The Price of "Productivity", is the Planet's Environment!

The Price of "Productivity", is the Planet's Environment!

As we're all doomed, it seems safe to say it....

The call is "Deconstructing the 'needs' behind 'productivity'".

"Needs" such as jobs, income, taxation, rent, food, consumerism, economic wealth and advantage..., in today's western, industrialized "IMF-ized"" cultures, all add-up to eco-BAD occupations. "Eco"-bad in terms of the ecology or environment.

Hence, the eco-BAD future!

Therefore, Reason may demand that, to STOP! the environmental meltdown, we should cease all but the very basics of "productivity"!

"Productivity" should NOT be the bottomline in government accounting, but "Ecological Sustainability". These two are near-as in exact contention, because productivity places ever-increasing, accelerating, exponential demand on the environment.

But the orthodoxy says we need to be productive? Why? To supply jobs, goods, economic security to individuals.

But, as the latest economic meltdown shows, there is NO economic security in raping the Land and resources dry, consuming resources and energy unnecessarily and excessively, over-investing, AND over-producing.

In fact, over-producing is as to blame as the big banks for the current and forecast weather and climatic changes.

So, where do the People draw the line between useful and sustainable productivity, and abusive, polluting, unsustainable produce-to-consume over-productivity?

Perhaps governments should be less ready to provide assurity and financial support or protection to ANY unnecessary production? Less willingness by government to partner private contracts in development, production, and infrastructure of superfluous, unnecessary, trivial, cheap (!) products, goods or services would surely help slowdown the ecocollapse?

"Cheap" gets a "!" because far from cheap products making everyone's lives better, easier, more convenient, "cheap" products add more than most other things, to overconsumption, waste, pollution, etc.

And that's just in their being made! (Joke!) Then there's the time/energy waste factor, when the product fails, it's storage or disposal, and the energy required to be wasted in acquiring another one.

If the government is serious, they should be on the case of slimming-down at least, the obese scam in most all of today's products - PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE!

I heard a chap on the news 'tother day talking about the future scenarios of difference in how Human's have to change. He said "...but we have to leave it to the would-be producers (he was talking about farming) to decide WHAT they grow..." (paraphrased).

For how long? I ask....

Such timid lines from "egg-spurts" fail the People. Because if Humans are to have any sort of future on Earth, they will one day have to be very careful about what and where they grow. Most Aussies are still wrapping their heads around the importance of the delicate balance (which has been lost), yet only 221 years ago was the order in Australia, in the natural ecological cycles.

The biggest failure is that Aussies still don't realise, that the environmental calamity forthcoming is because of the enormous damage our "cattle culture", "nuclear housing", energy-over-consumption-centric society has done and is still doing to the environment.

Most predictions suggest this is going to have devastating effects upon everything we know.

Therefore, if we pursue the same course of "productivity", we're doomed. (Oh! We are anyway....!)

Food and a Roof! Laughter and Love! ...are pretty-much all everybody needs.

A cult-free education, True-told History and Economic Land and Rent Security will get us there.

Let us pray, more and more factories close down from here forward, and more and more Collective Farms begin.

"Agrarian Socialism", Mr Kevin Rudd.

"Agrarian Socialism".....

AND ON THAT PERTINENT POINT....?

With all the cash being splashed into the pool of "housing" by the "the Rudder" PM and ALPs, let's pray they keep a cool head. For all such ideas end-up being stung for a squillion or two by the shonk and sleaze of which ever industry they enter.

"Plans" for development thus far in Australia, have fallen far-far-farking short of weighing ALL the factors. Blown budgets have been de riguere for an age or three, and confusion is the advantage to those who just want to be recognised and profit for contributing to any bold government plan, yet have absolutely NO Insight or Genuine "Vision".

Thus, housing, industrial, suburban estates are left to rot over the decades, and it becomes clear that the "plan" failed to take into consideration the longer term effects, costs, expansions etc.

Governments regularly fail to properly do an "All Things Considered" appraisal of plans big developers, entrepreneurs and speculators put to them. But even when they do, as often some cunning minor gliche sneaks through the review and stuffs the works ten -plus years later.

The REALPolitik line goes something like..... Science has determined that much of the environmental breakdown starts at and is most destructive at the microbiological level. Delicate balance between plant, animal, microscopic, chemical and even atomic levels is CRITICAL if the environment is to be expected to support over 5 billion Human Beings. Introduced species, practices, exploitations of the natural environment over the past 221 years has begun a fracturing of the organic balance of the Land sea and air in Australia, such that the rot will accelerate endlessly to the near-complete reduction of the organic environment we live in and depend wholly upon.

So what kind of housing does the government have in mind, if most all things we take for granted "...in the manner to which we were accustomed...." are about to fail us?

Can the government guarantee PERPETUAL security and minimal-levels of maintenance of whichever housing, roads, infrastructure plans make it through the process?

What excesses prevail in constructing your typical three-bedroom nuclear family home, for three to say..., seven family members?

What is wasted in these "traditional" Aussie homes' construction.

"Space", for one. Area. As something like 40% of adult Australians now live on their own, can the government factor-in such considerations in trying gallantly to reduce homelessness, and/or make the idea of a "Home" (?) more accommodating, thus making for a less stressed life?

How relevant and current are the "traditional" housing models, in terms of providing tenants with the fundamentals of.... Food and a Roof, Laughter and Love?

It is far past the time for all our governments to leave the housing corporations outside of the conference rooms, when attempting to reinvent Australia, now that the sheep has died.

Collective Housing? Sure, it's bloody luxury mayte having a big house, to swan around in. It IS good for one's Soul to be able to stand straight and move around freely, without even the aural constraints of a low ceiling or nearby walls.

But most of us can only be in one room at a time, and more so when we have need for privacy, sleep, ablutions and... (any Christian would write "prayer") Meditation...

But were a person offered secure tenure, secure, moderate, long-term guaranteed, non-market-inflating rent, modern, efficient facilities..., but with perhaps options of just one or two or three rooms to occupy, on the same block as a number of the same kind of dwellings, with a Community building for social, practical and functional activities, and who doesn't want to chain themselves to a death pledge of a mortgage for that veneer of "security" found in the "private" housing market, and as well was given all the assistance and cooperation to learn about and employ themselves and those around them in cultivating the land around their buildings for food production, light industry (Gotta have a SHED mayte!), (extended) family education, fun and harmony, while able at minimal cost to themselves, the government and the environment, to earn and be productive, that-is..., GENUINELY Productive, would they not be doing the very-near-very Best for themselves, their Country and for the Mutha Planet?

This, is REALPolitik Human/Environment Planning, Mr Kevin Rudd.

Government owned nuclear family houses is REALBad planning and an unsustainable economic burden Humanity can no longer afford.

Not only in terms of the environment, but, as the last year of the global economic crisis has exposed, the current housing and LAND USE "traditions", every one of them, it MUST be said, devised purely for speculative advantage and profit, and with NO consideration ever given, in the development of the concept of nuclear houses and their suburbs, to their sociological, environmental, psychological and long-term negative impact.

I've still got a "plan" for a 200 person, 120 feet or so high, 200 feet square sustainable housing and food-production pyramid somewhere?

I'll dig it out shall I Kev!?

The point IS , that we have not been using the most valuable asset we have - THE LAND - economically. This relates to the amount of space (square feet, hectares) we waste satisfying trivial AND... inflated desire demands, as well as the energy in the construction itself, but also in the production of the materials, their freight, etc.

So housing has to be re-integrated with the business of living - that is - growing your own food, clothing, family, etc., on-the-same-block, and with the natural environment around us.

Who needs a car?

All those rural properties the fed government is buying... just waiting for a Movement to get out of it's 40 year oppression......





AUM


Omaxa bin Eartha
Outlaw for
Global Land, Tax, Cult and Drug Law Reform.
Forests of Godolonia,
Uluruba.