Aussieeagle you use the "collective" pronouns consistently in your post.

As in “ WE for the last 100 years have been trying to work out what WE are, and what OUR place is with the nations of the world and thus far it has been one of caution with very little assertiveness regardless of the countless human sacrifices WE have made for our allies and for what WE call freedom of the world. WE need to develop a positive vision for growth whilst alongisde improving the quality of life of OUR fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and taking the lead not following the lead in innovative solutions to OUR water shortage and rural food shortage crisis.”

“WE” and “OUR” are like the “common good” and other myths which separate individuals from personal responsibility, accountability, personal performance and right to individual reward.

(As for “What we are”, I am more interested in who (not what) I am )

Like I said in my previous post:

“What makes a nation great is not the government, not its institutions. It is the individuals going about their daily lives with accountability for their actions, a strong sense of work ethic, respect and compassion for others.”

I will try to do my bit and I suggest you do your best to do likewise. However, for any meaningful outcome expect only of your self because, “WE” and “OUR” do not exist in a form which is executory to anything.

Any growth or contraction is not a matter of what “WE” did but the sum of what individuals decided to do in respect to what suited their personal motives.

I know who I am and am happy with who that person is. I do not know you, so cannot comment on "WE" in any meaningful sense.

Evo “When population grows, so does everything from A to Z.eg.- Bad drivers are being blamed for the increase in car accidents! What a crock of crap.”

I do agree EVO.

The Federal budget hooks us in to rapid growth. Or I should say; there is absolutely no indication in the budget that the Rudd government is going to move away from the continuous-expansion-with-no-end-in-sight paradigm.

And of course, the mob on the other side of the political fence don’t in any way criticise them for it.

It is now crystal clear that no meaningful moves will be made towards sustainability in this country until at least the end of the Ruddiculous era…….unless perhaps we have some almighty crash event which stuns these blockheads into the stark realisation that we HAVE TO balance our life-support systems with the demand placed upon them.

Hwaaaaw! (;>(

Cancer is the medical term for continual, non-ending growth. It is an appropriate term for the economic policies of the Rudd and Howard governments.

One could learn from Tolstoy's story, "How Much Land Does a Man Need?"

A peasant named Pahom can be heard complaining that he does not own enough land to satisfy him. A landlady in the village decides to sell her estate, and the peasants of the village buy as much of that land as they can. Pahom himself purchases some land, and by working off the extra land is able to repay his debts and live a more comfortable life.

Pahom becomes very possessive of his land, and this gets him into discord with his neighbours. Greed is disrupting his moral values. He moves to a larger area of land at another Commune. He can grow even more crops and amass a small fortune, but he has to grow the crops on rented land, which irritates him.

Finally, he is introduced to the Bashkirs and is told they are simple-minded people who own a huge amount of land. He wants to take as much of their land for as low a price as he can negotiate. Their offer: for a sum of one thousand rubles, Pahom can walk around as large an area as he wants, starting at daybreak, marking his route with a spade along the way. If he reaches his starting point by sunset that day, the entire area of land his route encloses will be his. He is delighted.

His journey across the land illustrates his greediness. He tries to cover as much land as possible, not content with what he already has. As the sun nearly sets, he realizes his error and runs back as fast as he can to the waiting Bashkirs. He finally arrives at the starting point just as the sun sets. The Bashkirs cheer his good fortune, but exhausted from the run, he drops dead. They bury him in an ordinary grave only six feet long, thus ironically answering the question posed in the title of the story.

Ludwig: << It is now crystal clear that no meaningful moves will be made towards sustainability in this country until at least the end of the Ruddiculous era >>

Come on, Ludwig. I'm no great fan of Rudd or the ALP, but do you seriously think that the Coalition is more likely (or ever likely) to deliver ecologically sustainable policy?

“…do you seriously think that the Coalition is more likely (or ever likely) to deliver ecologically sustainable policy?”

Yes CJ. I do indeed think that they can deliver it. Whether they are more likely than Labor, the Greens or new political party I don't know.

But there is no doubt that sooner or later our politics WILL change to embrace sustainability. It can't possibly not do this! Can it?

Ludwig "But there is no doubt that sooner or later our politics WILL change to embrace sustainability. It can't possibly not do this! Can it?"

Agree and further agree, the ones to do it are the conservatives because

the conservatives will let the market prevail. That market will use price to regulate between un-sustainable demand and constrained supply to the point the unsustainable and subeconomic demand will get priced out of the market.

Alternatively, the socialists and all the others who think they can organise individuals better than the chaos we collectively represent will, like Lenin and Stalin, regulate supply and inevitably get swept up in the tax opportunity, which means "regulate" is used to "maximise" and fund all those other niceties like pensions for banged up single mothers and other safety nets which substitute for self accountability, responsibility and control.