Role-models: there really are so many.

Norman Borlaug came along after massive improvements in public health in Third World countries, and subsequent population growth: his remedy for catering for the latter was to find ways to grow more food, whereas Ehlich's 'solution' [I'm tempted to call it his 'final solution'] was to find ways to cut population growth. That was going to happen anyway, but neither knew that of course. So, yes, Norman Borlaug is certainly one role-model.

But currently, the remnant-Leftist in me would nominate the Elliotts in Burkina Faso: did you know they had spent more than forty years serving the people of the remote northern areas ? Neither did I. Now, that's dedication.

Any 'Left'-wingers want to emulate that service to ordinary people ? It's a big world: there is always room for you to try it. For forty+ years.

But it's probably more important to worry about balancing your kale and chia and quinoa diet, calibrating your step-counter, making sure your one kid gets into the best school, that the local playground is approved by O.H. & S., avoiding full-cream milk, gluten, etc.

Yes: the Elliotts. Surely they should be the role-models for some of us. Why aren't they being nominated for Australians of the Year ?

They get my vote.

Joe

mhaze,

Julian Simon was a mathematical ignoramus, as this review of his book by the economist Herman Daly explains

http://www.mnforsustain.org/daly_h_simon_ultimate_resource_review.htm

Paul Ehrlich (and others saying the same sorts of things) were wrong, at least in their timing, because they could not predict the success of the Green Revolution. If you were around in 1967 and were told that India was a large-scale net importer of food, that it had widespread malnutrition, and that the population growth rate there was high enough to double the population in 30 years, I suspect that you would have been predicting trouble as well.

Norman Borlaug, who really was a hero, was not of the same ilk as Julian Simon. He was clear that he was only buying time for humanity to stop population growth. How you can make him out to be some sort of anti-environmentalist is beyond me.

Hi there FOXY...

My Father & (Mother). My father was a simple man, a man of the Depression and of WWll, who left school aged 13 years, and was one of 12 siblings. Despite not having an education, he worked inordinately hard, consequently he was never unemployed. He worked until he was seventy seven years of age, passing away at eighty six.

It was after I left school I think and had joined the military, that I finally realised how very little my Dad knew academically at least, and how poorly educated he was, and how much smarter was I. Dad and I gradually became estranged, and after a time could barely acknowledge each other, even at some special family gathering. Thereafter, I spent the next three or four decades making my own indelible mark on life.

Of course my Dad's (& Mum's) gone to another place now and I sincerely hope, it's a place where he's thoroughly happy and completely contented.

While I 'reckon' knew so much more than he? His real skill, his 'calling' if you like, was his astonishing ability of actually 'living' what it was he knew, by effusively putting it into practice, every single day of his life!

So this simple humble man my Dad, knew immeasurable more than most, and infinitely more than I, about those important standards of behaviour that truly makes a man, a real man.

Standards like; morality, decency, truthfulness, integrity, honesty, probity, criterion for behaviour, civility, the respect and care for women & children, and; implacable trust.

Sure I could quote a bit of law, name a few capital cities, a couple of rivers even. But those very important qualities, qualities my Dad had in abundance - Well despite his best efforts to teach me, sadly I missed out, because I wasn't smart enough to value their importance! Compared to me and many people like me, my Dad was a veritable expert. Therefore he was an utterly unattainable Role Model for me dear FOXY? The older I get, the less I know, in comparison to my Dad.

O Sung Wu: Compared to me and many people like me, my Dad was a veritable expert. Therefore he was an utterly unattainable Role Model for me dear FOXY? The older I get, the less I know, in comparison to my Dad.

Yep! Well said. Although my Dad I were never estranged. I remember once he came over & got up me for not needing him. I didn't understand. He said I never asked him to help me & never borrowed anything of him. I replied that he had taught me too well & I was independent, just like him. We had a cuppa & it was all right after that. The only time I ever saw him doubt himself. We built in the Veranda after that, together.

My dad went to two Schools at the same time. Kalamia & Airdmillan. It depended where he had to bring the milkers in from after school.

Divergence,

I'm getting the feeling that whenever I write something you don't want to be true you go running off to Google to see if you can find something, anything, that might be contrary. So you find a article critical of Simon. That wouldn't be hard because he was often criticised by those who didn't want to admit that he might be right. But the article you find isn't really a refutation of Simon. Its more along the lines of someone saying he disagrees with Simon and therefore Simon must be wrong. There's a lot of that going around.

But it was written in 1982. In the decade(s) following, Simon was increasingly proven to be correct. One anecdote: when Bjorn Lomborg first came across Simon's views he thought he had to be wrong because so much of what he (Simon) said was antithetical to what all good environmentalists 'knew' to be true. So he set his PhD students to the task of trolling through the world's data to gather the evidence to finally refute Simon. But instead he found, again and again that the data supported Simon. The result was the treasure-trove of a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist'. (Quick check Google for stuff critical of Lomborg - there's plenty there along the lines of he is wrong because...well just because).

While you're doing your Google research you might also look up the story about the wager between Simon and Ehrlich to see just who the ignoramus was.

As to Borlaug, I don't and didn't say he was an anti-environmentalist. Indeed he was the best sort of environmentalist - the sort that cares about the environment and not environmentalism. (The difference is chalk and cheese). Borlaug said that part of his achievement, apart from saving a billion lives, was to save vast tracts of forest which would have otherwise been felled to create farmland for a starving world.

He was concerned about the environment AND man's place in it whereas the current environmentalism is concerned about some idea of an environmental Eden with man excluded. I prefer the former.

o sung wu

fascinating post. Today education without morals is a real problem. Some of the 'heroes' listed in above posts shows exactly what is wrong with our society. Knowledge without character simple puffs one up despite the facade. I am afraid most including myself would hardly recognise a hero if we saw one. I would hardly call a self serving backstabbing self interested pollie a hero. I am sure there are many generous, self sacrificing, moral people out there however they certainly remain largely hidden. The recent picks for Aussie of the year have been more of a joke than anything else. A bit like giving Jenner woman of the year. Numerous heroes are the vain imagination of peoples mind. I doubt whether we hear of most.