I watched Jared Diamond (Californian Professor of Geography, Pulitzer Prize winner for ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’)on the SBS Insight program last night. He is in Australia promoting his new book ‘Collapse’ and was interviewed last night with an audience of mostly farmers about the state of Australian agriculture including the drought.
I was a bit confused by his comments. They didn’t seem consistent with what he has written in the new book.
I have reviewed the chapter on Australia (Ch 13, Mining Australia) for the upcoming June issue of British Journal ‘Energy and Environment’. There are some extracts from this review on the IPA website.
I asked my 16 year old daughter (who hasn’t read his book, but watched the program with me) what she thought. She commented that he seemed vague and was good at avoiding the questions.
In ‘Collapse’ Diamond contends that the Australian environment is generally unproductive and has been irreversibly damaged by European farming, forestry and fisheries practices – and is on the verge of collapse.
I agree that the history of Australian agriculture and fisheries includes some examples of collapse and near collapse, but also examples of spectacular renewal.
Given his book is about “how societies choose to fail or survive” I was surprised that the book doesn’t include discussion of the importance of secure property rights, environmental activism or the role of modern technology.
Diamond did make an interesting comment on ABC Radio National on Monday morning. He said that in writing the book he discovered the important role of the elite in complex societies with collapse of societies resulting when the elite “insulate themselves from the consequences of their own actions”.
I thought of how removed Australia’s elite are from the consequences of many of the recent political decisions to close down industries in rural and regional Australia including fishing and timber.
I have looked for a ‘take away message’ in his book and just keep remembering his advice in the last few paragraphs of the last pages (pg 559-560). He suggests that we should all donate to environmental groups, for example WWF. And I wonder, so the elite can keep campaigning?
In reviewing the chapter on Australia I did look at some of our fisheries statistics. Fishery status reports are available at the AFFA website.
I was concerned to learn that the Southern bluefin tuna fishery is shared with Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea and New Zealand. The total global catch peaked in 1961 at 81,605 tonnes and was then in general decline for three decades. Since 1990 the total catch has ranged from between 13,231 tonnes (1994) to 19,588 tonnes (1999). Stock assessments suggest that the parental biomass is low but stable and unlikely to recover to target levels unless all countries agree to abide by national allocations as determined by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. While Australia apparently operates within its allocation, Japan has not agreed to operate within its allocation, and Indonesia does not recognise the Commission.
I have not found transcripts of any of the interviews he has done so far during this visit to Australia, but he did speak on ABC Radio National in January 2003. At the end of this interview he suggests Bill Gates believes our environmental problems will be solved with technology.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Patriotism is the last refuge…and so is using the term ‘elite. The ‘elite’ haven’t shut down rural/regional fishing and forestry. These are the effects of Market Forces as dictated by Globalisation…….something the mob on your side of the fence embraces rabidly. Please, stop using science to disguise your ideology.
Hi Patrick,
“Elite” was the term used by Diamond.
And global/market forces didn’t close down the various timber industries (most recently in the Pilliga-Goonoo) – it was enviornmental campaigning that drove politically expedient decisions. Same for line fishing in the Great Barrier Reef – viable industries closed down/reduced greatly in size directly/indirectly by campaigning.
I beg to differ. The driving force that has shut down rural/regional fishing and forestry is not the campaigning in itself (particularly under the very loose pretense of environmentalism), but is rather an epidemic abuse of statutory authority for bureaucratic gain.
Activist organisations play the part for their administrative puppet-masters, but the tactical advantage of taking from the rural poor and giving to the metropolitan rich (particularly in terms of representativeness) invests in a Labour gerimander that ensures re-election and by implication furtherance of a political climate more conducive to bureacratic growth.
Jennifer, I also watched Jared Diamond on Dateline on SBS as well and also attended his public lecture in Sydney during the recent writers festival.
What sets Diamond apart from people like yourself is that he is paid “to be himself.” In doing so, his tensure allows him to conduct research objectively, unlike those who are in the employ of the “free market” IPA.
When scientists lose objectivity, they cease being scientists. Stop pretending to be one.
Hi Dave,
Sounds like your just into ‘blackballing’ see http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA97B.htm and/or my post of 2nd May.
Best,
Jennifer, Here is a quote from the link you provided:
” Scientific work should be evaluated on its merits (that is what peer review and replication of results are all about), not on ‘conflicts of interest’ that may or may not exist.”
When questioned about some of his findings on Australia, Diamond pointed out that his research was thoroughly peer-checked, and mentioned that a variety of experts had examined his findings prior to printing.
But the fact remains, from reading some of the things you publish, and from looking at whom your clients are, you work for powerful and vested interests. You are probably aware that you are listed on the “Source Watch” link to the US Center for Media and Democracy website. I wouldn’t be proud of that!
Dave,
I get the impression that you think, that I think and write, what others tell me to think and write? That a powerful vested interest pays for this blog site?
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am passionate about my work and believe in what I do. I am motivated by ordinary people and by the wonder of our natural environments.
I fund this site – it has only been going about 6 weeks. But I may seek sponsorship at some point in time?
If there are errors of fact in what I write here, for The Land, for the IPA Review, for Quadrant or anywhere else (perhaps in the Courier Mail?) – please point the errors out to me. I want to get it right.
Hi Jennifer,
I also watched the program last night and was expecting to see our river system (or lack of) get a mention. Bill’s comments must have been edited out due to the pro ‘efficient cotton’ industry slant. I was also dissapointed that there was a distinct lack of positive stories shown of which there is plenty.I do agree with Jared in that we have caused a lot of damage to our land but I believe that ‘people’ using livestock as a tool will be the solution as well. I also disagreed that properties have to amalgamate and get bigger to be more profitable, as I know of plenty of examples of large operations that have shocking records of land management. But maybe I’m just being ’emotional and ignorant’!!!!
Well, Jennifer, despite my earlier criticisms, I’ll line up on your side this time.
Patrick: science and ideology are inextricably intertwined. Your attempt to present yourself as being politically objective only betrays your true political motives.
Dave: as Jennifer appears unwilling to explicitly deny the influence of ‘powerful vested interests’ over her work, allow me to do so: there are none! I think I speak for all right-thinking people when I say Jennifer is a paragon of the scientific art. Even if Jennifer was connected with groups like the IPA, attempting to diminish her reputation by drawing attention to this link is merely a paltry attempt to distract us from the issue at hand: Jared Diamond. If you can’t keep on topic, don’t comment, right Jennifer?
That’ll teach ’em.
Production line 12, A paragon of the scientific art … it is going to take me some time to get my mind around that!
I am the Director of the Environment Unit at the IPA as any google search will show.
As I wrote in my very first blog post at this site:
“For some time I have remarked that if environmentalism is to deliver tangible environmental benefits, it will need to change. In my view environmentlism needs to be redefined in accordance with how natural systems actually operate and to embrace, rather than reject, technological innovation.
Much of my work has been dismissed by self proclaimed ‘progressive environmentalists’ on the basis that I work for the IPA and am therefore conservative and wrong. But I consider myself a social (as well as environmental) progressive.
Furthermore the IPA seems to have been one of the few organisations in Australia prepared to promote open discussion by providing a counterpoint on important environmental issues. On Line Opinion was also quick to publish my alternative perspective on the basis there is a need for real debate on these issues.
I hope that through this new blog (that I start with some trepidation) real debate on real environmental issues can be further faciliated. I am interested somewhat by what motivates people, but my real interest is in the facts-of-the-matter and how policies and systems can be put in place that will deliver real environmental protection and benefit both nationally and globally.”
And thanks to those who take the time to comment at this blog and in this way get the discussion going.
The view that all coomentary is politically motivated is pure Marxism.
This is the essential argument between scientists as Jennifer and I, who assert that objectivity is paramount, and others who reject scientific objectivity.
The latter is dismissed by a trivial example:
Assume an Inuit, European and Negro on a beach near Byron Bay in nothern NSW. Assemble all three at dawn and ask each in which direction the sun will rise the next morning.
As expected all three will point to the same direction.
This is an objective fact independent of political inclination or rhetoric. It essentially refutes the belief that scientific objectivity is impossible.
But what if they’re all Marxists, Louis?
It is disingenuous, to say the least, to claim that Jennifer asserts the objectivity of science when in the very post above she nominates herself as a capital D Director in an organisation devoted to spewing forth political ideology.
As I’ve mentioned on this blog before, I don’t have a problem with people vomiting political ideology around the place, it’s the primitive expression of partisan views which I object to. Jennifer may be a paragon of the scientific art, but a paragon of the propagandistic art she is not. This blog besmirches Propaganda’s good name.
Surely the IPA can do better than this.
I have read the Radio National link and get the drift of what Jared Diamond is saying. Sounds like another doomster harking back to the utterly discredited “Club of Rome” rubbish from the ’60’s with this grafted on seductive notion that past societal collapses are due to environmental overstress. I hope I have not simplified that too much.
Of course the Greenland Norse were gravely disadvantaged by reduced solar output leading to the Little Ice Age (LIA) and much of high latitude Europe must have got a lot more brutish in those terrible decades.
Professor Diamond gives three other examples to illustrate this ecological collapse he is talking about, Chaco Canyon, Easter Island and Pitcairn Island but Hey Prof, get real, while these miniscule populations are interesting talking points, they are hardly signposts to the broad development of human societies. Diamond is right when he says as a species we like “warm and wet” while not prospering in cold & dry.
Montana is specified as an example of a modern society collapsing due to a whole range of environmental factors. He is quoted as saying, “Montana now has …. population decline.” Sounded wrong to me and sure enough population stats for metro and non-metro Montana on the following website indicate that the good Prof should check his numbers again.
http://niip.wsu.edu/montana/selindmt.htm
Of course Montana has had booms and busts like any resource based economy.
A more balanced view of the American west is found at this U. of Colo. website. http://www.centerwest.org/index.html
I just think that in most cases of collapse of empires other factors are dominant (yes I know Diamond mentions these too) such as, political & ruling class corruption failing to unlock national resources, military stupidity & misadventure, leading to a failure to compete or fight off better run more savvy neighbours, overemphasis on religion & rigidity, squandering of national treasure on unproductive ventures. Thinking of past empires, the Roman, Spanish, Ottoman, British, German-Japanese-Italian WWII Axis, Soviet have all passed into history and I can not see that environmental factors have lead the way.
Warwick, it might pay to do actually read Diamond’s thesis before attacking it (sadly I’m not surprised in the least that a global warming skeptic can’t even do a mediocre amount of research before mouthing off in public).
Your post has one of the highest garbage:word ratios that I’ve ever seen (and I used to read John Daly’s site).
Dave,
Just because Jennifer works for “powerful vested interests” (I’m assuming that this is true – I don’t really know nor care), it shouldn’t be a reason to dismiss her.
The scientific knowledge of the various environmental science skeptics tends to be very very poor. I’m not sure why it is so poor, but it isn’t bad just because some of them get paid by “powerful vested interests”.*
Generally it is best to critique their specific arguments (in the isolated cases of those who have read enough to make a coherent case) and ignore (or mock) the ones who are really out there.
* disclaimer, I’m paid indirectly by some large resource extraction companies, and I’m a big fan of the environmental sciences.
Warwick et al,
I was at Jared Diamond’s lecture in Brisbane last night. He spoke to 850 (a full house) at a theatre in the Brisbane Performing Arts Complex. Hearing him speak and answer questions helped me clarify what I believe to be his views on various issues. I took lots of notes but did not bring that note book with me to Blackall. When I am back in Brissy I will post some quotes on this thread.
Last night Diamond emphasised his belief that while, for example, the Roman empire may have eventually been defeated in battle, it was perhaps their mismanagement of the environment that weakened their armies/society. Not sure I have this quote/interpretation correct? Dave?
After only having a brief look at the Australian chapter of Jared Diamonds book, I won’t be too critical. After all I was interested enough to buy it. However I did disagree with a few certain points and a lot of generalisations. His comment about kangaroos being more suitable for the environment than hard hooved sheep and cattle is a commonly accepted myth. The hooves ability to break up our hard capped soil surfaces and break down dry matter are one of our best tools for allowing moisture penetration. As long as when something grows it has an adequate rest period before the
‘mouth’ end of the beast arrives. Also his persistance in partnering ‘overstocking’ with ‘overgrazing’ is another commonly held misconception. Country can be overgrazed without being overstocked and in fact can be overgrazed while being lightly stocked, as most of Australia has been through set-stocking. Our potential to lift current stocking rates and to improve our landscape is immense, but we have to radically change our long held beliefs and practices. That is where the trouble begins as people (most anyway) do not like to change.Maybe because it would admit being wrong, or maybe they are just uneasy about all that effort involved.
I have not read all of the book yet, but I do agree him with on the concept of civilisations
‘eating their way to self destruction’ or it at least being the percusor to the greed for more land etc and the causing of war. “The Future Eaters” by Tim Flannery made a lot of sense to me, although the global warming skeptics will probably disagree!!. Also Allan Savory’s book on Holistic Management speaks of it as well.Its a great book that has changed my life, and should be compulsory reading for anyone that even thinks that they are concerned about the environment.
“Man has walked across the Earth and left a desert in his footsteps”
Allan Savory talks of a “brittlness” scale which explains why some areas can reclaim after destruction such as in the South American jungle, as opposed to the middle east (or australia) which is more brittle and turns to desert. I like this theory as it is not ‘doomsdayer’ and we are capable of doing something about it.
But I’m just an optimist.And I’m a believer!!!
(I believe I’ll have another drink!)
Jennifer, You must have been having champagne for breakfast!!. But I will leave my arguement against the hideous GM threat for another night.
Your worst article in the Land yet……
Where has Dave Mitchell gone? He smears Jennifer by implying she writes lies for money, but when she asks for an example he disappears. Someone’s credibility is at stake here!
I have read Diamond’s book ‘Guns Germs and Steel’ which offers powerful insights in to the history of human societies. He is a brilliant scientist and writer. I have not yet read ‘Collapse’ (although intend to when I get some extra cash). I think that critics of Diamond need to read more of his work. The farmers on Insight had read only one chapter if that. Obviously they are going to react to criticism. It is important that people take the time to have a broader understanding of Diamond’s ideas and not just the bits that deal with their lives and businesses specifically.
On another site, you wrote an article about “Collapse” in which you wrote: “Diamond states that we import most of our food. This may be the perception, but the reality is we export much more than we import. Last financial year Australia exported (pdf file 625KB) fish, meat, grain and so on, worth $22 billion and imported food and beverage to a value of $6 billion.”
I felt it worth mentioning that he actually did not say that. Page 395: “Australia produces more food than it consumes and is a net food exporter, but Australia’s domestic food consumption is increasing as its population grows. If that trend continues, Australia could become a net importer rather than exporter of food.”
Seems like an odd oversight. I’m currently reading the Australian chapter and reviewing some of the critiques online; some of the other points you’ve brought up have seemed to be valid, but in this case you attribute to something that Diamond does not state.