Walter Starck grew up on, an island in the Florida Keys and began catching fish in salable quantities off the family dock at age five. At 6 he helped his grandfather build his first boat with which he began diving using a face mask.
He started scuba diving in 1954 (before scuba was a word). In 1964 he completed a PhD degree at the Institute of Marine Science of the University of Miami. In the process he determined that the world of academia was not to his taste so started his own business as well as a private research foundation. In 1968 he took delivery on a purpose built 150 ton research vessel, El Torito, and spent the next two decades exploring widely from the Caribbean to the Western Pacific.
Walter arrived in Australia in 1979 before boat people became unfashionable and established a home base on a 164 acre rainforest property on the north shore of the Daintree River.
His research interest has centered on coral reef biology and has included research grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research and National Geographic Society as well as various private foundations and individuals.
Walter has been a research associate of the Institute of Marine Science in Miami, the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, The Australian Museum in Sydney and the Western Australia Museum in Perth.
His wide experience of reefs around the world has encompassed the full spectrum of conditions ranging from heavily impacted to untouched as well as several opportunities for decade or longer familiarity with individual reefs. His views on reef biology derived from direct observation are not always in accord with popular theories.
But the articles that Walter now writes are increasingly read by practical environmentalists. His paper ‘Threats to Great Barrier Reef’ was the most popular online publication at the IPA website last year and shortened versions where published in ‘Go Fishing’ (Aug/Sept 2005) and ‘News Weekly’ (18 June 2006).
His presentation, based on the paper ‘Marine Resources and The Growing Cost of Precaution’, was a highlight of the recent Australian Environment Foundation Conference.
You can read more on Walter Starck’s perspective at his website www.goldendolphin.com, click Eco-Issues for a list of recent environmental writings.
Walter’s favourite quote is by John Maynard Keynes:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Quotable Walter quotes include:
“You are never so comfortable as when doing what you’ve always done but never so alive as when doing what you’ve never done.”
“One of the most important lessons of history is that most people most of the time are wrong.”
“The eco-bureaucracy has become a sheltered workshop for those afflicted by the saviour syndrome.”
“Environmental management is characterized by the application of hypothetical solutions to imaginary problems.”
“Ecology is above all holistic. Everything we do or don’t do has consequences. We can’t save nature by locking it up.”
Walter is no fan of environmentalism and I once jotted down this comment from him:
“Environmentalism is about much more than concern for a healthy environment. You could describe it as a quasi-religious bend of new-age nature worship, junk science, left-wing political activism and anti-profit economics.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This man is far too reasonable to be called an “environmentalist,” as the word stands in current usage. We need a new word. What word that might be has been here debated to no conclusion, and there’s no reason to start all over. Applause will have to suffice.
Love the photo. thats the way to present a graph.
Walter appears to be the real McCoy; other pundits from academia believe that ones existence is determined by the number of Google hits.
Walters quotes are absolutely priceless,particularly this one.
“The eco-bureaucracy has become a sheltered workshop for those afflicted by the saviour syndrome”
How true.
Impressive background and what an interesting life!
This site is certainly much better credentialled than any other I can think of.
I suspect he is yet another acolyte of Ayn Rand for whom profit and domination become a quasi-religious quest.
He should feel right at home here amongst the rednecks. Give his name and address to the Institute for Public Affairs. I’m sure they’d sponsor him for more fuel for their neo-con fires.
Nice to meet you Walter. I have been regularly visiting, enjoying and learning from your site for several years.
Shiller’s comment about “environmentalist” being perhaps a devalued label reminds me of one of my favourite quotes, from Tallyrand.
“It is an important function of Government to find new names for old institutions which, through usage, have become odius with the public”.
Now about the name varp …
Helen Mahar.
Varp,
One of the amazing things about socialists is their crass stupidity.
If a company manages to spend less than its revenue it is called profit but vilified.
If an individual manages to spend less than his income it is called savings and is worshipped.
Socialists never progress because they consume everything they produce and when the proverbial hits the fan, such as a natural catastrophe, they starve and die.
This is the main reason some of us reject your political philosophy – not because it is morally uplifting but because it cannot produce the goals it aspires to by the means proposed.
Those of us who save (and thus make a profit) have the means to cope with the unexpected.
Those like you who don’t have to either rely on our charity or as is the norm, steal it from us in the name of income redistribution.
You assume too much in your weakly naive little homilies Hissink. I’m neither right nor left, socialist or capitalist, but from your tone I hear those holy mantras so beloved of our new religious right – “Private Property” and “Freedom of Choice”.
Nothing wrong with gorge and puke consumption is there?
It’s your birthright!
The Future is Clean and Bright!!
Onward Brothers and Sisters in our Proud Ship of Steel!
Varp is the perfect poster-child for the post-modern neo-conservative movement.
Big government and welfare riding on the backs of those who work for a living. Collective rights instead of personal rights. Which means no rights, only duties to the collective hive. Domination by the green elite.
Varp, homo sovieticus is extinct, get a grip and move on.
Does Domination by the Green elite hurt ?
Do neo-cons have more fun?
Hissinkisms lead the ignorant up the garden path again!
“If a company manages to spend less than its revenue it is called profit but vilified.”
>> That’s net revenue, perhaps it’s positive cashflow, but not profit per se.
No-one vilifies that, ohh, except say for the recent boom in private equity investing where investors seek high debt levels to dodge taxes (debts offset elsewhere), so they minimise paper profits, extract concessions, and subsequently repatriate the real profits offshore. Laughing all the way to the bank in simple terms because they understand this difference and the limitations of national governments.
The other reason it’s not actually vilified is…
“If an individual manages to spend less than his income it is called savings and is worshipped.”
>> There’s a good reason for this. Higher domestic savings are positively correlated with economic growth and development. Hence the clever strategy of the rapidly industrialising Asian nations. They encouraged domestic savings with which to fund carefully planned and managed investments for export-driven economic growth.
Therein lies an inconvenient reality for narrow-minded free market proponents: under-developed countries need some degree of benevolent central planning to realise a state of institutional development from which markets can function effectively and efficiently.
It’s a bit ironic. Some ‘socialists’ saw free markets as an interim mechanism to arrive at a state from which more socialist mechanisms could then take over. Now we see that the absolute centre of capitalist powers lie in institutions which aren’t democratic (most corporations are centrally planned, hiararchical organisations with concentrated powers which lobby govt to achieve favourable policy and influence the masses through marketing propoganda and public opinion groups – all to benefit a narrow base of shareholders). And liberalisation experiments in the poorer countries have shown that equitable market economies don’t just spontaneously arise but need some careful, central planning to achieve.
This is the main reason some of us reject your political philosophy – not because it is morally bankrupt but because it’s misinformed, ie it focuses on the weather not the climate and misses the all-important larger contextual picture.
I disagree Pinxi, when the USSR fell and the countries once known as the Eastern bloc were liberated they embraced democracy and a free market philosophy with a fervour.
There is nothing like experience to give you wisdom.
hence their transitional path has been slower and far more painful for most than it needed be.
That region had a massive drop in health and life expectancy. Its wonderful talents, scientists etc struggled to eat or keep warm. A shot of H, cheaper than a coke in some parts & little else to do. Europe’s centre for all sort of illicit activities such as money laundering, car theft and other asset ‘converstions’, arms deals and human slavery. Rapid, unmanaged transitions such as theirs create ripe opportunities for corruption as occurred with their resource magnates etc. Now they are the cheap labour destination for manufacturing with europe. Some have internal struggles for more social representation eg Ukraine.
That region is hardly the poster child you seek. Conversely, they serve as a prime example within economics and political science of the point I made above rog. The poster child most often used for rapid liberalisation proponents are, contrary to their recommendations, the countries who actually carefually managed and planned the transition. Markets left to themselves will not deliver democracy (nor with equitable welfare) no matter how much fervour you have for rapid liberalisation.
Tell me rog, isn’t there an inherent contradiction between centralised wealth and power as we have in the current capitalist market system and the professed aims of democracy? The capitalist model is prey to similar problems as the communist-socialist system, with similar outcomes. Degrees of monopoly power and centralised influence arise in both, ie the human condition rears its ugly head. Both systems have markets, they differ in the extent to which they are formalised exchanges. So rog, your turn with all yr experience & wisdom, tell me, how do you get sufficient accountability into the capitalist market system? (there’s no denying that it’s needed).
Bugger off Pinx – you’ve obviously done them like a dinner and and found them to be totally hypocritical. I mean where do you get off – is it necessary to totally finish them off. These guys are an endangered species and if you were the conservationist you say you are you be more thoughtful of their feelings and precarious psychological position. It clear to anyone that free markets can only work in a completely controlled environment to prevent their excesses and it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that we need much more environmental legislation, greater participation of the green movement in board decisions and a higher taxation environment to be successful.
Capitalist market system – a tautology? Net revenue? Goodness what’s all this Pinxi, Neanderthal economics 001?
If Neanderthal economics 001 is too advanced for you Louis you should consider enrolling in Primordial Soup Economics 001 instead. Very simple exchanges, many agents, sans regulation. It’s pre-Gaia too.
As the great man said “It has been said that demcocracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried”(Winston Churchill)……..still waiting for the better options……..
And so he said, 60 years ago.
That quote is usually taken out of context and out of time. Churchill was concerned with the nature of the democracy and the potential for ‘supermen’ powers in the House of Lords. Imagine how much more concerned he’d be today, 60 years later, with the concentration of powers in global corporations and their funding and lobby activities.
Who said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”?
So where exactly are your other ‘systems’ that work so well?….the whole point of the statement is that whilst democracy has its flaws…its better than anything else we know about. Face it everything is governed by self interest……..better self interest in a ‘free world’ than one that is predicated by fear of ‘big brother.’
People that do ‘good deeds,’ do so because it makes them feel good. If doing it made you feel bad would you do them? The left does not have a mandate on caring…quite the opposite..infact more good surely comes from wealth creation than wealth redistribution.
Whilst large corporations are increasingly dominating the economic environment, it is still possible to establish competitive businesses if a ‘free lunch’ is found. Am I happy that we have only 2 real choices for supermarkets in Oz? No I am not! They are forcing up prices from what I observe…..but at some point if the profits get too large….then other companies will set up to get a slice of that pie.
The worst lobby groups IMHO are the NGO’s who run their own agendas and do the most harm to developing countries prospects.
If democracy is so bad…….go and live in Cuba…or…..?
My point is, how can you know the point of the statement if you take it out of context? Churchill was equally critical of potential abuses within democratic systems, ie the potential for superman type roles controlling policy. We are seeing a proliferation of these distortions of the economic system these days. Concentrated powers and influence, decline in media, reduction in personal freedoms (sedition laws etc), framing of issues for political convenience, political distortion of evidence and science, perverse subsidies that cost the masses and benefit the few, conflation of democracy with models of capitalism that increase inequality within and between countries, etc.
IMHO democracy is important and desirable and needs strengthening. Civil rights are crucial and technology is undoing traditional power bases and delivering powerful means for civil participation. IMHO our governance structures have inbuilt inflexibilities and tendencies to preserve and concentrate pre-existing power bases so they fall behind the pace with socio-political and technological developments. eg We’ve talked of African and other poor nations – what chance do they have to bargain with MNC’s to bring in investment when the corporations are more powerful than the governments? They extract tax concessions, bring in external experts and repatriate 30% of the profits. There’s little trickle-down effect in money or skills or technology without concerted efforts to make such transfers happen. In our increasingly borderless and interdependent socioeconomic environment, democracy becomes less of a national consideration and more of a deeply intertwined local-national-global necessity. Democracy needs to be flexibile to ensure it is proportionate and representative. Inflexible structures die.
“My point is, how can you know the point of the statement if you take it out of context? Churchill was equally critical of potential abuses within democratic systems,”…I have not taken it out of context at all. I have merely stated that whilst it is far from perfect what other options are there?
Forgive me if I have misinterpreted things you have said in this and other threads, but I was under the impression you were advocating more control not less. Democracy does need to be flexible, surely that means fewer rules and regulations not more?
Those ‘evil’ MNC’s that exploit the poor workers and transfer 30% of the profit back home…are you suggesting the poor workers would rather they were not there? Is it unreasonable for them to repatriate profits? ( What would you do if you were running a company? would you invest if you couldn t get your money out?). More importantly if you had a family to feed and were offered a job that gave you hope and possibly even the avenue to save some money and become entrepeunerial, would nt you be delighted that you had the opportunity of a job from that nasty MNC?
Hong Kong and Singapore are obvious examples of countries that were originally ‘exploited’ for their cheap labour…and whilst Singapore is hardly a democracy it has most certainly embraced Capitalism.
I presume you are talking about globalisation when you say “In our increasingly borderless and interdependent socioeconomic environment, democracy becomes less of a national consideration and more of a deeply intertwined local-national-global necessity. Democracy needs to be flexibile to ensure it is proportionate and representative. Inflexible structures die.” Are you advocating more control not less? The NGO’s are notorious for singing the evils of globalisation…but isnt globalisation the only hope they have?
Whilst we obviously need some laws and regulations in order to be flexible I would have thought less regulation was the answer not more?
Sorry but you are talking to somebody who believes in free markets as the only way to efficiently allocate resources in the medium to long run. Yes inflexible structures die…
The main concern is the interpretation of “free” markets and the desirable pathway for undeveloped economies to get there, ie the opinions of too many that “free” or almost-free markets by themselves are the solution.