually burst, and I suspect that our current rampant consumerism will become a kind of embarrassing utopian memory - sort of like the 'roaring 20s' boom period that preceded the Great Depression. Current indications suggest that proponents of the 'Peak Oil' theory are on the right track, and we are therefore likely to experience some radical socio-economic shifts in the next few decades.

My own experience suggests that it's perfectly possible to have a very comfortable life without working 60 hours a week and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on crap that you don't need.

Eminent anthropologist Marshall Sahlins once explained his theory of the "original affluent society" (as practised by tribal peoples) as "want not, need not". IMHO we may find ourselves reconsidering this approach sooner, rather than later.

Dear Dalma,
I fear my point was unclear. I was not sneering at canal dwellers, nor denigrating the ecological values there, far from it. Your lack of sharks and the abundant food chain they top may have something to do with the age of your canal or the size of the rock materials used. The older the canal, and the larger the rocks, the more abundant the biodiversity.

My experience of canal living comes mostly from Raby Bay. There is an elderly Taiwanese gentleman there who must think he has already gone to heaven. He is out on his own jetty long before dawn and each morning his extended family is treated to a sumptuous and varied seafood breakfast.

It seems that few residents compost stale bread or bin chook bones. It all goes into the canal but disappears in minutes. An anal retentive at the EPA might call it littering but the combination of enhanced shelter and souped up (sic) food chain makes for better fishing than any marine park and loads better than the old mud flats.

So keep on being proud of your waterway, you probably earned it. But if you have been overprotecting it then think again. There is a lot to be said for "gettin down and gettin dirty".

Perseus, what is your point? You seem to be suggesting that canal dwellers should feed their compost into the water they pay a premium for. And that the resulting increase in marine life will somehow compensate for the environmental vandalism already wreaked on the ecosystem through building concrete palaces on bricked up mudflats.

Strict enforcement of informed town-planning legislation might be a better option. Not to mention a complete rethink of our unsustainable consumption culture. Which brings us back to the point Clive was making. Which is too important to be derailed by irrelevant red herrings like sharks in canals!

My point, Bronwyn, is that Clive's core conceit, that affluence is a synonym for environmental harm, is bunkum. I remember playing on the mud flats of Raby Bay and can state with absolute certainty that both the abundance and diversity of marine life has undergone a substantial enhancement as a result of what you term "environmental vandalism". I can also confirm that any species that are dependent on mud flats are more than adequately catered for in the vast remainder of Moreton Bay.

It is not just marine life that can benefit from what you call our "vandalism". Tim Low, in The New Nature, winners and losers in wild Australia, Viking, 2002, records a host of species, including threatened species, that benefit from interaction with mankind. More than 50 new bird species have been recorded in Sydney since 1958 while prior to 1930 there were no Flying Fox winter colonies South of the Mary River.

As Low's title indicates, there are winners and losers from wildlife's interaction with man. And Clive has chosen to exclude the, inconvenient, positive half of the story.

And as for your inability to "imagine any adverse environmental consequences that could possibly occur as a result of curbing our current levels of economic activity", ask the North Koreans. I hear they could use a good laugh.

Perseus, there will always be some species that benefit by human activity; witness Larus nova-hollandiae (common Australian sea-gull) which in Perth at least, is now a pest, and has moved inland, particularly attracted by rubbish dumps. There are now many extinct species of both fauna and flora in the most botanically diverse region on the planet (South-West Western Australia), and even more endangered species, as a result of human activity (mainly farmers seeking "affluence").

Some comments alluding to "consumerism" as an attribute of "capitalism" might well be right.

However as "that it is the engine of capitalism, which depends upon continuous economic growth to sustain itself" ---

Is evidently wrong.

Whilst "capitalism" benefits from "consumption", so too does every other economic system.

Every "economic system", whether activity and exchange is decided upon by individuals with individual direction and ownership of resources; or some monolithic central authority which deploys all resources (theoretically) "for the common good"; depend on "consumption" being brought together of with "production" to facilitate exchange or trade.

The Evidence of History, best qualified by the comparative living standard and life expectancies of, say, any pre-collapse communist block country and any Western Democracy would promote the notion that
a "monolithic central authority" is less able and more corrupt, in the matter of enabling and accessing the supply of goods and services needed to match or regulate "Consumption" with "Production".

Simply put, the idea that capitalism is a "perfect system" is wrong.
It is equally true that a "centralist system" of social organisation and control , when compared to a capitalist system is worse.

So kicking capitalism for its shortcomings is only appropriate when someone has something better to offer. Until they do, I suggest promoting the inferior , failed and abysmal as a solution to anything is unlikely to advance or benefit anyone (except, of course, the manipulators, commissars and lackys of the bureaucracy).

Oh – as for bubbles bursting – they have been "bursting" since well before the "South Sea" one (1710- 1715) which saw acquired wealth evaporate overnight.
One superb benefit of the capitalist system is it self regulates in terms of economic activity because governments have less proprietary involvement. When governments become owners of resources, secondary issues of providing sheltered workshops (disguised as nationalised industry) and other manipulations enter the equation and corrupt what is an otherwise self maintaining system

Goodness me, Doug, we simply can't have farmers aspiring to anything beyond servile subsistence in the brave new green utopia, can we now?

The threatened grass owl, originally dwelling in Blady Grass, has greatly expanded it's range, population and bio-security through the activities of farmers pursuing the same ends as every other citizen. You might call it sugar cane, they just call it home.

The green deceptors carefully map and decry any absence of connectivity in native vegetation but refuse to recognise the hordes of wildlife that pass through, and munch on in transit, (native) Macadamia Plantations that routinely exhibit denser populations of numerous species than the surrounding forest. The highest concentrations of bird species are invariably found in the variegated farming/forest/housing landscapes on urban fringes. The places they are not abundant are National Parks and CBD's, where farmers are also absent.

Interestingly, nobody has picked up on the issue of "piggyback riders" and there impact on Affluenze and in particular the impact they have on the ability of middle income earners to see the rewards of their efforts.

I speak of those who make a deliberate choice to downshift their level of effort on the basis that others will subsidise their lifestyle. Sure they might end up with a bit less than the person who has not downshifted but not nearly as much difference as some expect.

Downshifting is great if you are prepared to wear the consequences - less disposable income, less government services etc. Downshifting the level of effort and expecting others to subsidise you is just going for a piggyback ride of those with different priorities.

If you want services they have to be paid for and the quality of those services is a reflection of our societies affluence. Good medical care, education, support for the genuinely needy and public infrastructure don't get paid for by downshifting. They are paid for by people putting in the effort.

R0bert

Actually, R0bert, part of my 'downshifting' involves me forgoing personal income by employing people instead of me and my partner working stupid hours. I agree with you that people shouldn't expect others to support them in their chosen lifestyles if they are not able to sustain themselves in them - but I wasn't talking about that. What I'm talking about is jumping off the idiotic hobbyhorse of keeping up with (or out-consuming) the Joneses in the suburbs and moving to the bush, where with a little imagination and application one can live a happy and productive life in much more pleasant surrounds, without being a burden on anyone. Far from being a burden on government resources, my business fulfils functions for our local community that were once provided by government, banks, etc.

I don't owe anybody anything. We pay taxes and provide essential services and employment to local people. At the same time, we've consciously opted for a lower household income and a less materialistic lifestyle. We grow much of our own food and deliberately support local producers over cheaper imports when we source our stock.

We're into what is known as 'voluntary simplicity', rather than being 'piggyback riders', thanks :) It's people like us - along with former refugees - who are breathing new life into many formerly dying country towns.

It seems, R0bert, that Garra is prepared to 'wear the consequences' in downshifting. Most people who put the thought into this kind of lifestyle change do.

I am now working part time hours. I'm not riding 'piggy-back' either. I now work close to home in my local community outside of the suburban sprawl. My entire lifestyle revolves around my community where I spend my money, my time and my energy. I worry whether I can continue to pay my mortgage and maintain my home (banks don't look so kindly upon part time or casual workers), but I wouldn't return to the rat-race.

Face it R0bert, the majority of people want to do the right thing - only the minority cheat or 'ride piggy-back' and they, unfortunately, will always be with us no matter what legislation is enacted. No reason to make things harder for the voluntarily less affluent.

Robert – Downshifting is fine – I have done it moving from London to Melbourne and about to make another move to the coast, however, my strategies rely on no ones subsidies.
I agree fully with your view – if I want to make the move I pay for the move.
Fortunately our strategy for relocation, has been assisted by fate, a job opportunity for my partner occurring and a business opportunity for me after we decided to make the change.
That was more luck than good planning. However, even if it had not been that way, something else would have arisen.

Garra “part of my 'downshifting' involves me forgoing personal income …… We grow much of our own food and deliberately support local producers over cheaper imports when we source our stock.”

Trinity “It seems, R0bert, that Garra is prepared to 'wear the consequences' in downshifting. Most people who put the thought into this kind of lifestyle change do.”

The great thing with Personal choice – it is a “PERSONAL” Choice or decision.

However, imposing one own personal choices onto other people or presuming there is something wrong with other peoples ‘choices’ and ‘values’, when one knows nothing about the circumstances, desires, expectations or capabilities they hold or aspire to is arrogant at best and errs toward the dictatorial on the darker end of the scale.

Ultimately, a fulfilled life is one where we live by the outcomes of our own decisions and not the outcome of decisions taken and imposed upon us by others.

Dear All

Some of the best works regarding over consumption, the needs and indeed govt. sponsorship of consumption can be found at the Centre Of Critical Knowledge.

Prof. Swarmy Gee has interviewed many western govt officials and had devised a model known as the 'judder' model to visualise our ever increasingly destructive wants and consumption patterns

garra, sorry if my post appeared to imply that your downshifting was done at the expense of others. It was not my intent to suggest that.

As previously stated I like the concept of a downshift as long as those who do it accept the consequential loss of spending power which may accompany it and do not advocate for more government services to be paid for by those who have not downshifted. Sometimes I wonder about the reality of a loss in spending power, there are also opportunities to reduce expenses as a trade off - growing more food, chasing bargans etc.

In previous threads I've floated the idea that our communal obligation should be based on units of time rather than on the choices we make about income. Should my 'choice' to work full time carry with it a greater obligation to society over that carried by someone who 'chooses' otherwise? I think not.

For me downshifting is not currently an option - trying to recover financially from divorce and C$A doing their bit to ensure that I help support someone who has been in low gear long term. Maybe one day.

Cheers
R0bert

"Ultimately, a fulfilled life is one where we live by the outcomes of our own decisions and not the outcome of decisions taken and imposed upon us by others."

All well and good. If the fulfilled life of living by the outcomes of your own decisions, however, involves frivolous and excessive consumption that depletes more than your fair share of the earth's resources, the implications of this selfishness are unfortunately imposed on the rest of us.

Bronwyn "All well and good. If the fulfilled life of living by the outcomes of your own decisions, however, involves frivolous and excessive consumption that depletes more than your fair share of the earth's resources, the implications of this selfishness are unfortunately imposed on the rest of us. "

Now what is wrong with this statement

Let us see -

"involves frivolous and excessive consumption" - such definition relies on a judgement. Since I do not recognise your "standard" as valid and you lack the wisdom to judge or qualify what is, by my standard, "frivolous or excessive", such a suggestion is meaningless.

"fair share" - please quantify what is "fair". Before you attempt to suggest any such "expectation" - I assume it is based on your own standard and not on some generally accepted measure (which has not been defined) and is thus, eaually "invalid".

"Earth Resources" - mmmm - I guess some of us find diamonds where others just see dirt - so earths resources is some meaningless motherhood measure of incalculable dimension - or I dare you - give it a try?

"selfishness" - what is more selfish -

me living my life and leaving you to live yours ?

or

you living your life and imposing your standards of consumption upon me, based on your measures of modesty (versus frivolity), prudence (versus excessiveness), "fair" (versus "unfair") or "egalitarian" (versus selfish)?

I see nothing modest, prudent, fair or egalitarian in your statement.

I see your statement as typical of all socialist mantras - something the small minded attempt to impose so as to exercise power and to curtail those of us seek to excell beyond the socialist standard of mediocre, based on what passed as values but are really motivated by envy and an overextended inferiority complex.

Clive
It is not suprising that we want to consume more. Our treasurer assures us repeatedly that growth of the economy (more consumtion) is good and that it would be unpatriotic to try and consume less.

consumerism will have to stop eventually unfortunately that will be when all our natural resources are consumed or ruined. Think about your impact on the planet. if everyone on the globe lived like an australian we would need several planets to support them. a simple ecological footprint calculator can be found at - http://www.bestfootforward.com/footprintlife.htm You can change your answers to see how changes to your lifestyle affect your footprint. You can make small changes that make a difference such as eating less meat, buying local food, using energy efficient appliances.

Our governement is determined to follow economic growth at all costs! In the US George bush wont sign kyoto because it will be bad for the american economy! does he realise that a collapsed environment will be much worse for the economy!. When will John Howard stop making decisions based on what George Bush thinks is best?

I came across an interesting comment in a book called "Arctic Dreams" by Barry Lopez which I'm rereading at the moment and which seemed appropriate for this thread (could also fit some of the cultural wars in other threads). P313

"What every culture must eventaually decide, actively debate and decide, is what of all that surrounds it, tangible and intangible, it will dismantle and turn into material wealth. And what of its cultural wealth, from the tradition of finding peace in the vision of an undisturbed hillside to a knowledge of how to finance a corporate merger, it will fight to preserve."

I hope some others find the above worth reading.

R0bert

This "ecological footprint" stuff is pure crap. For a start, it ignores the fact that other species thrive in my productive farming landscape. The extra watering points that my family have put in place have allowed the stocking rate of Kangaroos to increase way beyond the natural density. And as these watering points are also accessible to our stands of regularly harvested native forest, the full suite of wildlife species has also expanded beyond their original range and density. My cattle also graze in that forest.

Due to the fact that our beef is mostly exported, my paddocks form part of the footprint of people from many other nations. That is, their footprint is much larger and my footprint is much smaller because we both live in a modern exchange economy.

Combine just these two elements of the real world and this neat little model of "ecological footprint" falls in a heap.

Perseus

Ecological footprints are not ‘pure crap’! While it is impossible to accurately calculate the full precise impact of our actions we do know roughly how many productive hectares we have on the planet, we can work out how many hectares it takes to feed us considering our diet. (eg eating meat uses more hectares as livestock only pass on a fraction of the nutrients they consume), we can calculate how much we contribute to greenhouse gases depending on our transport choices and distances etc. We know how many people on the planet so a fair footprint = productive land / population. While it cannot be exact it is a good tool for looking at lifestyle choices that lower our impact on the planet.

The footprint model does take trade into account and Australians have more footprint overseas than others have here!. We would have a large footprint in China where much of our “crap” comes from while the Chinese wear the pollution and environmental decline locally but have a small footprint. Of course billions of people will have an impact with the smallest footprint due to the vast numbers!

As for your forest having the ‘full suite of wildlife species’, I find that very hard to believe! as many species are now extinct and many more threatened. To keep the ‘fullest’ suite possible I would suggest fencing out part of your forest to allow the undergrowth and natural pastures to return and provide more diverse habitat. Of course this will need management as weeds and ferals need to be controlled and larger trees left to form hollows which provide habitat.

I agree that some native spp. Have increased. Kangaroos have similar needs to livestock so obviously have been advantaged by the promotion of pasture and spread of watering points, this however has been detrimental to other species.

Take some time to educate yourself Perseus.
Regards

Taking on board all the ecological comments that have arisen, yes as a hobby farmer and very much aware of what we bought damaging the environment ala grazing cleared and irrigated land which is not the best thing for the environment. Vigorously planting everything to bring back native wildlife with great success on our small patch of heaven sent planet earth.

But back to affluenza. A couple of years ago, I was told by a very unhappy, spoilt 21 year old i worked with, who had very rich parents and a very Estee Lauder upbringing! that I was a loser because I had a second hand car and I was 41. That was her benchmark. The fact that she would have had more respect for me if I'd been in massive debt in order to drive a Toorak tractor around town says much more about her than it does me.

I had the last laugh, when she and her boyfriend went to counselling to save their relationship. When the counsellor suggested they try and create a hobby together that they could share, she and he decided to "buy stuffed toys". Needless to say the relationship was over when they couldn't move past their 3rd Winnie the Pooh. Consumerism at its most base level to create something that wasn't even there in both of them. Australia is full of them.

These models imply that eating meat vs grain is a direct trade off when this is not the case. Sure grazing animals have a low output and high volume input but a switch from eating meat will not lower the footprint. Cattle and sheep generally graze land that is not cultivated. Hence the distinction between grazing land and cropping land. And changes between the two, and changes in footprint area, have nothing to do with sustainability.

If all the world went vegetarian there would need to be a massive increase in the area of crops onto land that is not, currently, under regular cropping. And that land is not cropped regularly at present because it is not suitable for it.

Contrary to the standard green illogic, most of the worlds meat does not come from grain fed animals. So there is not a lot of room for the much claimed efficiency gains from humans moving down the food chain to a predominantly grain based diet.

And even when animals are grain fed it is only for a few months of fattening prior to slaughter. They spend most of their life, and acquire most of their body mass, eating grass. We keep them doing this because they are more efficient at converting grass to protein than humans are. They also store this protein (on their body)in a form that minimises loss from fungus, soaking, pests etc.

So when the gullible embark on crusades to reduce the footprint of humans they are also calling for a level of concentration of human activity that has never been tested on a macro scale and risking levels of environmental impact that we know to be far from sustainable.

And as for your sermonising on the rudiments of forest ecology, please let me know when you have progressed more than 10% up the learning curve

I hope that even Perseus will agree that the human race cannot keep increasing its consumtion of the natural resources of the planet, without arriving at the day when there are no more resources to consume.
Why just accept that there will inevitably be a last day and carry on with our present system of continuous growth in consumption?
As the only reasoning species on the planet, why not use that facility for something more worthwhile than devising more technologically advanced ways of killing others?

Peace

I have always believed that we waste our ingenuity and intelligence on the most absurd (stock market) and dangerous (war toys) pursuits.

If we could just get off the power trip use our abilities towards something worthy - like getting along with each other.

I am facing some lean times again - I'm not very happy about it but at least I have learnt how to survive. My latest challenge is simply the result of someones behaviour who likes to be in total control and has more power than I.

I am going to have to battle very hard just to hold on to my version of the Australian dream (a very modest home in the hills outside a major city). And I feel I'm getting a bit old for another struggle - but that's life isn't it. Things don't stop just because we'd like them to remain just the way they are. At least my internet account is currently paid up - so I'll have more time for this forum. But if things get tougher - I know how to start cutting costs.

To me poverty is not having enough to eat, holes in your shoes and wondering if you will be able to sleep somewhere safe and warm.

Trinity “I have always believed that we waste our ingenuity and intelligence on the most absurd (stock market) and dangerous (war toys) pursuits.

If we could just get off the power trip use our abilities towards something worthy - like getting along with each other……”

Regarding “War toys” you may have a point.

However, the origin and nature of joint stock companies, the sort in which "shares" are traded in the “stock market”, would suggest you either have no idea “why” a company, with ownership represented by shares, should exist nor the benefits which derive from such a form of incorporation.

Certainly if your worthy cause “getting along with each other” were to be seen as an “ideal”, the very nature of ownership in joint stock companies through shares subscription, would be a glowing example of its success in a practical and socially beneficial manner.

Your suggesting to being a “waste of ingenuity” suggests a complete absence of understanding to the history, workings, nature, regulation and benefits of the above.

I kindly suggest you keep to what you know and avoid that which is beyond your reason.

You may think that poverty is merely a physical issue – let me assure you your last post shows it to apply equally to intellectual pursuits and based on the middle of your post “am going to have to battle very hard just to hold on to my version of the Australian dream”), I would suggest, a capacity to plan for ones own personal circumstances,

Col - you know nothing of my circumstances, I suggest your arrogance is only succeeded by your complete ignorance. Keep to what you know - which I believe is the life and times of Maggie Thatcher and very little else.

Trinity – I quoted what you said from your own post. Suggesting “I know little about your circumstances - subject to what you have declared” would be a more accurate statement.
As for my “arrogance” if you feel like that, I suggest making posting comments about the workings of the stock market and joint stock companies where you, clearly, do not have a clue about their history, structure, legal status or social benefit – and presume that in your ignorance, they are a – I quote you – “the most absurd (stock market)” is the height of arrogance and ignorance all rolled into one.

I further suggest if you do not wish for people to comment on your circumstances – again

I quote from your post –

“I am facing some lean times again …... My latest challenge is simply the result of someones behaviour who likes to be in total control and has more power than I.

I am going to have to battle very hard just to hold on to my version of the Australian dream …And I feel I'm getting a bit old for another struggle….. Things don't stop just because we'd like them to ….. At least my internet account is currently paid up - so I'll have more time for this forum. But if things get tougher - I know how to start cutting costs.”

End Quote

Do not bother to post details of those same circumstances here.

Unlike you (and your circumstances), I have a broad interest and understanding across many areas of human endeavour, even beyond Dearest Margaret Thatcher. I will not bewilder you with any list – but leave you assured – it extends well beyond your comprehension and understanding, if your comments about the “stock” exchange/market are anything to go by.

Since you like them so, another Margaret Quote –“ Success is having a flair for the thing that you are doing; knowing that is not enough, that you have got to have hard work and a sense of purpose.”
– nice, it illustrates the patent design fault of socialism.

As I have sufficient funds if I am frugal I won't be applying for the dole. However, I will be doing it tough for a while.

As I won't appear on any government stat - my current unemployed status will go unnoticed. I anticipate finding work. I have excellent marketable skills.

I merely made a post because I thought it pertinent to the thread. I had no idea it meant that I was opening myself to insult and abuse. Guess I am naive that way. I merely wanted to illustrate the point the bad things can happen to good people regardless of our best made plans.

I am 'doing it tough' right now, of course I am not expecting charity but to receive a vitriolic diatribe simply because I view life differently to someone else serves to illustrate the ignorance and arrogance of posters like Col Rouge.

I will continue to post here. I have equal rights to you Col - get over it.

On ya Trinity, and hope you find a great job soon. Have been in that doldrum and it's awful, both on the purse and the self-esteem. If you interview as well as you post, you'll be going places soon. Good luck.

Now i suspect that none of the posters here drive a Toorak Tractor (now that could start a whole new thread couldn't it!.) But hey! I've just got my tax return and mentally spent it 3 times over! Shall narrow it down to ME, ME and ME! Thank you Mr Treasurer!

Di - thank you so much. I really needed that. Self esteem is a bit shaky right now. However, if you like my posts fan-bloody-tastic - I present pretty well too. BTW - my real name is Dianne. I feel all chatty and not at all topic related except to say that there are people who are doing it tough and they go unnoticed by the big end of town due to the methods of our statistical collection eg 2 hours work per week and you're considered employed! Wot utter rot!

I have been grappling with the whole concept of affluenza and wonder what sort of world my children are growing up in. All the McMansions being built to house smaller families and the costs (both financial and environmental) of running these places appal me. The masses of advertising we are subjected to that tells us to consume more and pay later. Is this what our booming economy is based on? Surely there are limits to growth but a lack of growth is portrayed as bad as far as economics is concerned. How can our planet absorb all the waste we create, where do all the large whitegoods and computer monitors go? I also want my kids to find more fun things to do than watch a monitor or go to the mall.

Some comon points emerge from the comments i have read on the topic. One is the acknowledgement of the phenoomenon. The second is a hopelessness to fight the predisposition to consumer and be judged by what we consume,while, at the same time, an expression of self-disgust at our impotence to control the urge to consume. the last one is the absence of any obvious desire to address the phenonomenon, head-on.
Is affluence really a new disease for Australia? Or, is the disease, the scale of its manifestation which has undergone a quantum jump in the last thirty or so years?
The use of the term disease implies adverse consequences for us individually or collectively. Hence, if the phenomenon is really a disease, perhaps we owe it to ourselves to be clear about our understanding of it, including its roots and the implications for us.
Perhaps, if we were to probe deeper into the matter we may find that we are dealing with social dynamics of phenomenal proportions which, unknowingly, we, each and every one of us, contribute to, in the way we function and in our interests, pursuits and priorities. Perhpas we may also find that, in our indivdualistic existence we are powerless to understand and deal with phenomena which can only be addressed collectively.
Two questions. Is affluence an isolated feature of today's existence, or simply another feature of existence whose origin is rooted in today's social arrangements, phlosophies of existence and modes of functioning, which dominate life today, so much so that we have no spare time and other resource to address the quitessential aspects of human existence? Is the phenomenon likely to go away as we progress deeper and faster into individualism?