Ludwig

I must profoundly disagree, I argue strongly in favour of science, technology and progress. I hold it as an article of faith that life to-day for the majority of people in all parts of the world is better by orders of magnitude then it was say a hundred or five hundred years ago.

This is true in spite of a massive population increases. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe experienced several episodes of famine. Not so today, due to a variety of reasons; improved marketing and transport of foods, improved agriculture, the fixation of ammonia by Fritz Haber’s process (approximately in 1914), the green revolution and now genetic modified foods.
Climate too has improved – for we are fortunate to be alive in a more favourable phase of the natural climate cycle.

The famines in the 1930s in the Old Soviet Union can be related in part to Stalin adopting the genetic theories of Trofim Lysenko. Mendel' genetic theories did not resonate well with Marxism. It was labelled bourgeois science. Lamarck’s concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics appealed to the politically correct of the day.

Please note that I speak of the majority of people. Of course there are pockets of human misery to be found in every country.

To the well known story of the half empty glass I will add two other explanations. According to an engineer colleague the glass was over designed. My grandmother offered an even better explanation namely; always buy two sizes too big the child will grow into the garment. Which I think brings the argument back to the late Sir Charles Court and the imaginative Ord River scheme.

Anti-Green, have you ever stopped to think these days of the need to steady down about global progress, especially as much of the progress is based on thoughts mixed between the head and below the navel, rather than also from the heart regions as even Adam Smith, the father of Laizess-faire spoke about when he warned about the aggravations of capitalistic competition.

Anti-green, sorry but just what is it that you profoundly disagree with me over?

I also argue strongly for science, technology and progress, presumably with similar goals to you – to achieve a sustainable secure future, with a better quality of life, much better equality for humanity and a much better respect for the natural environment and rights of other organisms….or something like that. You get the general drift.

Balance is the essential element. This is what was so glaringly absent in Court’s push, and similarly with Howard….and with practically every local, state and federal government in this country and around the world.

Their brand of 'progress' took us away from a secure future, by increasing the effect of humanity on our environment, thus making it that much harder for us to achieve the essential balance.

These ‘growth-at-all-costs’ merchants used many of our scientific and technological advances against us. They used them to facilitate greater human pressure on our environment and resource base.

Let us simplify the discussion. On one one side we have thousands of the world's best and brightest scientists on the other is John Howard and conservatism. Who do you trust? I know where my money is, and it's not with old fashioned and outdated selfish conservatism.

anti-green,

No such thing as “Lysenko’s genetic theories” existed because genetics itself was a “pseudo-science”.

Although over-obsession with genetic is quite understandable in feudal society where inherited possessions include posts at the academia, even in the UK most recent research proves that training of thoroughbred horses rather than their genome is the most for achievements at races.

However, who cares today of Howard’s environmentalism?

Bushbred and Ludwig

Thank you both for your replies. I appreciate the point Ludwig, that you too favour science and development.

Our difference then is one of execution. We may differ on the “rate of introduction” of new technologies.

By and large I get very concerned about the routine blocking, delay and increased or unnecessary cost to industry, so as to placate the whim of greens and/or environmentalists.

Let me give some examples: opposition to building a high rise building, construction of a new road, construction of a new mine (especially one where uranium ore will be mined), a new de-salination plant. Only rarely do I think such objection can be sustained or justified.

Then there is the almost routine protests against new technologies or even the introduction of an established technology into a new area such as into WA. Examples include, genetic modified crops, nuclear energy. Food irradiation - in the interests of food preservation or prophylaxis against bacterial food poisoning. Then again there is routine agitation, by “special interest” groups against such established public health measures such as vaccination programs, supplementary fluoride being carefully added to water supplies. In the case of GM food and nuclear matters there seems to be an implicit distrust, in some minds of government regulatory organisations. I do not consider this lack of confidence in regulation to be justified.

I do not want to be too sweeping, if the anti groups have a good case then I will listen. Just for the record I am against smoking, binge drinking as opposed to “social” drinking and the pokies.

I do not think this is deviating too far from the nominated topic of
John Howard, environmentalist.