The arguments I have faced in this thread include:
Circular argument (assuming what is in issue. Ludwig has not yet tried to prove the basic contention, nor shown that he recognizes the issues of ethics, values, time preferences, resources, technology, futurity). He, and the article he cites, just assumes that his contention proves itself.
Mind-reading (eg Pelican telling me what I think)
Misrepresentation (eg billie telling me I said we have thousands of years of fossil fuels)
Appeal to absent authority – ‘The ACF think it’s true, so therefore it must be true’
Argument by fractions of data sets. ‘Queensland is running out of fossil fuels therefore the world is’
Magic: assume a magic quantity x, like a magic teapot, which can fix all our problems without the need to rationalize conflicting priorities over scarce resources. Call that quantity government. There is your argument.


There are two basic problems:
• The fact that we can’t have indefinite growth on a finite base does not mean in practice that we are faced with a crisis over sustainability, and
• Even if there were, that would not provide any justification whatsoever for political action.

1.
Malthus’s theorem (population growth exponential, food growth arithmetic) is wrong; that’s why predictions based on it didn’t come true.

The theorem that indefinite growth can’t take place on a finite base is true but tells us nothing about the time-frame. If it’s 100 millions years away, so what?

You believe that a crisis is imminent. But I know you don’t know.

You reach that conclusion by ignoring the fact that values, potentialities, resources and technology are not static.

In 1777 there was not enough kangaroo meat to support a population of 20 million. Should the population have restricted their consumption accordingly, so as not to detract from our standard of living? That’s the level of your argument.

The point is, you can’t just extrapolate curves: that’s what Malthus and Ehrlich did. They were wrong, remember? Because their methodology is wrong

So the first problem is that your argument merely assumes that a crisis is imminent on the basis of demonstrable errors, and when challenged, endlessly repeats the assumption as if self-proving.

2.
But even if it is true that an ecological crisis is immiment, that still provides no justification whatsoever for political action as a response, for a number of reasons.

The original problem is how best to rationalize conflicting priorities over the use of scarce resources.

The assumption that we can improve our capacity to do this by using government, is simply false.

Government does not bring superior knowledge, or moral virtue, or capacity to solve the problem: it brings a much more limited knowledge set, and only a greater concentration of power, of force. But that can’t solve the problem.

The only reason it seems able, is because people use a double standard: they ignore the costs of governmental action. They baldly assume it is a net benefit, without ever examining their assumptions.

Government cannot economically calculate by itself. It relies on private markets to be able to do so.

This means governments in taking action have no way of calculating whether they are using more or less economic resources, including natural resources.

Every step towards greater government control is a step towards a *more* unsustainable outcome, both economically and ecologically.

This is critical. My opponents do not even recognize the issue, or understand the argument.

I can at least understand and make a fair representation of the arguments I am facing. But my opponents do not seem able to understand or to say what they are.

And these are the ones whose clear thinking and far-sightedness are supposed to save the planet – if only they can get enough power!

They do not even recognize the issues of ethics, epistemology, methodology, economics, metaphysics, or politics.

This thread shows that the sustainability paradigm cannot withstand critical scrutiny, and is a form of religious fascism, not a humane or sensible political movement as it understands itself.

Now please answer my numbered questions without evasion or fallacy.

My concern is that a growing population may adversely affect living standards. Surely a benefit for the population must be proven for a policy of population growth? Perhaps Wing Ah Ling could prove that a growing population is good for all Australians and ally my fears of adversity? I am very optimistic about the promise of technology, but I dont think it a good idea to be taking flight reservations before the aircraft has been invented. I also think it far from morbid to consider problems that may be faced: Solutions to problems may have benefits for humanity. So if agrichar improves soil fertility, a carbon nanotube membrane desalinates water using a quarter the energy of conventional reverse osmosis, or an efficient solar cell and storage battery give people cheaper power, will people think more about the benefit they receive or the crisis that may or may not have been averted?

Wing –

Will Australia be a better place to live with high immigration than with low or net zero immigration? I believe it will be better with net zero immigration, both environmentally and economically.

Is government capable of reducing or increasing the immigration rate? Will reducing the immigration rate, increase government control of our lives? Government already controls the immigration rate, so there will be no change in the government control of our lives.

Will the world be a better place to live with 9.5 billion people or 8.5 billion people in 2050? I believe it will be better with 8.5 billion, both environmentally and economically, and I believe that it is hypocritical to say to another nation, "You should attempt to reduce your population growth rate, but we are determined to increase ours."

Wing Ah Ling, here’s my response to your post on the ‘Fresh idea on remote gardens’ thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8410#133728

“The difference between your questions and mine, are that mine are all on-topic, and yours are all off-topic.”

Not at all Wing Ah Ling. The questions you failed to answer are totally on-topic. Here they are again:

“Just what is your ‘sustainability school’?”

“Implicit in whose argument?”

You then put up two posts without addressing these questions at all. So I asked:

“Are you playing devil’s advocate? The reason I ask is that you seem to understand basic ecological principles, but don’t appreciate the problems of humans continuing to live unsustainably. This seems to be just about as conflicting as anything can be.”

Still totally on topic.

“The onus is on you to prove it…”

No it is not! I am highly tempted to say that it is you that must prove that sustainability is not a sensible thing to strive for, because it really is blitheringly obvious that we should be striving directly and unambiguously for a sustainable future, and obviously not just continuing to live in a grossly unsustainable manner.

Er… but I won’t say that. Instead I’ll suggest that we should conduct this exchange on a neutral footing…with both of us trying to prove that our positions prevail.

So, operating on this neutral and equal basis, I’ll answer your questions if you answer mine. I’ll now answer your original questions. Please address mine. Thanks.

“You can assume my good faith”

Alright. Good.

Like your work W-A-L. Ludwig, I find it quite astounding that a person supposedly talking about science could believe that someone simply has to be pulling your leg if they challenge the fundamental assumptions around which your whole world revolves. In the middle ages the church had enormous power because even king's and queen's feared God's wrath. I reckon you would have been the kind of person back then who would have found it incomprehensible that someone could question the existence of God - (Interesting that you use the term 'devil's advocate'). And Copernicus wouldn't have gotten a hearing. You may find it hard to digest, but I find sustainability as it is generally used to be a hollow, unhelpful and fallible concept. Until you can grasp this, you are going to find it very hard to make sense of anything much that is being said here. Envirofundamentalism is the new religion, given modern cred only by appeal to and faith in virtual science, and people who dismiss those "useless" Arts subjects, like those W-A-L mentions, need to step away from the computers and get an education.