Regarding Humans! Rah, Rah, Rah!

Les, thanks for sharing this article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/sustainable-were-a-lot-smarter-than-that/story-e6frg6zo-1225914025010

I have selected portions of the article to comment upon below (within parenthesis).

Austin Williams loathes the smug "carbonistas", the ecological armageddonists and those who've grown afraid of future growth, indeed of the future, and their burgeoning political influence.
(OKAY, so what?!!)

His case:  we should not be sacrificing humanism at the altar of environmental sustainability.

"There's this tired Malthusian logic that's coming back into the mainstream across the Western world, that humanity is a huge problem for the planet,"

"It's amazing that Malthus was so widely discredited, but now he's back being discussed in such a positive light at all the right dinner parties," Williams says.
(The only thing Malthus got wrong was how human "ingenuity" would stave off the Malthusian die off.  But Williams neglects to consider the consequences of a petroleum based economy, and especially petroleum based agriculture, to allow humans to procreate without restriction.  This has allowed humanity to grow at the expense of the rest of the biosphere, and it is patently unsustainable (think "peak oil" whenever that year already or will occur).)

"We seem to have lost any notion of the future as a positive place to be. We've forgotten that humans are endlessly creative individuals. We instead see ourselves as problems, not solutions, and once that becomes the prevailing view the next logical step is the fewer humans the better."This negative view that we are nothing more than carbon excreters is an attitude I find reprehensible. I see humans as problem solvers, so the more people there are the more problems that will be solved and the better society will be."
(That one was truly funny, I'll admit.)

Urban congestion is something we should embrace, Williams argues, with any adverse issues eminently fixable with the right policy settings and technology.

(oh, really, how about changing Human Behavior along the way too, is that "eminently fixable" as well?)

"we need to reclaim the humanist agenda, which puts people first, and the technological advances will inevitably come."
(So, he is an unabashed speciest, who cares not a whit about the rest of biology, and believes all we need is technology to overcome whatever difficulties face this "Modernity" he seeks."

Those who fret about carbon footprints and have no faith in humans to solve the carbon problem, get short shrift from Williams. He labels them "carbonistas", highlighting the notion that such concern is merely fashionable.

(What faith ought we have in humans and technology that has brought us to the brink already?  Why is "more of the same" an answer to what are clearly problems, made far more problematic since our population and technology are overwhelming natural coping mechanisms?)

"China isn't having these discussions about the nature of cities. Something's happening there at least. Sure, a lot of it isn't pretty . . . but they are resolving the problems as they arise.
(More funny stuff, wonder how China will handle the age creche sex ratio problem that will almost certainly require military means to supply enough women for the Chinese male population?
The reality:  The sex ratio for those aged 0-14 years represents 20.1% of the Chinese population and the ratio of males to females is as follows:
male 142,085,665/female 125,300,391) (2008 est.)

Seems like 17,000,000 men are going to be looking for love in all the wrong places (like Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, North/South Korea or name any other country they care to "visit".'

This Williams character is clearly an anachronistic throwback in his faith in ingenuity and technology and in his disdain for trends and realities of the small planet we call home.)

Frish