Pericles, just as I expected; my request for a few examples, of things that were eminently examplable, did actually result in you producing a few examples. Wonderful!

But it did take two attempts. You surprised me the first time by not answering such a simple request.

Of COURSE there are examples of businesses SAYING that they are environmentally- and sustainability-minded. And get this – there are also actual examples of them DOING this!

But when you look at the big picture, the momentum is very much the opposite.

I make the simple point again that rapid population growth is OBVIOUSLY stressing infrastructure, services, resource-supply capability, environmental integrity and as a result; our future wellbeing. And yet businesses, almost universally do NOT lobby the government for a capping of the population or a slowing of growth, and do in fact support high population growth all the way!

None of your examples go anywhere near mentioning continuous population growth, nor any of its abovementioned consequences. So, what are they actually saying then??

One could argue that they are either trying to be seen to be green or to be conscious of securing future resources for themselves, while actually not being truly environmentally responsible, either deliberately or because they just don’t get it!

<< If you can find any holes in that, to support your theory that they are all rapists and pillagers of our fair land, please identify them. >>

There you go again with one of your frequent extremist statements. Show me where I have ever called ‘them’ rapists and pillagers.

Thanks WmTrevor for your assistance in grappling with von Mises. It is good to see that I am not alone in finding him to be wildly off-track.

Ludwig

You haven't shown
a) that you understand it (while admitting you don't), and
b) any reason against it
so your only basis for saying it's "wildly off-track", is that it doesn't agree with your prior opinion, which you refuse to change even when *you agree* with its categorical disproofs.

"I make the simple point again that rapid population growth is OBVIOUSLY stressing infrastructure, services, resource-supply capability, environmental integrity and as a result; our future wellbeing. And yet businesses, almost universally do NOT lobby the government for a capping of the population or a slowing of growth, and do in fact support high population growth all the way!"

You're only proving my point. Population growth is not obviously stressing the services provided by the private sector is it? That's why they're not objecting. Why should they?

It's only stressing goods or services controlled by government, NOT because there's too much population, but because these are goods or serviced controlled by government and government does not have the competence to manage them so as to balance the needs of people and the environment versus now versus in the future.

In other words, they don't have the competence to manage sustainability. It's staring you in the face! The fact that you are wrong, is the point of departure for your whole confused train of thought; which ends where it began.

For example, the private providers of water don't see increased demand for water as a problem - they just act accordingly, and supply and charge accordingly. But government starts out from *not* charging accordingly - because they can't economically calculate - then mismatch supply to demand, and then you have the gall and stupidity to blame the existence of human beings, and call for total government control of everything!

And then you wonder why I point out the fact that your belief system is irrational, anti-human and totalitarian!

In your invincible ignorance you are arguing that *much greater* wastage of natural resources is better for the environment!

JKJ,

You seem to be referring to "sustainability" in the realms of services or goods provided - a business/supply model.

What has that got to do with environmental sustainability in its purest sense?

As in this sort of caper:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80152

Or this...

http://www.china.org.cn/china/2013-04/07/content_28468610.htm

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/fish-03282013183834.html

Thank you for the thank you, Ludwig... and for understanding it is possible to link to references without personal judgement being implied or applied.

Which is why I can include this to further assist:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4406&page=0

Remember?

"So, OF COURSE there is economic science!
Crikey, that’s not rocket science! It’s a pretty easy concept to grasp!"

You already agree with at least one poster here... apparently.

Even if my reaction is, So what?