Author Archives: Moth

Re-pitching an idea; To do differently, we need to think differently

With the depressing by-election results in WA, we have reason for concern. The by-election handed over the balance of power to a government riddled with broken promises, doublespeak (eg. be careful if the PM wants to be your “best friend”) and agendas aimed at making life easier at the top at the expense of the rest and also the environment.

More concerning is how backwards this government is on a problem that the rest of the world is owning up to; namely, climate change. There are huge expenses that come with allowing climate change to continue unmitigated. Australia already has a harsh, fluctuating climate.

Maybe this government believes Australia will be sufficiently cashed up on coal money as a buffer. Maybe their perspective myopic; stuck on just the next three years.In any case, their attitude and policies regarding climate change is insufficient. We will suffer for it.

Many of us feel that these are not public servants, but private appeasers. They do not represent us, nor do they work for policies to ensure the Australia the average Australian would recognise.

They seem to have forgotten us.

A while ago, Mike Marriott and I built “Generation Adaptation”. While there was not yet enough inertia for the project, there are elements of GenA that could be of great value.

Primarily, the forum. It now seems clear that, at least for the next three years, we will need to fend for ourselves. But that doesn’t mean we need to do it in isolation.

We can build a community.

I want to crowd source ideas and potential solutions to help individuals and communities reduce their living costs, their carbon footprint and improve their lives simultaneously.

I believe it’s possible – or else I wouldn’t have wasted all these years harping on about climate change and sustainability. We need to think differently. In my own life, I’m already making numerous steps in that direction.

Yet, for it to work, I pitch the following to my readership; If I was to make a type of forum on NewAnthro, would you help me make it a valuable resource and discussion platform for all? It would require not only interaction, but SHARING and encouraging others to also get on-board.

One person is a monologue. Two, a dialogue. This would need a community actively engaged in bucking the tend. While I focus on Australia, this platform would be international.

Case studies! If someone provides an excellent case study, it should also be a post (written by a reader, or by myself if it’s easier). The most important this is to show that this is possible, not wishful dreaming. I would think of this forum as proof that how we live isn’t the best it can  be. We can achieve more only if we are willing to think differently.

If you like the idea, please “like” this post or comment. Also share this page to encourage others to do the same. If I can get a small community ready to begin the project, I’ll try to develop the infrastructure required.

The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)

Countries that accept the science… well, that rules Australia out. Apparently, climate change is “crap” in perhaps the most vulnerable country.

Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism

I couldn’t help but think of our current government.

Can we trust scientists?

Why I will not be watching Russell Crow in “Noah”

Sorry to be off topic…

Yes, I am one of those annoying people who picks movies to pieces. Of course, when the movie is fantasy, I am capable of suspending disbelief to enjoy the movie. In the case of the new movie, Noah, however, that isn’t an option.

The reason being that there are many people who still take the fable as truth – some going as far as to waste their life away on a vain effort to find evidence.

How can I be so sure that the story of Noah arises in the Middle Eastern dreamtime? Because of engineering. Because of biology. Because of earth.

Of engineering.

Engineering is not my field, so I’ll leave it up to others. In short, a wooden boat of such a size defies the known properties of the material and cannot be replicated by engineers.

Of biology

Now into a territory I’m more familiar with, I will need to break this down to many points to show just how idiotic the idea is.

Scale

No boat could be big enough.

It would have appeared otherwise to the all-too-human author at the time, with their limited experience of life that existed at the time of writing in other corners of the world and of all the life that had ever previously existed.

Even assuming all the dinosaurs and mega-fauna forgot to buy their tickets and assuming genus, or even families were the “kinds” described, the line would still have been too long (eg. ranging from the many millions with species down to the many thousands of families – which in turn would require evolution along the lines of Pokemon, that is within a generation or two, to account for all the species today).

Worse than that; the floods would have either been saline or fresh, meaning that the SS Noah would have needed aquariums for all species of the opposing environment.

And this point is a catch-22; if we grant that the waters were saline – in turn leaving the massive per-historic marine reptiles and modern marine mammals off of the ark – well, then this boat needed to carry a year’s worth of water for all those on board.

Fresh flood waters demands tanks big enough for the likes of blue whales and their buddies.

Resources

The problem of thirst isn’t the end of the problem with resources.

We must also consider what we could forgive the writer for not knowing; trophic levels. That is to say, animals eat each other.

To support just the big carnivorous cats and dogs over this period, we couldn’t have just two of every species – but rather whole herds of prey species. These sacrificial herds were never mentioned.

This in turn magnifies the problem of feed for the herbivores, as the prey herds will need vast amounts of food and water to maintain the meat-eaters.

Assuming that the floods were fresh, thereby saving Noah the issue of carrying the water, he would still need to catch hundreds of tons of krill prior to the flood (because the freshening water would have killed them off) to feed however many baleen whales he needed to carry to “evolve” into the species we see today.

As soon as you factor in food, the already absurdly small boat looks even worse.

Breeding

Again, we could forgive an author a few millennia ago for being ignorant, in this case, of limits to viable population size.

Sure, a few breeding pairs of a given rodent might take off in a new environment, but that’s not guaranteed. We only need to look at how many times rabbits needed to be introduced to Australia before they exploded.

When you are talking about a species that may only breed once a year or even longer, the chances that a single breeding pair would suffice to save to species is effectively shot.

And I’ve ignored the problem of inbreeding here, which would have played havoc with subsequent generations.

Having a singly breeding pair of every known species (or genus or family), Noah would have been lucky to have any persist and flourish.

And now the real kicker

To sprinkle salt into the wound, the year on the ark in itself means everything.

Not only would he need to carry all the animals and all the food (and potentially water) to survive the year, but also for much longer. Worse than this, he would have needed to carry tons of seed.

No seedbank (ie. seeds in the top soil) would remain viable for such a period under the flood. Apart from the osmotic pressure – or high salinity – caused by the flood itself and apart from the silt collection from a year of turbulent water movement (remembering that this silt, the creation would tell us, led to all the fossils), the seeds would simply expire.

So, Noah would have needed herds of prey to release after the flood and enough food to support these as well as the herbivore breeding pairs while he reseeded the entire global terrestrial landscape with all the plant life we see today.

None of this is mentioned and must fail the laugh test.

Of earth

This problem is one noted prior to Darwin even learning his alphabet. No-one has found a single example of a fossilised duck mingled with Triceratops.

We could take this further and state that there has never been fossilised evidence of a giant ground sloth being killed by a t-rex, of a human kill of any dinosaur or of pterosaur competing with a large eagle (noting that they share the same niche).

That’s because these species existed in different geological periods.

The flood silt didn’t conveniently cover different groups in sequence. Of everything, the fossil record is both the most damning and easiest to understand to anyone who has any actual interest in reality.

If these ancient stories are true, show me the fossils.

Back to the movie

Sure, it looks dramatic, but with so many plots holes, the story fails before it even begins. Yet, for the true believer, it would, absurdly, be cementing to their faith. This work of fiction will be watched by the faithful as though it were some documentary!

Of course, Russell won’t be shooing off any dinosaurs or else the critics would rip it to shreds.

Which brings me to the crux; there is a way out for the faithful. It is the only way out and one few who want to sound intellectual is likely to mention; magic.

“Oh, the boat would break? God held it together.”

“Oh, the boat wasn’t big enough? God made the animals shrink for the trip.”

“Oh, there wouldn’t possibly be room enough for all the food and water? God ran a meals-on-wheels service.”

“Oh, there’s a problem with salt or fresh water? God made all aquatic life temporarily salt tolerant.”

“Oh, two individuals don’t make for a viable population? God again…”

“God… God… God…”

Geeezus! Give up with the mockery of science and admit to placing faith in ancient stories over genuine certainty derived through critical analysis and get on making Adam and Eve Dino parks. If you’re willing to suspend the laws of the known universe to make your story fit reality, you are no longer talking about science – which is all about those laws. There’s nothing wrong with that, just admit it.

I don’t care. Live and let live.

If only they could admit to their warped, magically inclined reality, we could dutifully write it off and stop pretending to take it seriously.

Then, perhaps, I would allow myself to suspend disbelief and watch the epic, yet terribly scripted, movie.

Taxes and Welfare are not the problem in Australia

Our public representatives need to learn a thing or two about building healthy societies.

Why we should be angry about carrying Qantas

Today’s news from Qantas is being geared up as a gloomy one. Arguably locking themselves into an escalating war with Virgin ought to put much of the blame on the shoulders of the “brainiacs” on their board.

But that is no reason for us to get angry. We lost our airline back in 1993 when our elected bodies thought it prudent to start a rock-bottom garage sale of public assets.

Today, the Qantas mask hides a bunch of international part owners. Hopefully, we are now no longer mourning this and again, this is no reason to be angry today.

We ought to be angry with any suggestion that our taxpayer dollars can be held ransom to the investment activities of a private entity.

A debt guarantee does not benefit the public in anyway. Should their investments fail, the taxpayer suffers. Should their investments prove lucrative, the shareholder profits. There’s no benefit for guarantor, in this case, the taxpayer.

It is like the government handing over a blank check to a broke gambling addict.

If we are supposed to care about Qantas with any patriotism, stick a few old planes in various aircraft museums around the country. Don’t gamble with the Australian public pocket.

The age of entitlement is apparently over for Australians. This should also span big business, regardless of what façade it wears.

Qantas is no longer the Queensland and Northern Territory Air Service. Qantas is an international private entity. Profits are not our revenue. Qantas jobs are increasingly going abroad as well.

Should it sink or float is for the shareholders and senior board to work for and not the Australian public.

Those who own the information…


The similarities to the current situation here in Australia are obvious. Science, especially climate science, are best ignored within the political arena. Playing at war with refugees is also a good chance to such down public awareness. This is all an affront to democracy.

How to erode an economy and look good at the same time

The story below is certainly close to me. I grew up in Morwell, with my father working for CES.

The point here is the exact opposite to what politicians say. Privatization does not lead to increased competition with benefits to the community. Privatization strips local wealth and the quality of service. Privatization provides a small bumper in the budget but erodes long term financial revenue.

This is why Hockey suggested our retirement money should pay for what he should be paying for with tax payer dollars. The government is poorer largely because of the big cash grab of the former Howard government via their privatization actions as well as an inability to plan ahead in key areas.

Privatization does nothing for the community. Privatization is little more than an easy option for the fiscally inept. It’s a way to make the books look good without doing a good job. With the ramifications too far into the future, responsibility is never truly realised.

Senator Ludlam’s take on the Abbott government and his vision for WA


I can’t say I align with the Greens or any party in general. However, Ludlam couldn’t have hit the nail on the head more perfectly.