No, old Karl wasn’t right on the growth thing TurnRightThenLeft.

Firstly, we simply have to consider sustainability to be a whole lot more important than the maintenance of a growth-driven economy. Sure, we have to find a balance that protects our economic style (while striving to modify it) as best we can while genuinely addressing sustainability issues – we can’t just stop expansionism overnight. But we really do have to err (bias the balance) strongly on the side of protecting our future wellbeing.

Secondly, we’ve gotta separate the two diametrically opposed halves of ‘growth’. Yes we want the good half – the technological advances that bring us new energy sources, improvements in efficiency of resource consumption and waste production and better ways of doing all sorts of things.

But noooooo, we don’t want the expansion side of growth any more! Or I should say, we don’t want the expanding-pressure-on-our-resources-and-environment side of it any more.

Marx envisioned growth-based capitalism in the mid 1800s when the very notion of resources running out or becoming prohibitively expensive or intractably affecting environment, health and future wellbeing just wasn’t even thought about. Sure he could see some problems with industrialization, but nothing that he thought couldn’t be easily dealt with without limiting growth.

Of course the world is a very different place now, and that aspect of Marxism is no longer appropriate.

In fact, one of the biggest flaws in the thinking of Marx and many other apparent visionaries is the idea of massive expansionism with no end in sight rather than the notion of reaching a certain magnitude of activities and then stabilizing them well within the ability of the resource base to support it.

Thomas Malthus is one of the very few who very early on saw the danger in this unbridled expansionism, shortly before Marx rose to prominence.

“It's all well and good to point to the problems associated with growth but you fail to address the problems that will inevitably arrive when it is halted.”

I’ll address this next time.

What a pity the good Professor failed to mention in his "sustainability" package for factory farming, the cessation of the heinous practices perpetrated on livestock.

Cows' bellies slit open, ovaries ripped out, pigs tails chopped off, testicles lopped and teeth sawn down. Mulesing, conscious pigs dropped squealing into boiling water, battery hens. The list goes on and not a vet in sight, or a drop of anaesthetic anywhere.

Then you have the barbaric practice of poisoning feral animals (a result of human stuff-ups) with 1080 where an animal can take up to four days to die in agony.

What about our livestock in the middle east which have their eyes speared and their leg tendons slashed?

How on earth does the professor expect everyone to engage in rational debate about the plight of the farmer?

As usual it's all about "me, me" and other living species on this planet are irrelevant.

The problem as I see it, is that Marx was accurate when he said profit margins inevitably decrease in a competition based free market economy - as I said, Marx was wrong about plenty of matters, but not that.

When I say profit margins, I don't mean the end result delivered to the capitalist - rather, the profit margin on the individual product.

The end profit however, is only inflated due to a smaller concentration of owners - this can be seen in the reduced number of self employed people.

In fact, the only reason why the end result for the owners is a higher profit margin is the consistently increasing growth.

It's obvious to me that we need a sustainable economic system - however the one we have will need tweaking. As I see it, this is the crucial issue, as all other remedies will flow from these alterations.

“It's all well and good to point to the problems associated with growth but you fail to address the problems that will inevitably arrive when it is halted.”

TurnRightThenLeft, whenever anyone mentions the downside of stabilizing population and the concomitant pressures on resources and environment, the retort must be; ‘what problems do you think will occur if we don’t wean ourselves off expansionism, and quickly.’

For just about every negative thing that would accompany a slowing of population growth, we can point to a parallel improvement. For example, high growth pressure leads to skyrocketing real estate prices in some areas, which is good for some people. Much-reduced growth pressure would lead to falling or stabilized prices, with falling or stable rents and rates, which is good for many.

“…it might be a good idea to figure out how to work the brake.”

We should be way past discussion of the importance of sustainability and be concentrating on just how we do it. So how do we do it? Hammer the message home. This is where key people such as Tim Flannery are vitally important, along with Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University and President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Bob Brown, Peter Garrett and many others, need to really get their backsides into top gear, show a united front and constantly talk about the bottom line – sustainability.

We need to get this stuff right into the core of national politics.

I think there is huge (largely latent) concern in the general community about this. With a boosted high-profile media output, it could be harnessed. I implored Kevin Rudd and Beazley before him to get stuck into the core of environmentalism and unleash that enormous latent concern that most people have and turn it into political backing.

Surely the national community is on the cusp of a major realization. Once the mindset of the people has a place to focus and a party to support, change towards sustainability and sensibility will flow forward very easily. We just have to break through that barrier.

To sustain is to maintain the status quo. This is too little too late as the functionalility of the 'soils' used for industrialised farming is close to zero. We need to regenerate and restore to former levels of functionality which many early white explorers described 'the soils resembled the texture of moist chocolate cakes and the horses sank up to their knees on plains of waving grasses'.

Language is the primary tool to create a cultural shift, and, in my research on this issue, there are distinct differences between the vocabularies of 'stubble-burning' farmers (industrialised) compared to pasture croppers, who are ecologically literate.

The stark difference between the two groups is their regard for the soil. One group uses the soil as in inert substance to support the root structures of the plants, feeding them with synthetic nutrients whilst in the other group, these farmers develop and enhance soil health providing the basis for strong, healthy crops and actually building topsoil. See www.soilfoodweb.com.au

An example of the differences between these groups is the attitude exhibited towards those unfortunate plants known as weeds. Industrialised farmers believe competetion with the mono-culture crop for moisture, nutrients and light must be exterminated / dominated / eradicated (descriptions of herbicides).

Conversely, pasture croppers sowing cereal crops into dormant native pastures have learned to co-exist with these other plants, using timed grazing to minimise undesirable effects while maintaining the perenniality and integrity of the biodiversity all year 'round. This contravenes the belief that fallow is beneficial as soil biota and fungi rely on living plants for their life.

The language of regeneration includes words and terms regarded as feminine..... complexity / emotional learning / resilience /holistic / nature-cyclical / symbiotic / compassion and more.

Until these concepts are included into industrialised agriculture around which practices will develop, land will continue to be mined in the quest to produce more of the same (commodification)...... lowering prices and profitability and so the resources are sqeezed even harder to produce more.... and so the cycle goes on...... eco-rat thinking.

bush goddess

"I think there is huge (largely latent) concern in the general community about this. With a boosted high-profile media output, it could be harnessed"

Ludwig, we are agreed sustainability is required, but this is where we differ.
I'll agree that there is a level of concern, however I think the moment the average person is asked to choose between that concern and creature comforts, most will go on living in the manner they have become accustomed.
People will only jump on this bandwagon if it doesn't cost them anything - better yet, if there is some kind of gain.

Your point that for every downside there is an upside is more promising.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that we need to devise an economic system that rewards sustainable outcomes. Recycling has to be profitable, not just capable of covering costs. It is for reasons such as this, that carbon trading has more promise than most other ideas mooted.

You seem to be saying, public opinion will drive an economic change which will allow for sustainability.

I say, in order to reach sustainability, you need to change the economy to drive public opinion. Eventually this will occur on its own, though if there's any way to stimulate this beforehand, it will be a much easier process.

This is why the crucial matter is making sustainability profitable.