- without calculation to figure out which resources uses to be sacrificed, the ecological and economic waste will be *worse*, not better (repeat of Soviet problem)
- government is not magic, it is not all-knowing, it is not omnipotent, and it is not morally superior. It does not have the knowledge, virtue, or capacity to do what it would need to do to distinguish what are the 'needs' as distinct from the 'not needs' of everyone in the world.

The common thread running through all the arguments from sustainability is utter economic illiteracy.

For example millions of hectares of Australian land put out of production for ‘native vegetation’; Australia is a major food-exporting country; people overseas starving; but the economic ignorance of the sustainability school does not make the connection.

Underlying your belief system is the assumption that issues of scarcity of resources can be magically conjured away by government forcibly re-arranging property titles.

You have not refuted the arguments that show that
1. sustainability is not necessarily a problem in practice because of the time-frame, and
2. if it is, government is not magically going to know how to fix the problem, of balancing the competing needs any better than the status quo ante.

The argument for political action for sustainability is a religious fantasy of totalitarian control that cannot be achieved and that is anti-human in practice.

The idea that Kevin Rudd controls the weather if we just give him enough money is deluded.

As you have not stopped assuming what is in issue in this entire thread, as I have informed you that that is a logical fallacy, as you do not seem to understand or to care, and still persist, therefore I end my participation in this discussion, and declare myself the winner in this sense: I have shown reason why the sustainability argument is invalid, and you have not refuted my arguments

Fungo, you say to ericc:

"I'm afraid I don't have the time or space here to elaborate on my views around such a complex question."

So, for once in your FOLO life, fhut the suck up ... watch and learn.

The problems we (humanity) are having is not about science. There is more at stake.

I'm giving it to Luwig & Co so far by trumps (although WAL et al are putting up a valiant fight) - I tips me hat to ya'll :->

Whoops, looks like WAL's forfeited!

Firstly, Wing Ah Ling, I think the onus should be on you to convince us of the premises that you base your argument on, that is, that by arriving at decisions of how to solve all the serious problems we face democratically through our system of Parliament we will make maters WORSE than if we hand across all the powers to make those decisions to private corporations.

Wing Ah Ling wrote, "Obviously if you get your understanding of the philosophy and economics of liberty from Naomi Klein, you won't understand what you are talking about on the topic."

Since you are so knowledgeable about Naomi Klein, then how about telling the rest of us where she is wrong?

Wing Ah Ling wrote, "You are failing to understand the issues."

Where have I "fail(ed) to understand the issues"? Please explain.

Wing Ah Ling continued, "Governments are also corporations."

And corporations are also governments. So what?

Wing Ah Ling continued, "They have all the same problems of greed as other corporations, ..."

How do you define 'greed'? In a properly functioning democracy, a government will act in the interests of all of society and not in the interests of a section of society. How is that 'greed'?

Wing Ah Ling continued, "... with none of the redeeming features."

So, what do you maintain the "redeeming features" of corporations to be, Wing Ah Ling?

I do believe Q & A has blown a fuse.

This seems to be the debate...
1: Can we keep going on like this?
2: If population keeps rising, will living standards and the environment suffer?

How do we answer this argument?
We look at countries that have high population growth and see how if they have poor quality of life (yes) and declining environments (yes)

Poverty & environmental destruction is caused by population growth!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All the poorest countries, countries with desertification and growing exploitation of the fragile environmnet have the highest fertility... And it is THE CAUSE of poverty, not a RESULT of poverty.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_fertility_rate
For a list of "fertility" rates by nation.

The highest fertility rates have the highest poverty (with some sexist muslim nations with religious-ly motivated high fertility)

Imagine, that our government had top build 5 time more schools, 5 times more hospitals, roads and somehow make 5 times more farm land each generation? Our wealthy economies would simply collapse! Our National parks would be opened up for food farming to fend off starvation...

But that is the burden we allow the poor countries to suffer from...
Rwanda's growth means that every 25 years, there are 5 times more people!

Why is it 'not acceptable' to talk about 'population management' as the solution to poverty? The people who oppose population management are sadists, guilty of causing immeasurable pain and death. (now I'm getting dramatic!)

The other thing to note is the bottom of the list - nations who are committing genocide against themselves by failing to produce children are the richest nations (and some with social issues, repression etc).
These are the most feminist nations... If education of women reduces fertility (basic feminims), then stronger militant feminism causes low fertility.

PartTimeParent@pobox.com