A fascinating discussion shorbe and TRTL. A might depressing though. Your predictions are certainly grim.

What I really would like to know from you learned people is whether you think there is any political ideology that can take us off our future-destroying path and lead us to sustainability, with urgency. Or more particularly, how we could possibly adapt our current system of governance in Australia.

I know this is taking the discussion in a bit of new direction, but it has evolved so far from the original subject that I think this is fair and reasonable.

Sometimes I think that an adaptation of our political setup could happen very easily, and I have repeatedly implored Rudd, and Beazley before him, to take up the challenge. I could envisage major change in the right direction if just one person, the federal Labor leader, embraced it.

Then at other times I think that it is completely hopeless. If we can’t even abolish such grossly disgustingly antidemocratic aspects of our politics as compulsory preferential voting and blatant favour-buying political donations, then where are we at? How can we possibly ever get away from vested-interest profit-driven growth-promoting short-term decision-making by our federal and state governments?

Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 23 March 2007 1:37:21 PM
“In my 2 point summary I should have added "except where labor supply is very strong' …”

Well ‘labour supply is very strong’ on Earth at the moment – perhaps you could suggest another planet on which your theories would be relevant?

Posted by shorbe, Monday, 26 March 2007 10:02:28 AM
“Workers everywhere don't want an international brotherhood, they just want to be top dog. That's why (here comes Nietzsche again), all revolutions are doomed to fail. Once the slaves turn the tables, some of them inevitably become the new masters (secular or religious). Those who remain idealistic either get knifed in the back (individuals) or conquered/wiped out (groups of people). History has shown all of this time and again, and will continue to do so.”

Quite true, but as you say, ‘some of them inevitably become the new masters’ – that does not imply that all of them ‘just want to be top dog’ only that some of them do. And while your observation is absolutely correct, that all revolutions soon morph into another radically iniquitous hierarchy, does that necessarily mean that we should entirely abandon our attempts to be free from our animal natures and establish a more sophisticated and humane system?

The great problem I find with the ‘we can't beat them so we join them’ strategy, however effective it may be for the individual, is that in ‘joining them’ we add to the invincibility of the status quo and so compromise any attempt to establish a better system.

A "more sophisticated and humane system" Rob? We are constantly striving for a "better system". But I think that you had something else in mind, yes? What "better system" do you have in mind? If it's anything like socialism based on Marx's ideas, keep looking.

Rob: I think every political ideology has within it the seed of its own destruction. The problem with our system is that ultimately, it's rare for anyone to get the numbers to take a hard stand on anything, and so we end up fiddling while Rome burns, so to speak. Solutions might be possible, but we'd have to give up many of our civil liberties.

Ludwig: Ultimately, people are not going to give up their consumer lifestyles until it's quite possibly too late. Furthermore, in terms of sustainability, we'd have to completely redesign our houses to be more resource efficient. We'd also have to completely redesign our cities so that people and goods (particularly food) don't have to travel massive distances. We'd need to seriously rethink (and modify) our entire lives, and there's too much established already, as well as too many vested interests.

Other ideas might include a drastic drop in immigration to the point where our population stabilises or declines and a much tighter control on property speculation and other measures that would make housing more affordable.

Also, if the government were really serious about making things okay for people, it would severely restrict their financial decisions because a lot of people aren't financially responsible. It would have much greater control over the banks, it would limit the line of credit people have access to, and it would compulsorily invest say, 20%+ of people's income into super, whilst severely restricting alcohol, tobacco and gambling. I'm sure we could think of a whole lot of other measures that would be "for people's own good".

There are three problems, however. Firstly, we probably couldn't trust governments to have this much control and actually do the right thing (whether because of corruption or incompetence). Secondly, seriously limiting the responsible wealth creators because of the irresponsible could have some serious unintended consequences. Finally, the ultimate problem in this country is that everyone wants a "strong Australia" or to "save the environment" yet no one wants to pay higher prices for anything and/or cut back consumption.

"What I really would like to know from you learned people is whether you think there is any political ideology that can take us off our future-destroying path and lead us to sustainability, with urgency. Or more particularly, how we could possibly adapt our current system of governance in Australia"

Hmm... the problem here, is that there isn't the will to do so. I also suspect that there won't be until there is no choice in the matter.

If there was a way to do so, then I suspect it would have to be explicitly tied in with the economy - I don't think that this is a problem that can be mended with a political fix - not a political fix on its own.
The beauty of the market system, is that on a day to day basis it will regulate itself and it will accommodate the minutiae of supply and demand.
The ugliness is, that it has no regard for long term sustainability, be it economic, social or environmental.

So... how do we plan for the future if we're operating from within this framework? How do we remain competive while scaling back consumption?

It's a tough one and I wouldn't presume to have all the answers - though I do know some things we can do.

First, I think we need to consider what kind of sustainability we're aiming for - are we attempting a holistic form of sustainability that aims to maintain our entire environment with very little impact?
This is the kind of sustainability we're not going to adopt until we are forced to.
The second kind however - sustainability in terms of social harm and being able to meet the needs of our people, that is more realistic at present.

Clearly this kind of solution isn't going to work forever, with a degrading environment, but at this point in history, I'm afraid we need to start taking steps, and this one is one we can at least aim for.

Cont'd

Things like global warming are raising massive concerns at present, and while I'm no sceptic, I think in terms of lives, providing food is going to be more of a challenge.

Look here for more: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5435

The logical response to this problem, is to encourage research and development into agriculture, as well as maximise arable land.
Agriculture in the northern territory is a fine example - while there have ben failures, there have also been huge successes, sometimes turning dry land into an agricultural paradise. At present, Bill Heffernan's in charge of a $20 million inquiry into water solutions. He's not due to report until 2012, but I can tell you right now, his solution will be to relocate farmers.

The other part of the response, is to seriously consider protectionist trade policies & subsidies.

So how will this help Australia internationally? if we restrict imports (aside from risking the wrath of the WTO) won't we be slowing down production in other parts of the world?

Short answer: yes, but we need to look after ourselves first, and it will help ensure future prosperity when food prices inevitably rise.

Long answer: Australian producers will be more efficient than other places in the world, due to our comparatively higher labour costs to third world countries. This will be a blueprint we can share with the world to aid production.
Plus, we are more likely to be environmentally sound than our poorer competitors. This in turn will be another useful skill and trade that can be spread to other places.

By then, if we are producing much more food than we can consume, we will be able to trade it, and ensure a prosperous future.

This is only one element... I'll get to more when I can post more.