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.