What a refreshing change to read an item informed by an INTEGRAL perspective on history and culture.
Especially in comparison to the spiteful one dimensional cliches used by the ever awful Terpstra in his posting today. And to the one dimensional postings of those on the "right" in general.

The author says
"I argue that the ethical responsibility of our "southern" culture is to point out the delicacy of ecology to regional partners whose camparatively fecund environments and economic circumstances do not encourage them to see past the short term to the real effects of such practices as widespread deforestation.
Beyond this, our ethical responsibility is to let be known the real and dire consequences of allowing the workings of society to be oiled by war and the prospect of short-term advantage."
That, after a short ramble through the interface between Chinese and European history, woven into philosophy of Australian environments.
But the "prince of sciences" is neglected; the article is neutered of numbers. Similar to a canoe launched without a paddle, it drifts within undefined horizons.
A stroll through mathematical history would have helped; starting with the Arabs streamlining number processing, and then on through incorporation of zero and infinity - to the western maths which enabled present-day simple arithmetic. Nothing more.
But it remained blinkered to the reality of problems stemming from ever-expanding human numbers; their ever-increasing impact on the environment which supplies basic needs. Whatever flavour our "Johnny appleseed" comes in - planting lantana, prickly pear, alligator weed, distributing trout, carp, cane-toads, while volunteering his gratuitous efforts - the taste is small beer compared with quantity.
Over the last seven generations, human world numbers have doubled twice already, and are well on the way to a third doubling; mathematically, in exponential mode. As is their rate of individual consumption.
Currently world population expands at roughly 1%. Australia, combining a 1.9 fertility rate with net migration, is somewhat similar. And political direction dictates that increase will continue - "the economy depends upon it?!"
At 1% increase, populations double in less than two generations. There are indeed many better-practice actions to be taken in our dealings with, and depletion of, the environment which bankrolls society and its economic system. But it is short-term thinking to neglect the mathematics of exponential increase in the numbers of humans consuming it.

It isn't that long ago that the Productivity Commission examined Australian land management practices and came out with a report that farmers, or their new age equivalent, land managers, had a legal 'duty of care' to their land. It would be great if all state governments who have responsibility to ensure proper land management practices were to take the PC's recommendation on board and enforce it. In the worst cases of environmental vandalism some states like NSW have the power to remove owners, but it isn't exercised. Maybe it should be if the author's call for a new moral and ethical approach to our fragile environment is to be acted upon.

That's a very long-winded way of saying, environmentalism is good, unsustainable raping of the land is bad. We should try to promote environmentalism in regional countries. That's kinda obvious :P I find the stubbornness of industries breathtaking (agricultural, fishing, forestry). Everyone is going to be forced to embrace environmentalism by the very world they are ravaging-and it will be at gunpoint ;), but at least for them will be their children and later generations who will have to bare the costs.

Perhaps Michael Paton is being too polite. As an Anglo Australian, I can say we deserve a kick up the fundament for the appalling way we have destroyed the environment in only 200 years. There is no love or respect for the land, its rivers and streams, from people who have so recently arrived and regard the environment as a thing to be ravaged for the sake of money. Well of course this is a gross generalisation, but we lack visionary and responsible leaders where the environment is concerned. Bob Brown can't live forever unfortunately ...

Hallelujah! Finally, an academic trained in economics and geology who hasn't been gagged by the big end of town - well not yet anyway!

However, I find it interesting that Mr Paton failed to include in his list of enemies to the ecology, the mining and non-agricultural chemical industries which operate carte blanche by self-regulation and without the already available controls to mitigate pollution. And I am not referring specifically to the coal industry which, while a large polluter, contributes only partly to the fossil fuel emissions devastating the environment!

So while we are sorely in need of some competent diplomats for dialogue with other pollutant countries, we require many "Mr Patons" who have the fortitude to lobby our very own federal and state governments who seemingly have their heads stuck down pollutant stacks, calculating and ensuring that profits remain at a premium, whilst feeding us their usual inane sophistry!

When you have a federal government pledging millions of dollars to Chevron for geosequestration of its carbon emissions from the West Australian Gorgon project, which will not be operational for years, then blind Fred realises that it's all spin and con. These taxpayers' dollars should have been distributed amongst the current largest polluters to enact research or to install available pollution control technology, thus resulting in a much earlier reduction of emissions!

But of course one also realises that the "Polluter Pays" policy is a myth and that "moral and ethical responsibility" is not happening in this country!

Yes Dickie, "moral and ethical responsibility" doesn't rate here any more than the community's attitude towards corruption (unless of course it's in another country and then it's bad)

I come from a similar background to Michael Paton; starting from botany and moving on to geography, geology, broad ecological concerns and sustainability issues, encompassing population, economy and quality of life.

The geological history of Australia is all-important in understanding why we have a population of 21 million while the US has 300 million on a similar area of land. The lack of volcanic and glacial activity in our fairly recent geological past has led us to have soils of vastly poorer fertility. And the current rainfall regime renders most of the continent uninhabitable or only very sparsely inhabitable.

But still we have ignorant morons in high-faluting positions that push for high immigration and a vastly higher population.

The geological history is also the main reason why Aboriginal peoples didn’t turn to agriculture and thus to a much more environmentally destructive lifestyle, and it is the main reason why they weren’t displaced by more agriculturally experienced Asian peoples, which would surely have happened thousands of years ago if northern Australia had been anywhere near as fertile as Java.

Now we have a people that despite over 200 years of often harsh experience still don’t get it when it comes to living sensibly and sustainably on this continent.

Our moral and ethical responsibilities to live sustainably and to protect our own future from large-scale decline still elude us completely as a society.

THANK GOODNESS AUSTRALIA HAS LOW AND ERRATIC RAINFALL AND POOR SOILS!

At the least the natural environment gets a chance to hang on over a large expanse of the continent, much moreso than in China, or Europe or south and southeast Asia or north and south America!

What an awesome article and replies. My dream now is that there are policy makers with as much use of intelligence, that we can make a difference in a sustainable and ethical way. In the mean time, in our region of Australia, where we are attempting to eradicate the many introduced pests from pig to cane toad, lantana to rubbervine and more, we do so need rain for New Year and probably the next 3 months. Sadly if we do, then there will be no incentive to take care of our environment, the name of 'progress'.
Balna

Do you REALLY care for our environment?

Are you sure?

Well in that case join the anti cat movement in Australia and do something about ridding Australia of its number one native fauna killer.

Dont go on about how "my cat dosent hunt either" as you are either blind or have your head in the sand.

Getting rid of cats would be a great step forward - as would the eradication of foxes. In some areas they and the destruction of habitat are combining to push a number of species of native fauna to the brink. Without a war on introduced predators (including cats) I agree that much of the revegetation and habitat reclamation work is a waste of time - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Gryphon, there is one thing that every environmentalist must have… and that is the sustainability ethic, or the ethic of balancing all things human with all things wild/ecological/non-human, or of not continuously depleting our natural capital… or however you would like to say it.

Striving to stop our population from continuously growing with no end in sight is the major prerequisite for genuine sustainability.

If you (we) really care for the environment, THIS is the one aspect of environmentalism that you just can’t ignore…. and MUST be involved with.

No one can call themselves a genuine environmentalist if they don’t care about or don’t in some considerable way strive to stabilize our population, on the national level and global level and in most cases on the local level.

Gryphon, there is one thing that every environmentalist must have… and that is the sustainability ethic,

Yes and for sustainability of our fragile environment fauna wise the cat must GO.

Gryphon, you seem to be fixated with cats. There is far more to sustainability that trying to deal with one very narrow issue.

As a person "out there" i see the damage done by the evil ones,not fixated but very concerned as i see the piles of feathers as left by cats on almost a daily basis in and around the property where i live (Vic bush)i leave no stone unturned in dealing with them.
I also practice sound environmental farming ideals also and one of those is to rid the property of vermin and for the "sustainability" mentioned above it for me does include native fauna wise getting rid of feral cats otherwise there will be no sustaining of the native animal population...fixated? No!

And if we are by some amazing stroke of good luck or brilliant planning able to eradicate feral cats, we will still have foxes, cane toads, carp, feral honeybees and hordes of other feral critters, rubbervine, prickly Acacia, broombush, buffel, gamba, Guinea and para grasses and hundreds of other weeds, overgrazing, overclearing, fragmentation of habitat, silted up and salinated waterholes, changed fire regimes and so on….all of which add up to a much much greater impact on out native wildlife than that wrought by cats.

I was the president of the North Queensland Conservation Council 14 years ago. One of the main things that caused me to distance myself from that organisation was the extraordinarily narrow focus of just about all the active members in the organization. Everyone had their own barrow to push, and no one was really interested in the big picture, or at least not interested enough to put a significant part of their time and energy towards it. The campaigns that took just about all the energy of the organisation were single development issues such as Port Hinchinbrook and Magnetic Quays on Magnetic Island. Meanwhile, rapid coastal development and land clearing well inland continued just about unchallenged.

The point is; we need to look at these problems in a holistic manner.

i was the president of the North Queensland Conservation Council 14 years ago.

So what is it you do now for our environment...curious after reading your line above.

Gryphon, I am a principle scientist in the field of botany and ecology and a long-time government employee. But I can’t give you specifics, because of absurd restrictions on freedom of speech that exist in our so-called free democracy. I would love to write posts on this forum under my own name, but I have to use a pseudonym.

Over the years I have been active in non-government organisations, including many years on the committees and stints as president of two others as well as NQCC.

I have given many presentations to these organizations and the occasional conference presentation and guest lecture at James Cook Uni, and hundreds of letters to the editors of various newspapers and a few articles over a period of 15 years, before the advent of internet forums.

So what do I do for the environment? Not as much as I used to. These days it is just posts on OLO, over a thousand now, most of which have an environmental bent, and keeping the message coming regarding population growth, coastal development and land clearing within my job and wherever I can

Have a gander in here also,some interesting topics found re: environment.

http://www.envirotalk.com.au/forum/

The site doesn't appear to be working at the moment Gryphon but I will be interested to look at the opinions as long as the discussion is effective and doesn't just concentrate on cats!
My website provokes a bit of discussion www.freeranger.com.au It's a farm site but we have pages on wildife rescue, sustainable farming and riparian vegetation. Perhaps that will help you.

I will check it out at this stage with an open mind.

I will check it out at this stage with an open mind.

Back after a look...i didnt realise its just an "ad" for what i get on a daily basis from my own free range hens and ducks.

The website is hardly 'just an ad' - we don't need any promotional tools to sell a product that is essentially sold before it is laid!
And there is a significant difference between running a sustainable agricultural enterprise and having a few chooks and ducks running around a backyard.

Settlers’ approach to “Terra Nullius” reflected then advanced practices Britain spread worldwide in accordance with her cultural infidel tradition.

As comprehended, according to an article, a Snowy Mountain Scheme should immediately be de-commissioned, as it is a very cause of environmental distracture.

Surely, a very common CULTURAL determination is a humans’ quest for a better life, of which natural resources are constituent, in China, Australia or elsewhere