Comments

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-12-05 20:23

Vivienne,

Thanks. Your article is very pertinent and indentifies a rural symptom of the core ecological problem facing Australia - land degradation from traditonal farming coupled with climate change.

The management problem is that Australia's urban-centric politicans turn a blind eye to rural issues and instead pour billions to perpetuate the obscene weath and bulemic sprawl of Australia's capital cities to the detriment of what they euphemistically label 'the bush'. This systemic neglect of non-urban Australia is beyond urbanism. It is 'urbanist' - a bias towards urban and a bias against rural.

Burgeoning city votes are driving city preferences for investment, population and political attention. The so-called 'bush' suffers again. They even call Newcastle and Townsville bush can you believe it?

Your issue is replicated across inland Australia such as in the two following current articles:

Lachlan River to stop flowing

[ABC, Brad Markham/Michael Condon from Condobolin 2877, Saturday, 5 Dec 09]

"It's now just days until unprecedented steps are taken preserve dwindling water supplies in Wyangala Dam in central-west NSW. The amount of water released from the dam each day into the Lachlan River is to be slashed by about 500 megalitres. That will have major consequences for farmers at places like Condobolin and further downstream.

Releases from the dam, which is less than six per cent full, will be cut from about 700 megalitres a day to 200 megalitres from October 31st. It'll mean the Lachlan River will stop flowing past Condobolin early next month.

"That 200 megalitres a day that we are aiming for is only a predicted flow," says Lachlan Valley Water chairman Dennis Moxey. "It has never been done before that we have run the river in the hot summer months this low."

Mr Moxey says it's an unprecedented situation. "There's been hardly any inflows into Wyangala Dam," he says. Restricting water releases from the dam will affect hundreds of farmers who depend on the river for water.

"It's not just 300 water licence holders below Condobolin who'll be affected," Mr Moxey says. "There's also other farmers whose creek systems will run dry."

Those creeks provide drinking water for livestock and hundreds of people.
"I think it's been hard for people to understand that this is actually going to happen," he says. "But I don't think [the State Government] realises the gravity of the whole situation.

"People are desperate, particularly along the lower part of the Lachlan. Things are just getting worse." While the river will stop flowing at Condobolin, water will still be "pulsed" down to the weir pool which feeds the Lake Cargelligo township.

"If it gets to the stage where that water isn't enough to enable the river to keep flowing to Condobolin, we'll just have to release a bit more water from Wyangala Dam," Mr Moxey says. "That'll mean the resource won't last as long, but we have supply those townships with water."

The mayor of the Lachlan Shire, Des Manwarring, says the situation is serious.
"They tell us if there's no inflows into Wyangala Dam by April the dam will run dry," he says.

Inflows into the Lachlan River have hit record low levels."

Home no more as graziers get big or get out

[Sydney Morning Herald, Brad Markham/Michael Condon from Condobolin 2877, Sunday, 25/10/2009]

"THERE are still pegs on the Hills Hoist, three tiny toy cars are lined up on a brick wall, white curtains with green fern designs hang at the windows, and the speed dial on the wall phone lists local names like ''Bones'', a roo shooter, and Helmers, the town store.

But no one is at home. No one has been home since July 1993, the calendar hanging by the phone indicates.

The homestead on Wongalara station, 90 kilometres west of Wilcannia, is an abandoned farmhouse, one of hundreds of ghostly shells that speak of the old days of the family farm, before the NSW west emptied out.

Its walls are coated in red dust, its floor carpeted with roo and goat droppings, the chicken wire around its tennis court droops, and the children's desks in its entertainment outhouse are ripe for horror movie casting as they cradle a doll whose eyes stare at a sagging ceiling.

Two dead TVs sit on the veranda. Only the cactuses have survived in a garden where the skeletons of once well-tended vines loop around wires. An FJ ute lies abandoned outside a garage where the painted shadows of long-gone tools haunt the walls. A Dunlop volley shoe lies beside a white kangaroo leg bone in the dust. Life was once sweet here.

''Wongalara was the social hub of the area and now there's no one there,'' said the Elders real estate branch manager at Broken Hill, Ian Jaensch.

Seven in 10 of the properties Mr Jaensch is selling have secondary homesteads on them, as neighbour has eaten neighbour in a brutal process called aggregation. Most farms must grow ever bigger to be viable.

''That is the sad long-term fact; it's just inevitable,'' said the Victorian social researcher Neil Barr, the author of The House on the Hill: The Transformation of Australia's Farming Communities.

In his five years in the area, Mr Jaensch estimated, half the properties he had sold went to pastoral corporations. Their farm managers tended to stay a few years and move on, changing the social fabric of the bush, he said.

Bob Pratten acquired Wongalara in 1947 as a returned serviceman. He and his late wife, Joyce, raised four children and ran sheep on its 8600 hectares. They threw tennis parties for 20 to 30 neighbours and their gangs of kids.

Now 88, Mr Pratten has retired to Dubbo. None of the children farms. His daughter, Dianne Spears, a Sydney office worker, remembers mustering with ponies, speedboat rides in a neighbour's lake, and, one drought-stricken summer, spending every day as a teenager ''sweeping one inch of red dust off the verandas''.

The Prattens sold in 1986 to a neighbour, Lin Huddlestone, who amalgamated it with her 27,733-hectare Burragan station and 17,700-hectare Bellvale. The entire property was being sold to a syndicate of local graziers unlikely to use any of the three homesteads for more than a ''crash pad'', Mr Jaensch said.

Mr Pratten has not been back to see the house he built: ''I have called in several times and looked from the hill before you get there but I don't want to go down there, the way they said it was.''

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

Quiet Please. (not verified)

Sat, 2009-12-05 10:41

I listened to that recording. It's the most grotesque, environmentally hideous assault on a neighbouring domestic soundscape that I've ever heard. Oh, give me the day when someone sues one of these belligerent noise-makers for everything they own. Oh, for a personal damages claim so huge that those who allow (and defend) the rights of dogs to bark would never, ever attempt to force their barking dogs, their self-righteous justifications or their under-informed denials on another decent-living human being. The person who put that sound-track out there would be a candidate for post-traumatic disorder. What a disgraceful indictment on society.

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-12-04 13:24

I appreciate Jack responding with his justifying claims. These have become part of the popular culture over generations to an extent that they are accepted as fact. But are they facts?

My response to Jack's claims about justified killing of possums and kangaroos warrant considered response. Due to the detail I have replied by way of contributing new articles on this issue.

Brushtail Possums are a destructive pest in NZ - but is persevering with a backyard fur trade New Zealand's ethical solution?

Jack (not verified)

Thu, 2009-12-03 17:24

I understand that they are a destructive pest in that country so I see no problem in that industry, provided the possums are killed humanely. By the way, I was told by my father that possum pie was a favourite when he was a boy living on a farm. The same for the kangaroo in Australia - in some areas they are in epidemic proportions, so their humane culling and careful and economic use of the products is sensible.

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-12-03 10:43

Agent Provocateur, I suggest the global 'excess problem' stems from two drivers: 1. The problem avoidance of overpopulation and all its consequential demand pressures 2. The overriding domination of economics on political thought and policy driving an unquestioned pursuit of economic growth as if with out it, we face Armegeddon. The ideal of Optimal Living (in a generic sense) should supplant Economic Growth. Our world is indeed a rich place, except when one sees it with greedy eyes. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-12-03 10:19

Many post-war ideals that Liberal and Labor, Tories and Labor, Democrats and Rebublicans all adhere to, are obsolete. Menzies steered Australia through war and boom times. Chifley's post-war immigration scheme may have been appropriate at the time. But it's time for new political parties to break the mould and to break community polarisation. Independents including Greens need to start having quarterly conferences to thrash out issues of consensus and to consider forming coalition to get a third and forth alternative out there. Australians are tired of the Lib-Lab pendulum. But at election time many vote for the lesser of the two evils simply because there is no alternative. The right stuff is not attracted to the Lib-Lab circus and can earn more in corporate anyway. The apportionment of wealth away from government and to the top 500 is squewed to the private and away from the public. Poor media ethics, standards, paparrazzism and the dominance of Fairfax and Murdock are disssuading many of the right stuff from entering the political landscape. Australia is suffering as a consequence.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2009-12-03 09:18

Thanks, Vivienne. It's important that we are honest about not not only the Labor Government, but the alternatives. Whilst my own inclination has been to always put Labor ahead of the Liberal and National Parties on my preferential ballot paper (that is, after having voted 1, 2, 3, ... for Independents, Greens, etc.), the experience of the thoroughly despotic and incompetent Queensland Labor Government as well as the seemingly principled stances of the Liberal National Party Opposition in State Parliemant in support of democratic principles, is causing me to rethink that. In Victoria, it may still prove to be the case that the Liberal National Opposition could prove to be even worse than the already unbelievably awful Brumby Labor Government. Whatever choice, if any, candobetter eventually advocates on election day, it is critical that we be strictly honest about both of the two major alternatives as Vivienne has been. We should not be so blinded by our disgust at the ruling Labor Governments as to excuse the grave shortcomings of the opposition parties. This certainly happened in the 2009 state elections, when the Save the Mary River coalition openly attacked the Greens with at least one for not explicitly recommending that their supporters preference the Liberal National Party (the Queensland combination of the former state Liberal and National parties) over Labor. I consider this stance of the Save the Mary River coalition to have been harmful to democracy and probably their own cause, (although the latter may seem less obvious now as a result of Federal Labor Environment Minister Peter Garrett for once having made a decision in favour of the environment by over-ruling the Queensland Government's plans to build the dam). Of course, the real solution is to create an alternative (which the Greens, sadly, are not) to both pro-big-business alternatives, so that the choice between Labor on the one hand and the Liberals and Nationals on the other becomes irrelevant.

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-12-03 08:42

"If elected to government in November 2010, the Liberal Nationals Coalition will work with Racing Victoria to reinstate jumps racing and to rebuild racing across country Victoria".
“We want jumps racing to continue, the May Racing Carnival to continue with the economic and job flow-ons to continue to Warrnambool,” Dr Napthine said. “When Warrnambool is losing hundreds of jobs and $20 million a year in income because changes are being made by an agency established by the Victorian Government through parliament, I believe the State Government has a responsibility to work with the city to develop a strategy for economic opportunities that will create jobs and income.”

DENIS NAPTHINE, Shadow Minister for Racing, Shadow Minister for Regional Cities

Interesting that Denis Napthine was a vet before entering politics! Vets also work for the live export trade, support puppy mills and factory farming. It is tiresome to hear the same old arguments to exploit and kill animals and destroy environments - "jobs", "income" and "economics"!

Good reason to not vote for Liberals in the next Victorian elections!

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 05:01

... Encourage recycling of those leaflets... to ALL family members!

Sheila - this says it all!

The answer is to slow down and produce less.

This will cause less heat and pollution.

We do not actually have to produce more.

We spend too much time working and we have more than we can pleasurably consume.

What we don't have is time, political power and quality social interaction.

... I rest my case.

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 04:52

... Named after Charles Ponzi, a man with a remarkable criminal career in the early 20th century, the term has been used to describe pyramid schemes... 'They are not only conspiring to transfer wealth from the majority to themselves, but they are also making each member of our society on average necessarily poorer and therefore causing there to be even less to go around for the rest ' So - what can you do? I have noticed more disparaging emails of late, on immigration, population - and housing issues... so perhaps 'awareness' is the first step - a major strike? A concerted campaign? Create a new 'Movement'? Because unless something is -done- rather than talked about, nothing will change - and we desperately need change. Not just in Queensland but in the whole of Australia. How many disenfranchised, marginalised Australians will it take, before we stop the rot?

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 04:33

Hello James.. honestly, I have had a general look around the site - there are so many interesting pieces, I hardly know where to start! (Sheila Newman's too)

Perhaps, inadvertantly, the house-prices may influence population growth (am I too naive?) - well, we can only hope.

You may be interested to know, that amongst my accomplishments is the now listed fact, that I have owned 5 homes in 23 years - between the years of 1985 - 2009 and never paid over $100,000.

I've owned units and houses and now, one unconventional dwelling; on the last four homes, I made a profit, but that was never the main agenda. The agenda was NOT to live beyond my means - sustainable living.

I ought to feel sorry for the strangle-hold that fluctuating/increasing mortgage rates have on the Ordinary Australian - but I don't. Nobody would listen to me, when I would ask the 'what if?..' questions - they kept on breeding - they kept on buying those expensive houses.

...'Mortgage repayments now account for 30.8 per cent of an average first-homebuyer's income a 0.8 per centrise on the previous quarter.' ...

It used to be that banks wouldn't lend money over 25% of the borrower's income. Does anyone still remember the term 'usury'?

Does anyone know the 'real' value of a block in the burbs? ... or just its 'notional' value?

I'm sure I saw the outline of an article this evening which said Queensland ... requisitioning land, for building purposes... (off farmers? house-holders?) - it has been done, in the past, I know - for instance, to build free-ways:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/requisition: the taking of property by a public authority for a public use : the exercise of the power of eminent domain

... In anycase, my point is - land 'owner-ship' has, and is a 'notional value' - and I refuse to 'buy' it! In any sense of that word. I've chosen to purchase an unconventional dwelling, which does occupy land, but which land - I don't own. No Stamp Duty & a cheaper house (yes, under $100,000)

While many are appalled at my choice of 'dwelling' & its where-abouts - I am 'smug as a bug in a rug'. It is not - he who dies with the most toys wins' - after all. I believe that its actually 'he who dies with the least toys wins - and had lots of spare money to enjoy the new 'Gold Standard' - Time. ... Because you can't take those toys with you - The Egyptians tried...

I'm afraid that, while I had a choice in the matter of my dwelling, many in the near future will not - I make one plea here - do not be seduced into 'the market place' and be enslaved - find viable alternatives, while there are still some of those alternatives to be had.

... So, perhaps a transient 'Winnabago' society will prevail... a land of Gypsies... no, I don't have a caravan... but .. what a lovely idea!

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 03:41

I lay no claim, what-so-ever to being an intellectual, however, one doesn't need to be, to see that Australia is leaning toward an unsustainable population; water, arable land, real jobs to support expensive houses and cost of living. But what I want to know, is why - successive governments, at both State & Federal levels, are behaving in such a contrary way? If it's obvious to half wits like me (and perhaps to quarter-wits and even eighth-wits...) that we are beyond sustainability, why are we allowing it to happen? What drives the push for more people?

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 03:20

Hello Sheila Re-Introduction: I've been in contact with James over the last couple of days, and I noticed your name in the list of blogs. I believe that we have already met - we also seem to be on the same wave-length. My name is Amanda Burchell - I've recently written and published a book called: Agent Provocateur: the backlash against the anti smoking campaign. ( The QUIT campaign is ugly, rude and alienates those it wishes to avail themselves of its dogma - I have a better solution.) You may be interested in the sub-text, which compares other forms of pollution (over population & pollution). And while the book is intended to be humorous, within its 'rant' you may find a serious intent. Mike Cook has provided some entertaining graphics to encapsulate the writer's message, and as the saying goes: 'You catch more flies with honey than vinegar' - humour can often be said to engage, where a tongue-lashing, brow beating may not. ( Another wit has said: ...But who wants flies?) Our website: www.somethingfunnygoingon.com ... Sheila, I see that you have done some great research into the area of population ~ I've long thought that Australia was heading for 'unsustainability'. - I've mentioned elsewhere this evening, that I spoke with a scientist a few years ago in the 1990's who said that Australia could sustain around 12 1/2 million - after that, there would be a serious 'liquidation' of resources, (or words to that effect) - i.e. arable land; water; those proponents of 'more people/ cheaper goods and more for all' (mainly builders, I spoke to in the 1980's!) - were wrong, as evidenced by house prices alone! ... Have you unearthed the contrary reasons behind the push for population growth to the detriment of the Nation's tax paying citizens, by any chance? Regards Amanda Burchell

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 02:19

I know this one well, lol - 'hope you don't mind my mentioning my book, here! (Thankyou, James - for buying a copy - its on the way!) Agent Provocateur... while not against children per se - is against encouraging population growth! We don't have the resources or infrastructure to cope with population growth in Australia.

Population Growth is Responsible for the following in Direct Proportions:

  • crowded roads
  • Emissions! (very sore point at the moment - with the Federal Liberal Party re-shuffling and 'stiffing' Malcolm Turnbull, because he did (apparenty) care about the Green issues/pollution)
  • Arable land being used for housing
  • While water isn't such a problem in Queensland, it certainly is in Victoria and Sth Australia.
  • A scientist stated in the 1990's that Australia could sustain a population of about 12 1/2 million - after that - we would start to run the resources (Water, land, etc) into 'liquidation'.

    • ... Mandatory Infrastructure Required: decent, affordable homes; free, usable roads - roads which interconnect effectively!

Agent Provocateur

Thu, 2009-12-03 01:57

Hi James! ( I was finally able to log in!) Excuse me for not replying sooner - I've been working nights and doing in-house training here, at Peninsula Health, in Victoria. I read the extracted pieces on child restraints with interest, as somewhat wryly, I recall that I was booked in Victoria for not having my son properly restrained in the car when he was 3 1/2 - some years ago, now. That son is now 27 and has an IQ of 142, but he didn't need the high IQ to undo his safety belt! - And I don't believe that larger, more expensive car-safety seats will defeat the children who are supposed to be safely contained within them! I do have a suspicious mind though: I wonder if there might be a 'kick-back' to the company and policy makers who are insisting that safety will be improved by 50% - as you say - with little reference to proven statistics. I believe that Victoria has beaten Queensland in successfully legislating for these very same regulations, never the less... You've included the following: "Many, who don't have children of their own, but who are occasionally asked to drive children of relatives will be faced with the unpalatable choice: either go to the trouble and expense necessary to install the seat belts or be unable to offer lifts when the need arises." I think that the parents will have to go through the rigmarole of leaving 'baby sitters' with the car seats - very cumbersome. ... My eldest son lives on the Gold Coast, (Victorian born) - and says that Queensland has appalling road conditions and public transport; this last' would be the solution I might advocate in either Melbourne or Sydney - (and not drive the car!) - but my son says that public transport in Queensland is nowhere near as good as other States, such as NSW and Victoria. My sympathies are with you on all the above topics - as a single parent for many years, the cost of caring for children was exorbitant - and I would not have a family in the current financial climate - because - I would not be able to afford to do so!

Terry (not verified)

Wed, 2009-12-02 23:26

Just tell me one thing, Tigerquoll, do you own one leather item or any animal product in your abode? because if you do your a complete hipocrite. Given that all animals are native to some country and native animals on foreign soil seem to be of a sensitive nature to you. I am never to return to a site like this because it only encourages idiots like you.

Milly (not verified)

Wed, 2009-12-02 14:59

"Humankind's future is to colonise the solar system and, indeed, the wider galaxy. Earth is not our only home". Basing policies and population growth on the chance that we may be able to colonise the solar system, and the wider galaxy, is surely rather speculative and based on massive uncertainty! This is the stuff of science fiction, not a solution to the Earth's current problems! As for the Royal family, what ever their limitations and defects, they are not against humanity and do not support genocide. Climate change is something real, not scam. These "opinions" are simply fiction, sensationalistic gossip. Sorry, but fantasy is not relevant in today's current affairs.

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-12-02 13:18

Firstly, I thank Sean, Tigerquoll, Vivienne and others for their contributions to this discussion. I think it is necessary that differences be discussed openly in this way. I thing it is important to recongnise that very few individuals or groups are completely right about everything or completely wrong. Even where a group such as the CEC is so badly mistaken on such critcal issues as population and the environment as Tigerquoll, Vivienne, Steve and I believe they are, they can still offer some worthwhile ideas in other important areas, as I have said. I am not opposed to technology. I just think we need to be realistic about what we can hope to achieve with it and must be prepared to use it sustainably. We must be prepared to acknowledge that humankind's technological achievements thus far have been dependent upon the extraction and processing and fabrication of finite non-renewable resources, particularly fossil fuels and metals. Personally, I even hope to see a space exploration and colonisation program undertaken as Sean has suggested. However, such a program would need to be self-sustaining, and not dependent upon earth's finite resources, to have a long term future. The raw materials to build the hardware for the space colonies would largely have to be mined from the Moon and the asteroids. To be self sustaining we would need to create artificial environments that can sustain human life and the other forms of life upon which humans are dependent that would require little input other than energy from the sun. It would have to be capable of recycling almost 100% of the materials contained within it. My understanding is that that has never been achieved. It may well prove impossible in any environment as small as even a very large enclosed space colonies that T A Heppenheimer wrote of in the 1970's in his book "Colonies in Space". As it seems unlikely that we will get space colonisation to work in the near future, then we may need to, instead focus on the technolgies that will help us repair the Earth. That could be a good start towards achieving the goal of eventually creating artificial environments capable of sustaning life, including human life, in space.

Terry (not verified)

Wed, 2009-12-02 01:34

Subject was: 'Good product'. - JS I had no idea that they were doing that. I checked it out and ended up buying myself two of their products. Thanks for the link.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2009-12-01 23:49

Brisbane and much of Queensland is a noisy, ugly, dusty wound, of rotting tree carcasses bulldozed into moonscaped red mud battlefields, intersected by heavily trafficked new roads. And everywhere ticky-tacky boxes covering the hills and bearing down on the disappearing woodlands, like infestations of locusts, the desperado families herded by advertising into Bunningses and Big Ws etc, looking for manufactured meaning in lives where meaning, reality and nature lie bleeding, dying and dissed. The city groans with pain as a tribe of phallicly challenged pharaoh parvenus compulsively seeks compensation for their an-epiphany in continuous erection of redundant concrete and glass monuments, with no care as to the absurdity of their conduct and its awful financial, aesthetic and environmental costs. The government in Queensland is completely out of touch along with the developers. I wonder where it will all end. I don't think the insensitive ones are going to get away with what they are doing forever.

Tree (not verified)

Tue, 2009-12-01 23:27

Bernard Salt, again given more air-time in the main stream media in article "Adelaide block sizes shrink" The developers in Adelaide must have both of Mike Rann's ears. They have achieved an average block size of 450sqm, below the national average of 527sqm (note that the old 1/4 acre block is 1011 sqm !!) and then on today's news: "Australians have world's biggest homes" from: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2756847.htm and "Welcome to Victoria, home to super-sized houses" http://www.theage.com.au/national/welcome-to-victoria-home-to-supersized-houses-20091129-jywb.html So we have 2 opposing trends, smaller block sizes and bigger houses. Clearly what is happening is that backyards have become token paved "outdoor entertainment" area, while the house has moved up right to the boundary on all sides, only subject to limits as required to by local planning rules (i.e. set-backs). So it looks like that developers are succeeding in selling small blocks by fully covering them, compensating home owners with increased interior space. from: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26413813-2682,00.html

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2009-12-01 11:24

An excellent and well researched article Vivienne. This is a national ecological emergency. It is where Bligh and Rudd should be focusing, not on kangaroo meat exports or intangible ETS appeasement. According to a ten year old study by the CRC Reef Research Centre & James Cook University "Tourism is the activity with the highest commercial value within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) (GBRMPA 2000a). Approximately 1.6 million visitors travel to or through the GBRMP on commercial tourism operations each year. In addition, more than one million visitor nights per year are spent in accommodation on island resorts within the boundaries of GBRMP (extrapolated from Driml 1987, Zann 1996). The direct value of marine tourism is over $1 billion per year (Zann 1996, Dinesen and Oliver 1997, GBRMPA 2000a), approximately four times that of the next most valuable commercial activity, i.e. commercial fishing. The marine tourism industry is a major contributor to the Australian economy, with an estimated direct value in excess of $1 billion (Wachenfeld et al 1998, GBRMPA 2000a). Total employment was estimated at 120,000 people (Zann 1996)." Queenslanders don't realise what's looming. The bleaching of the Reef threatens to ruin GBR marine tourism and with it to instigate a recession across the Queensland economy. Beautiful one day... Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Vivienne (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-30 23:05

Subject was: "We cannot have limitless growth on finite ecosystems." - JS Outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae and infestation by pest species such as the crown-of-thorns starfish appeared to be becoming more frequent and more serious in the Great Barrier Reef. "Improving the quality of water flowing into the reef is one of the most important things we can do to help the reef withstand the impacts of climate change," Environment Minister Peter Garrett said. How do we stop the effects of industrialisation, agriculture and the global shipping trade? Ocean acidification, caused by increasing levels of dissolved carbon dioxide, is a newly recognised and serious threat to the reef. Hoegh-Guldberg, head of the University of Queensland's Centre for Marine Studies, argues that coral reefs will likely recover in geologic terms, but not in terms of a human lifetime. The short term impact of dying and degraded reefs will be significant. Hoegh-Guldberg suspects corals will face a difficult adjustment period in the face of rapidly rising sea temperatures and falling carbonate ion concentrations. He argues that coral reefs will likely recover in geologic terms, but not in terms of a human lifetime. A decline in the number of small fish meant lower numbers of predatory fishes such as high-value commercial and recreational species such as coral trout. This exposed them to predators that snapped them up. The GBR is home to significant biodiversity, including more than 4000 mollusc species, around 1500 fish species, most of the world’s marine turtle species, the dugong, and many species of whale and dolphin, with possibly more yet to be discovered. There is more than tourism dollars at stake! Unusually high sea temperatures in the Great Barrier Reef have already led to mass die-offs of seabird chicks, from parent birds being unable to find enough prey as fish populations have moved. The sex and viability of sea turtle hatchlings depends on sand temperature, and warming could lead to a significant bias towards females and potentially a decline in future populations. There is more than the economy at stake! British economist Sir Nicholas Stern says that climate change could shrink the global economy by as much as 20%. Maybe these dramatic changes to our ecology and economy, the latter being dependent on the former, is the cost of a wake-up call that growth in our economy and human numbers cannot be limitless on finite ecosystems.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-11-30 17:17

I think we need to ask exactly what sort of jobs are being generated by sand mining in particular and the whole South East Queensland development juggernaut in general. If you drive around Brisbane any day, you will observe with your own eyes easily hundreds of workers engaged in some of the most unpleasant, lowly paid, unskilled occupations imaginable with little job security, training or prospects for career advancement. The most noticible are the hapless traffic controllers who have to stand up in the hot sun mostly on bitumen surfaces through the working day, breathing in car exhaust and all the dust and chemicals entailed in road works. If they can put up the necessary money for training courses and take the time off work and they find an opening whilst they still have the skills obtained in training, they may hope to rise to the grand heights of being a heavy equipment operator, but that would seem to be it. What would be most revealing would be a proper audit of exactly what sort of occupations people are employed in today's runaway growth economy as opposed to the less frenetic paced economy of a generation or more ago. I would not expect that today's figures would compare favourably.

Tigerquoll

Mon, 2009-11-30 16:01

MES is correct that it is not the only trader of possum fur, but MES it is very prominent in its online marketing which makes it stand out. MES website portrays an image of doing a good thing for the New Zealand natural environment, which I criticise as disingenuous greenwash.

The purpose of the article is not to target any one fur trader, but to question the merits of this fur trade being marketed as an eco-sustainable solution. It is to highlight the problem of Australian possums in New Zealand - an historical problem, long dismissed by New Zealand authorities as one for the too hard basket. It is to highlight the immoral perpetuation of a fur trade in native animals (acknowledging they are not native to New Zealand, but introduced by New Zealanders). They still remain Australian native animals.

It is to challenge the trade as a disingenous attempt to promote the industrial trade as a noble worthy environmental cause promoting glamorious exclusive garments out of Australian native amimals. It is to highlight the lack of independently supported evidence that the possum fur trade is actually addressing the population of possums in NZ in an humane manner and is actually effective to any serious extent - or is it really just perpetuating the trade for profit? If the trade is effective it should have a timeline for when the possum population can be confirmed to be eliminated from both South and North Islands. It is to question the long held defeatist view of the New Zealand Department of Conservation [DOC] that the introduced possum problem in New Zealand is unsolvable, despite DOC spending $80 million a year in cruel 1080 baiting.

A quick online search reveals other traders not just based in New Zealand. MerinoSnug is an Australian trader of possum products - Australian based yet claiming to source possums from New Zealand, which sounds doubtful.

Others include:

* Nichols NZ

* Basically Bush

* Lanamania

* Merino Snug

* Snowy Peak

...amongst others no doubt.

This issue is important for New Zealand ecology and for the possums themselves and warrants public debate across the Tasman. What about the introduced weasels and stoats? Are these having a more serious adverse impact on NZ native fauna?

The issue of introduced animals is one of systemic government problem avoidance. The issue of culling is also just as serious. Readers may have noted on this blog that I hold similar condemnation for Australians poaching kangaroos in Australia. I am being wholly consistent. Native animals belong in their native homes and deserve to be treated with respect.

Tigerquoll

Mon, 2009-11-30 12:24

Chapter one, page one of the development propaganda manual to get a development application through is: 'Thou shalt proclaim a development is good for jobs, even better 'local' jobs.' Proven effective in even the most contentious of circumstances, the jobs appeal (pretense) serves to instantly quash moral objections, and divide and conquer objectors. The jobs pretense seeks the moral high ground. Most people regard jobs for people with higher value than the value of ecology. The jobs appeal is an anthropocentric appeal. It attracts irresistable political support - jobs mean votes! The jobs appeal will get local support - 'jobs for locals'...see -rolls off the tongue nicely. How can anyone object to more jobs for locals? But as to what jobs? How many? Who will get the jobs? How long will the jobs last? Mmm, well as long as one comes up with a figure on the number of jobs, say 123 to pluck one out of the air (or a darker place) the public will assume that the company must have carried out an economic case to support that figure, so presume the figure unquestioningly to be true. How could doubters disprove a jobs figure when the jobs figure is an internal estimate by the developer? The jobs pretense has become a tried a tested hookwink gem that works every time! Details are not important. Who follows up on the job count anyway? Once the development is approved, the protestors go home, the politicians forget, the planning process is over, the conditions of consent are delegated to internal accountability which instantly is not publicly accountable. As for job count...I can hear it...'well this is not a consent condition so outside our terms of reference, and a political issue, so you'll have to contact your local politician...' "Jobs"! What a crock!"...absolutely! It's a developer con numero uno! Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

MES (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-30 04:15

I read your article with great interest and I only wanted to remind you that there are other companies as well producing and trading possum wool. Only to name Zealana which is imported into the EU by Lanamania from Munich, Germany. Is there any reason why you only mention the Merino Possum Consortium? If not, please, be aware that for equality reasons you should mention the other producers and suppliers as well. Otherwise one might come to the conclusion that you have a sole problem only with the company you mentioned and not with whole subject itself!

chugg (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-30 03:27

Why worry? It WILL go back down all by it's self when it's good and ready. It allways correlates with Glacier retractions and expansions and periods of extra sizmicity because of emissions from hot rock This is where Ian Plimer is right but misunderstood with volcano emissions Not all CO2 comes from volcanic lava. CO2 released from hot rocks and Earthquakes produce carbon dioxide in crustal faults. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO MULTIPLY ANY INCREASE OF LAND BASED EQ’S, VOLC’S BY THOUSAND'S PROBABLY TO COVER WHAT'S GOING UNDER THE OCEAN TO ARRIVE AT ANY-WHERE NEAR A CORRECT FIGURE. WHERE'S THIS IN THE IPCC ASSESMENT? ------ 3 MILLION + submarine volcanoes and a 'billion' Superheated Thermal Vents. . www.breadandbutterscience.com/GWE.pdf Based on continental and oceanic studies, the atmosphere had ~30% higher CO2 concentrations than pre-Industrial Holocene levels (Kürschner et al., 1996; Raymo et al., 1996). Not all CO2 comes from volcanic lava. An estimated 85 percent of all forms of seismic activity happens out of sight under oceans at plate boundaries. More is now known of undersea hot rock emissions of CO2, CO2 released from hot rocks and Earthquakes produce carbon dioxide in crustal faults adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008E&PSL;.265..487F --------------------------- An estimated 3 MILLION plus undersea volcanoes, probably a BILLION plus superheated hot water thermal vents which may have increased parallel with CO2. Just as it HAS happened EVERY time at the start of each Deep Ice Age. NOT WARMING !! AN ICE AGE IS ON THE WAY.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-29 19:14

"Jobs"! What a crock! This writer has no idea of the long term effects of this proposed sand mining expansion. Sure, this expansion may create some jobs for wasters who have no education nor qualifications to get a decent job, similar to some of the councilors you elect. (The councillor who wins is usually the one most practiced at defaming any opposition - and not actually judged on qualifications and a credible resume for the job. Ah, but this is Australia, land of mateship, not informed voters!) If our governments provided increased funding for education and job training as well as revamping the dumbed-down education system, we wouldn't have the need to provide jobs and low-income housing at the cost of our lifestyle and environment. Get with the 21st Century, we need to elect qualified, literate (especially in science) politicians who aren't self-serving. Only then we may be able to rescue our beautiful Australia, ("MY COUNTRY" Dorothea Mackellar), from the grip of developers.

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-11-28 20:36

Labelling Sean is in response to Sean's own labelling without any substantiated evidence.

The issues here are of serious national socio-ecological concern.

So present a strong sound case with supporting evidence and you are engaging. But resort to wild unsubstantiated claims and personal abuse and expect dismissal with payment in kind. Debate requires justifying claims to be treated fairly, else dish it out and cop it sweet!

Re-read the wild claims by Sean and ask if the ABC TV would report them seriously. This is a fair reasonableness test.

As for the cliche call of 'catching a tiger by the tail', I would invite mates to the Melbourne Zoo to watch someone try. Put your Wild Turkey away and engage! Before you two run away with your tails between your legs, spitting abuse, I challenge your both back to the issue.

Sean from CES claims Australia has no population problem and no ecological problem. Sean and CES growth lobbyists ought read the following about Melbourne sprawl and offer justification for their sprawl is good argument.

Suburban sprawl to solve Melbourne's housing crisis

Climate change deniers are down there with holocaust deniers and I invite them to deny climate change after reading what's happening north of the Murray to Banjo Patterson's legendary Lachlan River:

'Everything's dried up and communities begin to crack'

 [Sydney Morning Herald 28-Nov-09, p.13 ]

"River flows are being cut, and many will go without, writes Josephine Tovey. FISH lie belly-up on the cracked bed of Lake Cargelligo. Like the lake it is built around, the town is drying out.

Lake Cargelligo, a settlement of 1300 in the geographical heart of NSW, was once a holiday haven for swimmers and waterskiers. Now empty shops line the street and even the post office is for sale.

On Tuesday hundreds of those who are still here gathered to listen to a travelling roadshow of water bureaucrats about what was going to be done with the little bit of water that remains in the dam upstream.

The Lachlan River, muse of Banjo Paterson and lifeblood to tens of thousands in the region, is being cut off at Condoblin, with only small flows being released below. Towns further south-west will go without.

If they did not do this, State Water staff told the meeting, the dam would be sapped by February.

The plan was met with uproar.

''Why are we expected to take the pain for the whole valley?'' one man yelled. ''You've forgotten a whole section of the river,'' a woman said through tears.

In splitting the river, the State Government has split the people of this region. It is not the first time water has been held back to conserve what is left. A similar plan involving controlled releases is in place for the Namoi River.

But since the Water Minister, Phil Costa, made a decision to restrict the river earlier this month, tempers have flared among those downstream.

Farmers with thirsty cattle want to know why people upstream in Forbes are still allowed to put sprinklers on their lawns, and why fruit farms still receive water, albeit at reduced rates.

They also want to know if this is the future of water management in a state where almost 74 per cent of the land is in drought, and hotter and drier conditions are on the way.

''If this is the Government's climate change policy,'' said Patti Bartholomew, a cattle farmer, ''then God help NSW.''

The Lachlan River winds from Wyangala Dam, through Cowra, Forbes, Condoblin and almost to the Victorian border. It is a region heavy with grain, cattle and sheep that has endured three devastating droughts in the past century.

''Just now there is a howling drought. That pretty near has starved us out,'' wrote Paterson more than 100 years ago of Boolilgal, a town at river's end.

But this is a dry like no other.

Ten years ago Wyangala Dam was at 99 per cent, a wall of water 25 storeys high licked the top of its wall. Since then the inflows have been the lowest on record, less than half of what they were during the Federation drought. The dam is now less than 5 per cent full.

As water disappears, cracked creek beds and muddy embankments are left exposed. Animals searching for water are getting bogged up to their necks.

The Herald saw a farmer crawl out on logs and sink his hands deep into the thick mud to wrench out his neighbour's sheep. Most of the people the Herald spoke to are sceptical about climate change, but according to CSIRO and other climate models, they are some of the hardest hit. ''Certainly the southern part of the Murray-Darling Basin, which includes the Lachlan, [is] looking at hotter and drier projections in the future,'' a senior research fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, Dr Jason Evans, said.

Upstream, at a meeting in Forbes on Monday, scenes were very different. There were no interjections from the floor. People stayed for tea and sandwiches. One man, who asked not to be named, said he would be voting Labor for the first time at the next state election.

Ian Smith, a cattle farmer, has bores on his property that provide him with a secure water supply. ''I can't really see they've mismanaged anything,'' he said. ''There's just been no rain.''

Bores are being sunk all along the Lachlan as towns such as Boolilgal and Oxley look to shore up their supply of water. But it is not an option for many Lake Cargelligo farmers. Some have invested heavily only to discover the water is salty and useless.

Rod Middleton and his wife Leanne live with their three sons on a cattle and grain farm.

The creek that has been their water source, a tributary of the Lachlan, is dry. The pump sits on the exposed creek bed. ''I think the worst thing about it is the mines and fruit trees still getting water and we're not,'' Mr Middleton said.

The young farmer, whose parents came to the area 30 years ago, said he would have preferred to see the river run its course, whatever the consequences. ''The fairest thing would've been to let it run till everyone's out, rather than have the top end get themselves through till next year and us being out now.''

The Australian bush is dying. Engage and help detox the colonial hangovers!

Bill (not verified)

Sat, 2009-11-28 00:10

Sean gotcha there Tiger ol boy! Editorial comment: This comment seems pointless. In general, I would prefer that people add comments that shed light on the topic at hand and avoid making comments which are merely to cheer on one side of the argument or 'boo' the other side. - JS

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-27 21:01

The man "attacked" by a kangaroo while trying to rescue his dog from a dam at Arthurs Creek, Victoria, sounds like distorted and biased reporting. Dogs are a danger to kangaroos, and the "attack" was more likely to be from the dog! The kangaroo was probably fighting for its life from two predators and tried to escape to the dam. Trying to drown the dog would have been an act of self-defence. Kangaroos are not normally aggressive animals. However, they have the right to defend themselves when startled or threatened, as this one evidently was. The man's wounds were only minor. The "attack" from the kangaroo should be revised as a case of a kangaroo, for once, having the upper hand and not being the submissive "pest" that the media usually report them as being. The dog should have been constrained in wildlife territory. Let's get some balance in these reports.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-27 17:09

Sorry Sheila, but I would have thought that given the fact CDB praises the likes of Lee R, and her stance on drugs was "let's go after the big guys" That this was relevant to her integrity. I don't think 8 kilos is for personal use. It wasn't "news" it was FACT.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-27 16:58

Sean is being labled for the the same kind of responses that you adhere to. As an observer (objectively) of these topics it's clear that someone who puts across a logical argument contrary to CBD bloggers is shot at dawn for such. As far as I'm concerned his comments are positive and that gives more hope than the doom and gloom that you and Shelia come up with. Why make fun of space advances, only 20 years before man landed on the moon that was considered a big joke. (Sean is engaging in fallacious argument with irrelevant gibberish, poetic language and answering with more questions. Sean digresses into irrelevancies like "empiricism" and rhetorical questions like "Tigerquoll, why do you hate humanity so much?") This is exactly your style Tiger! Bit less paranoia and hipocrisy from CBD Please.

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-11-27 14:52

Agronomy and soil science are vital related fields of knowledge that Australia, with its typically poor and fragile natural soils, could well benefit more from, if it is not too late.

Perpetuating traditional farming and native vegetation clearing is continuing to downgrade Australia's soils, flora, fauna and ecosystems, converting marginal woodlands irreversibly into saline deserts.

Basic principles of soil science include soil physiology, soil formation processes, soil texture & structure, soil organic matter, soil chemistry, soil acidification, salinity, erosion, subsoil fertility, soil water management and soil management & conservation.

The reasons the Murray-Darling Depression bioregion has become an environmental basket case is due to colonial exploitation involving excessive deforestation, water rediversion, irrigation, and top soil mismanagement. A better understanding of the supply-water potential and drainage potential of soils is critical particularly in oils of relatively low organic matter content typical of much of inland Australia including the Murray-Darling.

We cannot afford to allow traditional farming practices to prevail. Widespread damage to Australia's soils causing acidification, salinity and erosion has underscored the viability of our remnant flora and fauna and ecosystems.

A key conflict to be resolved is the low phosphorus characteristics of Australia's native soils with which our native flora has evolved over millenia, yet the dependancy of traditional cropping on high phosphorus levels. Soil acidity is the worst environmental problem affecting Australian soils. According to the NSW Department of Primary Industries soil acidification is caused mainly by alkaline crops like lucerne being extracted from farms and excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers (superphosphates) mainly sold to farmers in Australia by Incitec Pivot and the build up in organic matter by livestock.

A decade ago, Dr John Williams, the then Deputy Chief of CSIRO Land & Water, reported in a CSIRO media release entitled 'THE ANSWER REALLY DOES LIE IN THE SOIL' (1998):
"The greatest problem facing Australia’s soils is structural decline, leading to falling agricultural productivity. The bottom line is that it is very clear there has been significant damage to the nation’s soil resource, due mainly to farming, forestry, horticulture and other forms of development."

The next greatest threat is acidification of soils, a problem both insidious and very widespread. For this there is, as yet, no Australian farming system which can significantly slow the rate we are acidifying our soils. Land cleared of native vegetation tends to go acid at a rate of about one pH point every 35 years. In under a century some soils will become too acid for crops to grow."

"Put it all together and we see continued risk of damage to one of the world’s poorer soil resources – at the same time as there is great pressure on farmers to increase productivity."

And that was reported by Australia's leading science organisation over ten years ago. Wake up Australia!

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-11-27 12:25

This article started off critiquing the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), while acknowledging it "has a lot of worthwhile ideas", concerns are raised about the CEC's "refusal to recognise the global ecological crisis and the problem of overpopulation."

So returning to these two subjects, which are very relevant now in Federal politics:

Subject 1. Overpopulation

Sean from CEC claims "there is no overpopulation problem" and that "Humankind's future is to colonise the solar system and, indeed, the wider galaxy."
Well if the current world population of 6.798 billion is beneficial to humanity and the planet, why are people starving, why is there scarcity in food, water, energy and in public services, why are so many problems stemming from human population like deforestation?

Sean seems somewhat loonier than CEC's 13th item in its 'Fighting Platform': to "Encourage "generous immigration quotas, for the same reason which the Labor Party welcomed the "new Australians" after World War II—to help build our nation." CEC seems to be stuck in a post-WWII era, while Sean is off into the distant future claiming: "Humans can, and it's our tendency to do so, by *improving* and building on the earth, on other planets and through space." and "We need to develop science and industry so that we can begin to colonise space."

Yeah sure Sean, along with Star Trek and the Daleks!
Sean is engaging in fallacious argument with irrelevant gibberish, poetic language and answering with more questions. Sean digresses into irrelevancies like "empiricism" and rhetorical questions like "Tigerquoll, why do you hate humanity so much?"

I question the relevance of Sean's penchant for finger pointing to the cause of the world's problems lying with an apparent "financial oligarchy". Sean's unsubstantiated statements like "the environmentalist mindset is a creation of the oligarchy" and "perhaps the likes of large oil, mining, pharmaceutical, banking and media companies are promoting environmentalism and sustainability because they're tools of, and intertwined with, the oligarchy" reveals a delusional paranoia. Where is this omnipresent oligarchy?

Believe it or not Sean, Australia is a participative multi-party democracy, not rule by a few. Look up the definition! Fiji is probably our closest oligarchy at present ruled by militarist Frank Bainimarama. Such blatant errors of fact and cliche thinking are not helping CEC's cause to be taken seriously and spread its influence.

Subject 2. Global Ecological Crisis

Why Sean is the world engaging in the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009 next month if there is no global ecological crisis? Perhaps our Sean is shy about presenting any evidence to support his view. Perhaps Sean cannot explain away the sobering climate facts outlined on the website Copenhagen Conference

Perhaps Sean is happy in Sean's world - a make believe sci-fi universe where humans take over the universe like Daleks. Sean should get out more, put the Dr Who DVD's back in the cupboard, go and visit the Murray Darling, the starving millions in Africa, visit mass population in Jakarta, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Calcutta, Beijing, tune into the Copenhagen summit. Sean would do well for the debate and himself to read up on relevant and important topics like 'carrying capacity', 'global human impact on biodiversity', 'environmental management', 'management of human consumption', 'nature as an economic externality' and 'social justice'. Good meaty topics these. Much better reading than 'oligarchs'.

Perhaps Sean's world view has him 'locked up' in the 18th Century industrialisation mindset in the linen mills. I dare Sean to step into 2009 and read a bit on climate change, overpopulation, triple bottom line and about corporate sustainability:

"Corporate sustainability encompasses strategies and practices that aim to meet the needs of stakeholders today while seeking to protect, support and enhance the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future. Business and industry has a crucial role to play in helping Australia to become more sustainable and competitive. As a result, many Australian organisations and industries are responding by reducing their environmental impacts and risks through improved environmental management practices and efficient use of natural resources."

Prime Minister Rudd in a speech earlier this month said of the climate change deniers:

" They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests. Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia, powerful enough to so far slow down the passage of legislation through the Congress of the United States. And ultimately, by limiting the ambition of national climate change commitments, they are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond."

Perhaps Sean's extreme views are based on vested interests. Perhaps he is one of those who phoned Federal Liberal MPs to lobby them to support climate change deniers and reject supporting the Government ETS. These loonies are indeed powerful. Look at the schism they have caused.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-11-27 11:46

The only comments we don't post are abusive ones or comments, such as 'news' about politicians relatives, designed to cause harm. If your comments were relevant and not abusive or damaging gossip, then please repost. We have published Sean's comments because they need to be exposed and answered. After they have been exposed and answered I would not be inclined to keep publishing them, but other CDB people with editorial permissions may feel differently. So, you see, we do not censor valid comment. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-27 10:43

Well done Sean! About time someone exposed the flawed thinking of the CDB team. They don't like to post comments contrary to their way of thinking, I have had several not posted. So much for their slogan (stop internet censorship).

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-11-26 16:59

Science won't increase our carrying capacity. "Resources" is a word to label things that already existed but have been "discovered" by people as being usable. The bottom line in not language or science, but the planet we have been provided with. Humans do not create resources, but discover ways of using what is existing. Resources can be consumed and expire. They are finite. Our small planet Earth does NOT revolve around humans, or exist specifically FOR us! Our planet is finite and so is its ecosystems and the living and non-living things that it supports. We use and manipulate them, not actually "create" them! Sean, you are not being objective but totally anthropocentric, a common human error! The world is hardly underpopulated! We can't have people wall-to-wall. What about the habitat of other non-human creatures, what about land that is uninhabitable, or too rich and too vital in biodiversity to destroy, such as the diminishing rainforests? Other societies and civilisation have disintegrated by human destructive traits, and you are being naive and foolish if you think that today, because of science and technology, we are protected. I suggest think again about our planet, human history, and get the BIG PICTURE!

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-11-26 14:41

Bevans that sic their dogs on to wildlife are bad enough.

With a dog named 'Rocky' one can guess the breed was not quite a Maltese or Pug. In this case, the likely bull terrier/bull mastiff cross and the Bevan seemed to have got what they deserved. Don't go swimming in the Daly River either, especially dogs!

But worse is the misreporting of the facts by the ABC and the incitement of public antagonism toward kangaroos, as if kangaroos aren't already copping the raw end of the stick from industrial poaching.

One has to question the motive of the ABC editor's wording the title of the article "Kangaroo tries to drown dog, attacks owner".

One has to also question the misleading and sensationalised opening sentence implying from the outset an unprovoked attack by a kangaroo on a man and his pet dog, which in fact is later revealed in the story being entirely the converse. Did the editor seek sensationalism?

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance Code of Ethics - recommends journalists "report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply."

Of course kangaroos can't reply. Perhaps the ABC thought this more entertainment than news?
If anyone challenges a media organisation for breaching the code, complaining to the Judiciary Committee of the MEAA will involve a panel of five journalists hearing the complaint. A case of industry looking after its own.

As for ABC Editorial Policies, clause 11.4.7 states "violent events should never be sensationalised or presented for their own sake. A balance needs to be struck between the inherent strength of the images and proper detachment."

One for Media Watch perhaps?

Sean OLeary again (not verified)

Wed, 2009-11-25 21:01

Vivienne, I do not think that you understand what science is. Referring to Galileo is not to refer to science but, rather, to empiricism. No original scientific discovery, in the sense of the discovery of a universal scientific principle, came out of an empiricist mindset. You ought to read a bit of Kepler and Leibniz. Vivienne says, "By some divine or magical formula, or natural superior human status, we are protected from over consuming our natural resources". This is interesting because when we ask the question what a resource is, we find that there is nothing but a discovery by a human being at the bottom of it. Humans create resources. Therefore, by definition, we only run out of resources when we stop thinking. We have an abundance of uranium and thorium, but have hardly begun to use either. Next, we may shortly have thermonuclear fusion, and would have had it long ago if the naysayers hadn't cut funding to fusion research. Oil and gas were not "resources" 3000 years ago, because civilisation had not developed to the stage where humanity knew how to use them. We have now moved beyond fossil fuels as energy sources, and are now well into the nuclear age. Where are the "environmental vandalism and corruption" that the anti-industrial crowd like to crow about? True, the underdevelopment of the continent of Australia and of Africa are vandalism. Leaving deserts as useless masses of land, locking up huge swathes of land as "conservation parks" - that is vandalism. Developing continents with high-speed rail, nuclear power, water projects, agriculture and industry - that is to improve the land. To leave the Moon and Mars barren - that is vandalism. To develop those bodies so that they are fit for human habitation and industrialisation - that is development and progress. And to colonise beyond the solar system - that is our aim and destiny. No amount of backpedalling and pessimism by environmentalists can change the destiny and purpose of the human race. Vivienne says, "It doesn't matter that the arithmetic of feeding the world doesn't add up, or that the changes to our planet mean devastation and extinction to non-human creatures, but if it propagates more of the human species, these losses are justified!" You're quoting Parson Thomas Malthus, who was wrong. We can feed the world many times over. Your hatred of technology is what causes people to have to go hungry. If we develop infrastructure and agricultural potential (e.g. through desert-greening) around the world, then the world will not able be able to easily support the currently population, but twice as many people. Consider the Green Revolution of India which turned India from a nation reliant on handouts to a net exporter of food. The continents of Asia and Africa today now desperately need another Agricultural Green Revolution. Every man, woman and child alive today, if in the state of Texas USA, could have 1000 square feet of their own. The world ain't overpopulated, it's underpopulated. Vivienne takes exception to the view that, "Our natural and finite resources will somehow keep expanding". When you understand what a resource is, then you will understand that there is nothing either natural or finite about them. How do "the changes to our planet mean devastation and extinction to non-human creatures"? No-one wants to extinguish species of animals, nor is that necessary. Developing the continental landmasses of the earth will make it possible for non-human creatures to flourish. However, it is absurd to say that a human being is not higher and more important than the animals, fish and birds. The beasts cannot create, they cannot discover, they cannot even increase the population-carrying capacity of any given area of land. Humans can, and it's our tendency to do so, by *improving* and building on the earth, on other planets and through space. Vivienne complains that "Darwinism and environmental science are conveniently ignored". I hope they are, because they're largely fraudulent. Darwinism is riddled with contradictions and is certainly not worthy of the label "science". Environmental science is largely merely sophistry designed to further the political objective of depopulation of the earth. Darwinism and environmental science are basically Fabian ideas that serve the oligarchy, and that were created for that purpose. The Fabians came out of the Fellowship of the New Life which was created in service of the oligarchy. The Fabians are major political proponents of these oligarchical ideas even today, including the transparent fraud of anthropogenic climate change. Vivienne suggests that "We need science to objectively and independently assess our carrying capacity." This is circular. Science increases the population-carrying capacity of the earth. Science is not a method of accounting nor is statistics any kind of science. Science is the discovery of new universal physical principles which can then be used for the benefit (including increasing the potential relative population density) of nations' land areas. Read LaRouche's book "So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?" Steve asks, "What is the advantage to unsustainable population growth?" He does not see the internal contradiction in the phrase "unsustainable population growth". How can something that is natural and inevitable be unsustainable? In any case, the earth is not our only home. There are many other habitable planets and bodies out there beyond the earth. We need to develop science and industry so that we can begin to colonise space. Where is the limitation or the "un"sustainability? Steve asks, "Sean, do you have a vested interest in more people?" Amazing question really. We all benefit from what's good for humanity. Do you think that I'm in the burger-selling trade and so just want more customers to be born whom I can fleece? Tigerquoll says, "May be anthropologists could argue that early Neolithic Man scattered in subsistence tribes hunter gathering could have reasonably justified their "right to be here". Bu then vasts flourishing forests and savannahs rich in food and biodiversity existed." The CEC is promoting projects that would turn Australia's deserts into flourishing forests and rich, pulsating agro-industrial centres of intelligence, culture and productivity. What is it about such a proposal that annoys you? Do you want Australia to remain a quarry pit for the financial oligarchy? Tigerquoll says, "Neolothic man lived more in harmony with nature, taking only what he needed to survive." Relatively undeveloped cultures tend to only be *able* to do this. More advanced cultures extend, build and improve on what nature has provided. How? By discovering new scientific principles and then using those discoveries to extend human capabilities. Right now, we are on the verge of being able to replicate, in a controlled way, the nuclear reactions that occur in the very Sun itself, for the benefit of humankind by providing high energy flux density sources for transport, infrastructure construction, and interplanetary travel. You need to understand that your mindset that is essentially hostile to human development is not natural but has been imposed upon you by a kind of cultural brainwashing that is particularly pervasive in Australia. Tigerquoll reveals all by saying, "Gaia is the host of humanity and all living organisms." This is nothing but pantheism. Vivienne objects to a supposedly Medieval view of Man that gives importance to humanity in the overall scheme of the universe, while Tigerquoll wants to return to a pantheism that is representative of the most primitive, undeveloped cultures that had no appreciation for scientific discovery. So views held in Medieval times are unacceptable, while views held even by cultures that did change nor developed any technology for thousands of years are acceptable. In any case, the philosophy I'm attempting to give support to is not Medieval in the usual pejorative sense of the word Medieval. Yes, in Medieval times there were enlightened thinkers and benighted ones. Today, we have the same. I suggest again that you read some of Kepler and Leibniz' work. You might get something out of it. Tigerquoll says, "When a parasite grows into a pathogen, what is the value of a pathogens 'right to be here'?" Okay, so Tigerquoll is saying that humanity is a parasite-cum-pathogen. Brazen words my friend. This view could pretty much be described as *a* definition of evil. Tigerquoll then says, "Any species with a population of 6.798 billion and accelerating has in anyone's language evolved into a pathogen." Not in any human language. Tigerquoll, why do you hate humanity so much? Humanity has the capacity to improve the planet and the universe, through our scientific creativity. Any species with a population of 6.798 billion and accelerating can only be beneficial, because that species has shown by its ability to increase its own potential (and actual) population density that it can discover and implement new scientific principles. So that species is on a par with the force/entity/Creator that created the universe. You see, cockroaches could never increase their population ad infinitum, because they cannot create new resources because they cannot discover new scientific principles. Cockroaches could never get past the earth’s atmosphere to colonise space. Tigerquoll complains that, "Sean evangelises: 'humans are the highest and best force for change on this planet and beyond.' Such a statement comes across as meglomania seeking world domination." The problem with this complaint of Tigerquoll's is that a megalomaniac seeks to dominate other human being and perhaps the entire human race, and that is precisely what Tigerquoll's *own* dicta are seeking to achieve. By Tigerquoll seeking to suppress the true creative nature and tendency of humanity, he is working towards *precisely* the same goal as the oligarchy and the goals of those who promote clearly fascist ideas. I use the term "fascist" in the technically political sense and not as a random pejorative. I have been to several of the "overpopulated" cities Tigerquoll mentions. To respond, I need only repeat, "There is no overpopulation problem, there is an undertechnologisation and de-industrialisation problem." Tigerquoll's own stance is more apt for the Dalek "exterminate" metaphor, for it is Tigerquoll’s stance that is stridently in favour of curbing human population. Let us reflect on, "For Sean to advance the notion that continued acceleration of human population is a good thing, perhaps he should reflect on to whom is it good?" Having reflected as you've suggested, I can respond that it is good for humanity as a whole. Because by doing the things that we need to do to support and promote an increased population (science, infrastructure, industry, space colonisation) we are enabling and promoting the fulfilment of the purpose of every individual human being. Tigerquoll then goes down the "Sean is a profit maniac" route. He or she says, "Hey, developers like the numbers - more demand for construction. Local governments like the numbers - more ratepayers. Federal governments like the numbers - more demand for goods and services which make their GDP look good and their polls." Why is it that many large corporations and most local councils are now promoting environmentalism, sustainability and even population reduction? Tigerquoll suggests, "Perhaps Sean is employed in one of these industries that has something to gain from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (CECA)." And perhaps not. And perhaps the likes of large oil, mining, pharmaceutical, banking and media companies are promoting environmentalism and sustainability because they're tools of, and intertwined with, the oligarchy. Tigerquoll - if you don't want industry, manufacturing and space colonisation, what do you want? Do you want banking, finance and other "services"? These are certainly what the oligarchy likes and prefers over manufacturing, infrastructure construction, and scientific and industrial endeavour. Tigerquoll goes on to list items in the CEC's fighting platform and says, "But on this issue, but with item 13 above to suggest a return to post-WWII 'generous immigration quotas' is to ignore Australia's already overstretched burdens and stresses of population on existing resources, communities, State governments and the natural environment." Well, we've addressed the nonsense of these ideas. Of course, if you're lazy and don't want to build or develop the nation, of course then you'll have burdens and stresses in your society, and your population will inevitably decline. You see Tigerquoll, environmentalists generally just don't want to improve things, they don't want to build, to produce, to create new infrastructure for transport, water and power, they just want to cut cut cut, including the population of humanity. Tigerquoll do you want to return the planet earth to a "pristine" wilderness on which a few oligarchs can control a small, benighted and superstitious population which will live and breathe as nothing but the slaves of the oligarchy? Nothing in your own "platform" suggests otherwise. It's a pity. Tigerquoll suggests, "But Sean seems to convey more extremist motives." Between the genocidalist anti-human anti-science brigade and the CEC, it is pretty clear who the extremists are.

Observer (not verified)

Wed, 2009-11-25 20:43

The human "victim" was interviewed on the local ABC radio. He said that his dog started harassing the kangaroo who eventually got up and headed for the dam. The dog followed the kangaroo into the dam and the man then got into the picture trying to save his dog. From the point of view of the kangaroo- all he was doing was defending himself from 2 attackers!! Had the man any brains or had he trained his dog- he would have ordered the dog away from the kangaroo immediately the dog stared interfering with him. The kangaroo's behaviour sounded quite reasonable and the behaviour of the man - stupid, irresponsible and inflammatory of the situation...even given the fact that the kangaroo was never going to testify anywhere against the man. Long live the kangaroo!

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2009-11-25 08:31

Already we have faced the threat of swine flu, initiated by the inhumane cruelty and unnatural crowding of pigs in small confined spaces. Factory farming means the massive cruelty of confining sows in metal crates for up to 4 months and then not allowing them to interact with their young is incomprehensible. The suffering of these intelligent and sensitive social animals must be enormous. Piglets are allowed, "legally", to be de-teethed and de-tailed without pain relief. Male piglets can be castrated without anesthetics. This treatment would cause an outcry if it was allowed on companion animals! Producers are protected from RSPCA prosecution because of the Codes of Practice, codes that permit cruelty. How do these practitioners ignore the screams of the writhing pigs if they are mutilated while fully conscious? How do the vets allow this? Profits are the bottom-line in our livestock industries, and they rely on public ignorance and callousness. Let's hope the pork industry is squirming uncomfortably from the exposure of piggeries! What is clearly "legal" is not necessarily moral, ethical or sustainable. The best way to avoid this cruelty to pigs is not through the self-regulating industry, evidently, but for the public not to buy into it.
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-11-25 07:13

The owners of dogs which inflict distress by barking are certainly committing much more than a nuisance, and if the victims of this invasive noise can stop a moment to consider what is happening to them they will quickly admit they do indeed feel assaulted by the din. There are solid reasons for the criminalisation of barking and this article from http://quietas.net/Page15.html shows why ... Extract from the QUEENSLAND CRIMINAL CODE Act No 37 0f 1995 Division 2—Assault generally What is an “assault” 113 (1) A person assaults anyone if, without the other person’s consent— (a) the person applies force to the other person; or (b) the person— (i) by a bodily act or gesture, attempts or threatens to apply force to the other person; and (ii) is able, or appears to be able, to apply the force. (2) A person applies force to anyone if the person, directly or indirectly— (a) strikes, touches or moves the other person; or (b) applies heat, light, electrical or other energy, gas or odour to the other person to a degree that causes the other person injury or (c) applies force in any other way to the other person. ---o0o--- We ordinarily regard assault in purely physical terms such as defined in (2) (a) but (2) (b) offers cause for us to consider barking as an assault and to require the enforcement authorities to process it that way. Heat and light are electromagnetic radiations capable of transferring energy through space. The energy content is measurable. The most common example of this energy transference is sunshine and it is sufficiently forceful enough to propel spaceships. There is no physical contact whatever between the sun, as the source of this energy, and humans as its recipients. In a comparable manner but using an entirely different transmission medium, our earthly atmosphere is the conductive mechanism for the transmission of cyclic air pressure variations which, when audible, we call sound. This energy is also measurable and has forceful potential. Once again, there is no physical contact between the source of sound and the recipient. In both cases when there is a recipient, energy is transmitted from one place to another by sinusoidal vibrations. The energy has no effect until it arrives somewhere and is absorbed and converted. With heat and light the vibrations are purely electromagnetic and with sound they are purely atmospheric. In both cases the physics behind this transmission of energy are comparable. In section (2) (b) both heat and light, with no physical contact whatsoever, are defined as potentially assaultive. It follows that sound must be treated the same way. Noise is defined as any unwanted sound. All noise is therefore potentially assaultive according to these Division 2 definitions. Reinforcing this deduction we have in (2) (b) is the usage of the phrase “ .. other energy .. ” where sound is also forceful, and when it is received, as per s 113 (1) without the recipient's consent, constitutes assault. Consolidating the definition of noise as potentially assaultive is the terminology of s113 (2) (c) which effectively outlaws the intentional application of unwanted force using any method at all. Summary: Unwanted noise is assaultive. Barking, when it disturbs or distresses a person, is unwanted noise. Barking is therefore assaultive. ---o0o--- Late note, 25 Nov 09: A lawyer at Tasmania's Legal Aid Commission, having consulted with her colleagues, declared that those committing barking offences ARE committing crimes. I'm not sure, but it seems that if an enforcement agency can bring a prosecution against an offender then the matter is a criminal matter. The guidance of those who know the legal facts would be welcome ... Peter Bright www.pebri.net

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2009-11-24 08:51

What is clearly "legal" is not necessarily moral, ethical or sustainable. Already we have faced swine flu, initiated by the inhumane cruelty and unnatural crowding of pigs in small confined spaces. The massive cruelty of confining sows in metal crates for up to 4 month and then not allowing them to interact with their young in incomprehensible. The suffering of these intelligent and sensitive social animals must be intolerable. Piglets are allowed, "legally", to be de-teethed and de-tailed without pain relief. Male piglets are castrated without anesthetics. The farmers are protected from RSPCA prosecution because of the Codes of Practice, really codes of cruelty that protect the producers, not the animals! How do these practitioners ignore the screams of the writhing pigs if they are mutilated while fully conscious? How do the vets allow this? Profits are the bottom-line in our livestock industries, and they rely on public ignorance, and callousness. The standards of "free range" are flexible and are manipulated. The best way to avoid this cruelty to pigs is to not buy into it.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-11-23 11:12

Maybe I will have to re-think my own evaluation of that "Background Briefing" program, but I thought it was very good. To me it seemed that it gave both sides of the argument. I seem to recall that it did question the wisdom of increasing the population. I am certainly far from uncritical of the ABC as people may gather if they read my article "Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" of 26 Jun 08,

This question is certainly worth pursuing. The full transcript should be avaialable here, some time after it is repeated on Tuesday night.

Anyway, here is a comment that I posted to the Background Briefing site:

Thanks for producing yet another excellent program about such a critical issue.

Given that Australia has demonstrably failed to cope with population growth in the past, why, unless our political leaders are completely stupid, are they planning to cram 13 million more into this arid, infertile land by 2050?

There can be no doubt that this will cause catastrophic declines in our living standards as well as the destruction of our natural environment. This will practically ensure the extinction of the Koala in South East Queensland, which some already fear will be gone in two years.

That our political leaders could possibly contemplate this insanity is symptomatic of something fundamentally rotten and corrupt in Australia's political system.

In order to give electors a choice to fix this, I will be standing as an Independent candidate in the forthcoming federal elections and encourage other likeminded people to also stand as candidates in other electorates.

Another comment which shows how well the Queensalnd Government 'planned' for past population growth is this:

As a resident of Chelmer in Brisbane I am horrified to learn of plans for apartments along the railway line. While it seems sensible on the surface, it can only work if nobody drives. While I walk to Chelmer station and would not consider driving to work, many see things differently or are not conveniently close to public transport. Oxley Road is now severely congested on weekends (especially Saturday) as well as on weekdays. It lasts all day on Saturday as people head in to Indooroopilly for shopping. Rapidly growing suburbs to the south feed more cars in to a road that, with Honour Avenue on the other side of the line, feeds into a the two lane Walter Taylor Bridge with a traffic mess in Indooroopilly. Numerous schools on or near Oxley Road, and more across the river compound the problem during school terms. Getting to somewhere not served by public transport is getting increasingly difficult. What is more, a less than reliable train service (late, cancelled and overcrowded trains, some with poorly functioning air conditioning and very limited parking for those not within walking distance) does not exactly encourage train use.

How can we be expected to trust the same political leaders to do any better in future than they have before? The kind of public transport system that would entice most of the residents even close to the railway lines to not buy cars would be astronomical.

It is not going to happen and our lying politicians know that, but they will do and say anything to allow the short term profits to continue to flow into the pockets of their corporate benefactors in the meantime.

James Sinnamon
Brisbane Independent for Truth,
Democracy and Economic Justice
Australian Federal Elections, 2010

Fishwrapper (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-23 09:20

Just because it's in the Age it doesn't mean it's true. It just means that the Age wants you to believe it is true and give up. The Age is telling you, "Resistance is futile". Tell the Age to get nicked and join the supporters of Kelvin Thomson (see articles about him on this blog).

Not Dick Pratt (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-23 09:18

If your blood pressure cannot endure the torture of tuning in to the Background briefing podcast - just add a scathing comment- In a nutshell- it's all about how we have to give up the lifestyle we have enjoyed in past decades because of the extra 13 million we have to accommodate (as it will be far more than that I assure you!)- changes anticipated in Melbourne, Sydney Brisbane. Earlier I heard that Dick Pratt's son has just bought a property previously owned by Russell Grimwade for $20million and they congratulated him and said how nice it was that the developers would not get to it- (Of course it's quite OK for ordinary Australians' homes to be demolished- gardens bulldozed for townhouses or high rise.....)

Vivienne (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-23 08:39

The headlines in The Age on Sunday 22nd indicated that according to their polls, the Labor Brumby government's "dominance of Victorian politics appears unassailable one year from the next state election". This is just incredulous! We have massive urban sprawl, housing competition causing impossible prices and increasing homelessness, little spending on public services and basic infrastructure, rising taxes, increasing bushfire dangers as developments eat into national parks, logging of old growth forests, rising costs for water due to the desalination plant, yet the media report him as leading the polls! Who they ask - the builders, financiers and land developers? On the economy, 39 per cent of respondents believed the Government had done a good or very good job, and just 15 per cent said it had done a poor job. It seems most people vote from their hip pockets, not for the big picture! Melbourne@5 million is a nightmare and a State that is already the most cleared and damaged. Where are the voices against Brumby? If people are lured to vote purely on economic growth, they will get ongoing and addictive population growth.

Realist (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-22 22:34

Should be a very interesting talk. Bob Carr has also been in the news over the last few days on this topic with an article in The Age online which unfortunately did not appear in the hard copy edition.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-11-22 20:10

HAVE YOU BEEN AWARE THAT the Victorian Government is wanting to put through Parliament this coming week what is known as Amendment C55. This Amendment would not only push the Urban Growth Boundary out further in all directions but also if you look at Clause 12 you will see it also spells the end of suburbia as we know it. They are spelling out a new type of Activity Centres known as CADs and they will be Frankston, Dandenong, Ringwood, Box Hill, Broadmeadows and Footscray as well as the center of Melbourne City. These will all be NEW CITIES. As well, they talk about all the high rise along tram and bus routes and massive development around all the Activity Centres, Principle, Major, Neighbourhood - nowhere is safe. And we all know that there will be 'infill' everywhere. The only solution is to come out against the massive population increase which is being orchestrated by the Government hand in glove with the Growth Lobby. PLEASE COME TO THE RALLY ON TUESDAY 12.30 AND SHOW THE GOVERNMENT WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH IT. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/E7EA0F2297769827CA25766B00196684CEE2CCA29F0B7E7CCA2572DC001F183F This is the link to Amendment C55 And it is clause 12 I mention above, but have a look at the other parts. I feel that this is being sneaked through parliament without people knowing. THIS IS BAD NEWS Please stand up for your rights. Message on behalf of Mary Drost and others

bryan (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-22 08:49

pffft, lean something. the arg in the Shock Doctrine is a caricature. Heaven forbid someone try to explain something extremely complex and make simplifications for public consumption - if you read the other thousands of pages he's written you'd have a fundamentally different view - so that people who won't read more than a 600 word oped or a sensationalist complain about everything without offering solutions book can still get the message. Great analysis, glad to see you've put so much time into thinking about these problems. If anything, your comment is a good argument for the need for critical thinking and media literacy classes starting in grade school.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-11-22 04:24

It's the same for psychiatric nurses and psychiatrists and residents. The staff spend so much time on paperwork that the patients are lucky to see them a few times a week. The patients find some comfort and therapy with other patients, but otherwise they are alone. I often think that those who design our paper workloads simply don't have any idea of how hard we normally need to work. They assume that we sit on our bums as much as they do; they simply cannot factor in the idea that you might spend half and hour to an hour a day with each patient and more in fragments and patients present in need. The other thing that interferes with our ability to carry out the human interface of our jobs is the multiple telephones - especially for nurses. The telephones shriek like babies which must be attended to. It is normal for a patient to remain at the door or the window as nurses and doctors, trapped inside the glass-office bubble, surrounded by expensive printed forms, manicly answer telephones and indicate by hand gestures through the window to the patients that they simply cannot afford to take time away from phones and papers to attend to their needs.

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-11-21 17:55

Vivienne and Steve,

I share your concerns about Sean's comments (above).
Sean claims "there is no overpopulation problem, there is an undertechnologisation and de-industrialisation problem." He justifies "humans have a right to be here". Sean seizes on language to describe human sprawl and domination with a naive conception that humans should some how be considered 'advanced' for their global ruination and blind conviction to perpetuate that ruination.

May be anthropologists could argue that early Neolithic Man scattered in subsistence tribes hunter gathering could have reasonably justified their "right to be here". But then vasts flourishing forests and savannahs rich in food and biodiversity existed. Neolothic man lived more in harmony with nature, taking only what he needed to survive. History shows that this low impact relationship perpetuated through to the Middle Ages. But is was Industrialised Man that started getting greedy and taking far more than necessary and which has since destroyed nature in the process.

Perhaps parasites have a right to live, but when a parasite population becomes so pervasive, profligate, domineeering and displacing of other species, how does one morally legitimise the rights of a pathogenic species to supplant the rights of another to the point of accelerating extinction?

Gaia is the host of humanity and all living organisms. Doubters in this concept will have to rely upon NASA finding water on the moon soon or new live in far distant galaxy like they have on Star Trek and lost in Space. Humans happen to be at the Darminian top order of living things. That privilege provides oppportunities, but does not legitimise driving lesser species to extinction for some inner gratification like 'advancement'.

When a parasite grows into a pathogen, what is the value of a pathogens "right to be here"? Any species with a population of 6.798 billion and accelerating has in anyone's language evolved into a pathogen. This figure is the human population as estimated by the reputable US Census Bureau

Sean evangelises: "humans are the highest and best force for change on this planet and beyond." Such a statement comes across as meglomania seeking world domination. The Daleks from planet Skaro were a powerful race bent on universal conquest and domination, utterly without pity, compassion or remorse as well. Is this Sean's ideal? To exterminate... with each syllable individually screeched in a frantic electronic voice...?

Sean needs to get out more to experience first hand mass population. Perhaps a trip to Jakarta, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Calcutta, Beijing.

For Sean to advance the notion that continued acceleration of human population is a good thing, perhaps he should reflect on to whom is it good?
Hey, developers like the numbers - more demand for construction. Local governments like the numbers - more ratepayers. Federal governments like the numbers - more demand for goods and services which make their GDP look good and their polls.

Perhaps Sean is employed in one of these industries that has something to gain from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia (CECA). The organisation's name seems to have a rather innocuous sounding name, perhaps deliberately, until one reads its manifesto.

The CECA's manifesto labelled the 'Summary of the Fighting Platform' in concise summary can be interpreted as follows:

1. Return to a Bretton Woods international monetary system (1944) (i.e. fixed AUD exchange rate)
2. Really cheap bank loans for farmers to do what they want (2%)
3. Bringing back strong industrial unions as they were
4. Strong civil rights for Australians
5. Reversing privatisation of public assets
6. Halting family farm foreclosures
7. Eliminating COAG's National Competition Policy to temper monopoly controls
8. Eliminating the GST
9. Reasserting government control over Australia's natural resources
10. Expanding public health delivery to all
11. Massive domestic infrastructure investment
12. Escalate the war on drugs including removal of money laundering
13. Encourage "generous immigration quotas, for the same reason which the Labor Party welcomed the "new Australians" after World War II—to help build our nation."

I think items 4,6,9,10,11,12 seem to have merit conceptually and should be publicly debated. But on this issue, but with item 13 above to suggest a return to post-WWII "generous immigration quotas" is to ignore Australia's already overstretched burdens and stresses of population on existing resources, communities, State governments and the natural environment.

Perhaps to a farmer out of Narrabri or Bulia, more immigrants may seem a notionally good thing. 'It's hard to get good labourers out 'ere'!
But on this issue, the CECA needs to get outside the farm gate and look around Australia's cities to see where the populations really congregate. Such an immigrant flood policy will only perpeatuate the aged old colonial scenario of all immigrants and imported wealth going to the big cities. Post War thinking of immigration to build farm labour is fanciful. How many of the 400,000 immigrants a year into Australia go out bush looking for work. Do the research. Stuff all!

But Sean seems to convey more extremist motives.

Nathab (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-20 23:48

While OK in itself, the PM's apology implies that abuse of children in care has ceased. Not so. Child protection bureaucracies continue to abuse these children by taking social workers away from their clients & immersing them in paperwork. In SA, at least, whenever a problem arises in the bureaucracy more bureaucracy is thrown at it. The growth in bureaucractic structures is almost exponential as problem piles on problem & bureaucracy piles on bureaucracy. And it is impossible to get rid of these useless bureaucracies because their managers fight tooth & nail to protect their turf. Yes Minister is like a Sunday School picnic compared with this lot. A child in care is fortunate indeed if he/she sees his/her social worker at all, let alone as needed. Many carers have left the system fed up with fighting bureaucracy for the things needed by the severely damaged children in their care & fed up with the lack of support from a child protection system which simply isn't focused on their needs. Waste in child protection agencies is rife as so much work done has nothing to do with protecting the child & everything to do with protecting & promoting bureaucratic power. The child's interests are supposed to be paramount when, clearly, it's the interests of management & politicians which are paramount. Any help provided to a child in care is entirely incidental to the real business of protecting the power & careers of these people. And it matters not what the quality of a social worker's performance is as long as the social worker does nothing to threaten the career of the bureaucrats. Sadly, there is no answer to this deeply ingrained problem. The vested interests in maintaining the status quo are far too powerful for change for the better to occur. Meanwhile children abused & neglected in their own families continue to be abused & neglected by the very agencies which are, ostensibly, there to help them learn to make better lives for themselves. The only hope is for social workers to conduct guerilla helping at the local level & to tell management up the food chain as little about it as possible.

Tree (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-20 18:44

HOUSING FOR MILLIONS "Reporter: Ian Townsend Planning for happy cities, when you're also jamming in millions more people, is politically tricky. Urban planners say they can make better communities with more people, but the NIMBYs don't believe it. Like it or not, high density apartment living is around the corner. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2746551.htm Sunday 22nd November 2009 9.10am Tuesday 24th November 2009 7.05pm Wednesday 25th November 2009 4.05am" -- Looks like a program with ZERO questioning of population growth, just another presentation of the false dichotomy of expanding suburbia versus densification of existing settled areas. We should expect more from the ABC than a regurgitation of the same spin from the main-stream media.

Steve (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-20 15:48

Sean, I find your comments disturbing. What is the advantage to unsustainable population growth? In the contexts of over fishing, deforestation, soil degradation etc? Satellite images of Borneo or the Amazon speak volumes. We have less than 5% of Australia's forests left. Should we clear the rest for wheat? Big business just want to sell more burgers to more people. They have no interest in the welfare of their customers. Sean, do you have a vested interest in more people?

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-20 08:44

We hear a lot that "planning" as the solution to providing for our population growth. However, this means spending money on infrastructure, but this is where our governments don't want to spend. The financial stimulus for goods and services from population growth doesn't extent far enough to cover the costs of infrastructure, so growth goes ahead anyway! The solution? Add more people! This means we have an addiction to population growth, and the madness continues. With water prices calculated to soar to pay for Victoria's desalination plant, the public are not just paying for the water they use, but actually paying for population growth that is contrary to their own interests.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2009-11-19 23:21

Flannery said that “There was a time when travel was so limited, when trade and people’s experience of others overseas was so limited and where there was no Internet that we actually needed a program like that to foster mutual tolerance. Those days are well and truly gone.” He later said that “The argument that we need a massive immigration program to promote tolerance between people just has no legs” http://therealists.com.au/?p=345 Mass immigration is an ideology of the past, but the capitalists are hanging on to it for grim death.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-11-19 23:18

These comments just show the stupidity of pretending that past trends are predictions of the future. With oil depletion, water scarcity, soil destruction and food scarcity we cannot rely on the future reflecting the past and only those with their dollars invested in short term growth continue to pretend that we can. I'm sure that the Easter Islanders said, just before they cut the last tree down, "Gee, we are poised to be the world's fastest growing stone-cutting nation in the Pacific!" Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-11-19 22:37

And it will mean about as much then as it means now when told to the aborigines - who were similarly displaced by capitalism gone mad. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-11-19 17:24

Rudd's national apology for the stolen generations and now the forgotten generations is easy as a politican. Speeches are a politician's core business. Apologising for the actions of others is also easy, especially when the problems stemmed from a previous government in a previous era'. Apologies are hollow without follow up. To many follow up should be tangible like just monetary compensation, changing the laws, and even putting perpetrators on trial, if they're still alive. But has Rudd asked the victims of government policy and of criminal assault what they want 40 years later from governmemt? Whitlam never apologised for his Balibo abandonment and cover up. Why would Rudd commit to a moral undertaking not budgeted for according to re-election policy? Rudd's legacy seems set to urbanise the entire coastline and hinterland up the eastern seaboard of Australia, congesting lifestyles. If Rudd has a hope to leave a positive legacy for Australians he has kept it to himself.

Eco lady (not verified)

Thu, 2009-11-19 15:23

Australia’s agricultural industries are projected to be some of the most adversely affected from climate change, given the climate’s influence on agricultural productivity. Agriculture accounted for 35 per cent of Australia's merchandise exports over the past 5 years (average $30.8 billion per year). The projections for Australia’s climate make it clear that farmers and other Australians should be prepared for a hotter, drier future. Changes in temperature, rainfall, and extreme events will affect water availability, water and soil quality, fire risk, and the incidence of pests, weeds, and disease. Land in the Casey-Cardinia growth area in Victoria is about to go the same way as the orchards of Doncaster. This is high-quality agricultural land, with a combination of food soil, a ready and secure supply of recycled water from the Eastern Treatment Plant and close access to the Melbourne markets. It is one of only two significant vegetable-growing areas close to Melbourne; it produces at least $400 million of food, including much of the fresh food in our supermarkets and creates more than 2000 jobs. This is under threat from urban sprawl, despite the lack of infrastructure. Planning means spending money on infrastructure, and this is not covered by the economic stimulus of growth. Urban sprawl is driving housing estates into fertile food growing areas. The food bowl that was the Murray-Darling Basin is fast drying up - the CSIRO expects cuts in irrigation water availability of up to 85 per cent by 2030 in Victorian regions. There is no population plan, or strategy to deal with population growth - in Victoria or Queensland or any State. It is like adding animals into a paddock and having no plan for when they run out of food or water! Our environmental "capital" has not quantitative value, and is ignored by our $$-driven leaders. Farmers must calculate the carrying capacity of their land for livestock or else suffer spiraling cost of over stocking. They must suffer the costs of providing for food and water artificially, or losing their animals to starvation and death, and losing the value of their land through the environmental impacts of over grazing. However, the same logic does not seem to apply to the risks of over population of people. Immigration means that our States are still flooding with people despite the threats to our food and water production. Will it help to be reassured that in the future we will have a Prime Minister willing to say "SORRY" for over populating Australia and causing risks to our livelihoods through lack of action on climate change?

alarms systems (not verified)

Wed, 2009-11-18 18:15

AUSTRALIA is poised to be the world's fastest growing industrialised nation over the next four decades, with a rate of population growth higher even than India. It means that if the G20 leaders gathering in Pittsburgh this week were to line up according to expected population growth, Kevin Rudd would be in second place, standing only behind Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah who can expect his population to grow by 74 per cent by 2050. Japan's Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, would be last in line, with his population expected to shrink by a quarter. Australia is projected to grow at a rate of 65 per cent, well above the global average, a survey by the Washington-based private research body, the Population Reference Bureau, shows. The population is already growing at the fastest rate since post-war migration and the baby boom saw it explode in the 1950s and '60s , figures released yesterday by the Bureau of Statistics show. In the first quarter of this year Australia saw the biggest influx of migrants in almost 30 years of detailed figures. It gained about 97,000 net migrants in the quarter, about 20,000 more than at any time since Bureau of Statistics figures started in 1981. The natural increase in the population - births less deaths - was also about 15 per cent higher in the year to March 31, than the previous year.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-11-18 12:14

Outback poaching of kangaroos is no different to Canadian sealers clubbing seal pups east off Newfoundland, Labrador and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Much can be learned and applied from efforts in Canada to ban the slaughter of Harp Seals.

"Though sealers from the Magdalen Islands of Quebec killed over 19,000 seal pups in just 3 days, reaching their quota in the first phase of the seal 'hunt', the second phase of the seal hunt began more slowly in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence on April 10th. The sealers of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are fishermen most of the year, were hampered by some bad weather and discouraged by the low price offered for seal pelts - a direct result of the European Union's efforts at banning imports of all seal products. The passage of the EU ban resulted in the lowest number of seals killed since 1994.

Overall, the EU ban on seal imports will profoundly affect the seal hunt, causing financially-motivated sealers to find other ways to make a few extra dollars. We will continue to promote the boycott of Canadian seafood, to discourage even the 'die-hard' sealers from killing seals."

Go to harpseals.org

Australians slaughtering kangaroos or koalas or flying-foxes is no different to:

* New Zealanders slaughtering kiwi birds
* Chinese slaughtering pandas
* Indonesians slaughtering orangutans
* Africans slaughtering gorillas in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Congo or Equatorial Guinea
* Namibians slaughtering cape fur seals
* Canadians slaughtering harp seals.

In Queensland, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 that suggests it is all about conserving nature "is based on principles to conserve biological diversity, ecologically sustainable use of wildlife..."
The political mindset over the Tweed is all about USING WILDLIFE, not protecting it. What's in a name... bit like North Korean calling itself the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Queenland Premier Anna Bligh is not long back from Russia trying to ramp up export sales of kangaroo meat to Russia.
[ABC Interview]

Bligh has become the number driver of Australia's wholesale immoral slaughter of kangaroos.
Time for another mutiny!

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2009-11-18 09:09

According to the Premier of Queensland's office: "The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia reports that the commercial kangaroo industry provides over 4000 jobs and contributes approximately $270 million annually to regional economies".

If the means justifies the end, surely there would be justification for crime, drugs, pornography and the sex industries! If the end is money and profits, without considering the ethics of killing our gentle native animals for a mass market, then all these industries are equally valid!

It is becoming tiresome to hear about environmental destruction for "jobs" and "economic benefits"! Interestingly, Anna Bligh wants to sell off $15b worth of public assets to support population growth, and outsource jobs and training! Her interest in "jobs" is rather dubious and thin.

Kangaroo meat for indigenous people would have been a source of protein, but the mass market for Australian consumers, pet food and exports, cannot be sustainable. Despite all the management and quotas of the fishing industries, they are collapsing due to overfishing. No wildlife "harvest" is ultimately sustainable.

"Kangaroo numbers in Australia have increased substantially since European settlement due to the development of the pastoral industry resulting in increased availability of food and watering points."

Australia has been responsible for about 40% of the world's mammal extinctions in the last 220 years. This is due to human impacts of loss of habitats, introduced species, feral animals, roads and human population growth. The historical evidence shows that kangaroos and other once "common" animals were abundant! Many are now lost forever, or suffering from threats. "Increased" food today for kangaroos is not what is being reported in today's papers! If these perfectly adapted animals are suffering, then it is no wonder that Australia's livestock industries in western Queensland are suffering. Livestock have devastated native pastures, water sources and forests. How could there be more food and water for kangaroos today?

" Aerial surveys are conducted annually to determine the kangaroo population with the harvest quota typically being set at between 10 to 20 percent of the population depending on the population density". How could aerial surveys really estimate kangaroo populations in such a wide area? This would be unfeasible and impractical. Just how could numbers be determined from the air, in all the vast areas? They could see the same mob, the next day, in a different area and think they were in multitudes!

"The Code also provides for the humane euthanising of pouch young and young at foot".

Dependent joeys can legally be bashed to death or decapitated. This is "humane"? At foot joeys can just go and die slowly, not having commercial value. Up to 40% of shots are missed, and animals can escape to die slowly and painfully. There is nothing "humane" about these killings that must terrorize these stress-prone animals.

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2009-11-17 17:38

Animal cruelty is one of the worst forms of immorality. Animals have no say and are complete victims of their human masters. If one was lucky enough to have received a golden executive parachute and somehow preserved one's super against the GFC Mark I, then a selfish person may consider 'social' and 'environmental' priorities matters for others. Many in our community presume that if an ethical or social issue does not affect them directly, they can be morally justified in relegating them to the lot of noble charities. But charities don't just happen. Animal not-for-profit charities like WIRES and the RSPCA exist despite of government neglect of moral duty. In my view, such selfishly disengaged members of our community deserve attracting higher tax premiums. Few people experience such cruelty directly and so it is easy for them to ignore the issue as relevant or important to them. Many immoral issues fall into the same 'out-of sight-out-of-mind' category, including live sheep export well below animal welfare standards. Once again, rural Australians choosing to lower themselves to profiteering from live sheep trading to Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Eritrea simply forgo ethical principles, as if so desperate that the lure of a quick buck from animal exploitation is ingrained like a colonial cultural contagion. Pragmatically, many justify that they are too busy with their lives to take an interest outside their backyards in such issues. Blissful ignorance of social and ethical issues is the norm of the maintream. Busy parents and primary and secondary schools still don't teach life issues of morality or ethics at a child's impressionable age. Why? Contributors to this website that simply mud sling do nothing to add to the exploring the issue at hand. If 'Anonymous' contributers do so, I recommend their input be deleted as trash. They only demean this website. They may find more joy contributing to Ralph magazine.

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2009-11-17 10:04

According to an email from the office of Premier Anna Bligh: "The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia reports that the commercial kangaroo industry provides over 4000 jobs and contributes approximately $270 million annually to regional economies. " The argument of "jobs" and "economic benefits" is becoming rather tiresome and well-worn! If the means justified the end, i.e. money and jobs, then crime definitely pays, and so does pornography, the sex industry and any sort of environmental destruction! If one ignores the moral, ethical and sustainability issues, anything that employs and pays is quite acceptable. Interestingly, Anna Bligh is quite willing to privatize public assets to the value of $15 billion and outsource jobs overseas! "Kangaroo numbers in Australia have increased substantially since European settlement due to the development of the pastoral industry resulting in increased availability of food and watering points". Why has Australia the dubious reputation for killing off about 40% of the planet's mammal species in the last 220 years if conditions have improved for them? Pastoral industries have caused devastation to our environment due to deforestation, destruction of rivers and waterways, and climate change. The historical record shows that at the time of first European contact the kangaroo was numerous and abundant over the continent and Tasmania. Government data shows that Australia-wide kangaroo numbers are down 75% since 2003, with populations well below the accepted 'sustainable ' level in most of the NSW, QLD, and SA commercial kangaroo shooting zones. Development driven population growth has already eradicated much of Queensland's koala populations and they could be gone in a few years. "The industry operates under an annual quota system limiting the number of animals that can be sustainably harvested. Aerial surveys are conducted annually to determine the kangaroo population with the harvest quota typically being set at between 10 to 20 percent of the population depending on the population density". Just how accurate are numbers seen from aerial surveys? Such a massive areas and so few kangaroos - this is really unbelievable! "The (National) Code of Practice also provides for the humane euthanising of pouch young and young at foot". This means that joeys have no commercial value and can be pulled from their mothers' pouch to be decapitated or bashed to death! It this "humane"? Yes, according to the industry and Anna Bligh.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2009-11-17 00:18

There is no doubt this is pure Evil and to think John Howard and now Rudd has turned their backs on it again is a sad reflection of our own worth because we voted them in. However given the fact people have now been protesting for twenty pluss years- I am just wondering where is a plan- a project to phaze out this barbaric process. HWC was launched- Um yes. What is it? No I mean, what is the Handle with care all about. More pictures- more letters encouraged to be written to these same people that have turned their backs for years. More funds raised- But to do what? Come on guys where is the plan? What is the plan- other than show these pictures and ask for more funds? I just dont get it. Why not employ some farmers x farmers. Get out in the bush and open some Aussie Abattoirs. Go and buy up stock and arrange to contract slaughter exporting carcuss only. Or dont do that. So what ARE you all doing? What is Handle With Care all about. It would apprear just more hipe and hoohay+ fund raising...

Milly (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-16 17:46

Japan's economy grew at the fastest pace in more than two years in the third quarter, as Government stimulus lifted consumer spending. Japan's economy grew 1.2 per cent in the three months from July to September compared to the previous quarter, faster than the median estimate for 0.7 per cent growth. Exports and personal consumption led the growth, while corporate investment picked up for the first time since the January-March quarter of 2008. With the ageing and shrinking population dimming the outlook for consumer spending, Japan remains as dependent as ever on foreign markets to drive growth. Japan has some of the world's strictest controls on immigration, and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama admitted that he was broaching a "sensitive issue". Japan has relatively few resident foreigners, although in recent years it has cautiously opened up its job market to nurses and care workers from some Southeast Asian countries. Their economic growth despite an ageing and shrinking population defies the growth-ists who say economic growth and population growth must go hand in hand. Some growth addicts believe that a fall in growth rates means a slump, so more people must be added. Thus we have an addiction habit!

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-16 12:24

It is known that about one in 25 people are sociopaths - see Martha Stouts's recent book "The Sociopath Next Door". In Australia, there are also millions of them - see "Touched by the Devil" by Andy Shea. These people like to cause pain and even death (e.g. serial killers) because, for one reason, it shows they have power and control over others. They have no conscience, feel no guilt or shame, and have no pity or empathy for others. You find the lower-level psychopaths in white-collor jobs by the thousands, according to Andy Shea. One easy way, if your are a psychopath (sociopath) to exert control over others and get away with it is to keep a dog or two, which barks/attacks. You will never be called to account. Good fun. If your victim dares to complain to either you or the Council, you can abuse him with impunity with more barking and other forms of reprisals because you have been "provoked". 72% of all Australians keep a dog, and one-third of those housholds keep at least one barking dog. That means there are about one in every four dwellings with barking dogs. I believe the pet industry has a lot of do with it. Look at ads on T.V. Every second ad contains a dog!! It used to be a girl in a bikini. She has been replaced by a dog/dogs. You can't appeal to the reasoning power of sociopaths - they don't have any empathy for you, and by begging them to give you relief you are simply playing into their hands because they enjoy seeing you suffer. The only solution is to treat barking dog owners the same way we treat most other vicious criminals. Audrey

Quiet Please. (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-16 10:50

Thank you Menkit. That's all interesting material about the F word. I don't hear it very much, except in public places. Its careless usage tends to give the impression that those in hearing distance are undeserving of better standards. For my part, I feel that F-word users are attempting to dominate the occasion, taking the liberty to define the prevailing social standards downwards. And yes, that is a very positive replied directive to another post --- to be nice. Just be nice to each other. Being nice costs nothing, yet it facilitates enormous social harmony.

Vivienne (not verified)

Mon, 2009-11-16 08:43

The Medieval view of "Man" was that he was the pinnacle of Creation, the whole purpose of the Universe, next to God as His Image, and thus the solar system revolved around the Earth, and the Earth was flat. Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy,"the "father of modern physics," and "the Father of Modern Science." But science was actively thought of as hearsay, and the church of the day made Galileo renounce his observations of the planets' rotations. He was accused of heresy in 1615 by the Roman Inquisition as it was "contrary to Scripture". Secular thinking today, and a reassessment of Genesis by modern churches, means that science and theology are, except for some fundamentalists, no longer in contention. If God created all, He created a consistent universe, with laws that can be studied and theories that can be formed from observations. However, it seems that "Man" has not changed much in thinking, even in today's rational and science-based age! There is a Medieval mentality still, that other animals can be "overabundant" and need "management" to control their numbers, but we humans are somehow exempt from being over our carrying capacity. By some divine or magical formula, or natural superior human status, we are protected from over consuming our natural resources, and causing environmental vandalism and corruption! Our natural and finite resources will somehow keep expanding, and science will have answers to how we can just keep breeding and proliferating the planet! It doesn't matter that the arithmetic of feeding the world doesn't add up, or that the changes to our planet mean devastation and extinction to non-human creatures, but if it propagates more of the human species, these losses are justified! Darwinism and environmental science are conveniently ignored when it comes to our own power and aggressive Earthly dominance! We will just wipe out other species and our own habitat due to a lack of predators or forces to limit our numbers. We humans are still obsessed by our own egos, our own importance in the web of live, and will be the victims of our own suicidal narcissism! We need science to objectively and independently assess our carrying capacity. Governments inherently will not act for the benefit of the public and those deciding on immigration numbers have direct conflicts of interests. Growth will be continual and constant! The opposition to science today is not from the clerics (except from the Catholic church that opposed birth control) but from commercial and corporate forces, and the lure of capitalistic power and wealth.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-11-14 02:49

Just one problem. There are about 22 million of you and there were less than one million aborigines, and we are also exporting the kangaroos and feeding them to cats and dogs. How long do you think the kangaroos will last according to that scenario?

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-11-14 02:36

In a story on Today Tonight, Channel 7, 13 November, entitled "Australia's migrant boom Immigration policies have lead to a boom in numbers that Australia has never seen before, but some experts say we should be shrinking instead", Thomson and Tanner are cited. http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video# The next story, with the same URL video, involving t.v. personality Jonathon Coleman and his wife in a Sydney house that lots of tv stars once lived in which is about to have its woodland surroundings bulldozed for 4 or six (forget) highrises, is really good value. Fingers the overseas buyers and investors and shows the Planning minister right up and the corrupt and undemocratic way that public meetings are run on planning issues in NSW. Coleman also points out that the situation is the same in Victoria and Queensland. The story is handled quite well by the presenter, who shows how some citizens will support the developers over all their neighbours because they stand to gain financially. It's a short term view that is bringing this country to its knees, democratically and environmentally speaking. Go Coleman! Please write for candobetter.org

SH (not verified)

Sat, 2009-11-14 00:57

Don't get too upset about us eating our national symbol. Had a bit of a look at other nations and here's what I found- Countrys that eat their national symbol
Bolivia, Cambodia, East Timor, Eritrea, Finland, Japan, Maldives, Nepal, Philippines, South Africa,
Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Vietnam and AUSTRALIA.
About a third of the countriess had inedible mythical creatures that weren't very tasty. The rest were dogs, eagles and birds etc.
If it was good enough for aboriginals to eat roos, It's good enough me.
Not interested in your hyperbole it's starting to wear thin.

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-11-14 00:14

Any teeth and conviction that the National Parks & Wildlife Service in NSW had went with Bob Carr. Since Carr left, the NPWS has been dissolved and buried into a mega Department now including Water. Basically it is too complex for simple Premier Rees to handle and so he has merged it all into one bucket. I am frankly surprised that with his penchant for simplicity he has not created a Department of Other. As for the Bathurst petrol heads demanding the local population of kangaroos be shot for 'public safety' for their V8 race, since they have no respect for the natives that existed in harmony before colonialisation, perhaps they won't mind more colonialisation with a few thousand Sri Lankan refugees being allocated to Bathurst, like they did with the Sudanese in Tamworth. Displacement policy will be consistent. Let's recommend the 78 Tamils on the Oceanic Viking be free to settle in Bathurst.

Sean OLeary (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 22:08

While your words of support are appreciated, James, your understanding of the CEC is seriously marred by your inability to understand the fraud, and intention behind the fraud, of ecological crises and overpopulation. Fighting those who claim that overpopulation is a problem is fundamental to the battle in which the CEC is engaged; early Labor leaders would also have joined in the same way. There is no overpopulation problem, there is an undertechnologisation and de-industrialisation problem. Prince Philip and Al Gore want to reduce the world's population to well under two billion as soon as possible, and your stance is supportive of their end-game and measures. Not only do humans have a right to be here, but humans are the highest and best force for change on this planet and beyond. This is why the CEC is supporting the LaRouche push to go back to the moon, to colonise and industrialise it, and from there go to Mars to do the same, and thence to move beyond. Humankind's future is to colonise the solar system and, indeed, the wider galaxy. Earth is not our only home. That does not mean that the CEC supports "stuffing up" the earth to then go and do the same on other planets. The very idea that humanity is "stuffing up" the planet is a fraud. Human activity improves the earth, it creates ecosystems. You want ecology? Humanity is part of ecology! And the best part. The CEC is promoting longstanding plans to green Australia's desert. The Fitzroy Scheme and the Bradfield Scheme have been on the books for decades, but the imperialist-oriented and anti-nation governments that we have had for the last few decades do not want Australia to be anything other than a quarry pit for the financial oligarchy. The LaRouche movement is promoting a worldwide buildout of nuclear power, maglev rail and massive water projects. Were these projects undertaken, "ecologies" would be improved far beyond the greenies' wildest dreams. But the greenies are not excited. Why? Because they don't want "green" or even ecology; all they want is what the imperialists want, which is depopulation. The environmentalist mindset is a creation of the oligarchy. Industrialisation and scientific development are the worst enemies of the oligarchy. Hence, industrialisation and scientific development are the main targets of environmentalism/sustainability/conservation which were created by oligarchy as a battering ram. The Fabian Society has been going for more than a century and conservation alongside anti-industrialism have always been key planks of the Fabian policy mix. Kevin Rudd and Tony Blair are, of course, leading (and proud) Fabians. You de-industrialise, and you depopulate, because humanity is supported by advanced power, transport and water systems, and on a vast and industrial scale. The oligarchs therefore target such basic economic infrastructure with their various, and nefarious, environmental frauds. CEC literature explains all this, and particularly in an Australian context, much better than I can. See http://www.cecaust.com.au

Jeremy (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 20:17

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/13/2741541.htm?section=justin By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici Posted 26 minutes ago The British Government has announced changes to the country's immigration laws that will narrow the number of foreign professionals and students allowed into the country from outside Europe. In his first speech on immigration since becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown said the people of Britain should not be let down by foreign workers undermining local wages, affecting job prospects for their children or limiting whether they can even find housing in their own neighbourhoods. Britain will no longer accept hospital consultants, civil engineers, aircraft engineers and ship's officers from outside Europe. Next year, the list will be narrowed further and likely include more engineers, skilled chefs and care workers. Mr Brown also announced a review of student visas that will consider whether to only allow people into the country if they intend to study graduate courses.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-11-13 19:54

Dear critic, I published your comment because I would like you to write in more detail about what you object to and why. More than that I would like you to write about what you like or liked about candobetter.org. Penultimately, I would like you to write for candobetter.org on issues you do consider important and true. Finally, I would like to say that we publish alternative views to give them an airing but we don't mind rational responses, comment and argument in response to those views, so take heart and don't be unkind to MP who is often right, sometimes wrong, like all of us. :-) We all have our enthusiasms. Please try to make your comments constructive because that is the way to help raise the standard of writing and debate. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Brad (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 17:33

um, to put it politely I am rather dumbfounded at this nonsense about the poor kangaroos. Do you have ANY idea how many there are?? 150 would be WAY under the 15% you quote as the "allowed" proportion in commercial harvest areas. The estimated population for the Central Tablelands Harvest area is just under ONE MILLION (area of 52,484km2) (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifemanagement/CommercialKangarooH...). I see no way at all how culling 150 animals in any local area of the Central Tablelands will put the population under threat, local or otherwise. In fact culling is used as a scientifically proven method for managing large kangaroo populations that would otherwise result in too much competition for other less common macropods. I would suggest you go educate yourselves a little on the matter before letting yourselves get too upset and even worse spread emotionally driven falsehoods about the subject that if listened too could result in the detriment of less common macropod species. PLEASE READ SOME ACTUAL FACTS ON THIS MATTER here's a head start for anyone that is even bothered: http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publications/kangar... http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifemanagement/CommercialKangarooH... and your good friend google could find you even more REAL info on this subject

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-11-13 16:29

John, I think you underestimate the extent of the soil and water degradation in this continent. The work on this has been done in a massive Australian study, that led the world, of the state of our economic and environmental systems. Tragically the Howard Government closed that study down. It did produce two major publications - one that was long and in which the Howard Government interfered with the results by forcing them to massage their conclusions in line with economists wants rather than with ecological realities. This was Future Dilemmas. Fortunately the data and information from which one may form the conclusions of the original scientists is still in that report, even though some of the economic conclusions are dramatically opposed to the data, being based on business-case wishes. Among other things the report deals with peak oil in Australia before we actually went past peak production of oil here. The second publication, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, was much shorter. It told of the real conclusions. The title referred to the situation forced on the ecological scientists who provided much of the material for the Future Dilemmas Report and, I think it referred to the dilemma of survival we face in this country: That if we grow our population and our economy we run into fatal conflict with the biological systems based on the land and water systems. These reports and those of other scientists have quite simply been suppressed by our press and governments. It is therefore not surprising if you are not aware of the dire situation. Finally, I would suggest, from your comments about ecology and biodiversity, that you don't understand how much humans rely on biological systems to clean up the messes we make and revitalise the world from which we get our food. Our main occupation is levelling energy systems and replacing biological organisms with dead stuff - concrete, plastic, metals, bare hard depleted earth, disorganised eutrophic and poisonous waters. Without organised live systems to hinder and repair our activities, we simply create deserts. (Places without life). The 'work' we do involves using energy and transforming it into more diffuse forms, which we then cannot use to the same extent. The only things on earth that are able to reorganise energy to some extent are animals and plants - live things. This skill is exemplified in their ability to reproduce functioning biological systems. Yes, we are also live things, reproducing functional biological systems - organisms -. The problem is that the mass of human organisms is vastly, vastly outweighed by the artificial, dead and biologically simplified systems we manufacture. The damage we do greatly outweighs the repair our organisms are able to do. (If we all engaged in steady state natural systems farming and permaculture economies we would be fewer and far more positive in biological terms for the systems that support us - but we are doing the opposite). And, as we create those deserts, we create horrible political systems, such as the one we are being kicked along by at the moment. Those other countries you believe are overpopulated and poor are often in much richer countries - like India and Africa - and their populations and economies were disorganised by the colonial system that is disorganising and destroying ours. We just started out with smaller populations. We will end up in the same situations as India and Africa - and even faster. You probably also don't realise how indebted our governments have left our population. We actually have a typical third-world economy - agricultural export and mineral export. Coupled with our import debt and infrastructure-development debt we are in fact on the brink of third world status. I would call us a third world economy. Formerly we were more sparsely populated and land was cheap - making 'production' cheap and we could afford to manufacture. Crowding the land has made the cost of living and of manufacture too expensive for anything except the kind of pillaging ventures of big mines and big agriculture. Thanks very much for writing and I hope you will continue to contribute. Disagreement does not mean intolerance of your point of view. sincerely, Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 16:28

Did we miss garbage night? because this site is overflowing with rubbish from the likes of M P. I used to admire CDB but it's becoming ridiculous.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 16:19

Sounds like we should be eating more kangaroo instead of those destructive sheep and cattle.

milly (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 16:14

Why is it essential that we continue to grow, despite the threats to our land, our society and livestyles. Why growth at all costs if it is counterproductive and retrograde? Because the economic model we have, that depends on growth, is the only one economist can come up with, the only model our leaders can envisage? Humans don't have natural predators, and we are voraciously on top of the power and food chain. Without "natural" enemies, it must be found within ourselves the mechanisms to survive the depletion of natural resources. Being locked into the "necessity" of growth besides all the warnings, is aburd and ridiculous! It seems that this is almost suicidal, something in our DNA, that will halt our survival even, eventually. We all depend on natural ecosystems and biological "services" much like animals. If we destroy these, the costs and outcomes could be disatrous. We don't have to have continual growth, and it we stopped immigration now, and the baby bonus and "students" overstaying their visas, then we may be able to stay under 35 million by 2050!

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-11-13 15:44

I think that Natural Sequence Farming is about closed systems where you do not export what you produce. That is probably why Richard Pratt and other investment predators lost interest in it. It repairs the land, but then stops depleting the land by maintaining it, i.e. returning what was there to it in ecological stasis. I will check up on my statement at the Natural Sequence Bulletin Board. Relocalisation, using such methods for rehabilitating the land, would support more people where none were supported before, but it would not reproduce the kind of population that broad acre farming with highly mechanised systems and using fossil-fuel based fertilisers as well as phosphates from rapidly disappearing guano deposits, is able to sustain - albeit for limited periods before ruining the soil and making land uninhabitable. You could say that over time a sustainable local system using natural sequences and permaculture would be able to support more people, by sustaining small populations indefinitely. There are two big problems with industrial agriculture: it destroys soil and waterways - i.e. the very systems it relies on augmenting, and it affects political rights by removing choice and autonomy from most of the population, allowing only a very few people to be in control of the food and fiber supply, which is the basis of modern economies, even though most people live in cities in them. Australians in cities where there are still big gardens could still supplement a lot of their food and fiber if they used these gardens to produce food, like the food gardens of the Pacific Islanders - in the permaculture manner. That would also change the political economy by taking importance away from the wage system, the banking system, the food transport and mass-production system. That is why we are encouraged to believe that producing our own food would be harder than it is. The people who dominate our current system get a lot of profits from all our hard work, where we dedicate most of our time to producing stuff for resale where the profits go to owners and investors. If we ran our own lives and 'traded'/bartered locally, the Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd types would be entirely out of the picture. People would take on real roles in the community and wake from their political sleep and realise that they have the same capacity for thought and action as the people they currently sit down and shut up to listen to. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2009-11-13 12:59

I don't actually dismiss out of hand what John Hogan writes. In future, we may face no political choice but to acceppt yet further population growth. (As I have written elsewhere -- will find the link some other time) I think may just be possible, but by no means guaranteed, for this country to support more people if we began to repair the environment systematically using such techniques as Natural Sequence Farming advocated by Peter Andrews. This could only conceivably occur if the economy move back to much more of a localised agricultural based system. We could not hope to be able to have access to the vast range of consumable items that we have today. We would also have to preserve the maximum amout of biodivestiy and not permit any further loss of endangered fauna and flora. In those cirumstances a larger population just may be sustainable, although, I don't consider desirable. The irony of the situation is that those who are, today, pushing for breakneck rates of population growth, and without any serious effort to repair our current environment, are, in fact, destroying what real capacity this country has to support our current population, let alone a larger population in future. One last point, I think there are already more than enough people here today to begin repairing the Australian environment, I dispute that more would be necessary to accomplish that.

John Hogan (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 12:14

Subject was: "Issues raised by Kelvin Thomson" - JS Hi there, I heard Mr Thomson's comments via the ABC yesterday and would like to respond to them briefly. I share his concerns about the accelerated environmental degradation that could occur were our population to reach 35 or 50 million. I have noted in the past the public comments of Prof Ian Lowe on this issue. I think however that it is critical that we find a way to properly manage growth in a way that has not occurred previously because I think it essential that we do grow. I am in my 30s and I may well live another 50 years. I can see a crowded world in 50 years that looks at a wealthy and essentially empty continent with hunger and in many cases, desperation. Now I know that seeing Australia as empty would be wrong - given our climate and resulting geography. But I don't think that the truth of the matter will come into it in 50 years. Desperate people do desperate things - think drowning men and straw. I won't go into the forms I suspect that this desperation could take but they can be imagined. I think that a perverse truth exists here - that the best way to preserve and rehabilitate our country in the long term will be to develop quite quickly but correctly. I think we must quarantine in the most strict of ways the majority of the country from development while developing larger, sustainable population centres interspersed among it and concurrently using some of the least important land and some of the surrounding ocean to both feed us and our neighbours and to actually begin to reverse climate change. I think we will unfortunately need a much larger population in order to do this and to ensure that we remain the masters of our destiny. Our current means of increasing population is clearly poor and I see no signs that it will improve. What I am talking about requires a major rethink. While it is obviously important that groups such as this one champion population and ecological issues, I am sorry to say that I believe that to achieve the ultimate aim, a different means to the end must be pursued. When there are more than 10 billion people on the planet and we are running a reasonably habitable continent but with only a few million people on it, issues of ecology and biodiversity will seem trifling to desperate hoards of people. I don't think that this is being considered properly. thanks, John

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 10:51

Rudd should have a read of the UK House of Lords select committee report on the economic impacts of large scale immigration. The net benefits are marginal at best & that overcrowding/infrastructure costs can be a major problem.

Not to mention environmental costs, social cohesion problems (see social capital research by Harvard's Robert Putman) and crime.

The report is The ecomnomic impact of Immigration - Voulme I ; Report (pdf, 1.2MB).

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-11-13 08:10

Does Lindsay Tanner really judge the validity of a country by how many people can be squeezed in per square kilometer? We are not livestock! How can Australia be compared to Bangladesh? They are are developing nation that straddles the fertile Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta and is subject to annual monsoon floods and cyclones. It has the largest mangrove forest in the world. Very different from Australia's dry and expansive landscape! Bangladesh's population growth was among the highest in the world in the 1960s and 1970s, when the country grew from 50 to 90 million, but with the promotion of birth control in the 1980s, the growth rate slowed! If a developing nation can some restraint, surely we in Australia can too. Bangladesh remains a poor, overpopulated, and inefficiently-governed nation. Perhaps Lindsay Tanner would prefer to live in one of the world's overcrowded and sprawling cities than Australia? His speech to the Property Council of Australia is evidence that Australia has no optimum population plan, or no policies on growth rates. Population growth is being allowed randomly, in an ad hoc manner, and thus we get these ridiculous statements derived from conflicts of interests. We need a clear and independent assessment of what our carrying capacity really is. Our carrying capacity should be assessed by independent ecologists, agriculturalists, climate change analysts and demographers. Such as important issue should not be addressed on desire, or idealism or economics alone. This "vast continent" is deceptive. We are actually a small nation on a large chunk of land, and much of it is not suitable for high density populations due to heat and lack of resources. The most naive and suicidal thing our governments could do is to assume that our population can be continually grown! Australia's security will be compromised internally, and being dominant species, our ecosystems would be swamped by people wanting "jobs" and "economic benefits" from our environment until there is nothing left to consume!
Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Thu, 2009-11-12 15:10

Trading noise for noise sometimes works well, but it can also backfire. Some inconsiderate dog owners are so dense that trying to reason with them proves futile. In these instances something else is required, but unfortunately that "something else" (such as reciprocal noise) can be in breach of other laws. The mindset of many unintelligent dog owners is so illogical that if a distressed person retaliates with a noise rebuke (such as trading one noise for another as a free and unsolicited aid to learning) they become incensed and call the police. I recall over twenty years ago being tormented by the loud barking of two large black dogs next door. Of course I politely told the owner about the noise but his riposte was the common "All dogs bark!" so I knew another method of getting through to him was required. I chose Noise for Noise. Just on my side of the paling fence between us was a gum tree. I climbed it half way to a point where I could nail a car horn ($5 from the wrecker's yard) and aimed it downwards towards his barking dogs. Then I connected it to my car battery with heavy-duty automotive cable running down the side of the tree and secured to it. When I became too distressed with the din invading all parts of my home I'd go outside, lift the car's bonnet and tap the wire onto the positive terminal of the battery. I'd make the circuit intermittently so that if a dog went "WOOF!" my horn went "HONK!" Similarly if the dogs went "WOOF! WOOF! WOOF! my horn went "HONK! HONK! HONK!" This is what I call trading noise for noise. The owner was outraged. He called the police. Two police constables came out and said to me "You can't do that!" whereupon I quietly convinced them that I actually could. They repeated "You can't do that! It's Disturbing the Peace!" whereupon I asked them politely "What peace?" They then threatened to arrest me if I did it again but as they did so, Mr Next-door's two big dogs started their engines up and the terrible din was startling. I said "There! Now you've heard for yourself what we have to put up with!" The two officers, now somewhat freaked out at having heard the alleged offence with their own ears, immediately left my front porch and entered my neighbour's premises. Maybe 20 minutes passed. When they came back they said "We have spoken to the owner and you'll be pleased to know he's getting rid of the dogs in two days!" Quite surprisingly, he actually did, and peace reigned for several months. Then the oaf obtained two more large black dogs and the procedure repeated - but this time the police did NOT come out. You see, I had delivered a four-page letter to the town's police station outlining the problem and the distress it was causing, and informing them that if the owner repeated his offences I would double my responses to TWO honks per woof - and that's exactly what I did. It seems the police eventually felt that they'd better just leave the matter to my neighbour and I to sort out between ourselves. He fumed that his phone calls to the police were clearly futile. At some point I realised that aiming my very loud horn at the dogs was not fair to the dogs - themselves victims (as is so often the case) of owner stupidity. I recognised that their extreme barking was not their fault but their owner's, so I climbed the tree again and this time aimed the horn directly at my neighbour's bedroom. This now proved altogether too much for him, particularly when, after one long din-for-din session, his wife told me that she'd just spent two hours trying to get their baby off to sleep - and then HORN! I did not know about the baby. She was a reasonable person, and fair. Her husband was neither. This neighbour became resentful because he could not induce the police into condoning his lawbreaking - or to defend his self-perceived right to practice it at will. He came down my driveway to remonstrate with me. I forget what he said, but I recall his parting curse: "I hope your house burns down!" Tough luck mate - it was never my house, and over twenty years later it's still there. He and his family moved out, and the dogs with them. The above story, all true, shows what can happen when an aggrieved person trades noise for noise. There can be trouble but there can also be success. In this unique instance, very satisfying relief had been achieved by putting my horn up a forking gum tree. But there's more. Before this donkey moved out he had a visitor. It later became apparent that this visitor had been regaled with stories of my outrageous behaviour. There was a loud knock on my front door. A somewhat inebriated man stood there. He had my horn in one hand and in the other hand was the horn's connecting cable trailing across my front yard and along my drive and into next-door's driveway. He demanded to know, while standing beside his car parked in his friend's driveway and minding his own business, how suddenly, from out of the sky, came this object. It had landed on his windscreen and cracked it. He pretended to great shock and affront. At first I did not know what to make of all this, then the truth of the matter dawned upon me. What this moron had done, on behalf of his gutless dog-owning friend, was to put his arms across the top of the paling fence to grab hold of the power cable, and then jerked it with such strength that the horn and its mountings were wrenched from the tree trunk. This was evident from the damaged horn terminals, too. I appraised him of my conclusion and he denied he'd done anything of the sort. Before departing, this liar declared "I don't care who did it, but I'm going to get a new windscreen out of it!" My poor horn. It had given such sterling service for peace - but there it was, terminally wounded. It never worked again. Even in death it represented the best $5 investment for peace that I'd ever made. Peter Bright www.pebri.net

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-11-12 08:08

With the shame of the massive 10 week oil leak off the Kimberleys, and other pressures no doubt, a decision actually FOR the environment will well and truly due! With the exposure of the threat to koala populations, and the endangered species threatened by the dam, there was really no "science" that could be twisted and distorted enough to endorse this project. A decision FOR the environment had to be made - eventually.

Pages

Click to read all comments.