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!