There is a lot in a name - esp a Departmental name or Ministers Portfolio name
Maybe you would like to suggest the next one - after all namechanging is about as predicatable as death and taxes. We are here to do so - at least start anyway! Join in
DOPI and DOSE are the current mastheads of Victorian fabianism for things environmental - about as appealing and effective as any divorce is .
The environmenatl name used to be NRE - Natural Resources and Environment , then before that Conservation and natural resources CNR, Conservation and environment ( another divorce / doubleup ? )
DOPI , in both name and nature, is a return to the past ; where the Dept does what farmers want . The tension so neccesary to keep Farmers from being alienated from the environmnet debates has been lost. While DOPI sticks with its very old impromata Departemnets of primary Industry will continue to send farmers broke, as they often have done when resiliance issues are the issue. This ought to upset rural areas, but they have enough to upset them without worrying about those who can and do look after themselves very well thank you - pity they can't see what they are doing wrong.
Unfortunately farmers are under such increasing pressure as a group that they can't see this comfort zone call as one that won't work - neither of course can the VFF, the Libs or even the Nationals ( quite a seriuos impasse)If you want to know more WHY--- send me a note .
As For DSE - well what is it about the Departmnet of Supernatural Expectations that is not obvious ?
Mind you the Commonwealth are no better with their Department of Heritage Arts and Environment. at least Rudd has shown some wisdom and not sought a name change - Keep them all in one place, where you can find them I say ! The scary thing is that their lumping suggests they don't really care for competence in environment anyway - whose in charge of the future ----ARts or heritage?
Unfortunately Name changing remains the disease of choice for government is business gurus, so we need to unseat those dills before we can rid ourselves of that recurring dreamtime stuff.
For the "country"'s sake I favour settling on something like Departmnet of Planning and Infrastructure ( it would be big, but it might work as a proper vehicle for shires and rural if it remained regionally based )Once chosen, though, not allowed to change for 20 years at least .
Why? Our young people need a career in the public servive before public service changes from an innameonly service like it is now!
Is Canberra PS happy about that? Maybe they are -maybe the happy ones are part of the problem?.
Oh dear, another DOPI institution - someone much more capable than any of us said the brick was still the best brick of the options available
Sunday, February 18, 2024
The preservationists lock up the Pillaga
But will biodiversity be corralled by the decision ?
Jenniffer M and others comments make Fascinating reading on online -
who would have thought that as practical scientists of the 60's we would face the prospect that our life's work in big picture environmental understanding and risk management would be so often ignored for blinkered, inadequate and even irrational views . The opportunity to invest wisely in conservation is being lost to those with an unrealistic and narrow museum worldview view of the world that avoids buying into the really tough and dynamic cutting edge issues. - the ones that Africa Asia and the Middle east need to move with right now .
Clearly too , if we are going to be more effective , we have to recognize the rational basis for the irrationality that’s out there Things like worldview, denial ,projection and guilt factors and the widespread Western cultures failure to see different value systems as actual heavy weighting factors in human decision making.
What gives the post Christian worldview of “nature worship” so much power is the value its adherents place on matter over mind. Those of us who want to see sound outcomes and not tokens need to take”nature worship” issues seriously because the values systems themselves can powerfully and increasingly distort the mere “evidence on its own “principles. For eg : How we use science in practical risk assessment and management . I don’t have any problem with the precautionary principle, but I do obkject to how some people use it . It’s easy to see elements of distortion , narrowmindedness ,fear, guilt and projection going on in that ‘irrational and emotive opponent” - harder to recognize it in your own worldview. To reduce the degree to which we might be calling the kettle black , we need to understand how to rationally argue both science and values together .
We , and our governments , can be a lot more effective in sound conservation investments if we understand and accept the real depths of the paradigm challenges that face each community living in and with each environment . Join in and help us BE objective and avoid cul de sac quick fix and token investments in conservation. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com
Jenniffer M and others comments make Fascinating reading on online -
who would have thought that as practical scientists of the 60's we would face the prospect that our life's work in big picture environmental understanding and risk management would be so often ignored for blinkered, inadequate and even irrational views . The opportunity to invest wisely in conservation is being lost to those with an unrealistic and narrow museum worldview view of the world that avoids buying into the really tough and dynamic cutting edge issues. - the ones that Africa Asia and the Middle east need to move with right now .
Clearly too , if we are going to be more effective , we have to recognize the rational basis for the irrationality that’s out there Things like worldview, denial ,projection and guilt factors and the widespread Western cultures failure to see different value systems as actual heavy weighting factors in human decision making.
What gives the post Christian worldview of “nature worship” so much power is the value its adherents place on matter over mind. Those of us who want to see sound outcomes and not tokens need to take”nature worship” issues seriously because the values systems themselves can powerfully and increasingly distort the mere “evidence on its own “principles. For eg : How we use science in practical risk assessment and management . I don’t have any problem with the precautionary principle, but I do obkject to how some people use it . It’s easy to see elements of distortion , narrowmindedness ,fear, guilt and projection going on in that ‘irrational and emotive opponent” - harder to recognize it in your own worldview. To reduce the degree to which we might be calling the kettle black , we need to understand how to rationally argue both science and values together .
We , and our governments , can be a lot more effective in sound conservation investments if we understand and accept the real depths of the paradigm challenges that face each community living in and with each environment . Join in and help us BE objective and avoid cul de sac quick fix and token investments in conservation. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
