There's no such thing as profit because when a profit is "made", e.g. .coal is pulled out of the ground and sold, the earth is poorer by that much coal, or the community is poorer: some collective entity, from which the profit is sourced, is poorer. It's karma, or Newtonian physics. A sustainable economic system would not use profit as a way of creating wealth (which it does, short term) but aim at a permanent system which neither grows nor declines. This might require a much smaller world population.

CG, I disagree, as there is profit from the likes of mining, which then provides a means to invest which in turn turns a profit.

Of cause you are right to say the community wherebthe coal was extracted is poorer, however, one could also suggest that if not for the coal, mining towns would not prosper, makimg profits for many, both locals and outsiders.

I agree one hundred percent, Clem Gprman. This is one of the most sensible posts I've read for ages. Long-term, permanent profit for human individuals and corporations is a concept that's destroying the planet. Always when one species upsets the balance of natural give and take, they die out. The grab for profits has already resulted in the loss of most of the world's topsoils, the degradation of land, waterways, air and seas. The extinction of thousands of species, the change of climate that will destroy us all.
Profit is a chimera. You can't take out more from a system than you put back in. We are putting the profit into more humans, not back into the environment that sustains us. It is this irrational thinking that has set all governments on the path of demanding continuous "growth". Of expanding economies. But this comes at the cost of shrinking everything else, especially quality and diversity of life. We live in a closed, self-supporting system of life that is finite. It cannot expand, it can only change. And change will alter the environment in which we evolved, leaving us stranded in an alien, unliveable place... something that is becoming increasingly apparent for the unblinkered few who care.

Altogether very weird.

>>The grab for profits has already resulted in the loss of most of the world's topsoils, the degradation of land, waterways, air and seas.<<

It is all very well wringing hands and saying "woe is us", but we didn't get where we are today without exploiting the profit motive for all it is worth.

Think of one civilization, if you can, that has survived without indulging in some form of mutual exchange that profits both parties.

Or indeed, try to name one activity that we undertake today in Australia that would benefit from being removed from the world of profit and loss?

I await a response with more than my usual level of interest.

Pericles, I’m not wringing my hands and complaining, merely pointing out the cost of expecting to profit permanently from the land and the environment. You are confusing this with mutually beneficial barter, in which one man profits from another’s expertise. Clem's post clearly mentions unsustainable profit extracted from the planet, using and consuming but not replenishing.
As for civilisations, "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years.
These nations have progressed through this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler -  (1742-1813)
OK, so it’s not directly related to profit, but I’ve been waiting to insert it somewhere for a while.
Of course we all benefit from the profit motive - me included, I’m living on the profits of corporations that are destroying nature. But the consequences are graver now that the human population is unsustainable. If we want to go on living beyond our means and destroying the environment in the process, then at least we're aware of the price. I reckon I’ve got fifteen years max before I kark it, so I’ll probably miss out on the really bad bits—although this drought in SEQ where I live is the worst in living memory and shows no sign of breaking—but it’s been predicted so I’m not surprised—not even surprised that no one wants to do anything about it. Humans aren’t like that.

I don't think so, ybgirp.

>>You are confusing this with mutually beneficial barter, in which one man profits from another’s expertise.<<

I am certain that human ingenuity will in the near future enable energy to be harnessed and used without the need to deplete the earth's crust. And that by the time the global population reaches equilibrium around the middle of this century, we will have mastered the technology that allows us to recycle what we have already produced, also without the need to further exhaust natural resources.

So the "mutually beneficial barter" that you describe can equally be applied to the exchange between the earth and ourselves.

Everyone knows that perpetual growth is not possible. But it is a little early to cry "woe, woe", given that the earth's capacity to give is far from exhausted.

Unless of course, you make the assumption that humans have reached the limit of their intelligence and ingenuity, and that no further progress is possible.

If you are in that camp, I should remind you of the statement US Patent Office Commissioner Ellsworth made in his 1843 report:

"The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity, and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end."

While the idea that we might solve both energy and resource problems in the near future might "tax your credulity", consider this:

When Mr Ellsworth wrote his report, even the humble light bulb had not been invented. In the following sixty years, the world gave us, inter alia, the telephone, phonograph, wind turbine, internal combustion engine, seismograph, toilet paper, the fountain pen, machine gun, radar, the pneumatic tyre, AC motor, movies, the vacuum cleaner, radio, aeroplane and... the Theory of Relativity.

Plus, the vacuum flask.

Which Paddy famously described as the most incredible invention of them all. When asked why, he said "Well, it keeps hot t'ings hot and cold t'ings cold"

"What's so great about that, Paddy?"

"Tell me den, how does is know which is which...?"

Though very nearly a centenarian in 1892, when Sir James Dewar invented the vacuum flask, Pericles… that particular Paddy (born Pat McGroin c.1799 suburb of Stillorgan) was a widely renowned Dublin inventor famous for – as a teenager – inventing the toilet seat.

Credit was never given to the anonymous Englishman, who 12 years later, perfected the invention by cutting a hole in it.

Clem, ybgirp, this thread is meant to be a joke. isn't it?

Dear Pericles,

According to the fossil record there have been five great extinctions of species. Due to destruction of habitat, pollution, over-fishing and other man-made activities the sixth great extinction is happening now. All our ingenuity is not going to restore all those species. Some are becoming extinct before they are even recorded so technology will not be able to bring them back. Another area where technology cannot help is the destruction of topsoil where soil is washed away due to poor agricultural practices and land being farmed which is unfit for agriculture. The idea that we can continue destructive non-sustainable practices without worrying what we are doing because we will be rescued by technology is ensuring that the numbers of future and present generations will be reduced or eliminated by pestilence, war and famine. To prevent such a future we must control our numbers and adopt sustainable practices.

What is it about the name Clem. Every Clem I have ever known is a tree hugging rad-fem hippie.

Oh forget this, I just saw an add for ChristianMingle.com. Find gods match for you!

I'm outta here!

So what, david f?

>>Dear Pericles, According to the fossil record there have been five great extinctions of species<<

None of those has occurred since the arrival of homo sapiens sapiens. Furthermore, they each occurred entirely independently of any life form, being either geological reconfigurations or - possibly - meteor impact.

Why mention them at all?

>>Due to destruction of habitat, pollution, over-fishing and other man-made activities the sixth great extinction is happening now.<<

Nonsense. A little under two percent of all documented species survive today, and the rate of extinction has not measurably increased since mankind got involved.

The definition of a "great extinction" varies, but it is generally accepted to be an event that wipes out 50% of animal species. We are, as it happens, discovering new species at a faster rate than the existing ones are disappearing - how does that affect your perception of the situation, I wonder.

If there is to be a "sixth great extinction", it will not be caused by the activities of puny little mankind.

So, appeals to the emotions aside, what is left?

>>All our ingenuity is not going to restore all those species. Some are becoming extinct before they are even recorded so technology will not be able to bring them back.<<

Why is it necessary to preserve all those species anyway? And what's the point of worrying about animals that we didn't even know existed until last week? Seems a particularly odd way of looking at the world, and our place in it.

>>The idea that we can continue destructive non-sustainable practices without worrying what we are doing...<<

Of course we must take care. That is exactly how technology will help - without it, we might just as well go back into our caves and wait until the next meteor strikes. But by using energy and resources that are available to us, and the intelligence, awareness and knowledge that we have acquired over the millennia, we are certain to achieve a workable balance with our habitat.

Weeping, wailing and donning sackcloth and ashes is not going to achieve anything.

It is not weeping, wailing and donning sackcloth to try to live sustainably or to try to limit our population.

Those are simply emotive words to put down those who would face the problems.

Ah, Pericles, your faith in technology borders on religious fanaticism. We can't even dispose of our current waste products, let alone those of another few billion humans. Wise people look at human nature as a whole. We’re not that different from most so-called higher social animals apart from clever tool making that’s enabled us to over breed, build war machines capable of horrendous mass destruction, deforest the planet and destroy the biological systems in which we evolved. Instead of thinking rationally to prevent problems we race blindly into using new technologies that merely create larger problems, then pretend, like you, that everything will eventually be sorted, and wait till catastrophe overtakes us. Do you really think the human desire for more, more more - our insatiable dissatisfaction with the present way is miraculously going to change and we'll reach stability and become enlightened gurus contented to sit and ponder?
As for the extinction of species we don't know exist, no one knew about penicillin before the second world war, but it was there and turned out to be not only useful, but like every organism that has survived, essential to the complete eco-system. Unfortunately for us, our type of brain has turned out to be an evolutionary disaster and so we're on an express train to extinction; just like all the other species that have perched for a while on top of the food chain.

That wasn't the point, david f.

>>It is not weeping, wailing and donning sackcloth to try to live sustainably or to try to limit our population.<<

Of course we should try to live sustainably. It is the intelligent thing to do.

And while we do so, hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are using the technology (made possible by the energy and resources available to us) to take the next steps towards global self-sufficiency.

As for limiting our population, by all means don't have children if it makes you feel bad. But please stop telling everyone else what they should or should not do.

And you are quite correct, ybgirp, that this world will not sustain human population indefinitely. The heat-death of the sun will guarantee that. But for the life of me I cannot see the value in moaning about it.

>>...we're on an express train to extinction; just like all the other species that have perched for a while on top of the food chain.<<

If you are right, then surely the only possible reaction is to enjoy the journey. Science and technology will find a way to navigate a few more bumps in the road along the way, but you are right, the end is inevitable. Retreating into caves and living off leaves is not going to change that.

Dear Pericles,

What other people do can affect me. If other people destroy the livability of the planet it affects me and my descendents. What others do that doesn't affect me is their own business. What others do that affects me is very much my business. I am concerned about the world my descendents and other people will live in.

Well of course it does, david f. That is not in dispute.

>>Dear Pericles, What other people do can affect me. If other people destroy the livability of the planet it affects me and my descendents<<

The actions of others by definition affect you and me and our descendents.

However, short of establishing a tyrannical dictatorship, that does not give you licence to take control of their lives.

>>...we must control our numbers and adopt sustainable practices<<

Who exactly are "we" in this context?

And how do you suggest that "we" control our numbers without simultaneously trampling on the right of others to exist on this planet? Perhaps you believe that you have some kind of enhanced right in this respect, thanks to the accident of your birth and the privileges that this has accorded you?

By far the best way to help the world survive longer is to eliminate poverty, rather than eliminate people. It is also easier. We have the technology to be able to have a reasonable stab at this over the coming decades, thanks in no small measure to the exploitation of the earth's resources that you folk complain about ad nauseam.

I'd prefer to engage in these developments, rather than live off berries in a Tasmanian commune. Which appears to to be the pinnacle ecological aspiration of most "small-footprint" Greenies I have met.

Dear Pericles,

There are non-coercive means of lowering the birth rate. Women who are educated are likely to have fewer babies. Not only does that lower the population pressure, but that also contributes to the elimination of poverty. We can also lower the birth rate by increasing human rights. One right is that of a woman to decide on an abortion and then having access to the best medical procedure for it. Another right is to have adequate contraceptive measures for those who want them. The above methods of controlling population expand human rights and dignity. Tyrannical dictatorships in general have pushed for an expanding birth rate so they can slaughter who they define as the other.

Exploitation of the world’s resources in a non-sustainable manner insures future conflicts where people fight for a share of dwindling resources. We have a limited supply of water and other resources. Technology does not come free. It costs to clear up a polluted watercourse. It is much cheaper to avoid polluting it in the first place. However, costs are not spread evenly. It may be cheaper for some to dump their wastes into a watercourse rather than pay for adequate sewage disposal. It is sensible to have laws requiring adequate sewage disposal. This involves preventing some people from doing what they want which might be to defecate in a stream. I think that form of coercion is legitimate.

I have no desire to live off berries in a Tasmanian commune. However, I want to use our resources in a sustainable manner and adopt non-coercive measures to limit our population.

Technology both solves and creates problems. My working experience has been as a design engineer and a professor of operations research and mathematics.

People who do not know much about technology (I do not know whether you are one of them.) may have an unjustified fear of technology as an evil force. They may also have an unjustified faith in technology to solve all problems.

We can use technology to solve problems but recognise its limits.

I'm pleased to hear that, david f

>>There are non-coercive means of lowering the birth rate. Women who are educated are likely to have fewer babies. Not only does that lower the population pressure, but that also contributes to the elimination of poverty.<<

I absolutely agree. However, this requires the very latest in technology, to bring education closer to the target audience, and resources, to provide the energy needs required to do so. A signal example, in fact, of the folly of making a religion out of blindly cutting back on energy usage, energy which would otherwise help solve the problems that we face.

>>Tyrannical dictatorships in general have pushed for an expanding birth rate so they can slaughter who they define as the other.<<

That is one kind of tyrannical dictatorship. But where along the spectrum of tyranny would you care to place a one-child policy?

>>It may be cheaper for some to dump their wastes into a watercourse rather than pay for adequate sewage disposal. It is sensible to have laws requiring adequate sewage disposal.<<

Laws don't provide sewage disposal. Money (resources and technology) do.

>>However, I want to use our resources in a sustainable manner and adopt non-coercive measures to limit our population.<<

I agree, especially with the idea of allowing people the dignity of free will in their personal choice of family size.

Education and free trade are our biggest weapons against the urge to over-populate, so by definition we concentrate our efforts there. Addressing the issue at source, as it were, rather than attacking the symptoms.

>>We can use technology to solve problems but recognise its limits.<<

Which particular limits did you have in mind?

Dear Pericles,

One limit to the use of technology is that we cannot always be aware of the consequences of the use of such technology.

One glaring example in Australia is the bringing in of the cane toad as a control for insect pests on sugar cane. Not only were the toads ineffective against the sugar cane pests, but they have become a greater pest themselves. Australia is so far unable to deal with the toad.

China has recognised the problem of population growth. However, since China is a tyranny the one child policy has been pursued in a tyrannical manner. There have been forced abortions, additional children allowed for the privileged and other abuses. However, as I mentioned in a previous post there are non-coercive policies to achieve the same goal. One problem is that most countries either ignore the problem or pursue policies which exacerbate it. Rudd with his goal of a big Australia was an example of that.

Sometimes the social consequences of technology are examined and technology limited on that basis. One example of that was the US Congress refusal to authorise the financing of an Supersonic Transport Plane to compete with the Concorde. Considering the history of the Concorde it was a wise decision. Another example was the Japanese refusal to allow firearms as it would have upset their social structure. They were introduced a century later with less social dislocation.

Japanese appear less wise in refitting the nuclear reactors which added to the death and suffering caused by the recent tsunami. Unfortunately the Japanese nuclear industry is so politically powerful that a future disaster appears to be probable.

Also unfortunate is the fact that those who make decisions as to its application are generally politicians who lack the background to ask the appropriate questions.