I do not know the protocols about making comments about your own article but having read the various comments I think I am justified in clarifying my own position.
Population. Stephen Lincoln in his book Challenged Earth estimates that the global bio capacity per person is 2.1 hectares. In 2006 we were using 2.8 hectares. Hence we are in the middle of our very own tragedy of the commons – he highlights that in the developed world the amount of biocapacity being used ranges from 4.1 hectares per person in France to 10.3 in the USA (we use up 9 hectares.) We face some stark choices – we will need all of our human ingenuity to ensure that future generations can enjoy the benefits of a 21st century lifestyle without living beyond our means.
In developing ideas for the future we need to understand the present. I attempted to move the debate beyond global warming to sound a warning that many of the features that Diamond has found that caused various societies in the past to collapse are present on a global scale. All of the societies he described survived their collapse. The price those societies paid was a severe reduction in population, often civil unrest as well as that each of these societies lost what progress has been made.
How long would any of our cities survive if all transport stopped tomorrow? The fact that this will not happen overnight does not detract from the fact that about 3- 4 billion people on this planet are dependent on food being trucked in. As peak oil begins to bite food will become more and more expensive – does it therefore not make sense that we begin by creating largely self sustainable communities around the globe?

Cont.
Our ingenuity can enable us to have a prosperous future – as long we are mindful of the fact that we will not be able to exercise that ingenuity if all of our energy is devoted to getting the where withal to merely survive. It may well be that those of us who are concerned are unnecessarily worried – that it will not come to that – the cavalry will come at the last moment and save us. But does it not make sense to start shaping a future where we will not need to rely on the cavalry?
For those who argue that we could not possibly afford it then perhaps think on this. The war in Iraq has cost the US three trillion dollars. Those 3 trillion dollars could also have been spent on future proofing the globe – we need to rethink our priorities

Colinsett “but neither are available in the form people would find acceptable.”

Humans are adaptable and the inventive nature of man could reasonably resolve how to make what appears presently un-acceptable, acceptable. After all, Australia 200 years ago was considered fit only for convicts.

Mhaze I agree with you. Some posters here seem to have a vested interest in painting the darkest picture possible, probably the beneficiaries of secure government niches, far away from where real people work.

Col,

I am surprised that you are taking the side of a growthist, as elsewhere you seem to understand very well that an ever increasing population will trash the environment (and also the personal freedom that you value very highly). I was trained as a scientist, and I have worked with a lot of other scientists and engineers who are trying to come up with technological solutions to some of our energy problems. It is extremely difficult, and there are a lot of blind alleys that look promising at first. I haven't ever met a scientist or engineer who was a cornucopian. That seems to be reserved for economists and the like.

Go back to the science fiction and popular science articles of the 1950s and 1960s and see what they were predicting for now: Cure for cancer. The ability to regrow amputated limbs. Colonies, or at least bases, on the moon and Mars. Giant space stations that rotate to simulate gravity. Electricity from nuclear power plants that is too cheap to meter. An end to poverty and hunger. 20 hour work weeks and so much leisure that we won't know what to do with it. The list could go on. (Of course they also had no idea of some of the things we can do. Robert Heinlein had his 24th century people using slide rules.)

To me, our first concern has to be coming to terms with the natural world, which is often intractable and is indifferent to human concerns. Economists often see the world like a picture of Mickey Mouse, with the economy the face and the society and environment the less important ears. Actually they are concentric circles. If you trash your environment you trash your society and economy as well.

Divergence “I am surprised that you are taking the side of a growthist,”

I am taking the side of the individual.

I recognize the “world” has a lot of problems.

I recognize the only way out of them is through the unfettered efforts of individuals, not government.

“It is extremely difficult, and there are a lot of blind alleys that look promising at first.”

Of course but it is only through following them all along that one finds the “openings”

“To me, our first concern has to be coming to terms with the natural world, which is often intractable and is indifferent to human concerns.”

Agree and individuals are a part of that and yes, the “world” does not care.

Economists are theorocrats who cannot agree with one another, let alone find consensus.

A world run by economists would achieve nothing because they are measurers of the activity of others, not the innovators who will produce the solutions.

Ultimately “growth” in the future may well be in life quality terms (which is my primary motivator). The problem is “quality of life” is 90% beyond the realm or reasoning of economists.

Col –

I think that designing society so that the individual is unfettered in his desire to do just about whatever he pleases, should be one of the primary goals of our democracy. I disagree with many of my friends in environmental groups on this. On some issues sustainability and freedom go hand in hand. For example, scrapping the baby bonus would improve freedom by saying that government does not want to encourage or discourage people from having children. That decision is left completely to the individual. Eliminating subsidies to oil, coal and natural gas would balance the playing field for more sustainable sources of energy.

On other issues a strong government is needed.

For example, can we achieve net zero immigration with only the unfettered effort of individuals? If we want individuals from other countries to have those freedoms, then they may say it is only natural that we welcome anybody who wants to come to live in Australia. That kind of individual freedom would see millions of immigrants coming to Australia every year. It seems to me that government must control immigration. No individual effort will be suitable.

Will we protect natural lands from use by private individuals without government? Will we be able to make the best use of water without government intervention? Will individuals pollute the common water, land and air that we all use without government?

Free enterprise has been successful because it is a natural system. If it is run properly, it puts everyone around the table and lets them freely choose the goods and services that they want and the price they are willing to pay. That is the way your brain works. We have been programmed to choose the things that will make us happiest and balance the effort we are willing to expend to get those things, ever since we were babies.

continued