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.