Why is the government taxing carbon without simultaneously discouraging consumption? Why doesn’t the government start promoting alternative modes of transportation for commuters in CBD’s—pedestrians, public transport and push bikes? How about a “Cars for Artificial Reefs” campaign?
And what about vegetarianism? Why don’t we have a “two days without meat” campaign—every week! Or “No Junk-Food Wednesdays”? What about scratch an “SUV Day”? Or, “No Spending on Sundays—what the hell, and Mondays”! Why doesn’t the government tell people to ignore spurious spending occasions like Valentines Day and Halloween? And what about if the government discouraged overseas holidays: “check out your local hotspots; camp in your own back yard!” “Go for a Walk”—more fun and less stress than a holiday, and cheap as chips! How about, “Despise Overpaid Elites Day”, or “Morally Bankrupt Bank Holidays”.
It’s about time the cattle, the consumers, woke up; all you’re doing is keeping the rich bastards rich—polluting the planet for them!
Why are we being taxed for consumption while at the same time consumption is encouraged? The powers that be live in awe and mortal terror of “Consumer Confidence”.
We would have far more impact reducing carbon emissions if we just cut consumption—and get far more pleasure out of life, I reckon!
The truth is that governments are between a rock and a hard place; they want to cut emissions “via” consumption.
How does that work!
I say let’s stop being pathetic meat chickens; let’s rediscover self-reliance, stretch our withered wings!
I can sense the stimulus packages arriving in the mailbox already!

Squeers, I have simply one thing to say to answer your point.

The fact that the government is actually considering terminating Solar rebates because they worked too well and got too many people to change their electricity consumption patterns- and as a result too few people were buying regular electricity feeds; in particular because they want to terminate it to accommodate a carbon tax/trading scheme! Because people not spending money on public-funded-and-owned (for now) infrastructure somehow magically 'costs us more' when we are actually reducing coverage and resource expenses to fewer consumers- but a carbon trading scheme is much less invasive, apparently (I would insert one of those laughing-smily face gif images here).
(source SMH)

That really speaks for itself that they're not serious about it at all- just trying to get something out of it themselves (eg more revenue) and paying lip-service.

Dear Squeers,

You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty. Good Thread!

The Carbon Tax is a joke partly because of what you raise Squeers. The idea that you can tax something and then compensate a group for the imposition and then argue it will make people use less. Only the other day Greg Combet suggested many people will be better off after the tax.

Governments balance commercial and community interests all the time - sometimes the two are interrelated. We have a skewed system that while acknowledging possible good practices ignore them for political or perceived world economic gain.

You only have to look at personal debt, surely it is a good thing that people are more careful with their spending so debt does not run amok, but when people pull back or energy prices go up, the retail sector is affected, then that might affect jobs, then there is the pressures of globalisation and FT, and so it goes on.

The system we live under has the ability to self-implode (GFC) and it is a constant balancing act. And yet people cannot yet see the need for an overhaul.

The balance has to lie somewhere between social democratic principles (ie. the collective good) and motivation/incentivisation mechanisms. Utopia is not obtainable but things appear to be heading too far in the wrong direction. Corporatism vs collectivism - corporatism is winning hands down.

Hear! Hear! Pelican.

Like the de-sal plant in Victoria - just another way to privatise essential services, but cloaked in "look, we're doing something about pollution".

Bollocks!

The carbon tax is like the mediaeval selling of indulgences. It doesn't stop you sinning, you just have to pay to do it. The fees are collected - in the name of the greater good of course - to a monopoly corporation claiming to stand for transcendental super-human values.

I'm not interested in cutting consumption because I don't buy the neo-Malthusian belief that just because we are faced with a scarcity of resources, therefore consumption is immoral, or we face an ecological catastrophe. I think it's just a re-appearance of religious beliefs that keep recirculating in western society over the centuries.

'The system we live under has the ability to self-implode (GFC) and it is a constant balancing act. And yet people cannot yet see the need for an overhaul.'

Overhauls don't work pelican. Well, they work, but with catastrophic damage.

Slow incremental change is the only solution my revolutionary comrade.

Unless, we have lots of wars and GFCs and natural disasters, making thrift and community spirit the new black. A common enemy, or an external adversity. But no governmnet would voluntarily create the same havoc as these natural events, let alone the world economic community in concert.

I don't understand how in one sentence you want to prevent a system prone to cyclic implosions that rebalance it, then call for people to do exactly that but worse via explosion. Add in the fact that we are part of a global economy so would merely be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Once you have your voluntary explosion of capitalism, what non-cyclic, balanced, safe, tamper-proof system do you envisage will be formed, and how long will it remain so. How would you get it up and running before the smart vested interests can corrupt it before it begins?

When you bite the hand that feeds you, you had better have an alternative lined up and ready to go. Then you'd have to sell it to people who are living in the land of plenty.

I'm happy with the predictable cycle we have now. It's pretty simple. All one needs is personal accountability and discipline to thrive.

PS:

'then that might affect jobs'
I thought you were a greenie? Any jobs lost can easily be re-created in an entirely different industry with an entirely different skill set with no disruption to anyone's life.

Pelican
Has it ever occurred to you that the ascendancy of corporatism is *because of* the operations of social democracy, and in particular, the belief in political interventions and redistributions, rather than despite social democracy?

*woke up; all you’re doing is keeping the rich bastards rich—polluting the planet for them!*

Ah Squeers, if you were really concerned about people consuming too
many resources, what about vasectomies for all you prolific breeders
who have more then two kids?

Now you want to blame the cows etc, when you yourself are part of
the problem.

The CO2 levy is little more then Govts wanting to be seen to be
doing something, but without upsetting voters, who might turf them
out of office, so they will achieve little but a feelgood exercise.

Now if that money was channeled into solar hot water systems, better
insulation, the development of solar air conditioners and similar,
the money might actually do some good. But it won't. So people
will keep buying electric hot water systems, electric clother dryers
and similar, with the rebate cheques from Govt. Nothing will change.

But the Govt will have been seen to act responsibly. The punters
will most likely be silly enough to accept it. I guess we land up
with the politicians that we deserve.

your right of course
but its the game[sort of like reverse phycology]

they say reduce water
at the same time they put up the water presure
its about putting on the guilt..[and increasing the price]
while at the same time pushing it through your meter and tap faster

its skitsophrenic consumerism
plus the same deal with power
we get a minimum of 250 volts..but usually they prefer to up it
so were really bying 280..its all about money

look at ya lights..ya get free light bulbs
but you really want to save..switch off your hotwater service
put it on a timer to switch on say an hour before you normally need it

[it only takes 2 hours to heat it per day]
little known also..is the so called off peak..runs 24/7

the big clue with power is watts
20 w is using half the power of 40
my big tv [old style 20 inch]draws 95 watts
the small portable i watch uses 55 watts

there is so much more we could really be doing
but consumer free days are the best...[but dont make the mistake of leaving the money in the bank]..the leverage it out..[make it work]..to those who spend on credit cards paying high intrest

the best things in life are free
its time we only accepted the best things
cheap things are designed to break..this system is broken

Thanks for the responses everyone, and I'm glad most of you seem to agree with me, more or less, except Peter Hume. Peter, I don't think the main point here has anything to do with the "morality" of consumption. It's just as legitimate to be disgusted by conspicuous consumption on existential grounds, though certainly there are the ethical connotations of inequity, and the material effects of hyper consumption on the biosphere. Despite your scepticism about climate change, even you wouldn't argue that hyper-consumption has a negative effect on other species and habitats. You are presumably an amoralist then--the anti-ethic of the liberal. Do ethics play any part in your thinking?

However, for once I wasn't interested in ethics and was merely pointing up what a crazy situation we're in: mass-consumption is fundamental to economic growth in a comparatively new and disturbing way. Advanced capitalism is dependent on consumerism, vast economic empires are precariously predicated upon it. This is one of the vilest facets of neoliberalism; that it patronises consumers with illusions of their democratic legitimacy, whereas in fact liberals despise the masses and popular opinion. Popular democracy is "tolerated" for so long as it mollifies and keeps consumers consuming. "social mores" are so much plastic, to be moulded in whatever shape please you. Neoliberals are above such tawdry nonsense as democracy and popular morality. Meanwhile, politicians negotiate in the space between corporate finance and their credulous constituents; they're just the go-betweens and have no capacity to act decisively for their masters or those they ostensibly represent--though for decades now there has been a trend toward the former. Indeed a concerted ideological campaign has been fought and one by neoliberals without masses even being aware of it.
Now we have Gillard moaning about the pittance that goes to those on welfare. The idea of course is to increase the consumer and taxation bases while shrinking social welfare. More money for corporations not society.
The idea that we're going to reduce carbon emissions under such a dispensation is ludicrous.
Australia is in a position to lead the world out of this addiction.

"Has it ever occurred to you that the ascendancy of corporatism is *because of* the operations of social democracy, and in particular, the belief in political interventions and redistributions, rather than despite social democracy?"

Yep perhaps in some areas, but you are only looking at one part of the whole. The problem is the tendency to, as someone put it, to privatise profit and socialise debt, hingeing on the false notion that it is done to benefit the citizenry. Political or government participation is not always a negative Peter, certainly no more than putting complete faith in the markets to sort things out. Modern dissatisfaction with governments stems from the lack of appropriate mechanisms to ensure accountablity nor are there those structures that might allow greater participation by the citizenry.

Houlley
The alternative has already been and gone - it is no mystery, there is nothing 'new' in ideology. A mix of publicly owned assets that work for the collective benefit and privately owned enterprises that allow for innovation, progress and the Howard Government's 'incentivization'. Mixed economies do better than either command economies or free market economies (under the current inequities) IMO.

Economies that rely on a cycle of increasing consumption and consumerism are doomed to fail in the end because resources are finite.

Human beings have come to expect more in the way of material goods and we live primarily in an immediate gratification society. No longer hanging onto the old uni furniture for years but needing to make our way down to Freedom Furniture, Ikea or Domayne to fit out the house just so. Talking to many of my age, there was no feeling of deprivation even though we grew up with little luxuries. Luxuries were treats.

Personal responsibility is a big factor and we can make choices as individual consumers despite the huge influences that push the consumerist motto.

Why is the government taxing carbon without simultaneously discouraging consumption?
Squeers,
Because this Govt is made up of lawyers & many other inadequate individuals with not an ounce of pragmatism or compassion.

Squeers,

"....they want to cut emissions "via" consumption. How does that work!....

- and the answer to that as we all know is that it doesn't. But they're not concerned at all about cutting emissions because that would entail curtailing growth.

Joseph Pearce in "Small is Still Beautiful" put it like this:
"The logical absurdity of the "more-onic" approach is that according to GNP-linked measurements of growth, a person who economises behaves uneconomically. He is bad for business. One could be forgiven for believing that the real had become surreal or that sense had become nonsense. The world of economics resembles a Mad Hatter's tea party where all the crockery is smashed at the end of festivities so that economy can be boosted by the necessity of buying a whole new tea-set."

So you see, Squeers, we've contrived our own Wonderland. Ordinary logic is apparently not applicable where the question of economic growth is concerned

Great quote, Poirot.

Individual, do you seriously blame "this" government? So the Libs are going to preside over cuts in consumption are they? Anyway, as I've often said here, governments precisely mirror us, en masse.

Talking of his own country colonising the world, Fredric Jameson says, "...This is consumerism as such, the very linchpin of our economic system, and also the mode of daily life in which our mass culture and entertainment industries train us ceaselessly day after day, in an image and media barrage quite unparalleled in history. Since the discrediting of socialism by the collapse of Russian communism, only religious fundamentalism has seemed to offer an alternative way of life--let us not, heaven help us, call it a lifestyle--to American consumerism".

Actually, I don't see fundamentalism as an "alternative", it's just another "mode" of consumption.

I suspect most OLOers don't absorb as much of this barrage as most people, so Jameson might sound hyperbolic. But look around. Walk down a suburban street at night and see all the curtains lit by the half-light of screens. Watch how sitcoms have evolved--does anyone watch Two and a half Men--not in sophistication, but explicit content in an ever-renewed effort to amuse. Whatever sells. I'm not being a prude, but observing the erosion of standards and values, whatever their failings were. Look how we've moved along from the comparative innocence of Benny Hill's tits and bums, to the scandalous humour of Little Britain. I wonder if they'll do a version of the royal wedding (hope so!)?
A main reason, in my view, that we don't know our neighbours, is the evenings are vouchsafed for personal, passive consumption, the sacred reward for our "labours" that we've been trained to cherish.

The Carbon tax is taxation of the rich and powerful to fund the poor to enable the poor to use more power and products produced by carbon emmissions; is a socialist Robin Hood tax. It does nothing to reduce carbon, it is just a transfence of money from one section of the population to another. It is a socialist agenda!

Ooh pelican you know you get me excited when you use words like 'incentivization'.

'there is nothing 'new' in ideology.'

You're not the first to think that everything has been thought before.

I'll come up with one on the back of a postcard by the end of the day. Doesn't mean it will work though.

'Human beings have come to expect more in the way of material goods and we live primarily in an immediate gratification society. No longer hanging onto the old uni furniture for years but needing to make our way down to Freedom Furniture, Ikea or Domayne to fit out the house just so'

Ending is better than mending. That Huxley was on the money. We even truly do have the government encouraging us to buy stuff to support our society. The economy is our new god. Nothing has any value unless you put a dollar figure on it. I'd love to see the calculations that were made when they tell us how much binge drinking costs the economy, or depression. I think the economy creates these things not the other way around.

You must think though, that the invention of ebay has brought back hand-me-downs. The furniture does get distributed to the poor in the end for very cheap prices, and has a much longer life cycle. Also council pick-up gets picked up by pikeys like myself. Apparently that's illegal I just heard too. Bloody councils claim that it's their land and the rubbish is left for them. See, baby steps.

Squeers,

It is the "passivity" of consumption that defines our apparent inability to think outside the square in consumer society.

It's as if we have indulged in a deliberate act of regression. so that in modern consumer society where the media is concerned, we are happy to clamber into our high-chairs every evening and be spoon-fed various vapid and glutinous offerings - and we like it!

Considering that humans are such a social being, it is noteworthy that we have for some reason reached a point where we're happy to settle for this passive gruel.

Descartes would have phrased things differently today:

"I sit and passively absorb, therefore I am."

Individual:
"The Carbon tax is taxation of the rich and powerful to fund the poor to enable the poor to use more power and products produced by carbon emmissions; is a socialist Robin Hood tax. It does nothing to reduce carbon, it is just a transfence of money from one section of the population to another. It is a socialist agenda!"

You and Runner have gotta be related?

I wish you were right, but I can assure you the globalisation agenda has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with harnessing the consumption of the whole planet for the capitalists.

Squeers is absolutely correct. The only ecologically sustainable solution to AGW is for consumption to be reduced radically, but that isn't going to happen voluntarily. Unfortunately, the logic of capitalism demands ever-expanding markets, and I can't see the big emitters and polluters reducing their output of their own volition.

The Carbon Tax will only be useful as a means to introducing a Carbon market, itself only useful while the world remains locked into a global capitalist economic system, under which cost is the only disincentive to exponentially increasing exploitation, pollution and emissions.

Of course, the irony is that none of these half-measures is likely to achieve much in the way of AGW amelioration. That won't happen until the whole house of cards collapses, and our descendants have no choice but to live in the ways that Squeers envisages.

Socialism by Stealth!

(In loving memory of Our Col.)

"I sit and passively absorb, therefore I am."

Hahahahaha

The only way that rampant over-consumption could be cut is for the masses to voluntarily withhold their participation - and that isn't going to happen (Well, not that I can envisage.) Governments and corporate interests will never be catalysts for such a movement.

We are all aboard a hurtling train and one day it is going to run out of track....

I also love Poirot's revision of Descartes' cogito ergo sum, and you brought a tear to my eye conjuring dear old Col up like that, Houellebecq :(.

morganzola,
I s'pose we have to acknowledge the spurious logic behind the tax (especially as it is set to increase) in that it is meant to drive innovation in clean technology. But this doesn't alter the fact that it uses growth markets to capitalise the R&D, hence the original problem of burgeoning and unwieldy populations, environmental degradation and resource depletion are exacerbated. The whole ponderous process must finally come to a point of collapse. And herein lies the real conspiracy imo; wholesale attrition is factored into this mode of development. It would be naive to imagine the world's think tanks and power-elites see current and growing populations as sustainable, or even desirable! Don't forget a central tenet of liberalism is "anti-social". We're merely the cattle from which they draw their wealth; "natural" attrition, or even a "humane" cull due to exigency, would be easily rationalised. There's too much momentum in population growth for it to be curtailed via any other means than collapse. In fact collapse is a necessary component of this blind strategy for technological transcendence--our consumptive gift to posterity.

I suspect Australia will be among the lucky countries again, though. I'd like to say Australia should initiate a coalition of countries--New Zealand would join--that opted out of this mad rush over the cliff, but the process is already unstoppable I suspect, so it would be a futile gesture. In any case Australia is relatively isolated--especially its bottom half in a warming world--and would be well-placed, in the aftermath, to exploit the new technologies that were developed before the fall.
The Romans bequeathed their technologies and so shall we.

The thing is Squeers, IMHO you are on little but a feelgood
exercise, which ties in with your political agenda.

The genie has long escaped the bottle. Every morning when you
have breakfast, another extra quarter of a million mouths are
waiting to be fed. So if we use resources a little faster or
a little slower, its hardly going to address the big picture,
other then make you feel better.

There are also 2 sides to every coin, much as you rave on
against capitalism. Just this week I took one of my dogs to
the vet, she was scratching profusely, not a flea in sight.
It turns out she most likely picked up a mite which burrows
into her skin, from one of the wild foxes around here.

That evil capitalist corporation called Bayer, luckily came
up with a simple pour on, which for 20 bucks, gave her much
relief and made her a happy little pooch, once again. The vet
didn't even charge me a consultation fee.

Now rant and rave about the evils of corporations for all that
you will, but I'm sure that the dog is pretty happy that Bayer
exists and found a solution to her problems.

'So if we use resources a little faster or
a little slower, its hardly going to address the big picture,
other then make you feel better.'

I'm with Yabby,

It goes back to pelican's post.. and what's luxuary?

Do you like a hot shower? Do you really need anything other than a dirt floor and a thatched roof?

I tell you I've been to many many third world countries, and they don't understand the concept of rustic. They don't think their living conditions are quaint or have any romantic notions of the simple life.

They like hot showers, and would love some air conditioning. In terms of consumption, who will decide on the standard level of luxury.

What is luxury?

How much should we curtail and how much are we saving for our children's children (Notice how the children themselves never matter. That may be a baby boomer thing)

The matter of what's sustainable is in proportion to the amount of people. Luxury and/or population will reduce naturally when resources are scarce.

If you're really altruistic you may talk about making the distribution of so called luxury more uniform, but the luxury of renovating a kitchen.. who decides you even need a Kitchen?

How far do you go?

I know! Back to the good old days, *That's* the level of luxury YOU were brought up with, that's what defines Necessity, and need. Today's people just don't understand.

There are certain inalienable truths...

As women become more educated and wealthy, they have less children. We could well be worrying about nothing.

Wars, Famine, Natural Disaster, are natural ways of reducing population.

Mankind has proved pretty resourceful when faced with every challenge along the way so far.

Sure we're smart enough or not collectively to pre-empt a drop in the ratio of resources per person and try to mitigate and smooth out a transition, but it will happen at some time or other.

Where's the rush to bring it forward?

Now to torture the lefties even more, think about the renaissance. All that art and 'thinking' was supported by what was luxury at that time. I reckon aboriginal paintings are downright ugly in comparison.

How will we look back on our Ikea renaissance? Huh? huh?

One day, kiddies will be studying Two and a Half Men in English class just like they do Shakespeare now!

Here's a question: In what century should mankind have stopped to save resources for the future, and decide, well, that's enough luxury, we should spread resources and save for the people in 4 centuries time. No more progress!

Quittin' time!

I'll say when it's quittin' time!

I'll BET, that we should have stopped at the end of the Renaissance period.

Yabby:
"The thing is Squeers, IMHO you are on little but a feelgood
exercise, which ties in with your political agenda"

I'm getting a little tired of your ad hominum crap, Yabby. You're always trying to bait me with how many kids I have etc, and now I have an "agenda"--and what would that be? I've already said what I think, that there's nothing we can do! Excuse me if I try to at least highlight the fact that we're being exploited as never before.
I'm happy for your dog, sport, but I'm not "ranting and raving".
If you disagree with me, then take issue with my arguments, and not with your paranoid projections. You don't know me from Adam!
I would welcome argument. I "want" to be shown to be wrong--I'm not particularly thrilled about the future for my kids!
Maybe that's why I refuse to be good-naturedly cynical like Houellebecq.

The CO2 tax is a dead fish, actually it is flyblown, where the left now have to deal with the maggots.

*I would welcome argument. I "want" to be shown to be wrong*

Well that's been done, Squeers. No matter how many feelgood
solutions that you suggest, they are not going to make a scrap
of difference, other then for you.

An agenda can be a list of things which somebody thinks need
doing. That is exactly what you have expressed.

*Excuse me if I try to at least highlight the fact that we're being exploited as never before.*

Ah you poor dears, as you work less and live longer and better then
any generation before you.

Yabby,

Why do you assume that it was a universal requirement that pre-industrial or indigenous man "worked" for long hours.

No doubt they did toil at tasks pertinent to their survival and comfort, but they weren't harnessed like industrial man is - and they weren't helplessly tethered to the accoutrements supplied by entities beyond their own prowess.

Even people living an indigenous existence in the modern world would probably fall about laughing if they learned that industrial man thinks of himself as "free".

As I say, I'm pessimistic, but there are optimists out there, even females who can see past the shopping malls, like Naomi Klein:
http://www.newleftreview.org/A2323

The really funny part, the delicious irony, is that the conservative nitwits are convinced it's all a "left" wing plot! Hahahahahaha

Squeers,
It was my post you repeated. No I am not related to runner!
The CO2 tax would be better spent on installing solar power on the homes of those on welfare; and encouraging carbon polluters to start greenhouse algae farms producing biofuels.

"Ooh pelican you know you get me excited when you use words like 'incentivization'."

It was included in your honour Houlley. Alas the kudos is all for John Howard, I am merely a humble conduit.

"You're not the first to think that everything has been thought before."

LOL.

I'm with you Philo. Imagine the cost of every home getting free Solar panels on the roof. Sure it wouldn't negate the necessity of power stations, but it would go a long way towards cutting greenhouse gasses. Maybe the lifespan of the panels isn't good enough, I don't know. seems much more practicle too.

'I'm getting a little tired of your ad hominum crap, Yabby. '

I'm not, I reckon it's great!

Squeers,

You are under some strange misapprehension that me and Yabs aren't under an obligation to bring you down and rain on your parade? Sniping from the sidelines at well intentioned 'do-gooders' is a duty we take very seriously.

There is a fine line though also between morose self indulgent self flagellation (projected unto others) and a genuine yearning for an earnest pragmatic positive vision for the future

PS: I am an optimist. The enduring story of my life has been cramming for the exam after little effort and scraping through just fine. I see humanity as equally proficient. When forced into action, we'll sort something out. Heaps of time yet. This is the pontificating stage, which I find has many so-called visionaries and anti-establishment dreamers, but the solutions in life invariably come from slight tweaking of current themes that prove to be more sound.

If China does not hold up, turn the public service into a performance based outfit and cut them adrift of public funds,then we will at least get some value for money.

That's what makes you good value, Houellebecq, there is a vein of canny conservative wisdom in your cynicism (don't you hate it when the enemy throws flowers!): "the solutions in life invariably come from slight tweaking of current themes that prove to be more sound".
This is the perennial debate between left and right, kicked off by Burke. Yet gradualism has been the theme since the 60's and we've "gradually" lost control.

'Even people living an indigenous existence in the modern world would probably fall about laughing if they learned that industrial man thinks of himself as "free".'

Reminds me of the intro to 'The Gods must be crazy'.

I dunno Poirot, most of the chains people struggle against are self inflicted. Actually it's more that the downsizers and tree changers are busy preaching to people who aren't the least bit bovvered about their materialistic bondage.

It always appears to me as the guilt of people with ideals they don't feel are adequately supported in the existing system. I reckon it's weak. If you really don't want to be a part of it all, you would accept social isolation and marginalisation as a badge of honour. You cant weep about the fact you cant drag people along with your own life philosophy.

There is an amazing contradiction here. If the individual can make a difference, why are you all so upset. Prove it! Why not go ahead and live your life in a hippie commune and damn the rest? Because deep down, you'd feel sad that their having all the fun. You want company in your misery. You want partners in your guilt.

Well, I'm with Yabby. We're all doin' just fine. The wheels are slowly turning, we're making out like bandits, our generations troubles are just that, ours. Let the future look after itself. It always has so far. Humans gorge when they can. So be it. Humans are suckers for competition, pride, sex. So be it. These battles are personal challenges as old as time.

This new sense of obligation is strange to me. Every generation does it's best with the random acts of social organisation that mould it. Were the free-love baby boomers and feminists worried about double income households and childcare and aging women and their fertility? Nope, and nor should they have been.

'tethered to the accoutrements supplied by entities beyond their own prowess.'
Nice words. The also died of polio though. To be fair...

" This is the pontificating stage, which I find has many so-called visionaries and anti-establishment dreamers,...come from slight tweaking of current themes...more sound."

Yeah but if we lived in a corrupt socialist state there would also be those so-called visionaries and anti-establishment dreamers.

It is the slight tweaking that most of us are talking about Houlley, not regime changes for more of the same.

It is easy to poo poo the do-gooders in our comfortable Western society and by comparison there is little to whine about, but does that mean that everything is off limits, that nothing can be improved and that predictions about future events based on current trends is always wrong or not worth some thought?

Fact is slow incremental change is the norm in democratic societies, a bit like Al's gradualism except he thinks it only works in one direction, or Col's Socialism by stealth.

It all depends on the POV you start from, as I see it the gradualism and stealth has gone in the direction of the Right, so why all the right-wingers fussing over socialist plots. The Americans think a public health system is Communism. We are all biased.

Andrew Bolt said recently that his problem with the Left is the implication of moral superiority, the Right being portrayed as all about greed without any altruistic elements (or words to that effect).

I agree with that premise but Bolt does not acknowledge the Right is also culpable. The Tea Party in America must be the worst moralisers. Any type of 'social' reform portrayed as an immoral Communist plot. The pro-gun lobby groups are hell bent on firing up those 'freedom of the individual' passions despite the fact America has the highest death rate due to gun ownership in the world.

The moral superiority forms the basis of all ideology, it stems from a basic disagreement about what works and I reckon those who only see isues from Left/Right perspectives would do well to look beyond those compartmentalised views.

globalisation agenda has nothing to do with socialism.
Squeers,
Yeah, just like Labor is governing with the working class's interests at heart. You'd have to be related to Belly.

Local troubles ignored by the left who parade mentally on a global stage, where their comfortable public service attire has suited them for some 25years of developing arrogance, the them and us attitude prevails. Consider their failures to deliver affordable shelter. Sack them as they don't even realize that the private sector only comes out when the government has gone to far and stuffed up, real time. Get it, Oh not yet. And the abc is the messenger in fault, Why should these false prophets continue with public support via taxes.

Squeers,

I am using this forum to answer your last post to my article as have run out of posts.

No, I apologise if you feel I was disparaging of theory.

I am merely saying that is not my prime interest. Of course, one should have a conceptual framework to make any case.

Thanks Chris but no--I'm sorry. If there's one thing I should have learnt by now here it's that whatever you say it won't please someone. And I've no cause to complain since I haven't properly responded to your article. Time's my enemy :)

*I dunno Poirot, most of the chains people struggle against are self inflicted*

Well exactly, Houllie. The point is, people have more choices then
ever before, its up to them to live as they see fit. Personally
I choose to work as much as I need to work or I enjoy it. The secret
is to find something that you love doing and people want to pay
you for it.

Poirot, if you read up your anthropology, you'll find that the
hunter gatherers worked least of all. Today, a great many people
don't work more and enjoy a far cushier lifestyle. No picking fleas
off each other, no dying of every bacterial infections.

So how much do these people sitting in offices really work? 35
hours a week or so, a good deal of it on facebook or fooling around
the internet, chatting to friends at work and the rest.

Houllie's other great point, was the question of what is too much
and in whose eyes? Squeers gets his knickers in a twist about
eating meat and SUVs. Well where I live eveyone drives SUVs,
country people need them. Where I live there is no shortage of meat
either and no reason to think that you will save the planet as
you go veg.

I just have a problem with hypocrites. We had a classic case in
Perth, of a now infamous Indian couple. She'd rave on about the
environmental evils of eating meat. Meantime they were building
their 65 million $ Taj on Swan house and flitting around the globe in
their private jet. Pfffft.

I've had solar hot water for 25 years, never owned a clothes dryer
either, whilst there is a sun out there. OTOH I recently decided
that the old 35 year old stove needed replacing with a modern one.
I also wanted to find out what the Apple story was all about, so
ordered an Ipad 2 and a Macbook and some software to find out.
I love good design and clever design. Err so what?

Squeers just a couple of weeks ago I met a retired engineer who was involved sewage.He had invented a system of using the swimming pool water and filtering system recycling 80% of water (excluding sewage)in a domestic situation for a capital outlay of just $1,000. Sydney Water did not want to know about it since they would lose too much money with such an efficient system.It is all about revenue and the environment can go to hell.

The greens want to get rid of the human environment.

Dallas,
"The greens want to get rid of the human environment". True but they with their policy on death want to rid the planet of humans, by abortion, euthenasia, same sex marriage, reduction in human population and industrial activity etc can all destroy the viability and emotional health of human society.

Philo,

Over-consumption, greed, waste, disconnection from and destruction of habitats are more likely to destroy the viability and emotional health of human society.

The greens want to get rid of the human environment.
Dallas,
Well, if all Greens are inclined like their leader than yeah, we could expect them to become extinct in just over a generation.