Comments on: Remaking Australia, part two: David Lindenmayer

By: Eric Vigo

Eric Vigo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Tony, you say things that I JOKE about right-wingers saying without a sense of reason.
We are superior to nature … I believe that’s your line. Its nonsensical, but you persist.
Since you’re passionate with your stance, email David L personally & win.

By: Tony Papafilis

Tony Papafilis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Mike watch out for loose lefty language. He sounds same but is not saying the same as he clearly puts environment above economic considerations. My point is that we will starve without economy but nature will go on, so economy must be the higher priority.

By: Mike Cowley

Mike Cowley — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Tony, that’s exactly what he is saying - in a pretty ordinary metaphor perhaps - by saying that the economy is a subsidiary of the environment: the economy depends on and uses the resources of the environment. The rest of his article supports that point.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If we create an economy by exploiting nature, as you say, Tony, then surely the economy is then a subsidiary of the environment. The loss of the environment then would render an economy meaningless.

By: Tony Papafilis

Tony Papafilis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Fundamentally wrong. Environment is subsidiary of economy, not vice versa. You can have environment without economy but not the reverse as we need nature’s resources to live. We create an economy by exploiting nature, not other way. Rethink your case.