The downside, is that only the people around the table get to bid for the goods and services. Future generations are not around the table bidding, so they don’t get to buy things. We have to buy things for them and then put them aside. We have done that with National Parks, our education, political and justice systems, but we aren’t doing that with oil, natural gas, coal, old growth forests, wetlands, most wild animal habitats, etc.

How can we save things for future generations without government? What ways can unfettered individual effort lead to a world where our descendants have the same advantages as we had?

What would the Easter Islanders have said as the last tree was cut down? Based upon new research, it would have been something like: "Why did we ever allow rats to be introduced to the island?" It seems that exotic rats ate all the young tree seedlings and even seeds before they germinated, resulting in a lack of recruitment to replace the trees that died of old age or were cut down for human usage.
So, while it may have been a human being who cut down the last tree, in fact the trees on Easter Island were doomed once introduced rates became established.
A sober lesson on the dangers of exotic species!

Ericc

I applaud your well balanced and thoughtful posts. Agree entirely.

Cheers

Ericc “On some issues sustainability and freedom go hand in hand.”

Of course ericc. And freedom is a responsibility.

The unfree cannot be held accountable or responsible for anything.

A system which makes the individual responsible for sustainability when he has no freedom of influence is an abomination

Only the individual who can make choice can choose to be sustainable or not.

No freedom, no individual responsibility for sustainability.

The other thing is the market system, despite all its failings, at least adjusts to unsustainable usage (and things get more expensive).

There is always a need for some government, if only to balance the weakness of an individual against strong monopolistic influences and to fund those institutions which cannot be private, such as courts, the military, parliament and elections (not the exhaustive list just a few examples).

But we do not benefit from setting up government monopolies for schools or health or transport or many other things which current governments have a hand in. I believe a plural system is better than a government monopoly system where a desire not to leave everything just to the private system exist.

“Free enterprise has been successful because it is a natural system. If it is run properly,”

Exactly, hence my comments re monopolies

“What ways can unfettered individual effort lead to a world where our descendants have the same advantages as we had?”

Even if we left a world, virgo-intacto, so to speak, who knows what might happen.

I have no desire to deprive my children of a good life and will hopefully leave them with innovations which improve their life quality and recycle and preserve resources, which were not available to me or my parents but I also know my children will take up thier role in the world with the same desire and energy to face the challenge and contribute to humanity’s common constraints and one way of doing that is to be free and responsible for the numbers of children they have (just as their dad has been).

Ericc and Col, yep we need both good government and healthy private enterprise. But how the hell do we get a government that will actually work towards sustainability, before they are shocked by some huge crunch event into doing so?

“…can we achieve net zero immigration with only the unfettered effort of individuals?”

No. Can we achieve it with the current government or the next one when the other half of the brothers grim wins power? Um…no.

“Free enterprise has been successful because it is a natural system”.

Well, it’s been successful in building our nation. But it is still being ‘successful’ in promoting continuous rapid expansionism in an era when it desperately needs to stop….and it is producing enormous resistance to us reaching an end to this insane momentum.

We need a considerably stronger more socialistic government – one that is capable of effectively tempering this expansionistic madness. The balance needs to swing strongly away from power lying with big business and towards power being vested in the community, through their elected representatives who will genuinely place their best interest first.

Or perhaps it will be big business that sees the light first and actually drags our Ruddy government towards a sustainability-oriented path? (mmmMMMMmmm, yes, flying pigs are circling my head!)

Col, you might be interested in this http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1828#36473

Ludwig –

I think a socialist-style government would be a giant step backward. The chances for corruption and inefficiencies are far too great.

I think there are ways that we can be more sustainable with a free market society and a democratically elected parliament. First, we can go to net zero immigration. Second, scrap the baby bonus. Right now "OUR" government is making a conscious effort to increase the population. A socialist government could have exactly the same policies.

We can change the taxation system to reward the consumption of renewable products. Government can purchase a higher recycled content. Governments purchase about a third of the nation's goods and services. If federal, state and local governments all set a policy of using increasingly more renewable energy and recycled materials we would gradually get more sustainable, and gradually produce more efficient markets for the general public. In many cases, government departments are behind private industry in adopting newer recycled products, because nobody in the bureaucracy wants to stick his neck out and buy a different product that wasn’t specified 30 years ago.

I’m not saying it will be easy to make these changes. I’m just saying it will be easier, and we will end up with a better society, than if we get more socialist.

I’m not as pessimistic about big business as you. I don’t think big business is any less enlightened than the man in the street. In many cases, business does lead government. [See Coal miners and Kyoto protocol] I don’t think we should expect business to drag governments kicking and screaming towards sustainability, but we also shouldn’t blame business for holding “OUR” government back. The average voter, radio call back caller and internet poster has to take responsibility, as well.