It is eminently sensible to strive to make all depletable but potentially renewable resources fully renewable, is it not? Fisheries and forestry spring to mind. So of course the level of exploitation of these resources should be very carefully managed to make sure that they remain renewable, and are allowed to build back up where they have been overharvested.

This happens, to a certain extent. Our government has implemented various laws in this regard, which is exactly what it should be doing. So at least to this extent the government has got some idea about sustainability. Now they just need to broaden it right out into a total paradigm.

<< How do you know what the distribution and abundance of species should be? >>

We don’t know. But we can see when the distribution and abundance of a species goes into decline, due to land-clearing, feral animals, changed fire regimes or various other factors. We can get a pretty fair idea of when species, or ecosystems, are under threat and need particular attention. Again this is something which the government does to a certain extent.

So our federal government, and the state governments, do undertake various regulatory activities that would sit well within a sustainability paradigm. And they do it without knowing the exact details of every little thing, which you seem to see as some prerequisite to developing and implementing policies.

<< Have a look at the questions I asked you. You will see that not only you, but the government, is not capable of answering them. If you could have answered them, you would have by now. You haven’t because you can’t. That means you’re talking nonsense. >>

Ok Jardine, it is time for you to sit down and eat your words.

Munch munch, crunch crunch.

I hope they taste awful! ( :>)

Ludwig
Thank you for conceding everything that is in issue.

1.
You can’t distinguish wants from needs “a lot of the time”, and “even with the most essential of resources, it is extremely difficult indeed to separate needs and wants.”

Yet your whole argument depends on separating wants and needs. How can you say we should “encourage frugality” and restrict the unnecessary use of resources, while denying the need to distinguish wants and needs?

And you can’t do it. “Food” as a general category of needs is laughably inadequate. Truffles? Pate foie gras?

2.
<< How do you know how much of a depletable resource should be consumed now, versus conserved for the future? >>

“We DON’T know!”

Thank you. You don’t know.

“All we can do is make judgements on how much of a non-renewable resource we need now and how much we should leave alone for the future.”

But that’s what people in general are already doing! So you have completely failed to establish that you, or government, know any better. Therefore you have completely failed to justify any government intervention, and are only going round and round in circles.

3.
<< How do you know what the distribution and abundance of species should be? >>

“We don’t know.”

Thank you. You don’t know.

Thank you for admitting that you don’t know what you would need to know in order to justify your assumption that government can manage sustainability.

To proceed from there to a conclusion that government intervention is justified, only shows laughable circularity and confusion on your part.

Divergence
A pity that the government doesn’t apply its own definitions of racketeering and deceptive behaviour to its own conduct, isn’t it?

Poirot
And thanks for your positive engagement.

I never declare that someone has lost the argument because they can’t answer my questions to to *my* satisfaction; only that they can’t answer them *consistent with their own argument*.

Reasonable people can differ in their opinion of the same thing. But that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as reality, logic, or truth. Not every opinion is equally true. Some are positively wrong, and liable to cause untold human suffering, *especially* those backed by aggressive force. This describes all political decisions by definition, because unlike all other social actors, the State claims a legal monopoly of the use of aggressive force.

Political economy involves huge data sets, long chains of reasoning, and enormous contingencies, variables and unknowns. If people are not willing or able to observe the minimal requirements of logical thought, they have no right to tell other people what to do, far less to back it up with the force of law no matter how strong their feelings - indeed *especially* if they have strong feelings about it.

Jardine, I said that I’d answer your questions if you answer mine. You haven’t done that. Come on, you’ve been insistent that I answer your questions, and then you ignore my questions. That’s highly duplicitous!

My questions are absolutely core to our discussion:

>> So um…. what’s the point of your question? Why is it so important to you that wants and needs be separated out? <<

As I’ve said before; your whole basic tenet that our government can’t steer us towards sustainability and then maintain a sustainability paradigm if they don’t know every little detail, seems completely illogical.

In all my discussions on this subject, going back to the late 80s, I have never heard this sort of weird argument before. I wonder why!

Look at the real world. Look at government policies on all manner of things. Does the government EVER know the full detail about the areas that they regulate? No, of course they don’t. So why on earth should it be different with sustainability?

I note you made no comment on this:

>> Hey, our government is doing a really good job of managing a paradigm of antisustainability. But, wait a minute, that is just as hard to totally define as sustainability. So by your 'logical' reckoning, our government should therefore be incapable of managing antisustainability! And yet they are doing a damn good job it!! <<

I wrote:

>> It can hardly be more obvious that to push more and more people into places with serious water-supply problems is just crackers! Likewise in cities with bad traffic congestion. <<

Pericles, you replied:

<< While an abstract concept… >>

Deear o dear!!

You’re moving into quite loopy territory. Can you really say that our highly unillustrious government is not facilitating the movement of more people into cities that have stressed water supplies and major traffic congestion problems?

No of course you can’t.

All you can do is play with words and try and make out that my statements have different meanings to what they obviously have. It’s not a smart strategy! It is clearly one employed by someone who is battling to come back with a logical and meaningful response.

The simple truth of the matter is that businesses, both alone and through chambers of commerce and the like, push for continuous population growth with great fervour. And it is exactly this that sits at the core of our sustainability concerns.

continued

<< Why would any business want to reduce demand for their product or service by reducing their their customer base? >>

They wouldn’t be getting reduced demand. If population growth was less or the population was stable, they’d be getting a smaller growth in demand or a stable demand, all else being equal.

But yes, you can see why businesses push for continuous population growth. The desire for increasing markets and their own growth is perfectly understandable. While many business people may have concerns about the negative factors associated with rapid population growth, they will still push for this growth because increases in markets and hence opportunities for them to grow, and diversify if that’s what they want to do, are greater (but then so are the chances of new businesses open opening up competition to them and cutting their market share).

It is a matter of priorities. And every business puts themselves at a higher priority than the long-term wellbeing of the country…. and leaves the hard judgement calls up to government. Which is all fair enough.

What is not fair is the power that big businesses wield over governments and the weakness of governments to constantly kowtow to them.

Businesses do NOT plan for the healthy future of our country. Their individual plans DO largely conflict with the right sort of national plan. And this is exactly why we need a strong government to oversee a sustainability agenda.