“Anything would be better than the joke we’ve got now”

Perseus, it’s tempting to believe this given how absurd things are, but it ain’t so. I can’t imagine things would be better if Costello or Beazley was our illustrious leader. Perhaps it would be a little better with Rudd or Gillard or even Vaile….who knows!

In fact I think that any leader or government that appeared to be a little bit better would only lead to a worse outcome….. because we MUST have a government that is VERY much better if we are going to get past our looming woes. A little bit better would mean that the same momentum would continue, just slightly slower and with less concern from the public.

So perhaps if we had a really bad leader, it would galvanise public opinion against them…. and onto the side of sustainability.

Now there’s a thought. Hey…. maybe I should be promoting Costello for PM afterall!!

As for splitting Queensland into two or three or more states, I don’t think it would have a positive effect at all, and would very likely have a horribly bad outcome… especially for as long as the continuous growth paradigm remains entrenched.

Bringing “the proper focus and attention to the problems of their own region” could well mean a major escalation in population growth, water usage, environmental degradation and all sorts of other bad things….. for as long as we continue to worship the maximum human expansion paradigm.

There is actually a very positive thing that comes out of the Qld government being little more than an SEQ regional government, if that is the case – a relative centralisation of this insidious continuously increasing pressure on our resource base, quality of life and future integrity.

So you do want to depopulate the bush, Ludwig. And you do want to discourage improvements to people's lives, the better to promote your ideology. I had nailed you for a nutter already but it is nice to have the confirmation. You keep circling around it but can't help yourself, can you?

Mmmmmm.

I have entertained debate with you on one of your passionate subjects Pers, and in a totally proper and inoffensive manner.

I would have thought you’d welcome that. It does afterall give you a chance to reinforce your point of view and add a bit more substance to it. But all you can do is go silly and get offensive… without addressing the debate at all.

Tell you what; in the morning when you have a little less alcohol in your system, and you can think a little more clearly – have another go a replying to my post. There’s a good boy. Now in the meantime, sleep tight

Re: sustaining growth

This word ‘growth’ has two very different components –development and expansion.

One is highly desirable and the other has had its day.

Development, in terms of better technologies and improved efficiencies is good, but it is well and truly time that expansion ceased in this country.

The first is sustainable and the second is NOT.

They are diametrically opposed when in comes to sustainability and protection of our future.

When our governments and business sectors espouse growth as an automatic and unquestionably good thing, let’s all realise that they deliberately (or in ignorance) lump the good and the vested-interest bad aspects together.

They’ve also hijacked the word ‘development’ and often use it to encompass expansion.

And of course the word ‘sustain’ or ‘sustainability’ has also been hijacked, and is often erroneously used in place of ‘maintain in the short term’.

So the language that surrounds this issue that sits right at the core of most of our really big concerns - politics, environment, economics, social fabric, future integrity – is confused. And the powers that be seem perfectly happy with that.

Your problem, Ludwig, is that you have crossed the line to witholding benefits to a particular area, the bush, because those benefits would only help maintain activities that do not meet your ideological objectives. And once you have crossed that border between disagreement and discrimination, it is only a very small step to taking actions that will actually harm that community.

And it is clear that a number of other people who work for your employer, the Queensland government, have also already crossed that line. And you actually want my respect?

Oh well, I guess you know what you mean by that Perseus, but I haven’t a clue.

Now, on 28 July I took you up with inoffensive and sensible debate on something that you hold dear to your heart. Are you going to respond, or shall we just assume that you don’t have a reply and that my argument prevails?