It is because economists, in the main, are indoctrinated into the myth of eternal expansion and growth as the only way to maintain and structure economies.

That is why we ended up with 'funny money'; the ability to make money from producing nothing; and a destruction mentality to create growth through rebuilding and to create new markets for industry.

What chance do humans, other species and the environment have over those priorities.

Our governments operate in fear of opposing those entrenched perspectives and hence we get more of the same destruction = consumption attitudes.

Logic dictates there is a point of overconsumption that works directly against the welfare of human beings and the environment on which they depend.

But is anyone listening or are we going to keep voting in governments that are only working on behalf of developers.

pelican,
I agree totally with your last sentence.

However Australia is a large land mass and the envy of many overpopulated countries. Australia is concentrated in costal over populated cities; where the view of overpopulation is promoted. We need to manage water better from the North with its excess, and pump into the middle of Australia. Australia could then support a population twice its size if large public works were in place to distribute water and private farm could be more productive.

Philo
We certainly could do more to distribute resources more wisely as you say but even with our current population level we face water shortages affecting farming, domestic and industrial use. We are continually invading bushland to grow our cities (remembering most of our land is arid).

Bazz's argument is a plea to learn from out mistakes not to perpetuate them into the future.

Wouldn't make sense if we start bypassing the likes of coke, and to ban factories to suck it out of our aquifers, because it is not fast enough replaced?

Who's finite world? Not in your backyard,unless you have already made your own personal decision to live within highly dense dwelling stock which you now want to use to justify your decision and force prescriptive planning policy's to reinforce your values and financial decisions.What makes your mindset so perfect in denying others their right to build housing of their choice in their time on this earth, Nostradamus.

At the talk the economist and the 2nd politician both talked glibally
about how water could be expanded to supply an ever increasing population.
I think one of them mentioned bringing water down from the North.

You often hear this suggestion.
Think about it, water is heavy, hills and mountain ranges have to be
crossed, so you either have to tunnel through or pump over them.
Either way the pumping costs are enormous and the costs of supplying
electricity to those pumps for the whole length is a major project in
itself, and finally when the water gets there, will you be able to afford it ?