I'm sorry Anna52, but the IMR in the West Bank at 20 per thousand is low in the Arab context. If the West Bank was booted out of Israel, it's IMR would no doubt rise to end up like it's pathetic Arab neighbours. Let's see...Egypt's is 31 per thousand, Algeria's is 30, Syria's is 29, Libya's is 23.

I'd say rather than reflecting Israel's "cruel apartheid and institutional discrimination...blah, blah, blah" it reflects the limitations of Arab abilities in statecraft, governance and organisational skills.

The Arab world should read the UN Arab Human Development Reports that have been issued annually by the UN for the last few years, take a long hard look in the mirror and DO SOMETHING TO FIX THE PATHETIC STATE THEY ARE IN - no more hot air, high-flown empty rhetoric, excessive pride, hairy chested machismo or blame-shifting. The world is really starting to tire of this region so they need to just shut up, knuckle down and fix the huge list of social and economic problems that the UN has identified in these dust-gathering reports.

I thought this was a well balanced article which offers the expectations to be derived from improved management of resources.

I find Anna52 negativity typical of those who believe we should parade around in sack cloth and ashes because not all parts of the world are as affluent as others, the world is not a perfect place anna, get used to it.

Daggett I think you should re-read Jacks article, particularly the bit which says “The crust of the Earth is 30-45kms thick under the continents. Almost all metal production to date has been extracted from the top one kilometre.”

Well said anti-green, bringing some sense to an otherwise morose and negative run of responses.

Kvasir your post also helping to balance the consequences of organized versus disorganized nation-states.

It is said, everything we have is either mined, harvested or manufactured.

When the first man shaped and tied the first rock to the selected stick to make his first axe, with which to go and kill a beast, he started the process –
Mining a mineral (suitable axe stone, which he shaped)
Harvesting a tree (the wood for the handle)
Using the two to manufacture an axe.

We have an earth to live on, we can either manage its resources or not. By not managing its resources we are neglecting them. Making somewhere a “wilderness area” equates to “mismanagement”. Wilderness also become the haven for feral critters so its contribution is in fact, not neutral, it is negative. The land was placed there to be managed, managed sustainably but, none the less, managed

Once again Col Rouge yammers on about something on which he has no idea.

"Daggett I think you should re-read Jacks article, particularly the bit which says “The crust of the Earth is 30-45kms thick under the continents. Almost all metal production to date has been extracted from the top one kilometre.”"

What exactly does this mean? Nothing really. It implies that we have the rest of the crust to drill materials out of. This implies that we can actually drill and mine materials and depths of 45km below the surface, which my mining Engineer mate tells me is an impossibility for now and the foreseeable future. But hey, Don't let reality and little things like actual engineering get in the way.

You of course ignore Daggets mentioned problem of oil depletion, as there is no alternative than can replace oil, even if there are significant advances in the efficiency of machines and processes that require oil.

The yammering on about the manufacture of an axe. What point does this raise in relation to this debate? Nothing really other than showing we use materials to make stuff. Thanks Captain Obvious.

"Making somewhere a “wilderness area” equates to “mismanagement”. Wilderness also become the haven for feral critters so its contribution is in fact, not neutral, it is negative. The land was placed there to be managed, managed sustainably but, none the less, managed"

The reason some areas are made "wilderness areas" has everything to do with sustainable management. Your generalizations about wilderness areas are also off. So I assume that you either don't know what you are talking about(Big surprise there) or imply that we should be using this land for agriculture etc. (which would be disastrous).But hey, I'm sure you know better than environmental scientists who have devoted most of their lives to the problem because of what you have read in a few sensationalist media reports and what you could find on google.

Anna; Cuba is always a popular example with lefties. It does indeed have a competitive IMR, for reasons which you perhaps prefer to ignore:
1. It is "de facto" industrialised as a result of the very generous aid it received from Russia up to the late 80s. Its infrastructure is now seriously deteriorating.
2. It manages its population with birth control by abortion, which has always clouded relations between Castro and the Pope. It population management is also assisted by the continuing exodus of its people to Florida for greater oppportunities out of the clutches of a centrally controlled economy. They of course end up assisting Cuba through their repatriated $US.

Jacks,

Cubans have roughly the same life expectancy as citizens of the U.S. even though the average Cuban consumes only one eighth of the energy that is consumed by an average U.S. citizen. Every Cuban has access to free health services, education and they are well fed. Every Cuban has a dwelling to live in and 85% own their own home. Contrast that to Australia today.

In 1994, with 2% of Latin America's population they had 11% of its scientists. That is why they were able to adjust their economy very quickly to the sudden drop by 53% of its oil imports in 1990. The agricultural system is now largely organic and sustainable, in comparison to, for example, Australia's (See http://www.communitysolution.org and http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/657, and contrast to Paul Sheehan "We Fiddle as the Continent Turns to Dust" at http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/102406ED.shtml).

It's easy to find fault with Cuba, but in many critical areas, including sustainability, they leave most other countries on the planet for dead.

---

Bobalot, thanks for your post. You have saved me some trouble.

Bobalot “Once again Col Rouge yammers on about something on which he has no idea.”

Maybe you could identify what I have “no idea” about bobittie,

I do recall hearing that in the 19th century drilling could only go to very limited depths, which have over the past 100 years been extended to 12,000 metres (about 8 miles). Until the 1970s drilling was vertical, then innovators found they could also drill on a diagonal. Of course most drilling through history was land based, now we see coast and ocean drilling.

Your “engineering mates” would have been telling you, 100 years ago “Only land based oil wells to depths of 200 metres” and they would have been as wrong then as they are today.

“The reason some areas are made "wilderness areas" has everything to do with sustainable management.”

Leaving places as feral cat and fox reserves is not “sustainable”.

Any idea which assumes that an area selected “wilderness” is something “special” is a joke, its continued existence is determined as the result of a human decision, therefore it is being “managed as “wilderness”.

I would be very interested in you showing me what is “sustainable” from a policy of deliberate neglect.

“But hey, I'm sure you know better than environmental scientists who have devoted most of their lives to the problem”

I support the values of free speech and the right of everyone to hold an opinion. I would not vote Marxist simply because someone told me they had studied his preachings any more than support, blindly, the rantings of a scientist about his pet obsession.

I am not sure what you have devoted your life to but whatever it is, I doubt whatever you could say would impress me sufficiently to sway me and before you suggest it, let me tell you, I could not give a stuff as to how I sway you.

Now bobalong and play with the other feral critters.