We have rapid population growth in Sydney, SEQ, Melbourne, Perth, etc. It seems crazy that growth rates continue unabated despite critical issues with water supply.

How can it be that our governments, and the general populace, continue to allow the rapid influx of people into these resource-stressed areas? Why isn’t every attempt being made to mitigate this population movement, by way of reducing immigration, reversing the baby bonus and other pro-natalist policies, encouraging decentralisation and the like?

Why is all our effort going into reducing per-capita consumption, implementing alternative water sources and better efficiencies in usage and so on... and none of it going into addressing continuous growth?

Isn’t it a case of just facilitating and even encouraging continuous population growth if we only address these latter factors and in so doing, simply take us deeper into resource-stress problems and further away from sustainability?

Could it be that all the good things we think we are doing are actually working against us reaching true sustainability, for as long as we don’t address the continuous growth factor directly?

Mmmm congratulations Ludwig you drongo. You are the first person on OLO to score a typo in the title of the thread!! |:>/

‘Isn’t continuous growf at complete ODDS wif resource stress?'

Hey Ludwig

What we need is some balance between rampant capitalism and government regulation.

Logically, higher profits each year are an impossibility. Realistically what companies need to aim for is sustainability both in its approach to provision of its products and its obligations to the environment (which sustains it) and the community (which funds it).

I'm no socialist but I can see where unregulated capital gain has caused mismanagement of resources and exploitation of humans and animals.

By applying sustainable practices, we have a win/win situation - companies can continue to prosper, people can earn a liveable income, animals can be farmed humanely and the environment protected and enriched. This doesn't require living a monastic existence, just less greed.

Our current system of maximum profit, short term planning is teetering on the point of collapse. We can either make efforts now to prevent total collapse or help ourselves by both helping each other and the environment.

My next vote will be cast towards those with long-term vision, a humane approach to the environment and an inclusive attitude to the wide variety of human endeavour.

Judgemental people need not apply.

Scout, whom are you going to vote for next time? Who has the necessary long-term vision and humane approach? And if there do happen to be a couple of individuals somewhere out there in our political quagmire, how are they ever going to be voted in? And if they are, how are they going to get their ideas to prevail? It’s hopeless, if we rely on the existing political structure.

In fact, quite apart from the innate desire to keep on growing for as long as we can and for governments to be strongly swayed by the rich and aggressively greedy end of the spectrum, the very essence of our political system works against us achieving sustainability.

Our democracy or pseudodemocracy, or demoncracy as it should be known, dictates that governments cater first and foremost to what the people want now, and only cater for the future where it is not too strongly at odds with this. If they protected our future with the fervour that it now needs, it would mean compromising the present… and they’d be turfed out on their ear real quick!

So, it appears that we are doomed to adjust to the tightening of resources and the various other manifestations of our unsustainable practices as the bad things manifest themselves…. not well before, as is really required. It’s going to continue to be reactionary, which means that any real preparation for the massive changes ahead is just not going to happen.

We certainly do need “some balance between rampant capitalism and government regulation.”

But how on earth do we get it to the extent needed, when it is the rich and powerful…the most rampant capitalists of all… that basically tell government what policies to implement?

Collectively we are short-sighted and self-centred…. and our political system reflects that ‘beautifully’.

Ludwig

I agree with you 100% regards the pool of political 'talent' we have to choose from.

I will be doing my homework - looking at independents and voting below the line to ensure my preferences go where I want them. This is vital, as the current situation in the senate is untenable in a democracy. As for the 'Opposition' the libs themselves are doing a better job, vis a vis, RU486 and current stem cell debate.

So I guess a good start is freeing the senate from the Lib monopoly.

The rest of my POV is sheer optimism that the powers-that-be will wake up in time to the fact that unrestrained exploitation is finite and, therefore, doomed.

Ludwig: I think the problem is actually democracy itself, which is a tyranny of the masses. When it's centralised at a national level, it's even worse. Another problem is the concept of the modern city, which is not sustainable at any level, and so, it's like a leech on everything else.

If people actually had to work at an individual and small community level, ultimately, the decisions they made would have a far more obvious effect on their lives, and so they'd be more sensible and sustainable. However, because I can vote on something (that I will have no idea about regarding the most intricate details) that will affect someone thousands of kilometres away, and vice versa, there's obviously going to be a problem.

Likewise, we have the crazy situation that every state or federal election is decided by the handful of marginal seats, which basically exist on the edges of cities (in the main). Rather than being an opportunity to create sustainable communities, and thus reverse the trend of modern cities, everyone wants to throw money at such electorates to gain their votes, and so there's absolutely no reason for them to grow in anything other than unsustainable ways. Then, ten years later, as the population has grown, the process begins again in another set of fledgling marginal areas, leaving behind a wake of madness.

There's also the problem that when you vote for a party or individual, you're getting a package deal. To an extent, you have to vote on a couple of key topics, and then you're lumped with whatever else is policy down the priority list.

Shorbe,

We see a lot of unsustainable practices around the world outside of cities. Many subsistence farming cultures have become highly unsustainable despite never really being coordinated at a greater level than small communities.

Yes there is a problem when we are voting on things far away from us or things that don’t really affect us. But if we only voted on local or regional things, Australia would effectively become a whole lot of autonomous regions or separate countries. Then we’d have a diversion in law and a restriction on movement and an escalation in inequalities and perceived inequalities between regions.

We clearly have to have a united government, which keeps us all together as a coherent unit, with the same legal, economic and cultural base.

When it comes to marginal seats, and pandering to what the people want here and now at the expense of the future, democracy is fundamentally flawed. So yes democracy itself is a big part of the problem.

So then, how on earth do we get around this problem, and off the continuous growth spiral, before it brings us down?

Ludwig: I'm not saying that non-urban areas are all rosy. Many aren't. There is the potential for them to be self-sustaining though. What I was saying is there's essentially no chance of that with the modern concept of the city.

As far as inequalities between regions, I don't think it's the role of government to try to even things out. That's communism. As it is, we have inequalities anyway.

Saying that a region of many small, autonomous states would lead to restrictions in movement, diversion in law, economics or culture doesn't necessarily follow. Firstly, what would it matter if we didn't have a mono-culture anyway? Secondly, historically, this isn't even true, especially with regard to restrictions of movement since passports and travel restrictions are, since the feudal age, a modern invention. Anyhow, the U.S.A. was originally formed with the concept of each state more or less being independent from the others. It was never meant to be strongly centralised. Hence, the Tenth Amendment, and hence, the Civil War. Likewise, both Germany and Italy didn't become centralised nation states until quite late. Prior to unification in 1871, Germany consisted of hundreds of independent states for hundreds of years, each with local customs and dialects (but perhaps no more pronounced than those of England), but sharing an essential Germanic nature. Even today there are still very small independent states within Europe that manage to operate well enough. So no, we don't clearly have to have a united government.

How I think we get around any of our problems is we work them out locally, not with blanket policies decided thousands of kilometres away. Any community or individual is not going to want to destroy itself, so if it has autonomy, it's going to make sensible decisions in terms of its own survival, yet if it gets to make them for others in ways that will not directly come back on it, it's easy to make bad decisions (or have them made for it). I also don't think the sky is falling quite as much as you do.

Shorbe, I agree that on the local scene people feel more significant, and most of the issues that they get to vote or comment on are more meaningful to them, whereas they feel powerless and insignificant at the national or state scale. But this does not necessarily mean that a more sustainable outcome will result.

In my 23 years experience in smaller centres in north Queensland, the manic pro-growthers still well and truly rule the roost and drive us along a path strongly away from sustainability or protection of quality of life and environment. Those of us who live Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and a number of smaller centres with growth pressure and who care about these things just simply don’t get a look-in…and that comprises a fair portion of each of these communities.

I still think that it is essential to hold together a strong central government, that can hopefully formulate policies across the board…. and kick the butts of some of the dishonest vested-interest local mayors and councils.

It’s a matter of balance between centralised rule and regional rule. We can have a fairly high degree of regional autonomy and still have an overarching authority. To this extent, I think our current system is reasonable, and I would like to see it stay pretty much the same as things tighten up and resource supply becomes a much more local operation.

As far as getting ourselves off the continuous growth spiral, which is an essential element of sustainability, I just can’t see that a more local/regional system of government would really help that much.

The trick is to greatly improve the accountability of government at all levels.

Ludwig: I agree with your last line, but I guess we just differ on everything else (although not entirely). I guess a lot of it too comes down to how active a role people are willing to play in the process of preventing vested interests and corruption.

shorbe, "If people actually had to work at an individual and small community level, ultimately, the decisions they made would have a far more obvious effect on their lives, and so they'd be more sensible and sustainable."

I've had to work from home this week rather than commuting to work and it just occured to me that I'm saving a lot of money.

I don't need to use out of hours school age care approx $100
No train fare - another $30

I'm spending a bit more on phone calls - say $15 (my VoIP is still not working :( )

I miss the interaction in the office and seeing friends on the train but I've also saved about two hours a day commuting to work, I've been involved in my sons new school during school hours. I've had the blinds up and been able to look out on my garden rather than at the next office building.

So why do thousands of people have to travel every day to a city center to do work that could be done in a local hub somewhere (or from a home office)? How many others are spending their hundred and twenty dollars a week of after tax income because their employer finds a city office convenient. Is there a compromise in there somewhere that meets the employers needs but is also more sustainable?

R0bert

R0bert: What you're doing should be the way of the future. It makes a lot of sense. It seems to me that with modern communications, a lot of people shouldn't have to spend much time at all in an office (perhaps only one day per week) and there are obviously so many benefits to it. I know a lot of people would say being home would cause a lot of inefficiency or distractions, but I don't buy that at all. I think white collar workers waste heaps of time at work already (even for work related things such as meetings) and I don't think they'd be any worse off. If people do the work, who cares really? It would certainly be better financially and also for keeping workers generally happier.