Comments

Re/Madeline Weld, “Feeding The Raging Monster...” Weld asserts that increased living standards are fertility stimulants. Without statistics to support this claim, it is no more than anecdotal and apocryphal. Also, if higher living standards of international migrants can lead to increased fecundity, so too can regional migration. If migration from Nova Scotia to Quebec might lead to increased birth rates, why not proscribe such migration? If the fecundity of international migrants is the raging monster, why is futile border control the favored response over the proven efficacy of education, family planning, reproductive health, and women's empowerment? If population growth is the concern, how can we be silent on the reckless and contributory birth practices of the many major indigenous religious and cultural groups which promote large families? If lower migrant population is the goal, a specific plan should be proposed for migration control. How much will it cost to implement, what will be the source of funds, and where/when has this approach been used successfully and in a sustainable way in the past? Interdiction of migrants at national borders or by fiat has proven as successful as controlling migration of Canada geese and butterflies. Lacking a detailed plan to present to the authorities, Weld risks the accusation that she is doing little more than “preaching to the choir.” Hard facts, data, and realistic action proposals are needed here before Weld can begin to be taken seriously. Needed: Living standards vs fertility...statistics needed Regional vs international migration....a consistent policy needed Border control vs family planning...favored policy needed Fecundity of domestic groups vs immigrants...consistency needed A specific border control plan needed

This year Japan will spend $30 million extra on "security" against Sea Shepherd. Captain Paul Watson said that their motivation had now shifted from hunting whales to refusing to surrender to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Japan approved a Y12.1 trillion ($153 billion) supplementary budget in late November due to the debt left by their tsunami and earthquake. About Y2.28 billion of the money is going for whaling. "We have no idea what they're going to do, but we do know that the Japanese coast guard and the military will not be involved," Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson told SBS recently. The motive for the whale slaughter is not the need for whale meat, or "scientific research". It's all about "saving face", not losing out to a Western power, and restoring their damaged pride from the WW2 occupation, the nuclear attacks, ensuring their military power in the Antarctic and about a remnant Imperial power.

The "growth lobby" (property developers, business leaders, etc.) don't believe that the supply of energy will ever peak. The all believe, with a religious faith, in the neo-classical doctrine of infinite natural resources. If and when serious energy shortages hit we will all suffer, but they will be completely taken by surprise. They just can't conceive that the growth will ever end.

He called Sheryl this morning and then went down to Lara and spent a lot of time with them all and went around the park with the animals. He has told Geelong Council he won't rezone so has given it back to them.

The people there are delighted and want to call an OPEN DAY for us all to go and see it for ourselves.

Good on Mr Guy!

Last night I attended the "Greening out Future Seminar at the Frankston Arts Centre and went home very frustrated. The one sided panel of experts was just trying to tell us how well we can cope with business as usual and easily cope with a growing population. Why wasn't Dick Smith or someone representing other views invited to the panel? A question I submitted in advance about 7 billion people and its expected doubling to 42 millions by 2056 in Australia was omitted.

You are correct that for many people, farmers included, there is an issue with the intellectual property attached to the transgenic seed (though there is similar proprietary stuff attached to non-GM seeds, so it isn’t strictly a GM issue). Nor is this strictly limited to seeds – try processed foods, oil, electronics, cars, etc. I guess it boils down to an economic decision for the farmer as to whether he will grow the GM or non-GM version. Economics is not my area of expertise so I am unable to offer a better solution. I can say, however, that a lot of the intellectual property for crops in the research phase and that could soon be on the market if all goes to plan will be held with public institutions such as universities and similar research groups, though they ultimately have to partner with industry as it is very expensive to get a crop from field trials through all the regulatory hoops and hurdles to a crop approved for commercial planting. There are other GM crops such as the biofortified crops eg Golden Rice, or an iron-enriched rice being researched here at University of Melbourne that will either have the royalty/technology fee waived or in the case of the iron-rich rice there will be no patents attached to the technology behind the crop, so it will also be distributed fee-free to those in the countries it is required – at least that is the plan. But, at the moment we are stuck with the majority of commodity crops seeds in the hands of a powerful few.

Re: your second point. I am unsure how you can suggest transgenic breeding speeds up changes in plants anymore than traditional breeding technologies such as mutagenesis or plant embryo rescue. In fact, there a few recent papers showing that mutagenesis, at least, disrupts and warps a plant’s genome significantly more and in more unpredictable ways than transgenics. Embryo rescue allows us to force the cross of two plants that would never be able to cross in nature. We can also select offspring with the specific genes that we want because we know the sequence of those genes and identify the individual plants with those genes. In fact nature is likely to have greater genetic variation than any carefully controlled crop species.

If indeed such “churning out of super breeds will disrupt agricultural and natural ecologies’ then the risk of it happening is equally likely with traditional breeding technologies. Although I would argue that agriculture full stop regardless of how you bred the crops has the largest ecological footprint of any human activity and is of far greater concern than any potential ecological risk (real or perceived) from transgenics. For example, the clearing of land, diverting water from rivers, applying artificial fertiliser, destroying predators and other pests of agriculture (via sprays and other poisons), cultivation of fragile soils, overgrazing of livestock....and so on, have far greater environmental issues attached to them than how a plant is bred.

Jason, Manager TechNyou, University of Melbourne - www.technyou.edu.au

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) today called on Minister Tony Burke to require the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to assess higher water reductions consistent with the latest scientific advice. According to the CSIRO report, returning 2800 gigalitres only “meet 55 per cent of the ‘achievable’ [environmental] targets”. “Minister Burke can direct the Authority to return more water than the 2750 gigalitres announced yesterday. Minister Burke must deliver on his promise and assess the benefits of returning higher volumes of water to the Murray-Darling,” he said. Download the report: Water for a healthy country (pdf 688K) Water is a scarce resource in many parts of Australia. To secure water supplies, water is stored above ground (for example, in dams) and below ground in aquifers. This is important in Australia because of variable rainfall, both across the continent and from year-to-year. In recent years, low rainfall in many parts of Australia has led to low water storage levels, causing concern about the adequacy of water supplies. Population increase, especially in coastal urban areas, is placing further pressure on water supplies. (ABS) Minister Tony Burke as Minister for Population and Environment should be able to join the dots between our boosted population growth and the rising need for water, and how urban sprawl and population demands are compromising the long-term welfare of our precious water supplies.

The old CES system was far more efficient. I remember looking for work after they implemented the Centrelink system and having to register with a new employment agency everytime I applied for a job, which got tedious. There are so many different agencies I never seemed to encounter the same one twice. I think they've improved it a bit since then, but the old CES system was still better. And I don't think Centrelink system actually saves money or is more efficient at finding people work. The various agencies are often don't communicate and they are all out to fleece the government for as much as they can.

My stomach is churning as I type this. I fear even Candobetter is too politically correct to allow me to air my thoughts. I have been costing my idea to station a private gun boat at Christmas island. There is a long and dubious history of privateers ignored or sanctioned by the Royal Navy, if the result was vaguely to the interests of the British Empire. My gunboat would shoot up and/or sink rich illegal immigrants trying to rort Australian and international laws, and trying to enter Australia. More important than guns, the gunboat would have two or three video cameras always recording the action. If the illegal entry boat didn't sink, but limped to Christmas Island with half the crew and passengers dead or bloodied, to a frothing media welcome, all to the good. I respect the views of the refugee hugging industry. I merely ask that they respect my views. That Australia is already overpopulation. That all the other millions of species of animals and plants need armed protection against the human plague. The spread of human slime. There is an ex-offshore racing speedboat -- still holds the Sydney-Birsbane and Sydney-Hobart records for sale in Kurnell for $36,000. Top speed 100 kph. This beast would be faster and could outrun the Navy and Customs patrol boats currently welcoming the human plague. Those wishing to donate or volunteer -- contact me on [email protected] Once the refugees make it to Australia,, all their xmas's come at once. Thank you taxpayers, thank you ballboys.

A truly guilt-edged viewpoint.

re: superweeds. Yes, you are correct that the development of herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops can lead to the increased use of a particular herbicide and consequently increase the risk of resistance build up in related weeds. Those herbicide-tolerant crops also have the potential to transfer those herbicide-tolerant genes to related weeds, exacerbating the problem further. But this is not a GM issue as such, because in Australia, at least we have two varieties non-GM canola that are herbicide tolerant and one of these has the same risk of being able to transfer its herbicide tolerant trait to weeds. So the same risks apply. It requires effective agronomic management - eg correct use of the herbicide, proper crop and herbicide rotation...and so on. You will also find this development of superweeds occurs simply by the reliance and incorrect use of a particular herbicide. We have an issue of glyphosate resistance in Australia, a problem that was occurring well before herbicide-tolerant crops came onto the scene. If the farmers follows best-practice agronomics herbicide resistance and super weeds from the use of HT crops can be managed. I guess the caveat is, will Australian farmers follow proper agronomic management? So far, from what I understand, they seem to have done so with the non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties. Jason, TechNyou, University of Melbourne

President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration has launched a politicised crackdown on working visas for thousands of foreigners.
The aim is to cut legal immigration by 10 per cent (20,000 out of 200,000) conveniently in time for the campaign ahead of the presidential poll in May next year.
Foreigners who complete degrees in France usually have the right to work for six months in their chosen area, but now, as student protesters say, they are instead receiving refusals of visa renewals, expulsion notices or unexplained long delays in visa processing.

See: France's visa curbs backfiring of 23 November. (Murdoch's Australian seems to have erected a pay wall around its site. - Ed)

GM crops are being seen as an “answer” to a way of securing food for the future.
Are they – show me some evidence of where scientists are saying this. They certainly say that transgenic technology is an important tool – among the many other plant breeding tools at their disposal. They also acknowledge – even Monsanto – that poverty, wastage, corruption, war, and other social factors are also significant barriers to our attempts to have a secure food supply.

The insertion of genes into the genome causes unexpected and unpredictable results such as allergies.

Conventional plant breeding also carries this risk, and it has happened and conventional varieties have been removed from sale because of it. It hasn’t occurred with any GM product, yet. One of the reasons for this is that they must check via metabolomic analysis to see if the inserted gene has caused any genetic disruptions that led to an increase in natural and existing allergenic or toxic proteins. They must also check that the protein from the novel (transgene) is also non-toxic, non-allergenic, etc.

Dangers of GM

I noticed you didn’t mention that all of the papers you present as evidence of the dangers of GM have either not been peer-reviewed and have serious flaws or have issues with their statistical analysis. You also don’t mention, as context, the couple of hundred peer-reviewed papers that show no issues with the transgenic technologies.

Decline of bees?

Where is your evidence for any GM crop being responsible or partly responsible for the colony collapse disorder – which has occurred in countries and regions where no GM crops are grown?

As for an issue with Monsanto or the corportisation of our food - fair enough. But that is an issue with how the technology is being used, rather than the technology itself. There is no doubt there are risks with transgenic technologies when applied to plant breeding, but so too there are risks with conventional plant breeding. It boils down to how an individual defines safe, and what is acceptable risk, something that will differ for each of us.

Jason Major, Manager, TechNyou,
University of Melbourne

Thanks for this post Tim, you're setting the world on fire at the moment ! Whilst I agree with just about everything in your post I have to put another face on the issue of democracy, and whilst agreeing that this current democracy lacks the fundamentals to right the Peak Everything situation, I am still not out of hope that something can be salvaged from the wreckage. Yes we need truth, the bare naked assessment of what we are doing and the necessity to change, but I came across a speech by Norman Mailer the other day given on the eve of the invasion of Iraq called "Only in America"

"In the 1930s, you could be respected if you earned a living. In the Nineties, you had to demonstrate that you were a promising figure in the ranks of greed. It may be that empire depends on an obscenely wealthy upper-upper class who, given the in-built, never-ending threat to their wealth, are bound to feel no great allegiance in the pit of their heart for democracy. If this insight is true, then it can also be said that the disproportionate wealth which collected through the Nineties may have created an all-but-irresistible pressure at the top to move from democracy to empire.

There does not seem much comprehension that except for special circumstances, democracy is never there in us to create in another country by the force of our will. Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally over centuries, battles that succeed in building traditions. The only defenses of democracy, finally, are the traditions of democracy. When you start ignoring those values, you are playing with a noble and delicate structure. There's nothing more beautiful than democracy. But you can't play with it. You can't assume we're going to go over to show them what a great system we have. This is monstrous arrogance.

Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad. Democracy is a state of grace that is attained only by those countries who have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labor of maintaining it.

Democracy, I would repeat, is the noblest form of government we have yet evolved, and we may as well begin to ask ourselves whether we are ready to suffer, even perish for it, rather than readying ourselves to live in the lower existence of a monumental banana republic with a government always eager to cater to mega-corporations as they do their best to appropriate our thwarted dreams with their elephantiastical conceits."

As Obama sets down his requirements for policing China from Australia it seems that the only opposition to this "state of mind" is the "Occupy" movement, and whilever it is not yet an articulated movement in the U.S. in Europe there are very firm "guide lines" under which the dismemberment of democracy is being opposed. As Eduardo Galeano said recently when visiting Occupy Barcelona, "This world is pregnant with another more beautiful world, it will be a long hard pregnancy and a more difficult birth". I'm quite happy to settle for that.

Richard

Already we have more people than required by our economy, and skilled graduates are struggling to find jobs. Victoria used to have a vibrant manufacturing base, and many industries. They have largely gone overseas. We don't have the resources boom of WA. Our economy doesn't need more people and we are already in ecological overshoot. People are being added to create larger consumer and tax bases. We need peak oil to cut into the growth mentality. Government policies are trashing any efforts to be sustainable. Forcing growth onto Australia at a time of global decline is reckless, irresponsible, and contrary the the interests of future generation who will be left with the task of rationing energy and food, and untangling the transport knot. Adding all these extra one million people is the easiest route, and lazy way, for the governments to make money, and ensure donations from real estate and developers. Victoria is going backwards by abandoning planning for quick and easy money from myopic policies.

Earlier this year, Population Minister Tony Burke went through an elaborate theatre of consultation with 3 expert panels, and public submissions, on Australia's population growth, and a sustainable future. As a result, he simply brushed away all environmental concerns, and other minor trivialities such as food and water security, in favour of addressing our so-called "skills shortage". Thus, with no population policy for the States and Australia, all concern by growers, farmers and scientists have been brushed aside. There is nothing to stop State government cashing in on the easy flow of population growth, and leave the fallouts to following governments. The economic growth paradigm, based on infinite natural resources and infinite population growth, is well and truly active in Australia. Addamo, a fresh fruit and vegetable supplier and packager from Victoria which supplies to the major supermarkets, has collapsed after racking up more than $5 million in debt to banks and suppliers. With free trade agreements ruining and engulfing our own home-brand food production and manufacturing, we will be relying more on imported food. Another threat to food security is coal seam mining. In Victoria alone, as reported by The Weekly Times last month, there are already more than a dozen CSG exploration applications, from Werribee in the west to large tracts of the Macalister irrigation district in the east. The most fertile agricultural land will continue to be lost to expanding cities and urban sprawl, and there will be increased urban competition for water availability, and food imports. Ultimately urban sprawl will need to be knocked down because of food and energy security and cost, and the carbon tax. We must get used to higher food costs - the government created this reality. With the Coalition coming to power, Matthew Guy's first priority was to "tackle housing affordability with increased land supply and urban renewal". This is really a case of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic! Land is not a limitless resource. We are covering some biodiversity habitat and fertile land, limited in Australia, with housing estates. At a time of climate change and numerous "peaks" in demands for natural resources, once the lines cross, we are in ecological "overdrive". We should be stabilising our economy, and our population, not have our leaders addicted to growth at all costs!

The GOV WATCH Christian Democratic Party, Vol.3#5 - Oct. @011 writes to thousands of followers: "The Coalition's Achilles heel in this war is its refusal to recognise that carbon dioxide is a beneficent gas which encourages plant growth: that its impact on global temperatures is probably zero and certainly immeasurable; and that this whole monstrous fraud is the latest attempt by the revolutionary Left to remake human society."

Editor's comment: The comments posted below were posted last night in reponse to this article and two other article on coal, Shoalwater Bay Wilderness Awareness Group media release of 29 Jul 2008 and Darling Downs community threatened with open-cut mine and coal-to-liquid plant of 24 Aug 2008. It turns out that we have had a previous discussion with Cherry of CoalPortal here on only 30 September. (I am advised that there have been earlier discussions with CoalPortal, but I am not able to easily find them until we improve candobetter's structure and provide our own site-wide search engine.) Further comments, which add to the discussion from both sides, including from Cherry of CoalPortal, are most welcome. Cherry is also welcome to post links back to candobetter from
www.coalportal.com and elsewhere. We are not able to do so ourselves on CoalPortal at least not until we first pay to subscribe to that site.

Developing countries need coal

(Subject was: "coalportal". Originally posted on this page) The call to reduce the use of coals is valid for western countries but unfortunately, coal reports show developing economies are more likely to increase their use of coal in coming years because of its affordability and to meet increasing demands for electricity and steel for the coal industry. See
www.coalportal.com

More infrastructure needed for increased coal exports

(Subject was: "coalportal".Originally posted here) Coal Terminals and additional infrastructure are required in the coal supply chain. Coal industry and coal prices show developing economies are more likely to increase their investment into and their use of thermal coal and metallurgical coal in coming years because of its affordability and to meet increasing demands for electricity and steel.
See www.coalportal.com.

How modern technology can reduce Greenhouse impacts of coal industry

(Subject was: "coalportal". Originally posted here.)The use of sophisticated software systems for coal mining that is mostly burnt for power generation and steel production and adds to the greenhouse effect is valid for western countries who may allocate resources and funds to alternative and more greener sources of power. Some of the alternatives may be "safer" than the traditional mines. Unfortunately, coal statistics show developing economies are more likely to increase their use of thermal coal and metallurgical coal in coming years because of its affordability and to meet increasing demands for electricity and steel. Whether they will embrace and utilise sophisticated software systems that no doubt add to the cost of production is yet to be seen. Cherry of www.coalportal.com.

Acting Ombudsman John Taylor’s report identified issues including offers of bribes to academics, passing failing students and plagiarism as problems with international students. The report focused on and studied four Victorian universities: RMIT, Swinburne, Deakin and Ballarat. It recommended that students pass an English language course in the 12 months before admission, and that external examiners report on academic standards and assessment methods. It implies that institutions providing the education are reluctant to fail students due to being reliant on their fees. It revealed that Victorian universities collected $1.16 billion from international students in 2009 - representing about 20 per cent of their revenue. RMIT rejects Ombusman's report It surely is rather contradictory that while we are supposed to have crippling and chronic skills shortages, and need high immigration levels to fill the gaps, that students are coming from all over the world because of our presumably world-class standards of education?

Victoria's public hospitals are struggling to meet demand, according to the latest report card from the Australian Medical Association (AMA). Only 70 per cent of urgent patients seen within the recommended time. While bed numbers have increased, Victoria still has fewer beds per thousand people than the national average. The shortage of beds and high waiting times is indicative of our population boom, and it has no signs of easing. The growth areas of Melbourne will take in our city fringe and plans for 350,000 new homes, 400,000 jobs and new rail stations and roads are part of the overall strategy. Growth always outstrips funding, and ability to accommodate and care for all the influx of new people. Health care is seen begrudgingly as a low priority, and cost rather than a benefit. Corporate Victoria, with a government being run for the benefit of big businesses, doesn't have funding for hospitals and public health is down on the priority list. Victoria needs another 800 hospital beds. By Sunday afternoon 700 beds had been closed, with 315 of them in metropolitan Melbourne and 385 in regional Victoria. The nurses' union is demanding an 18.5 per cent pay rise over three years and eight months and the preservation of nurse-patient ratios. The stress of trying to cope and provide quality patient care is being compromised by lack of funds, and population pressure.

Perhaps we need to beware of 'the brightest and the best' playing stupid and remaining electively mute in the face of what could somehow be simple, obvious and real regarding both the nature of the human species and the finite, frangible planetary home we inhabit. We face a culture of silence with regard to the growth of the human population on Earth. As a consequence, a colossal, human-induced tragedy is being precipitated in our time. But this is not the whole problem being utterly avoided. Even among top-rank scientists with appropriate expertise, extant scientific research of human population dynamics and overpopulation is being willfully ignored. Attractive preternatural thought and specious ideologically-driven theory by non-scientists, namely demographers and economists, about the nature of the human population have been widely shared and consensually validated in the mainstream media during my lifetime. This unscientific thought and theory is not only misleading but also directly contradicted by scientific evidence toward which first-class scientists have “turned a blind eye” for way too long. That is to say we have two challenges to confront and overcome. The first is the culture of silence. The second is the deliberate collusion within a sub-culture of experts who have determined not to acknowledge, examine and report on vital scientific research. Some scientists have referred to “the first challenge” as revealing the facts of “the last taboo”. What I am asking scientists to do is address “the last of the last taboos” by reviewing and reporting findings of unchallenged scientific research of human population dynamics from two outstanding scientists, Hopfenberg and Pimentel(2001), Hopfenberg(2003, 2009). At least to me, it appears the denial of the population issue by people everywhere and the denial of scientific research of human population dynamics/overpopulation by scientists with adequate expertise have resulted in a betrayal of humanity and science itself. This failure of intellectual honesty and moral courage among so many so-called experts with unaccepted responsibilities to assume and unfulfilled duties to perform is as unfortunate as it is unprecedented. A good enough future for children everywhere appears to be at risk on our watch and we are bearing witness now and here, I suppose, to the way silence ‘kills’ the world. Everything within me makes one thing crystal clear: among the species of Earth only human beings with feet of clay possess the capability to honestly, consciously, courageously and deliberately behave in ways that run counter to their strongest drives. Evidence for this statement has been occurring ubiquitously since of the first days of Homo sapiens on Earth, I suppose. As we know, our species has exploded to seven billion in the 'blink of an eye'. Is it not inconceivable that at least some small percentage of human beings have always been acting and continue to act in ways that provide evidence of the subjugation of the most powerful of their instincts to their even more formidable capacity to think, judge and will. I would go so far as to guess that not one day in human history has passed without a human being overcoming what is instinctual. Our instincts to survive individually and to propagate the human species globally are the most potent instincts. But in our time these instincts, that have served humankind so well from our earliest days on Earth, appear to reached a point in space-time when they are pernicious and dangerous to future human well being, life as we know it, and the planet as a fit place for the children to inhabit. Among the species in our planetary home, perhaps human beings are the first species ever to be in the position of precipitating a massive extinction event. So gifted, well-endowed and unique a species as Homo sapiens, one that appears to be potentiating some sort of unimaginable global ecological wreckage, can surely begin making necessary changes in behavior for the sake of the future human well being.

Hi Sheila I just re-read your initial comment with the attention I should have directed to it the first time around. I do agree with you that when playing against (or as) the gods, our failure is then inevitable. My narrow angle on the matter, and stated more simply, was that it is not inevitable that we should have to, or need to, play as gods. It seems quite a simple and obvious consideration really. But such things are hardly ever talked about nowadays so its little wonder that we are getting it all so badly wrong. I think that there should be more considerate talk, and much less action in general.

Tell web forum administrators to stop censoring overpopulation activists and lying about reasons: Change.org petition Talking about population control is one of our culture's great taboos. The idea has some threatening and contradictory power and resonance, and people don't want to know that their own numbers are the problem. It goes against the grain that the Earth's raison d'etre is to contain, support and entertain human whims. Rational family planning pushes against the grain of the biblical God's exhortations to "Go Forth And Multiply", and have dominion over the land. The preferred method of population control amongst the Church and the right-wing convention is War, Genocide and Starvation. It's more politically-correct. In this moral inversion, the religious and political fundamentalists see blood sacrifice and suffering as Honorable and Holy, and birth control as Evil and offensive. Globally, the effects of overpopulation play a part in practically every daily report of mass human calamity, but the word “population” is rarely mentioned. The media in Australia rarely mention "immigration" except in regards to asylum seekers -less than 5% of the immigration numbers. Overpopulation is the enemy of humanity. Ignoring it is about denial, and a conflict with powers-that-be due to the monetary and political benefits for population growth.

But it's not inevitable. It is only seeing it thus that makes it so. This fatal perspective can be effectively challenged by looking beyond the familiar social form to others that have behaved differently and thereby enjoyed categorically different outcomes over time. The apparent 'irony' is in fact nothing more than a temporally, culturally and politically convenient self-indulgence. I know you know this but it cannot be stated often enough, lest the systemic avoidance of opportunity be assisted to continue. Collective suicide, or at least serious self harm, due to 'a cosmic irony' inherent within human nature, is an imagined condition. It is not an inevitable consequence of being human. I wonder why there is so little discourse to be found regarding what might be the essence of being human?

Mother Nature also gave us a huge inheritance, fossil fuels, hundreds of millions of years worth of solar energy in convenient, easy to use forms. We seem to believe this gift is like the movie "Brewster's Millions" - we have to spend it as quickly as possible with nothing to show at the end, and when its gone we will be rewarded with even greater wealth. Isn't that the basis of modern economics which both capitalists and marxists believe in - that natural resources are infinite, and that substitutes will always be found? Richard Pryor was rewarded for his excesses in the movie, the human race probably won't be as fortunate.

Let's suppose austerity targets might be a plausible option in support of population growth. Let's leave aside the simple mathematics that attest it isn't, as well as the unfortunate fact that consumption growth is a purposeful aim driving the population increase that we object to. Surely there is a sound need to first realise some manifest achievement in this austerity direction BEFORE bounding carelessly toward population increase, thereby committing our lives (literally) to an untested equation that is merely supposed and entirely bereft of any detectable proof, strategic policy or implementation framework? Who are the advocates of such nonsense seeking to deceive? Direct conversations I've had indicate that it is themselves they seek to keep blinded. Such discussions provide mind-boggling displays of wilful self-delusion. People most certainly are extraordinary creatures, most often for reasons other than what they'd like to believe.

I think that, when the Eco-Socialists said there was "enough energy to go around," they were referring only to energy for humans. I don't think they were including other species. This may be why Mother Nature is not listening to them. They sure aren't listening to her. Is anyone taking odds on the winner here?