Well, of course Ginxy, indigenous culture would have survived if it hadn’t been ‘interfered’ with.

But this is NOT what you objected to from Boaz, is it now!

So then, you don’t actually have a problem with what he wrote, apparently?

"So which is it? Do I believe "it improves per capita prosperity", or that "it reduces per capita prosperity"? And just to be very clear - where did I say either one?"

Sorry Pericles. I didn't realise that your comments had an expiry date. But I do wonder what is being called for? How ,for example, could the lot of those in the third world be helped if Australians adopted a spartan living standard? Would the sacrifice bring about some miraculous transformation? Its a bit like the often quoted line that pilfering the skilled and able from developing countries is so helpful because of all the money they send home(assuming they dont fall into the hands of the many slave drivers about). I cannot say that I have ever heard the idea of Australia exporting her skilled and able as a means of furthering the prosperity of her citizens. It is referred to as "The Brain Drain"; hardly a flattering term.

If we really want to help the developing world, we need to help it develop. Thinking that bringing a few refugees here, as well as pilfering developing countries of their skilled and able is a bit like thinking that you have "saved" the polar bear by sticking a few on show at Taronga Zoo. The article fails for me because it makes no argument as to why accepting refugees is more effective than other forms of aid. Historical precedent suggests that technological development has made the greatest difference in our lives. Maybe it will continue to be so.

With so many in need, whom should we help? Surely of those we can, those in greatest need.

Refugees whose lives are in danger have a strong case. So do people who will starve to death if they are not helped. We can usually best help the latter by helping them improve their circumstances. (Think digging wells, developing industries, providing equipment and medical services.) We can usually only help the refugees by accepting them into our country.

"But this is NOT what you objected to from Boaz, is it now!"

Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 25 October 2007 10:08:33 PM

OH YES IT WAS WIGSY!!

I know what I wrote. I know what I meant.

Pericles,

In view of your remarkable personal attack on me, it might be helpful to dispell some stereotypes. I live quite modestly and don't watch television at all, plasma or otherwise. I do volunteer work and donate to environmental organisations and local charities. I have been paying for the dental care of a young neighbour who has been out of work for some time, even though I am not rich and could use the money elsewhere, since the sociopaths in Parliament don't care, the local charities are overloaded, and he can't attract sympathy as a refugee or migrant. When I vote, I preference parties that promise to raise taxes (including mine) over parties promising tax cuts.

Obsession over historical injustices is stupid, since all of us are descended from both perpetrators and victims. The Aboriginal people may indeed have been the first settlers in Australia, but their ancestors were not the first in the islands to our north (google "DNA" and "peopling of Australia"). Somehow I can't see the existing inhabitants stepping aside gracefully for them. Can you? We are responsible for how we treat them now, though.

If you wouldn't feel guilty about inheriting a house, why would you feel guilty about inheriting the advantages of a culture that is less dysfunctional than others? In any case, overconsumption is a relatively unimportant contributor to global problems, as I calculate below

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6178#89070

Divergence

"..overconsumption is a relatively unimportant contributor to global problems.."

What nonsense! It is the sole contributor and the very reason the future of the earth is under threat.

Fueling the consumption of affluent societies is why we are facing a huge greenhouse gas problem, a looming peak oil disaster, widespread air and water pollution, fish stock depletion, species' extinctions, land degradation and the list goes on.

The other major threat to the planet - that of war - is also resource driven. The terrorist threat is a direct result of less powerful nations objecting to the greedy plundering of their resources by rapacious consumption-driven societies, who see the world's resources as there for the taking.

Overconsumption is far from benign, to my mind it is the crux of all our problems.