Australia

[bit_pattern]

Lying is a real smart way of gaining credibility around here.

Yes. I was lying. And you guys caught me out so quickly that I folded in the first post. That's exactly what happened

/sarcasm

I'm sorry if my irreverence didn't register, I'll be sure to use sarcasm tags next time.

 

[gumboot]

You'd probably be well served by reading the book in question. We strip mine ALL of our resources, from minerals right down to agriculture. Our "bread basket", the Murray Darling is already on the verge of collapse, and we strip mined the agricultural potential of our top-soil a long time ago, so much so that we no longer grow staple crops in top soil, the land is little more than a substrate into which we pour energy intensive fertilisers in order to get anything to grow at all. We strip mine our forests, our soil, our minerals, our fishing grounds etc etc etc.

The problem with Jared Diamond's section on Australia (and it has received criticism from people who have specialised in the area with regards to Australia) is that he doesn't account for the country's natural environment. There's ample evidence that Australia was colonised during an unusually wet period, which is now drawing to an end. Thus the dramatic changes in the environment are not a result of human overuse, but just the environment returning to its "normal" state. The end result for Australians is, of course, equally disastrous, but the cause is quite different.

As for time scale, I don't know, maybe it will be a century or two into the future, maybe it will be sooner. But remember, there is ample evidence of societies that existed longer than we have who were permanently wiped from the pages of history once their environments could no longer sustain them. I'd look into the histories of Greenland and Easter Island if you want some historical parallels.

If you had read Collapse more carefully you would know that both Greenland and Easter Island suffered collapse ultimately because of how the people responded to their situation. Most pertinently, they refused to alter their behaviour to address the problem.

Australia was presented by Jared Diamond as an example of a modern country facing such problems, but he also pointed out the measures Australia is taking to address these problems; something neither the Norse nor the Rapa Nui were prepared to do. Above you cite the Murray-Darling Basin as near collapse, yet that's a prime example of a resource that is being managed by the Murray-Darling Cap. Future measures that could further protect the Basin include banning the farming of rice and cotton - two water-intensive activities that consume a large portion of all water removed from the basin.

Another example of a measure which is proving highly successful is Saltgrow eucalypt hybrids to counter salinity in soil.

 

[bit_pattern]

Great idea.
And once we have provided these 'white' services to the 'black' communities, how do you keep the ones happy who want traditional lifestyle?

What does this even mean? If they wanted a "traditional lifestyle", in the sense that I assume you mean, then they wouldn't be living in townships to begin with. Now, if you mean "traditional lifestyle" as in retaining their language and culture whilst living in townships, then there is no reason why that can't happen AND provide the services you and I take for granted.

Hmmm.

Mmmm...

Yet you talk rather like an inner city activist rather than someone who has actually spent time in "black communities".

Yeah, onya Mel Brough

So you are saying the 'whites' blame the indegenous for their circumstances and the indigenous play the victim?

No. I mean we tolerate a situation in which a particular group of people are denied basic standards and services and then moralise when we see social degradation and blame the people for living in degraded conditions.



What do you mean here specifically?[/QUOTE]

 

[gumboot]

It so happens that my uncle's partner is a doctor with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and spends months at a time tending to the hurts of those "black communities" in the outback. It would be safe to say, from her observations, that the people themselves are not entirely without blame. She gets an enormous pay boost when she goes out there, simply because the communities are so dangerous.

For what it's worth, they don't provide the same degree of medical service to white isolated communities, so you could make a pretty strong argument that on the one point of medical care, the isolated aboriginal communities of western Australia receive a better service than their white fellows.

 

[bit_pattern]

The problem with Jared Diamond's section on Australia (and it has received criticism from people who have specialised in the area with regards to Australia) is that he doesn't account for the country's natural environment. There's ample evidence that Australia was colonised during an unusually wet period, which is now drawing to an end. Thus the dramatic changes in the environment are not a result of human overuse, but just the environment returning to its "normal" state. The end result for Australians is, of course, equally disastrous, but the cause is quite different.

A debatable point, I understand that Australia has very long climatic cycles, no doubt, but the problems we face are a lot greater than simple drought cycles. The Snowy River didn't just dam itself. And there is something o be said about taking huge amounts of water from the Murray Darling to grow cotton and rice when there are such dramatic cyclical changes in rainfall

And none of that negates the way we have depleted everything from forests to topsoil to mineral wealth. Even a minor bump in energy prices will put considerable strain on Australian agriculture, to the point that it will be questionable that we could sustain ourselves for any period of time if there was a major energy shock.

And that was exactly my point, Aboriginals weren't "barbaric" savages just because they didn't invent the wheel (hell, plenty of civilisations have risen and fallen without ever inventing the wheel), they had considerable knowledge and a societal structure that suitd them to their environment, they survived and thrived here in a manner that we probably never will, because of our dependence on our culture which is no uniquely Australian.

If you had read Collapse more carefully you would know that both Greenland and Easter Island suffered collapse ultimately because of how the people responded to their situation. Most pertinently, they refused to alter their behaviour to address the problem.

And we are, how exactly?

Australia was presented by Jared Diamond as an example of a modern country facing such problems, but he also pointed out the measures Australia is taking to address these problems; something neither the Norse nor the Rapa Nui were prepared to do. Above you cite the Murray-Darling Basin as near collapse, yet that's a prime example of a resource that is being managed by the Murray-Darling Cap. Future measures that could further protect the Basin include banning the farming of rice and cotton - two water-intensive activities that consume a large portion of all water removed from the basin.

Another example of a measure which is proving highly successful is Saltgrow eucalypt hybrids to counter salinity in soil.

All noble measures, no doubt, but it remains to be seen whether such measures are enough to plug the hole in the dyke. we definitely need to learn how to live sustainably within our environment, but I for one remain pessimistic. You only have to look to Victoria's short sighted approach to sustaining potable water supplies, or the intractable problem of states squabbling over water rights, to see that the problems far outweigh the solutions at present.

I love this land, it is an amazing, incredibly ancient, and awe inspiring place to live. I just doubt that we have enough of a connection with the land to live here in any real state of permanency.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What does this even mean? If they wanted a "traditional lifestyle", in the sense that I assume you mean, then they wouldn't be living in townships to begin with. Now, if you mean "traditional lifestyle" as in retaining their language and culture whilst living in townships, then there is no reason why that can't happen AND provide the services you and I take for granted.

I thought you said you spent time in indigenous communities? Which townships do you speak of? I thought you were talking of the 'remote' indigenous.

No. I mean we tolerate a situation in which a particular group of people are denied basic standards and services and then moralise when we see social degradation and blame the people for living in degraded conditions.

And what are you doing to assist apart from talking socialist self hating bile?

 

[bit_pattern]

It so happens that my uncle's partner is a doctor with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and spends months at a time tending to the hurts of those "black communities" in the outback. It would be safe to say, from her observations, that the people themselves are not entirely without blame. She gets an enormous pay boost when she goes out there, simply because the communities are so dangerous.

For what it's worth, they don't provide the same degree of medical service to white isolated communities, so you could make a pretty strong argument that on the one point of medical care, the isolated aboriginal communities of western Australia receive a better service than their white fellows.

I don't put a great deal of weight on anecdotal evidence, myself (did I mention I'm an anthropologist ), I think it is more instructive to stick to quantifiable evidence.

But the great majority of our Aboriginal population don't live in isolated communities, there are plenty of sizeable communities that simply don't receive the same services that equivalent white communities receive.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't put a great deal of weight on anecdotal evidence, myself (did I mention I'm an anthropologist ), I think it is more instructive to stick to quantifiable evidence.

But the great majority of our Aboriginal population don't live in isolated communities, there are plenty of sizeable communities that simply don't receive the same services that equivalent white communities receive.

You speak of quantifiable evidence yet produce little more than your personal opinion based (seemingly) on your own anecdotes.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes. I was lying. And you guys caught me out so quickly that I folded in the first post. That's exactly what happened

/sarcasm

I'm sorry if my irreverence didn't register, I'll be sure to use sarcasm tags next time.

My take is that you realised you couldn't sustain the the lie. In any case, I'm not going to play.

 

[gumboot]

I don't put a great deal of weight on anecdotal evidence, myself (did I mention I'm an anthropologist ), I think it is more instructive to stick to quantifiable evidence.

But the great majority of our Aboriginal population don't live in isolated communities, there are plenty of sizeable communities that simply don't receive the same services that equivalent white communities receive.

I await your quantifiable evidence with bated breath.

 

[gumboot]

A debatable point, I understand that Australia has very long climatic cycles, no doubt, but the problems we face are a lot greater than simple drought cycles. The Snowy River didn't just dam itself. And there is something o be said about taking huge amounts of water from the Murray Darling to grow cotton and rice when there are such dramatic cyclical changes in rainfall

These are precisely the issues Australia is addressing.

And none of that negates the way we have depleted everything from forests to topsoil to mineral wealth.

Australia's problem isn't topsoil depletion, it's topsoil salination, which is being addressed; as I pointed out.

And that was exactly my point, Aboriginals weren't "barbaric" savages just because they didn't invent the wheel (hell, plenty of civilisations have risen and fallen without ever inventing the wheel), they had considerable knowledge and a societal structure that suitd them to their environment, they survived and thrived here in a manner that we probably never will, because of our dependence on our culture which is no uniquely Australian.

I hardly think you could call the pre-European aborigines of Australia a "thriving" culture. More accurately would be to describe them as a culture desperately clinging to existence in the face of a very hostile environment.

And we are, how exactly?

I point out several ways in the post you're replying to, and there are many others. These are not minor points, but major achievements.

All noble measures, no doubt, but it remains to be seen whether such measures are enough to plug the hole in the dyke. we definitely need to learn how to live sustainably within our environment, but I for one remain pessimistic. You only have to look to Victoria's short sighted approach to sustaining potable water supplies, or the intractable problem of states squabbling over water rights, to see that the problems far outweigh the solutions at present.

And yet these "noble measures" are precisely incredible achievements because they've been implemented in the face of these problems. The Murray-Darling Cap is an impressive achievement in cooperation that clearly demonstrates these intractable squabbles over water rights are not intractable at all.

I love this land, it is an amazing, incredibly ancient, and awe inspiring place to live. I just doubt that we have enough of a connection with the land to live here in any real state of permanency.

"Connection with the land"? What exactly does that mean?

 

[bit_pattern]

These are precisely the issues Australia is addressing.

Indeed it is. What's your point exactly?

Australia's problem isn't topsoil depletion, it's topsoil salination, which is being addressed; as I pointed out.

Again, *sigh*. Salinity is definitely a problem, it is by no means the ONLY problem, Australia suffers greatly from the fact that our topsoil has been depleted but, unlike other more geologically active areas, it isn't going to be replaced anytime soon.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/commentaries/land/soil.html

I hardly think you could call the pre-European aborigines of Australia a "thriving" culture. More accurately would be to describe them as a culture desperately clinging to existence in the face of a very hostile environment.

Yeah, well that's probably because your a cultural absolutist, who seems to think that technological development is the be all and end all of what makes a culture. I, personally, have a longer term view, we have existed for 100,000 years as anatomically defined homo sapiens, and, yes, the cumulative sum of last 5000 year of cultural development have given us untold material wealth, but that doesn't automatically make us superior. I happen to think that the ability to survive for any relative period of time also ha a bearing on the success of a species, and as yet the jury is out in terms of how and if we will survive as a species much longer.

I point out several ways in the post you're replying to, and there are many others. These are not minor points, but major achievements.

Major achievements, sure, but are they enough to keep us living on this land indefinitely? (and, my apologies, I replied to that before seeing the paragraph following your question and didn't bother editing, but I replied to your points in the proceeding paragraph).

And yet these "noble measures" are precisely incredible achievements because they've been implemented in the face of these problems. The Murray-Darling Cap is an impressive achievement in cooperation that clearly demonstrates these intractable squabbles over water rights are not intractable at all.

How so? Have you been following the water debate over the last decade? Have you seen the water problems Adelaide faces? Do you remember Howard's cynically motivated ploy for a Commonwealth takeover of the basin, and why he would needed to have done something like that? Or the fact that even after Cubby Station went into involuntary administration, it is still insisting on selling its water rights? Or the perpetual bunfight between VIC, NSW and QLD? You're dreaming if you think the MD Cap has solved the MD crisis.

"Connection with the land"? What exactly does that mean?

Like, living sustainably on the land, an old land that doesn't renew itself, a land that suffers terrible cyclical drought problems, a land that heaves and creaks dangerously when subjected to industrial scale strip mining of its resources - whether be water, soil, forests or minerals?

 

[gumboot]

Indeed it is. What's your point exactly?

The question is, what is your point?

Yeah, well that's probably because your a cultural absolutist, who seems to think that technological development is the be all and end all of what makes a culture.

You would be incorrect.

I, personally, have a longer term view, we have existed for 100,000 years as anatomically defined homo sapiens

200,000, but carry on.

and, yes, the cumulative sum of last 5000 year of cultural development have given us untold material wealth, but that doesn't automatically make us superior.

No, but the fact that the last 5,000 years of cultural development has drastically increased our survivability does automatically make us superior.

I happen to think that the ability to survive for any relative period of time also ha a bearing on the success of a species

Well that's a rather unhelpful consideration, given that every single species alive on the planet has survived for exactly the same length of time. given that everyone's equal on that count, that particular value is rendered irrelevant.

and as yet the jury is out in terms of how and if we will survive as a species much longer.

Such doomsaying has very little basis in science at all. Nothing is going to threaten the human species any time in the near or even distant future. None of this, of course, has any bearing on culture.

Major achievements, sure, but are they enough to keep us living on this land indefinitely?

You appear to have already decided the answer is no. What we're waiting for is some evidence to justify this position.

How so? Have you been following the water debate over the last decade? Have you seen the water problems Adelaide faces? Do you remember Howard's cynically motivated ploy for a Commonwealth takeover of the basin, and why he would needed to have done something like that? Or the fact that even after Cubby Station went into involuntary administration, it is still insisting on selling its water rights? Or the perpetual bunfight between VIC, NSW and QLD? You're dreaming if you think the MD Cap has solved the MD crisis.

I don't believe I said that. Nor do I think I said the MD Cap rendered all other water issues nonexistent. What I said is that it is a significant achievement and that it demonstrates that disagreements over water rights can be addressed.

Like, living sustainably on the land, an old land that doesn't renew itself, a land that suffers terrible cyclical drought problems, a land that heaves and creaks dangerously when subjected to industrial scale strip mining of its resources - whether be water, soil, forests or minerals?

By definition you cannot live sustainably on a land that doesn't renew itself.

 

[bit_pattern]

The question is, what is your point?

Well, that's one way of avoiding things I guess.

You would be incorrect.

But rather than correcting me your tactic is to make single line retorts that explain nothing?

200,000, but carry on.

Again, that's one way to avoid the debate I guess.

No, but the fact that the last 5,000 years of cultural development has drastically increased our survivability does automatically make us superior.

Ah, and this is the critical point. 200 years out of 5000, it is highly debatable that our current trajectory will allow us to survive on this continent for another 200, let alone 5000. Which, I guess, was the point you were looking for in the first paragraph.

Well that's a rather unhelpful consideration, given that every single species alive on the planet has survived for exactly the same length of time. given that everyone's equal on that count, that particular value is rendered irrelevant.

Uh, say what? Tell that to the crocodiles. Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're getting at here or something because some species have definitely survived longer than others. But that aside, call me anthropocentric if you will, but I care about the human species. I'd like to see us survive and prosper, I think we have a lot to offer.

Such doomsaying has very little basis in science at all. Nothing is going to threaten the human species any time in the near or even distant future. None of this, of course, has any bearing on culture.

What do you consider "near"? You have your head firmly planted in the ground if you think there aren't significant risks to the human species, in the short, medium, or long term perspective.

You appear to have already decided the answer is no. What we're waiting for is some evidence to justify this position.

Well, I'm still waiting for ANY evidence, whatsoever from you, or your "side', since you are talking in the plural now.

I don't believe I said that. Nor do I think I said the MD Cap rendered all other water issues nonexistent. What I said is that it is a significant achievement and that it demonstrates that disagreements over water rights can be addressed.

Yeah, well, Ive never said they can't be addressed either. I'm saying they're not being addressed at the moment, and there are a damn sight more problems that aren't being addressed than are.

By definition you cannot live sustainably on a land that doesn't renew itself.

Well, no, Aboriginals managed to for at least 40,000 years.

The evidence isn't relevant because it doesn't actually address your point. And the attack wasn't directed at me.

No, it was directed at the person who called me "self hating Socialist bile", or something to that effect.

Your claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Nice diversionary tactic, again, way to avoid the debate!

 

[Akhenaten]

More Wild Weather Forecast Tomorrow

27-Apr-2010​

Despite being close to home, the Australian waters are not doing Jessica many favours as she looks set to encounter more extreme conditions tomorrow as she heads towardsTasmania, on the final stretch of her solo around the world voyage.

A large low pressure system is due to sweep south of South Australia tonight and Wednesday morning which will create huge seas and more gale force winds.

Maximum wave heights into Wednesday evening may exceed 12 metres, which is as high as a three or four storey building. While the winds will ease on Thursday, the swells are expected to remain strong.

In order to avoid the worst of the weather, Jessica has headed north today. This will delay her arrival back into Sydney, but safety is the first concern of Jessica and all her shore crew.

The good news is that conditions should improve towards the end of the week, as Jessica heads towards the south coast of Tasmania.

Jesse's Website

 

[lionking]

I don't put a great deal of weight on anecdotal evidence, myself (did I mention I'm an anthropologist ), I think it is more instructive to stick to quantifiable evidence.

But the great majority of our Aboriginal population don't live in isolated communities, there are plenty of sizeable communities that simply don't receive the same services that equivalent white communities receive.

Where? Western Sydney has more aborigines than anywhere else in Australia. Where's the lack of services there? You are full of assertions and have shown no proof of any of them.

 

[gumboot]

Well, that's one way of avoiding things I guess.

It's not an avoidance, it's a genuine question. You came here and plunged in with a rather emotional rant about how Australia was doomed. Now you're agreeing that they're addressing problems of concern - something you originally lambasted Australia for not doing. If you're in agreement that Australia is addressing these problems, what exactly is your point?

But rather than correcting me your tactic is to make single line retorts that explain nothing?

I corrected you with a one line remark. Your assumption about how I value culture was way off the mark. What more needs to be said?

Again, that's one way to avoid the debate I guess.

I'm just keeping the facts clear.

Ah, and this is the critical point. 200 years out of 5000, it is highly debatable that our current trajectory will allow us to survive on this continent for another 200, let alone 5000. Which, I guess, was the point you were looking for in the first paragraph.

Not really. See above for the point in the first paragraph. (And I see you've now made another more specific claim without evidence).

Australia's cultural heritage dates back to Ancient Greece, and has existed for all of that time. It will continue to exist even if Australia goes kaput. That's the neat thing about culture.

Uh, say what? Tell that to the crocodiles. Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're getting at here or something because some species have definitely survived longer than others.

All animals originated from the same point in time - we'll call it year "0". All animals currently living can directly trace its evolution back to year "0". Therefore all animals currently living have survived for the same length of time. Our "species" distinctions are arbitrary separations of various stages of these animals' evolution.

But that aside, call me anthropocentric if you will, but I care about the human species. I'd like to see us survive and prosper, I think we have a lot to offer.

Except white Australians, presumably, who have nothing to offer other than the destruction of their environment?

What do you consider "near"? You have your head firmly planted in the ground if you think there aren't significant risks to the human species, in the short, medium, or long term perspective.

To our quality of life, or even our civilisation, certainly. To our species? Not at all. The human species has shown itself capable of subsisting in the absolutely most extreme environments earth has to offer. There's no potential event that could push all of earth beyond our survival envelope, short of a planet-destroying collision with an asteroid or other space body.

Well, I'm still waiting for ANY evidence, whatsoever from you, or your "side', since you are talking in the plural now.

I don't have a "side". You came here making rather extraordinary (and inflammatory, given the subject of the thread) claims. Myself and others are simply asking you to support those claims with some sort of evidence. Once you've done that we can see if there's any grounds for a debate.

Yeah, well, Ive never said they can't be addressed either. I'm saying they're not being addressed at the moment, and there are a damn sight more problems that aren't being addressed than are.

And yet in the lineage of the first point of reply in this post you had agreed Australia was addressing these very problems. Now you once again reverse your opinion? And you wonder why I ask what your point is?

Well, no, Aboriginals managed to for at least 40,000 years.

No they didn't. Either they simply weren't using resources fast enough to yet reach depletion, or your claim that Australia is a "non-renewable land" is garbage. Like I said, it is impossible to live sustainably on a non-renewable land. By definition. Sustainability requires you to remove resources at equal to or slower than the land's rate of renewal. If the renewal rate is zero, as you claim, the allowable rate of resource removal is zero. Which means you cannot survive off the land.

It's really quite straight forward.

No, it was directed at the person who called me "self hating Socialist bile", or something to that effect.

That description was addressed against your post, not you.

Nice diversionary tactic, again, way to avoid the debate!

Not at all. I am merely refusing to allow you to use logical fallacies to avoid supporting your original assertions. You are indeed the one using diversionary tactics.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK boys and girls, that's it. Have fun with your thread.

I'm done here.

Congratulations.

 

[Audible Click]

I'm with Akhenaten. This used to be an interesting thread but with this derail it IMO should be moved to Social Issues. Bye.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Instead of leaving, can we have this ridiculous derail split and moved by the moderators please?
I have asked for same.

AAA