<< We are drifting a little from the point, I suspect Ludwig. >>

I think it is just a wobble, Pericles…. or a swerve. Or the evolution of a broader discussion!

<< So, you conducted "hundreds of property assessments all over north and central Queensland" - using taxpayers' money - to arrive at the same conclusion as the landowners. Or are you suggesting that the landholders were too stupid to work it out for themselves? >>

No. I came to the same conclusion as landholders some of the time, agreed with the vegetation mapping some of the time and found the reality of the situation to be somewhere in between some of the time.

Many assessments could be done with remote sensing in my office, without a visit. That is; using aerial photography, satellite imagery, ground photos provided by the landholder, etc.

Many more assessments were done by my colleagues in another department, if it didn’t require knowledge of the tree species, rocks and soils and thus an ability to accurately and confidently determine which regional ecosystems we were dealing with, and whether the vegetation could be called remnant or non-remnant.

Only the more difficult ones required the on-ground assessment of an expert in the fields of botany, geomorphology and vegetation disturbance.

<< The difference between this example and the forced-exodus scenario is that the population has already worked out for itself that it prefers city life. >>

‘forced exodus’ ??

Incentives. We’ve been talking about incentives to move away from the big cities.

And As I said somewhere back down the line; I don’t think that a lot of people who live in the big cities actually choose to do so, and would dearly love to live in Noosa or Hervey Bay or Coffs Harbour if they could.

While things like opera and drama may be of great importance to you, I’m sure open spaces, lack of road congestion, the proximity of bushland and beaches and the sounds of birds singing mean much more to many people.

Life’s too short to spend it couped up in some smoggy city!!

<< In that bracket, you have Albury/Wodonga, Launceston, Toowoomba, Darwin and Cairns. Perhaps you might indicate, for the record, where in those fine cities one might find the "variety of entertainment" you believe is available. >>

Pericles, of course they don’t have the variety of entertainment that Sadney or Melborin have!

Obviously, the variety of entertainment is of major importance to you. But I wonder how many people feel the same way? I’d take a guess at only a small percentage of the city-dwelling population.

You’ve concentrated on a single factor. But of course there are many considerations that affect our quality of life, in the cities, in smaller centres and out woop woop!

We’ve discussed this. I thought you agreed.

You and I are very different. I spend my spare time on the beaches, in the bush, travelling around the countryside, photographing plants, rocks and landscapes, spying on birds – of the feathered variety…and the bikini-clad variety!. Oh, and headbanging away on OLO!! ( :>/

Two things enticed me to visit Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide earlier this year – botanic gardens and nude beaches!! !! !! The best botanical gardens and the most interesting nude beaches are in the big population centres. But apart from those things, I really didn’t enjoy being in those crowded environs.

Opera, theatre, concerts, etc mean less to me than whether Gillard’s hair is red or orange!! And I reckon this is the same for a very large portion of the population, and another very large portion only occasionally indulges in any of that sort of thing.

If that sort of entertainment was important to a big portion of the populace, then regional cities would have the full complement of it!

Bribery only works for a short time, Ludwig.

>>We’ve been talking about incentives to move away from the big cities.<<

Quite soon, reality creeps in - hopefully before they become economically quagmired, and unable to transition back.

And it's not exclusively "Opera, theatre, concerts, etc", there is entertainment here for every taste.

But you knew that, didn't you.

However, you are entirely mistaken on this assertion, for some very obvious reasons:

>>If that sort of entertainment was important to a big portion of the populace, then regional cities would have the full complement of it!<<

The smaller the catchment area, the cheaper the show needs to be, in order to be staged at all. Which is why only large cities can sustain multiple theatres, concert halls and an Opera House. So it is not only unlikely, but completely impractical, that anything more than Dr Piffle and the Burlap Band (who, I am sure, are perfectly wonderful) is available in tiny townships.

In central Sydney we have the Star complex for more relaxed forms of entertainment, and myriad pubs for pub bands to play in, across a broad spectrum of musical tastes.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/pub-brawl-20110527-1f76i.html

http://www.10best.com/destinations/australia/sydney/coogee/nightlife/coogee-bay-hotel/

>>Two things enticed me to visit Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide earlier this year – botanic gardens and nude beaches!!<<

[Sigh] You miss so much.

>>I don’t think that a lot of people who live in the big cities actually choose to do so, and would dearly love to live in Noosa or Hervey Bay or Coffs Harbour if they could.<<

Then why don't they move there?

Oh, that's right. Because the city is where the jobs are. As The Economist points out...

"Migrants to cities are attracted by plentiful jobs, access to hospitals and education, and the ability to escape the enervating boredom of a peasant's agricultural life"

It is also the same mix that keeps them here.

<< Bribery only works for a short time, Ludwig.>>

I think you are entirely on the wrong track Pericles in thinking about it in that manner.

What I call perfectly proper planning and a fundamental responsibility of government, you call social engineering and denounce entirely!

It is really quite amazing how differently we view this.

If people were to be enticed to move out of the big cities with well-planned financial incentives, I would imagine that a good portion of them would stay in their new homes after the financial incentives stop and the time period (if there was to be one) compelling them stay runs out.

It would be self-promulgating. More people – more businesses, more variety of goods, services and entertainment and hence plenty of reasons for people to stay, if they aren’t totally enamoured with their new environment, which I think many would be very quickly!

<< The smaller the catchment area, the cheaper the show needs to be.. >>

But if a considerably larger portion of the populace was interested in this sort of entertainment, there would be a big catchment in smaller centres!

<< [Sigh] You miss so much.>>

Have you walked in a national park lately or closely examined flowers or birds or rocks? When did you last go to a botanic garden…. or a nude beach…. or a non-nude beach adorned with copious bikini-clad babes?

Ohhh…. you miss soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!! !!

<< Then why don't they move there? >>

They DO!! In droves!! You’ve heard of the sea-change and tree-change movements.

So with the right sorts of financial incentives, this momentum can be helped along a bit…. and everyone would be a winner!

It may surprise you to learn, Ludwig, that Sydney is surrounded by National Parks.

>>Have you walked in a national park lately or closely examined flowers or birds or rocks? When did you last go to a botanic garden…. or a nude beach…. or a non-nude beach adorned with copious bikini-clad babes?<<

All the above, apart from the nude beaches bit, which tend to be full of middle-aged men for some reason.

>>What I call perfectly proper planning and a fundamental responsibility of government, you call social engineering and denounce entirely!<<

Yep. If people wanted to live in a country town, they would do so without any government bribery to help them along. And if they did, businesses would need to follow them, in order to keep their employees.

Business is pretty astute when it comes to taking the path of least resistance - why pay more to people in the city, when there are heaps of willing candidates out in Lower WoopWoop? The reason is, because they ain't there. And they ain't there, because they prefer the extra rush from living in a vibrant, movin' and shakin' city, rather than being surrounded by a load of placid sheep. And farm animals.

Even government departments can't move far away from the major population centres before they run out of people who want to work there. It's a supply and demand thing, you see. Your view is that if you artificially create the demand in these out-of-the-way places, the supply will follow. In my view, that doesn't happen, and for a very good reason.

Cities are more interesting than flowers, birds or rocks.

<< It may surprise you to learn, Ludwig, that Sydney is surrounded by National Parks. >>

But Pericles, they’re outside the city! And they are soooo different to the city environment!!

You do surprise me that you have ever visited a national park in your area! And you have actually noticed a flower and a bird or two. Rocks? No that’s a bit too much to expect!

So you have been to Royal Botanic Gardens? But you haven’t been to a nude beach but somehow know that they are predominantly patronised by middle-aged men. No, there is a good variety of people, male and female, on those beaches, especially in Sydney and other big population centres.

<< Yep. If people wanted to live in a country town, they would do so without any government bribery to help them along. >>

And more would do it if they were helped financially to get out of the drab, grey, depressing, congested, crime-ridden, horrible city, and into wonderful leafy green unoppressed, unflustered, unhurried surrounds!

Hey, let’s not forget that this is about easing the congestion and overload on infrastructure and services in Sydney and about being able to reallocate funding away from building ever-more infrastructure and services for ever-more people and putting it into real quality-of-life improvements for the existing population.

It’s about revitalising small towns and adding a variety of goods and services to larger centres, where it can be done without significant negative impacts from population growth.

And it’s about encouraging people to go to centres where there may be no net gain for the existing community, but also no loss.

Now, all of that adds up to a set of very good reasons for our government to implement some decent population distribution planning, policies and incentives….. and to certainly NOT just let it go on as it is, with Sydney becoming progressively more overcrowded and less able to cope with it, small towns continuing to decline and medium sized towns just staying as they are with no improvement.

<< Cities are more interesting than flowers, birds or rocks. >>

Phoowey!!