by Russel Norman
Peter Dunne is the first politician out of the blocks to defend payments made to the New Zealand Superfund confusing the rollercoaster fortunes of the Superfund with the survival of superannuation as we know it. His statements are unhelpful.
Government superannuation payments are guaranteed. A strong economy with a broad and equitable tax base is the only reliable way of ensuring the Government can meet our future superannuation liability. The New Zealand Superfund was only ever set up to help pay the superannuation bill through the prudent investment of Government surpluses. Now those surpluses have turned into deficits, it’s remarkably imprudent to be borrowing to fund investment abroad.
The Greens support temporary payment holidays from the Superfund during difficult economic times. Why should we be investing $20 million in nuclear weapons manufacturers abroad when we could be investing that money into productive assets here at home like trains and home insulation? As the current Minister of Finance is already grasping, we need to stimulate green jobs now to create the kind of sustainable wealth needed for our economy to prosper into the future. It’s a strong sustainable economy that will protect government superannuation forever.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Russel Norman on Wed, February 25th, 2009
Tags: Dunne, green jobs, nuclear weapon, NZ Superfund, superannuation, Zealand Superfund
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Russel and I are in agreement on an issue. God I hate that, when it happens
On the plus side, it probably pains Russel a wee bit also
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“investing that money into productive assets here at home like trains and home insulation”
Do tell how putting someone’s money into a pension fund that subsidises both of them will help pay for their retirement income? Rail is a black hole that never returns a dollar for a dollar spent on it, and the problem with home insulation (beyond state houses) is in incentivises people to not spend on it themselves – it socialises the cost of a largely private benefit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It makes sense to temporarily stop SuperFund contributions. No point borrowing to invest, as generally you have to borrow at a higher interest rate than what you can earn through investment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My comment on this would be suspending Superfund does IN FACT put Super Annuation at risk. If the Superfund does not have the necessary dollars and cents in it come the time of need (baby boomers) the argument will be that unless we cut Superannuation rates, or shift to some form of privatisation in that area the payments will come in the form of tax increases. And we know how the NZ General public react to taxes!
While I do agree the Superfund should NOT be investing in unethical investments, and the majority should be invested in New Zealand, I simply don’t think a payment holiday is going to help, given the associated risks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
libertyscott, I think you’ll find National’s own ‘stimulus’ package involves investment in the rail. Hardly the black hole you might think… it creates jobs and in the years to come with ever increasing petrol rail will again become a centrepiece, even if it isn’t there yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The thing is Natural High, when you’re having to borrow to invest you actually end up worse off that if you just took a break.
Think of it like having to take out a personal loan to put money into a retirement fund. Sure you want to do everything you can to put money into that retirement fund, but if you have to pay more in interest in the personal loan that you make back on the investment in your retirement fund then you’re actually going backwards.
Continuing to spend $2 billion a year on the Super Fund when you have to borrow that money doesn’t help future pensioners either. They may have a bigger Super Fund, but they’ll also have a much bigger level of government debt to pay off – the interest on that debt is likely to be greater than the return on the Super Fund so you make a loss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah but the cost of halting payments in a scheme that is designed to give big returns over the long term is fatal. Its much like KiwiSaver. Continually paying into it regardless of the cost will result in bigger gains in the end. Arguably the gains attained from the greater funds in the Cullen Fund will negate the costs.
As said, my fear is that if we halt it the Cullen Fund might never get back on track, and the implications of this are far reaching. The shift to KiwiSaver is arguably already a move towards the somewhat inevitable trashing of universal superannuation.
I certainly do hear the arguments of the cost, but the benefits or rather the costs of doing so (in a non-monetary sense) are greater in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, and remember to take the 2 billion in the context of the total funds in the Cullen Fund. It’s not simply 2 million that you are loaning to invest, its in the context of the total fund.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel
I must disagree,mostly.
The super fund has a medium investment horizon, about 15 to 50 years. (I would have to check their charter to know for sure).
The government can borrow quite cheaply. And there are *a lot* of distressed assets out there in the global economy that are going very cheap. It is reasonable to expect that money invested now by the fund will have *very* high return over the next decades.
To invest the money in NZ is foolish as the purpose of the fund is to hedge some of the risk in the NZ economy.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russell…. you say “we need to stimulate green jobs now” you mean ‘they’ don’t you?
Remember you wasted my vote by refusing to be a part of this government.
I do agree with your thoughts though.
Liberty… I think the benefits of improved insulation are ‘socialised’ as well. Less power generation to screw up our rivers/air/skyline. Less health cost from cold/damp related illness. More education for kids at school instead of at home sick. In fact, in the case of private landlords, the equation is the other way around; the cost of improving a rental house is private (landlord) but the benefit is socialised (tenant).
Bliss… if you are so savvy @ picking the bottom, that you are prepared to borrow to invest, then you are a guru indeed! Dollar cost averaging with available funds would be a great strategy, but to borrow…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam, you mean risk a rift in the Green Party due to a minority of conservatives who believe a National Party could ever represent Green values?
The National Party is not compatible with the majority of Green Policies, and the decision to not side with National was made on this basis as I understand it. And thank god. At least now when the next 3 years destroy our social security the Greens can proudly say they stood by their values and didn’t compromise what is important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, yes, what is important. Green issues or red issues? I vote green, but can I vote Green if the Greenz persist in prioritising social issues and remaining outside of government, be it Lab or Nat. The purpose of a political party is to GET INTO government, otherwise you are just a lobby group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A lobby group who are a tax-burden to the workers….who didn’t even vote for them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Except that a good deal of the country did vote for them, so they are legitimate. I believe the Green political movement’s ultimate aim is not to be in Government. And a political parties ultimate game does not need to be either. I would say influence is. And if enough people vote they have influence. In any case, I would like to see a Labour Green Government. Not a National Green Government. National is the anti-thesis to all that I believe in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And give it a rest BluePeter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I would like to see a Labour Green Government. Not a National Green Government. National is the anti-thesis to all that I believe in.”
Another Green party member who does not give a toss about the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What bollocks, big bro. Labour’s record was certainly bad and they did almost nothing significant on environmental issues until their last term. What was done then was mainly with Jeanette. Then the Nats came in and as part of their urgent programme and without proper public involvement – without hardly any MP involvement since no one could get the legislation before it was being voted on – reversed most of the environmental gains Jeanette had won. And this week, Brownlee continued this assault on the environment by announcing he would scrap the Energy Efficiency Strategy that Jeanette worked so hard on.
So, as someone who obviously cares so much about the environment, exactly what part of the Nats programme do you think the Greens might want to work with them on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I find that pretty much just insulting big bro. Why don’t you head over to Kiwiblog or something?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Natural….. You have laid your cards on the table, well done. I just can’t agree with you. I can just imagine the Greenz coming out with those statements @ election time! If that’s the grand strategy of the party, the Greenz are screwed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Natural,
>>Except that a good deal of the country did vote for them, so they are legitimate.
As a lobby group? Thought they were being paid to govern?
>> I believe the Green political movement’s ultimate aim is not to be in Government. And a political parties ultimate game does not need to be either.
The taxpayers are paying for governance, not a lobby group. That’s what parliament is. If they’re not doing that, or have no intention of doing so, then they are redundant.
>>I would like to see a Labour Green Government. Not a National Green Government. National is the anti-thesis to all that I believe in.
Why’s that, then? My guess is you’re a net beneficiary of other people’s money, and you love being told what to do by political…and I use this word lightly…”elites”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
February 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
>> The taxpayers are paying for governance, not a lobby group. That’s what parliament is. If they’re not doing that, or have no intention of doing so, then they are redundant.
I think the main thing taxapyers pay oppositiojn parties for is to scrutinise legislation and regulations through the select committee process. Unfortunately, not much l;egislation seems to be going through that route at the moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Natural
If it is true the Green party has no intention of being in government, then say so during election campaigns.
Or are you suggesting they lie?
So which is it, Natural?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>l;egislation seems to be going through that route at the moment.
National have a mandate for these changes, namely the election. I’m VERY pleased to have a government that does what they said they would do.
I’d be concerned if they pushed through under urgency outside the 100 days, however. And will say so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I am saying is that some day there won’t be a need for the Green Party. And I think that is not made a secret? If the Greens goals are achieved, what further reason for existence should they have? You might want to look into this a bit further if you believe that the sole aim is to be the Government. Its not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If government is the aim of the Green party then they need to adjust their sights!
If it isn’t, then they should get out of the way so someone else can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>If the Greens goals are achieved, what further reason for existence should they have?
I think you’ll find their social agenda is top of mind….
>>Its not.
Fine. Then they won’t mind saying so at election time. I look forward to that…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because I suddenly speak for the Greens? No. It is my interpretation although I doubt there would be many that would disagree. If Green Kaupapa can be ingrained in New Zealand culture, and the public then I would consider the job done. Though under a national government all we’ve done so far is take steps backward, therefore I don’t anticipate that ever happening. Therefore until then of course the goal is Government, because there you can exercise considerable power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So samiam, your perspective is Governance at all costs? So regardless of if GOvernment presently would involve going against what you believe in?
I am shocked how easily you would turn on your principles for a taste of power. That reeks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But the Greens have NEVER been in government, that reeks. You took 6% of the vote and threw it away. Maori & ACT take 3% and have their feet under the table of government. Representation is what it’s about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Back to the topic of borrowing to invest in the Superfund, I agree with Rascal: Future returns on the stockmarket are uncertain. Future interest payments on the debt is not.
A friend of mine in debt came to me for advice. Did I tell her to borrow more to invest on the stockmarket with the hope that she might be able to pay it all back and keep the change? No. I told her to pay the debt off as quickly as she could. Why should the Government behave any differently?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nothing to do with either topic but I like it anyway…
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy
out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another
person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to
anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody
else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to
work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when
the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend,
is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing
it.”
—Dr. Adrian Rogers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A very left/right analysis. Both sides take unlimited resource use for granted and both are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We’re not running out of resources, Valis. It’s a blatant lie.
If you want to look after the environment, promote economic growth, property rights and technology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, someone is lying, we agree on that at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lol @ BluePeter. You are what is wrong with this world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’ve been lied to, naturalhigh, and you’re not smart enough to question the lies they feed you.
I, on the other hand, have science:
“Perhaps the biggest reason for environmental gains in Mexico from freer trade, however, would result from increased economic prosperity. To some environmentalists, this seems backwards. Many argue against trade because it encourages industrialization, which in turn, is blamed for pollution. Yet the experience of Western developed countries is just the opposite. Over the long term, emissions eventually fall, even as economic growth continues to increase. Several years ago, Hoover research fellow Mikhail Bernstam detailed what he calls “the environmental split of the 1970s and 1980s”–a divergence between consumption and pollution involving Western market economies and the socialist world. He found that resource use and discharges began to decline rapidly in those nations with competitive markets, even as economic growth, continued. In contrast, during the same two decades, consumption and environmental disruption were rapidly increasing in the USSR and European socialist countries even though their economies slowed down and eventually stagnated.”
They’ve convinced you that economic growth leads to environmental degradation. That is an outright lie. The opposite is true.
The reason they are lying to you is the underlying agenda is anti-capitalism, anti-free trade, anti-business and anti economic progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – “We’re not running out of resources” ??? What planet do you live on? The evidence is overwhelming that this is exactly what we are doing, and it is further exacerbated by the increase in population, which means that the diminishing resource fact looks even worse from a per capita resource pie perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I, on the other hand, have science: ”
No BP, what you have is the totally erroneous assumption that Greens want to emulate the failed politics and economics of Eastern European countries, when nothing could be further from the truth. The straw man is back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the 16th century, they worried that we’d run out of wood. What happened was higher wood prices led to conservation, and the search for alternatives i.e. coal.
They also worried about running out of whale oil.
The same thing is happening now. We will never run out of oil, but we may well reach a price point where we shift to alternatives. I’m with the greens on this – I love green energy technology advances, even if the numbers aren’t quite there yet. Speaking of which, thin film solar just broke the $1 production/watt barrier
The doomsdayers have always been with us. These days, they call themselves “fundamentalist Christians” or “greens”. They’re all worshipping some abstract God, and drawing unscientific conclusions.
When resources are allocated by markets, increased scarcity leads to higher prices. Higher prices limits consumption and encourages the use of alternatives. All of tehse adjustments will increase future supply relative to demand and make it highly unlikely a resource will be depleted.
I could go on, but I’m sure you get the idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make BP?
If it’s the point that poverty causes environmental degradation, then I see where you’re coming from. One only needs to read the Brundtland Report (the founding document of sustainable development) and realise that the elimination/reduction of poverty is considered a crucial step in improving environmental outcomes.
However, running almost against that is the undisputed fact that more developed economies have greater resource use per capita. China clearly does not use the same amount of resources per capita as the USA for example, while African countries use a heck of a lot less resources per capita than China. The general conclusion to make is that if another 3 billion people had our standard of living then the resource demand on the planet would be significantly greater.
Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the environmental outcomes for the planet would be significantly worse. I guess that all comes down to people in developed world countries doing whatever they can to reduce their per-capita level of resource use. After all, unlike those in developing world countries, we generally have a choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>want to emulate the failed politics and economics of Eastern European countries
You tend towards it. There aren’t many green policies that don’t involve banning something (state control) or taxing something (more state control).
But the point stands even if that wasn’t so. You strongly resist economic development, yet it has been shown that economic development leads to better environments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>have greater resource use per capita.
Right, but only because they are abundant and cheap. If demand increases, it pushes up the price, leading to decreased usage, more efficient usage and the search for alternatives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
* in a world free of subsidies, tariffs, and other such distorting factors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s a greater resource use per capita because the environmental externalities of such a use aren’t recognised. A classic example being CO2 emissions. That’s why they’re so cheap.
And the problem is that increasing the price of these resources is just going to push them out of the reach of the poor. For example, grain prices increasing should mean that less is consumed. What this means is that more people end up dying of starvation in poor countries, not that people just eat less grain in richer countries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury,
Is that such a problem? The world is far to overpopulated as it is.
Environmental externalities are an example of a subsidy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it’s extremely callous to not be concerned about mass starvation in third world countries, even if the world is overpopulated. One has to balance environmental concerns with social concerns.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indeed jarbury, you hit the nail on the head. Yes, exponential population growth is a significant issue, as is the resource depletion that occurs because of our obsession with exponential economic growth, particularly by those whose population has stabilised. But neither of these significant issues relieve us of our basic duty to the human condition. Callous is the right word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>What this means is that more people end up dying of starvation
Only if the government fails in their duty. Endemic, of course.
They could have a variety of food sources and regulate their population size based on available resources. Perhaps they would become more self sufficient and stable.
What are you proposing here? The west reduces consumption considerably and Africa increases theirs to fill the vacuum?
What happens next, hmmmm?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> exponential population growth is a significant issue, as is the resource depletion that occurs because of our obsession with exponential economic growth, particularly by those whose population has stabilised.
BUT, exponential economic growth fosters an increase in demand for commodities right accross the board. So isn’t there a real danger that our planned obsolescence\throwaway society will eventually require a larger population to meet these demands? (Psychologically, there must be a minimum period that we need to use the mobile phone, computer, car et cetera before replacing them!)
Indeed , many believe that New Zealand is underpopulated anyway. Also many of those countries that are currently experiencing ‘stabiliised to declining’ populations are concerned and are exploring ways to reverse the trend. What is meant by this attitude? Is it feared that there is too small a market for the growth machine?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the solution in the short-term is to allow a much easier flow of people around the world. Clearly there are parts of the world that can’t support their populations (Sahel region in Africa for example), and then there are parts of the world that could be considered under-populated – like New Zealand and in the future parts of Europe whose population is static or declining.
Obviously the xenophobes would throw a mental about this proposal. And I do agree there are huge issues that would arise from such huge population movements, such as integrating a large number of people from very different cultural backgrounds. But what’s the alternative?
The ‘green revolution’ which has minimised the expected food crises that we had in the 1970s and 1980s is predicated on cheap oil (for fertilisers etc.) Once cheap oil disappears, and we have biofuel competing with hungry mouths for grain…. we have a HUGE problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know multi-culturalism has the feel good left seal of approval, but having lived in Britain, I’m not sure it’s a good idea. It works fine if cultures are similar in terms of values, but the further apart those values are, the more trouble you get. In any case, it should be done very slowly and carefully to ensure workable integration.
If global warming does deliver the catastrophe some envision, I think I take the Lovelock view. There’s little we can do about Africa and the third world. They’ll perish.
What is a supportable global population? Is it a good idea to prop up populations who cannot self sustain now? Is it a good idea to redistribute wealth to countries that have populations with a pre-disposition to breed like rabbits?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
European countries “bred like rabbits” in the 19th century and then again in the 1950s and 1960s. That ‘pre-disposition’ has changed has it not?
Pretty callous to write off 900 million people in Africa just because they wouldn’t “integrate” with existing populations. Clearly the way to reduce birth-rates is to improve economic propserity and to improve education. A lot of the people in Africa having eighth or ninth children are doing so because they completely lack access to contraception.
It’s a good question to ask what a supportable global population is. Perhaps 2/3rds of what it is now? But we can’t exactly just go around and kill every third person to make the population supportable (or how about just all of Africa and half of Asia to make life easy). If African countries can be helped out of poverty and assisted with education then we will see birth-rates there lower. It happened in European countries, it’s happening in Asian countries and it would happen in African countries. It’s call the demographic transition model.
Over time those African people would become more educated and economically propserous, so would be valuable migrants for parts of the world with decreasing populations. If the trend to lower birth-rates (generally 1.2-1.5 in many European countries) spreads throughout the rest of the world then over time you would settle down to a supportable global population.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jarbury,
The difference is that the european countries were able to exploit other countries to aquire the food they required. If the third world countries cannot then they shall perish; The world is far over-populated and a human life has no inate value, get used to it.
New Zealand is over-populated already; even if we wernt, why should we take in more people unless they somehow enhance our standard of living? Remmeber every extra person is another mouth to feed from our limited production capacity.
If they cant save themselves they can die, there is no reason to help them. if their solution is to invade us then so be it.
As global warming worsens billions will die, there is nothing we can do and nothing we should do without compromising our own ability to survive.
That said, I do agree with helping them to acheive a economy and health standards that will bring about population stability. Reestablishing zimbabwe as a breed basket should be the first step. i do however doubt that it will be able to happen; europe transfered because of economy and health but there was a lag in social change around birth rates so the number of people bloomed rapidly for a generation or so, however because of the imports this population was able to be supported and the health and economy sustained long enough for social changes to take place, in africa however the boom would be so massive and the imports so miniscule that the standards would be impossible to maintain and the result would be a massivly boomed population anf billions dieing of starvation as africa and the world go well past carrying capacity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As far as I know death-rates has reduced fairly significantly in Africa over the past few decades. It’s gone two stage 2 in the demographic transition model of high birthrates and lower deathrates, hence the extremely high population growth that’s happening in many African nations.
I do think that it’s callous to just abandon our fellow human beings in poorer parts of the world. I don’t believe that New Zealand is over-populated, clearly we export a lot of food so therefore we could feed more mouths if required. As long as our urban areas grow in a sustainable manner (ie. through intensification and not sprawl) then I think a bigger population could have many benefits.
Obviously you don’t want to have 200,000 immigrants with few educational qualifications to land on your doorstep in the course of a couple of years. But if effective programmes can be put in place, I think that we can help out. We’re probably going to have to help our Pacific neighbours once global warming floods Tuvalu & the Tokelaus, but that’s another issue completely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Breed basket! love it sapient!
Jarbury, life (and death) are callous. Evolution’s success is founded on callousness.
It’s not good or bad, it’s just a fact.
My father spent 40 years going around the sheep twice a day at lambing time saving and nurturing every poorly ewe and lamb. He did it out of kindness.
Upon his retirement my brother took over and promptly went on holiday at lambing. He’d return at the end and pick up the dead.
Guess what, within one generation, animal health flourished, suffering diminished.
So who was cruel and who was kind?
I can’t solve the worlds problems, I can help NZ be a great place.
That does not include more people. It isn’t xenophobia, it’s just plain numbers.
People are the problem and this is one of the great dilemmas of the current watermelon status of the Green party. The social issues must, at some level, clash with a sustainable environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient: I do not believe that “there is nothing we can do and nothing we should do without compromising our own ability to survive.” We can do a lot. We can’t attempt to feed another billion people from what New Zealand produces, but we can increase how much food we export (and reduce how much we import). As an example, switching from dairy to grain farming in some areas would increase the amount of food produced while cutting down on the water and energy requirements.
We can also develop technology and improve the access to that technology in the third world. Simply making some of our knowledge (health and medicine comes to mind) more accessible would be a help.
We can also reduce our own impact and leave more of the Earth’s limited resources to these countries. We should be building wind farms and installing wave-powered generation instead of building a gas-fired base-load power plant and expecting to be able to import Natural Gas to fuel it.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury,
As samiam said; life is callous. infact the only reason chimpanzees and ourselves ever developed substantial inteligence was to better manipulate others, the side effect of such eventually allowing us to grasp tools and become a truley fearsome creature with the ability to change its claws and utterly decimate all else.
Why should NZ try for carrying capacity, the more people we have the smaller the buffer, if we reduce that buffer to the smallest possible amount then WE starve with the slightest drought or flood.
They are at stage two, but they also have a substantial way to go, war,and famine. With those eliminated the population would skyrocket still further which would result in more and more people.
Trevor,
Yes we could switch from cows to grain, but not much else. Remmember we have cows because they are profitable, if we switch to grain we will have less profits but the same, if not more, requirements for nutrient replacement from abroad; if we cannot afford that replacement then we are heavily compromising our ability to maintain productivity and support the masses both domesticly and internationally.
Technology, huh? About the best thing we could do with our technology for africa is quarantine them and increase the incubation period and effectivness of ebola. And then, once the population is decimated, provide the infrastructure you talk about thus allowing africa to easily support, at a high standard, its entire population.
The world is fracked, there is no way we will stop global warming, there are too many self-interested parties. We need to focus on our own survival.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some technology that would help is the combination of solar power (including solar thermal power, which can deliver power at night) and reverse osmosis desalination. Many areas do not produce as much food as they could because of a lack of fresh water. This is one solution.
Another technological solution is the seawater greenhouse.
If we don’t help them, they will try to get here. If we are not seen as helping them, other nations will be less willing to help defend us. How can you guarantee that any wars in those regions won’t spill over to either us or those countries that provide us with some of what we can’t make or supply ourselves?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor,
Lol, I have actually made those exact same arguements on this forum before; Im just entertaining myself by playing devils advocate for awhile since this forum is presently devoid of any decent debates
In reality we are but a small nation and are unable to defend ourselves save through the good will and diplomacy of other nations, it is in both our best interests and that of the human species as a whole to ensure that there is a decent standard of living for all so long as that standard is within the carrying capacity of gaia. Such a standard both decreases war and makes accesable new resources at greater quanities than previously, allowing the human race to advance faster and further, particuarly when there are more scientists and engeneers being produced.
There are many projects which have the ability to support the masses and to enhance the carrying capacity as we will need to until the world population finally drops below replacement level. I personally like the Vertical Farm, though there is a desert greenhouse with massive potential and a floating solar, wind, and OTEC power plant with possible greenhouse and water purification that I cannot remmember the name of.
Personally I think it more important that we focus our efforts on the pacific than africa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow fascinating debate here. Really cuts to the heart of some major enviornmental dilemmas that really need some good debating. And all from a post about superannuation… who’d have thought?
I do understand the “sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind” theory. However, where do you draw the line? At what point do we start knocking people off at 80 because they’re a drain to society and using up valuable resources?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can we cut about 15 years off of that and start tomorrow?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think it matters very much where we provide assistance. The important thing is to actually provide assistance and not adopt an “I’m all right Jack” attitude.
However for various reasons, it is likely to be cheaper, easier or more appropriate to assist those in the Pacific. For example, language difficulties are less likely to be a problem. Logistics are easier. Even time zones are more compatible. Developing wave-powered generation may be very useful for ourselves and the Pacific, not very useful for most of Africa!
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can think of a number of people considerably under 65 who are a drain on society. I can also think of a number of people over 65 (or 70, or…) who are still contributing more than they drain and are therefore still productive members of our society.
Besides, you would never get a bill passed to adopt such measures – too many politicians are getting close to or are over this threshold! And even those who aren’t, have friends or relatives who would be affected.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can only hope you’re not serious, Sapient. Once you establish a regime capable of what you’re advocating, all hope for any sort of environmental progress, let alone any other progress is doomed. This is evil talk. Are you in the Party? I’m disgusted if you’re serious.
What you say about evolution is entirely true, but no justification for any creature that has the capability to reason. It doesn’t matter what mindless process led to our existence, we now have a responsibility to transcend our genes in this regard.
samiam:
“People are the problem and this is one of the great dilemmas of the current watermelon status of the Green party. The social issues must, at some level, clash with a sustainable environment.”
This thinking is twisted in a number of ways, but I’ll just say that I know of no one in the Party who thinks population growth is good. Of course when we suggested even that families should be provided information about population issues when considering their family planning, we got raked over the coals. The problem here is not us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But the point stands even if that wasn’t so. You strongly resist economic development, yet it has been shown that economic development leads to better environments.”
Rubbish BP. We understand the value of economic development to under developed countries and the positive effect that has on the environment. You wouldn’t be able to prove otherwise. Economic development in a developed country is entirely different, but we don’t even oppose it in this case. We only argue that we do it in a sustainable way, recognising and not externalising the environmental costs and finding ways of developing economically that don’t add to global problems. That you don’t believe these problems exist is no reason to misrepresent our position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
Like my arguements supporting active eugenics it is mearly to try and provoke a reaction and prehaps ethical and pragmatic debate. By no means do I support it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I used to advocate killing off religious folk, until Frog growled me, now I have SEEN THE LIGHT!
Valis, I suspect the aforementioned folk are the ones you clash with when you mention not breeding like bacteria. Any thought of population control is pure ‘devil talk’ to them that want to ‘save the world’ via their particular imaginary friend. Er um God help us if they ever succeeded!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am relieved. It seems an odd technique unless people know what your doing. Perhaps I missed that part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, another thing religion must answer for, but that’s not the only reason people object. It is considered the height of nanny state, totalitarian even, to suggest there should be any policies at all that interfere with the very personal decision of how many children to have (unless the shoe is on the other foot of course, as right wingers have no problems offering “advice” to the poor in this regard). I can understand why people are offended by this, though makes the dilemma even worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>This is evil talk.
‘Evil’ is a very loaded term, Valis. Firstly, our mutual friend has already openly declared that he/she takes some delight in being ‘devil’s advocate’ in the blog debates. Secondly, even if Sapient is serious in this instance, your assertion that ‘we have a responsibility to transcend our genes in this regard’ may be too big an ask for our species. Sure, there may well be a small percentage of humans that have (6 to 10% perhaps?) , but the vast majority could be incapable of taking on such a responsibility towards their fellow creatures and future generations. Hence ipso facto ‘crude’ evolutionary processes will prevail.
It is a reasonable thought. The Greens’ philanthropic-tinted glasses may hide a reality that is more in tune with the likes of Diogenes’ misanthropy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So anyway, what’s the story Sapient?
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/02/22/dylan-horrocks-cartoon-s92a-copyright-blackout/#comment-71835
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ha, sure, I don’t accuse someone of ‘evil’ lightly, but I don’t think it inappropriate when they are casually talking about actively killing millions of people. Fortunately, Sapient has not lost his mind.
Transcending our genes may be hard, but it is possible. Further, it is our only hope. If you’re willing to give up on this, we may as well stop trying, including debating issues on blog sites.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
Sorry, somehow i managed to miss the replies to that other thread, one of the costs of actually studying internally again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Transcending our genes may be hard, but it is possible. Further, it is our only hope. If you’re willing to give up on this, we may as well stop trying, including debating issues on blog sites.
But wait! A salient difference between the Environmentalists and Libertarians is that the Libertarians generally embrace a virtually omnipotent human species, whereas the Environmentalists caution that humans are limited in their ability to control the natural environment. (Admittedly this distinction is sometimes portrayed as an ethical, rather than a physical limitation dispute.)
The ability to trascend our genes sounds more Libertarian than Environmentalist. Doesn’t an environmentalist have the obligation to discover our limitations and work in with these accordingly? Am I making any sense?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry no!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh well……. Libertarians stress Man’s ability and needs, if necessary, at the expense of Nature. Environmentalists stress how mankind’s activities can be compatible with nature (natural processes).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sure, that wasn’t the bit that doesn’t make sense.
“The ability to trascend our genes sounds more Libertarian than Environmentalist.”
We either have this ability or we don’t. It’s not a political question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>We either have this ability or we don’t. It’s not a political question.
True, but neither is the question whether or not the climate is changing
Aren’t ‘political questions’ more concerned with what action (if any) we should take to accomodate whatever is thrown at the polis (or its equivalent) by nature, other societies et cetera?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sure, but to argue for any particular action, we must first be able to take that action. If we can’t transcend our genes and mindless evolution, the political discussion is moot and we are doomed. Fortunately there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK: If we have the ability to transcend our genes then it is an ethical question as to whether or not we help our felow man .. and how we help him: for example, by direct state intervention or by indirect incentives. Presumably in both cases the Greens would include a fair dollop of environmental protection.
However if we do not have this ability all may not be lost! Perhaps a good dose of humility may go a long way in helping us appreciate and indeed enjoy the wondrous unverse in which we exist.
Yes, our dear Friend ‘BP’ would doubtlessly comment that this constitutes the rantings of a religious zealot. But the absence of passion generally attracts cynicism. And I contend that it is easy to be a cynic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Perhaps a good dose of humility may go a long way in helping us appreciate and indeed enjoy the wondrous unverse in which we exist.”
But doing this is also transcending our genes in the way that I mean it.
Going to bed now. I reason that the universe will likely still be here in the morning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, I see! Your ‘transcending’ is somewhat weaker than mine
I was thinking that we had to become ‘Supermen’ ——omnipotent or thereabouts. You only require that we have relatively minor changes in attitude. And, I agree with you that there is evidence to show that this is not beyond the bounds of possibility: Afterall racial and gender equality seem to be within our grasp these days…. far different than in previous centuries.
Of course there are always the naysayers such as John Gray:’Black Mass, Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia,’ who claim that this so-called progress is illusory and that we will sooner or later once again take on a less Humanitarian stance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, nothing like omnipotence required, only the ability to subvert the “desires” of our “selfish” genes. (I quote the words only in an attempt to avoid the problems Dawkins encountered in using such metaphors, though I suspect some people’s misunderstanding is deliberate.) We clearly have this ability, so if we resort to a survival of the fittest approach to life, we’re doing so by choice, not because, like other animals, we must. I haven’t read Gray’s book, but it is certainly possible he is right. We have choices, so we can always choose wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, Kjuv,
We cannot transcend our genes without neutralising their relivance. The only way we can transcend them is to replace what they influence, e.g. chop off our arm and attach a mechanical arm in its place.
The gene detirmines everything we can be and what we are most likley to become, our environment detirmines what we will become within the constraints of those genes.
As humans we are always motivated primarily, and only, by what we perceive to most enhance the continuation and replication of the greatist body of our genetic material. Even addiction to P or, in my case, to knowledge serves this purpose, though it may be through convoulted logic or be very abstract to the aforementioned purpose.
What you all seek, this avoidance of our manipulation of others, this peace among peers, etc, etc; it has nothing to do with “trancending” our genes, what it necessitates is insight. Peace and harmony will come about when all people involved recognise it as serving their purpose more than war and competition.
The idiot spreeds their genes by breeding, another recognises that their genes are common to many others and works to ensure their survival at the sacrifice of spreading a small number of genes common only to themselves, a smarter individual still recognises that all primary gaian life shares genetic material and all gaian life is interdependant and that the greatist way to ensure the proliferation of their own genes is to ensure the greatist proliferation of gaian genes.
As to choices; we have choices only so much as a program with a if..else if..else statement has choices. Free choice is an illusion which is a physical imposibility in a universe with non-random motion of particles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I will not get into a debate about free choice on a blog – got things to do today. Suffice to say I do definitely believe that not all we do is predetermined.
As far as our genes go, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, and I certainly didn’t mean that our genes are irrelevant. They define what we are of course, and to a much larger extent than we might have hoped (particularly by those on the left who used to see our salvation in the blank slate). But the most unique way in which our genes define us is our very ability to understand that they define us. Because we can understand what we are and how we got here, we can also conceive of things being different. I don’t mean making ourselves different, I mean deciding not to be driven solely by those forces that drive the other animals.
The most basic way we can be seen to subvert the “will” of our genes is in the decision many make not to have children.
“What you all seek, this avoidance of our manipulation of others, this peace among peers, etc, etc; it has nothing to do with “trancending” our genes, what it necessitates is insight. Peace and harmony will come about when all people involved recognise it as serving their purpose more than war and competition.”
Agree entirely, except that this IS transcending our genes as far as I’m concerned.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
Trancendace is to go beyond.
How is it trancending ones genes when one is doing exactly what the genes instruct you to do?
Humans are motivated to continue their genes by their genes, their cultural understanding of how this is best acheived alters how they will go about this but it is still doing exactly what the genes demand, only using our superior intellect to gain more insight and create more heuristics.
The concept of altruism is nothing but a recognition of this, one will sacrifice something of themselves if it promotes the replication of their genes more than it inhibits. If you are in a hot-air-baloon with three siblings and it is going down unless the number is reduced to three, then the logical choice is self sacrifice as that better promotes the proliferation of ones genes. even altruism is selfish. humans even come pre-programed for suicide if the group is low on resources and they are the lowest denominator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To go beyond, that fits what I mean well. I think you’re being a bit pedantic, but never mind, forget the word.
My point is simply that our ability to reason means we don’t have to do as genes expect from other animals. Again, if an animal gets the chance to copulate, it will simply do so, while we may decide not to (even if its with great difficulty). Other animals are doing it mindlessly and that is the gene’s trick. We can thwart it’s “intentions” because we know what’s going on.
Evolutionary altruism is still just a mindless way of keeping the gene pool going. Many species demonstrate altruism, but they don’t think about it any more than they think about copulation. It also applies mainly to very close kin, certainly not between separate populations. Human altruism can be said to work similarly with family, but I’m not sure I’d even call it altruism when talking of the world as a whole, but rather about the wisdom to see we sink or swim together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Valis says: We have choices, so we can always choose wrong.
Ah! Nice to see that you don’t subscribe to ‘ethical relativism’. Or is it? For does that mean you believe in absolute values of ‘Good’ and, dare I say it, ‘Evil’? More significantly, does the Green Party tend to subscribe to ‘absolute moral values’? (Note ‘Values’ creeping in there
).
I’m pursuing this line of questioning because there is a strong tendency for those outside the Party (myself included) to regard the the Green Party as being strongly supportive of ‘Political Correctness’. Now most forms of Political Correctness, among other things, tend to claim that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are relative to the culture in which one participates, or the religion in which one belongs et cetera. I feel that you need to be an ethical relativist to hold such views. What is your take on this? Can a card carrying Green Party member really hold absolute moral values?
Ipso facto shouldn’t there be an intimate conection between the views of a ‘principled’ political party and its moral precepts?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think most Greens are ethical relativists. I’m not and want to believe there are at least a few absolutes. But as usual, there is a lot of grey in between the extremes. In particular, I think most Greens feel there should be a basic respect for other cultures. This doesn’t mean anything goes, but it does mean not jumping to conclusions and taking the time to understand different practices and worldviews before condemning them. We do get annoyed with knee-jerk reactions from people who seem so sure of their cultural superiority that they won’t even try to see another perspective.
Political correctness is similar. Sure, it can be over done. But there’s usually a reason why a PC issue has become an issue. I’m afraid so many who bemoan something as PC are actually hiding behind this to avoid having to confront the underlying issue. So the thing is to think first – always good advice. Greens would also distinguish between what’s acceptable institutionally vs privately, with a much higher bar for public discourse than among friends. The real issue is having respect for people.
But to bring this full circle, there certainly is a connection between principles and moral precepts and I’d say the Green Party, which wears its principles on its sleeve, could only do so if these were underpinned by a strong sense of morality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PC, to me is all about not giving or causing offense.
I personally try the opposite approach i.e. I live by the premise that offense is something that cannot be given, it can only be taken.
Far too many people in this world are just itching to take offense at the slightest excuse. I say they need to build a bridge..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for your comments, Valis. As usual they are both balanced, well considered and hard to fault
What is especially comforting is that you take the trouble to answer even the most zany or esoteric queries!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)