Dear Foxy,

What the Greens mean by Zero extinction is Zero extinction, no extinction - zilch - no nothing. It's not an ambiguous phrase, and means just what it says. It means preserving the tubercle bacillus. It means preserving European foul brood. It means stopping attempts to get rid of disease bearing organisms. It means stopping attempts to deal with fungus that rots grain. It means stopping attempts to eliminate rodents which destroy grain stores. Zero extinction is a stupid and thoughtless concept.

david f,
Well stated !

Dear davidf,

The almond farmers on the Murray are not only using obscene amount of water they have planted vast almond orchids in vast monocultures which they heavily treat with pesticides. Many of the farms have replaced extensive tracts of native vegetation.
http://goo.gl/maps/AnEUdzSyywe3nPDv8

As a result the native or other bees are unable to naturally pollenate the crops.

So semitrailers loaded with hives from all down the east coast are trucked onto the farms. Bee farmers are paid well for this service but there are some who do not send bees. The reason is the rampant spread of disease among the hives sent there. Hives are then returned and in turn spread those diseases to other colonies.

European Foulbrood only came to Australia in the 1970s.

Removing it from the country if we could isn't causing it to go extinct. However depleted rivers and land clearing has removes habitat and put species under threat. As populations of animals become fewer and more isolated that risk increases substantially.

Zero extinctions may sound like no child shall be left in poverty, but surely it is a worthy aspiration ... leaving aside the semantics.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I assume words have meaning, Zero extinction means zero extinction. It does not mean opposing environmental degradation. It does not mean using water wisely. It does not mean avoiding monocultures. It does not mean getting rid of invasive species. It means what it says. It is not a worthy aspiration. It is stupid and wrong.

If no child were left in poverty our society would be the better. If we eliminated extinction evolution would stop. It is not a worthy aspiration.

«CRC maintains the earth was created in six literal days and is around 6,000 years old.»

They have not even read their Bible!

The figure of 6,000 years (actually 5783) is derived by adding the ages of all Biblical ancestors, beginning with Adam, at the time their son (the subsequent ancestor) was born, that until trusted historical records replace that method.

However, Adam was created separately in Genesis chapter 2, while humans in general were already created in chapter 1, and no time-frame is provided between the initial 6-day creation and the later creation of Adam.

However one interprets what a "day" means before the creation of the sun, this still allows for the world to be at least 2-3 million years old (i.e. as long as humans were present).

Regarding extinction, anything that is born at one point in time must die at a later point in time. This includes humans, animals, species, humanity, planets, galaxies and the universe itself, but does not include consciousness. The objects we perceive all born and die, their memory too, but not us the observers who were never born.

Regarding denial of science, it makes no sense to question the objective findings of material science, but it does make sense to question their importance since they all relate to finite objects which can only last and be remembered for that long.

"The almond farmers on the Murray are not only using obscene amount of water they have planted vast almond orchids in vast monocultures which they heavily treat with pesticides. Many of the farms have replaced extensive tracts of native vegetation."

Parts of Australia get obscene amounts of water on occasion which evaporates or flows into the ocean quite quickly. "Use it or lose it." comes to mind.

The worry for me are the consequences of poor decisions that come from bad reasoning. Sri Lanka's economy collapsed within a year as a consequence of banning fossil fuel dependent fertilizer. The farmers weren't consulted.

I fear that the pursuit of zero carbon could be just a harmful as Sri Lanka's agricultural experiment.