Many in Australia have become so anthropocentric - that they believe humans are the central or most significant species on the planet and they therefore also apply this attitude to the natural world.

What these people don't realise is that as human beings we are dependant on the natural world - for water, soils for our crops and the insects that polinate them, the trees that give us shade and the beaches that we can walk upon - where we can rest and relax.

Yet constantly governments and people across Australia are destroying our environment as if it a right to do so.

See this inspiring youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbwA20A38fs - and put your views forward. You might even change your mind.

Yes Nathan, it is absolutely mind-boggling in this day and age that we haven’t got our heads around the absolute imperative of developing a sustainable society, instead of just so blatant and strongly continuing on with the same old rapid-expansionist future-destroying mentality.

If there is one thing that we need to do beyond all others, it is collectively get ourselves together regarding a sustainable future, and MAKE our politicians and political system DO IT!

I went for an all-day hike yesterday, covering many kilometres of wonderful wild country and spectacular granite coast. Great birds, botany, and Aboriginal art sites, all within an easy day trip from Townsville. I need to be doing this sort of thing very frequently, or else I’ll go completely bonkers (instead of just being half bonkers!!)

Just a note on that Kangaroo Island vid: very good, except that it is a pity it was accompanied by the sounds of kelp gulls, which are feral in Australia and didn’t show the Kangaroo Island kangaroo, which is unique to KI, or any of the endemic plants species that occur there on the western part of the island in Flinders Chase NP. But still a great little ‘film’.

Ludwig,

Pleased to hear you are getting about.

Have you tried lightweight bushwalking as well, overnight or a few days say? Improvements in technology made lightweight forays quite safe for those with experience. One of our standing jokes is that we become even more lightweight by losing a few kilos in the process.

There are places you can go where it is safe to leave the vehicle and kit and take off for a time. Although my preference for remote, 'wild' areas means a solo excursion, while the solo camper back at camp enjoys her splendid peace, art and craft.

I don't think the problem is being anthropocentric. If you genuinely believed that humans are the central or most significant species on the planet, then it would be obvious that you would look after the natural world for the reason given - that the future of humans depends on the natural world.

I think the problem is personal greed - believing that you (or your class - people like you) personally, right now, deserve everything and to hell with everyone else, now or in the future.

The lead article in today's Forum, in En Passant: "We need system change to stop climate change" sums it up.

I love Kangaroo Island, been there many times. But the only reason its natural beauty survives is that it is marginal for supporting human life and doesn't have economically useful minerals or timber etc. - Aboriginal people couldn't make a go of it after the island was formed ca 5000 years ago, and the attempt at closer settlement in the C20th through soldier settlement was a disaster (Jean Nunn 1981 Soldier Settlers War Service Land Settlement Kangaroo Island).

Kangaroo Island's natural values will be OK, the real challenge is to save and conserve places that are 'valuable' in terms of minerals, timber etc. or, more basically, to change the system as described in En Passant. But will a film of the beauties of KI help in this cause?

Cossomby,

The majority of people in Australia - don't connect with our environment. They don't respect it.

For example, our current lifestyle is destroying our natural environment - something we are part of - but so many people (who are animals) place themselves 'above and beyond' other parts of our natural world.

Visit: http://theconversation.com/australian-waters-polluted-by-harmful-tiny-plastics-20790 . This highlights some of the impacts people are causing. But we can't wait for the government all of the time - positive action at all levels is a lot better.

We need good education campaigns to show that all living creatures need a 'clean and green' society to exist. By sending a strong message to people in a more commercial society (like the link I suggested) - I believe we can win people over and change their minds.

In pre-industrial societies people traditionally
treated nature with respect, considering
themselves a part of, rather than set apart from, the
natural world.

In industrialised societies our attitude is
different. It seems that many see nature
primarily as a resource for exploitation. As our "needs"
increase, our capacity for exploitation expands. Many people
don't seem to see our ravaging of the environment as
"ravaging" at all; it is "progress" or "development."
We are so used to exploiting natural resources and
dumping our waste products into the environment that we
frequently forget that resources are limited and
exhaustible and that pollution can disrupt the
ecological balance on which our survival depends.

Over the past quarter century, pollution of the
environment has begun to threaten the ecological balance
of the planet and the health of many of its species,
including ourselves.

However, the pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult
one to solve, for several reasons.

Some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable
but inevitable by product of desired economic development -
"Where there's smoke there's jobs."

Control of pollution requires international co-ordination,
for one country's emissions or pesticides can end up in
other countries' air or food.

The effects of pollution may not show up for many years,
so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it is taking place.

Finally, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damatge is
irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now
actively trying to limit the effects of pollution, but
the less developed societies are more concerned with
economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of
the price they have to pay for it.

When will our country take a more active role in getting
back to treating nature with respect? Sadly,it's not looking good
with the current government.

<< In pre-industrial societies people traditionally
treated nature with respect, considering
themselves a part of, rather than set apart from, the
natural world.

In industrialised societies our attitude is
different. >>

Foxy, our attitude was different long before the time of industrialised society.

‘Go forth and multiply and subdue the Earth. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’

http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-7.htm

Apparently it is all Tony Abbott's fault: he is while, male and not Labor. Go sic'em, Foxy.

There is an excellent website relating to a question: 'Is there a dominion mandate?' and looks at both elements from a what many call a 'human' and 'animal' perspective.

It is very well put together, and has a very good philosophical basis and analysis to it - with direct connections to the bible and other sources. I have read some of the website and it is excellent.

Its conclusions says however: "Therefore, the dominion mandate, which states that all mankind has a standing command or order to have dominion over the earth, due to the dominion granted to Adam, is not a biblically supported idea."

The website is at: https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/stewardship/is-there-a-dominion-mandate

The website is https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/stewardship/is-there-a-dominion-mandate/

Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome
of industrial technology; it derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather
than bear the costs - probably including slower
economic growth - of limiting it.

Further control of
pollution is politically difficult, however, for the
economic interests behind "smokestack" industries
are a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to
commit the necessary resources to the task.

Dear Ludwig,

In preindustrial societies, human technology made
comparatively little demand on the resources of the
environment. Populations were relatively small, and
for the most part people's material needs were fairly
limited and easily satisfied.

Industrialisation, however, has brought about rapid
population increases - and also an apparently
endless expansion in people's material desires.

The most technologically advanced societies are now
digging ever deeper into the planetary environment for the
raw materials and energy they need to fuel their
economic development.

If this pattern continues to persist in the future
in all industrialising societies, an expanding demand
may well exceed the planet's finite resources.

If world population continues to grow rapidly,
if industrialisation spreads around the world, and if
pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing
rate - we need to ask where is human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to this question is -
one way or another, sweeping social changes await us.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Ludwig,

All over the world, and especially in the less
developed societies, the pressure of the human
population and its technologies is devastating natural
ecosystems.

This pressure takes many forms -
urbanisation and highway construction; transformation of
virgin lands into farmland, chemical pollution of
fresh water, dredging and landfil in coastal areas,
uncontrolled hunting and poaching, especially of African
wildlife, deliberate and accidental poisoning of wildlife
with pesticides; disruption of natural predator-prey
relationships' strangulation of millions of birds and fish
with discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic bags and other
synthetic flotsam; and massive deforestation.

Biologists estimate that there are millions of species on
earth. Of these, only a small amount have been classified.
The rest - plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds,
and even some mammals - are still almost complete
mysteries to us.

They have never been named, catalogued, or studied, yet
many are becoming extinct even before we know of their
existence. This wholesale extinction of life forms
occurs primarily in the tropical rain forests. These
forests cover less than 6 percent of the planet, yet they
contain most of the species. Under pressure these rain
forests are being cut down and burned.

If this process continues, more than a million species
will be extinct by the end of the century by which time
most of the remaining rain forests will be degraded or
destroyed.

To some people, the disappearance of other species as a
result of human activity is of no particular
consequence. To others it represents the height of
human hubris.

There are many practical reasons why human society should
protect other life forms.

Tropical forests are a stabilising factor in the global
climate, for they absorb vast amounts of atmospheric
carbon dioxide.

Many plants are medically valuable, most anti-cancer
compounds for example, come from plants of the rain forest,
and the pharmaceutical cornucopia is still mostly untapped.

The rain forest is itself a vast and irreplaceable "library"
from which genetic engineers of the future may draw raw
material.

Yes Foxy, I almost entirely agree.

But our out-of-sync attitude to the environment goes way back before our ability to do much about it.

In fact, you could argue that it has always been there, and that all the hunter-gatherers around the world would have populated and tried to subdue the Earth if they could have.

I could even argue that this out-of-sync ethos is a fundamental part of the natural world, and that it is absolutely necessary in order to counter all the factors that keep the numbers of each species in check.

Actually the sort of sentiments expressed in Genesis that I highlighted really are just basic ecological principles. ALL living things strive to expand and overcome limiting factors. Always have and always will.

Well… except maybe for the next wave of humans, after the forthcoming global crash event.

Dear Ludwig,

I just wanted to add - it is important today that
our governments (State and Federal) make efforts
to protect the threatened and endangered species
in this country. It is towards that end that the
establishment of a system of national parks,
wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and other
areas are so important and need to be preserved and
maintained. These areas are admired by the world,
(our Great Barrier Reef) for their awesome grandeur,
and the flora and fauna they protect.

We need to look after our designated wilderness
areas, to be kep forever wild.

There is constant pressure on these areas by economic
interests that claim the Federal government is
"locking up" land needed for logging, mining, oil
exploration or recreational facilities.

There is another argument for protecting these areas.
It has nothing to do with any social benefits to
ourselves. And that is - the breath-taking
diversity of species which has evolved in delicate and
precarious balance over many millions of years. Most
of the plants and animals with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.

For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our technology
has given us domain over them. In awe, respect, and
humility, we might just let them be.

Foxy, the setting aside of national parks and other reserves is all very well. But if we are just going to continue to expand our population and turn bushland into urban sprawl, then we aren’t going to get very far.

National parks are not necessarily preserving our ecological values or endangered species very effectively. They are prone to insufficient management regimes, where weeds and feral animals thrive and fire regimes change. In many instances a relatively light grazing regime, and a private approach to weed and feral animal control on leasehold or freehold land, can actually better for the environment than a national park.

And as our absurd growth-at-all-costs political directive continues, the budget will become ever-more stressed, and there will be less funding and management for national parks!

Sure, we need a mosaic of reserves, grazing country, intensive agricultural country and urban areas.

But what we really need to do, with much greater importance, is to stabilise the population and concentrate on developing a sustainable society.

If we can do this, the natural environment will stop being converted to humanised landscapes, and we will have a lot greater financial ability to properly manage national parks, and endangered species and ecosystems.

Dear Ludwig,

I'm glad that you agree.

Read my earlier posts.

Come on folks, you seem to be forgetting that the Oz we inherited is not in any way natural. It was an artifact of centuries of aboriginal burning. Please explain why this artifact is better than another resulting from centuries of our modification.

Each landscape developed is going to advantage some & disadvantage other animals, so what. That is the history of the planet. There is very little of Oz that is as it was 30,000 years ago, & what ever we do now will have stuff all effect on how the place will look in another 30,000 years.

Having spent quite a bit of time exploring, [or searching for], some very large WW11 bases in thickening jungle in the islands, I know damn well it is mans constructions that are "fragile" . Nature is many things, but fragile is one thing it most definitely is not.

Spot on, Hasbeen,
The remains of the 'Titanic' are still there because Nature at that depth is not very active but a coastal wreck can disappear in a few short years.
Likewise on land, even in relatively dry areas, I've had difficulty in finding mine workings only a bit over a hundred years old.

Hello,

In terms of natural environment and Australia - with people (who came later on) - we as people (now) have an obligation to ensure we will protect nature that currently exists. We can't just blame people from the past - that is old news and is simply a tactic to do nothing.

By allowing that we will see continual cutting down of our forests and bushland, killing of native wildlife, mining of our our country to death, taking too much water from the River Murray and the wetlands that surround it and destroying places like our oceans and the Great Barrier Reef.

It's time our major political parties realised that environmental protection is vital in 2014 - and not just economic development - as people in Australia need our environment in good condition to survive.

One example worth reading is at: http://theconversation.com/carbon-farming-could-restore-australias-southern-coastal-wetlands-13521

Dear Nathan,

We need to make changes, that's for sure.

The following link may also be of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/09/15/garbage-our-high-seas-homegrown-say-scientists

NathanJ that is stupid.

What we have today is merely a snapshot of Oz, as of this moment.

What the hell gives you the idea, or the right to judge that this must be Oz for the rest of time. Who do you think you are, god or something.

I can't know how much of Oz you have seen, but your post indicates a city greenie, with damn all ideas of what Oz is really like.

I have sailed into & explored much of Oz that is only accessible by boat. Some of it is great, but a much of it is garbage. I have seen much disappear under feral rubbish like lantana, which would take many years of human intervention to fix. Currently it is of no use even to native animals.

I have seen some similar rubbish cleaned up & put to productive use. I know which I prefer to see, & it is not natures blind blundering.

Hasbeen,

I don't understand your basic logic. For example I am not a city person. I have never lived in the city.

I believe in some basic sets of principles, that we should:

1. Keep as much as possible our natural environment that we have in pristine condition;

2. We do not further degrade our environment and work towards repair of our natural environment where human damage has been caused;

3. Have legislation to avoid any further damage to our natural world, in all areas.

One day I went on a bushwalking tour with a native vegetation expert through a conservation park. She is very passionate about protecting our natural bushland and local wildlife. Being very skilled in the field, there is evidence, research and science in terms of environmental restoration and not simply giving up.

There are far too many pressures being placed environments Australia wide that many animals live in. Many are at breaking point as present, like the Murray Darling Basin for example.

Finally if you want to talk about imposing values, as a vegetarian person myself - I hope you don't eat meat, as you are imposing a lot of values in that regard and that is an understatement.

NathanJ,

"One day I went on a bushwalking tour with a native vegetation expert through a conservation park. She is very passionate about protecting our natural bushland and local wildlife. Being very skilled in the field, there is evidence, research and science in terms of environmental restoration and not simply giving up."

That's good to hear, what sort of a rifle does she use?