10,000’s of years ago, groups of people began arriving in Australia. 200 years ago, more groups began arriving, and a third group over the past few decades. These three immigrations waves represent three distinct and very generalised cultural value systems. One dominates the others to everyone’s peril. Balance must be implemented to ensure survival.
Protecting the natural environment to ensure it provides for progeny is a tenet of Aboriginal culture. The various Indigenous nations reached a perfected stasis in cultural development which functioned in harmony within Australia’s environmental limitations. Very strict limitations.
Exploiting the world and each other is a fundamental Christian-capitalist-English drive, from the Doctrine of Discovery, to minimal wages and slavery, and unrestricted engagement in globalised consumerism. Dedicated ignorance of and indifference to theft and genocide facilitate profits.
Lured by white Australian propaganda, such as ‘the lucky country’ – a sarcastic phrase as invented by the original author – and ‘fair go’ – an obsolete catch-call – many flew to Australia looking for a better life. With no connection to country or community, these people became our new alien working class.
Protecting the natural environment for future generations, exploiting the natural environment and other people to expedite profits, and just working to improve standards of living: one of these groups is not like the other.
With no sustainable policies, the question is begged: why? With only 3% of Australians identifying as Aboriginal, and white political leaders awarding themselves $100,000s in yearly salary, greed drives political, professional and personal decisions. The profit motive brooks no alternative to profit enhancement activity.
Balanced ecological policies cannot be implemented while the majority of people have a vested interest in, and personally identify with, the white, Christian, capitalist, consumerist ideas. That original 3% of inhabitants represents the way to sustain our civilisation, or at least maintain some vestiges of it over the coming decades.
Who can provide for the children? This is not quite the right question. Who is capable of providing for their own children? This question frames policy creation and enactment. If you consider the superiority of white Australia, the richest of white Australia has no concern with the vast majority: they have the wealth to protect their own.
Teaching ourselves to reduce energy consumption to 1/6th of daily use is one way to begin protecting all our children. Voting Greens first is another. I have a vested self-interest in sustainability which overrides transitory wealth.
How about you?