*be sceptical - take nothing for granted!
Unless otherwise indicated all photos © Richard McKie 2005 - 2019

Who is Online

We have 38 guests and no members online



Today Adolf Hitler is the personification of evil. 

But without him my parents may never have married and I certainly would not have been conceived in a hospital where my father was recovering from war injuries. 

Unless every event prior to our birth happened exactly as they did, none of us would be here to contemplate the incredible unlikelihood of our birth. 

Each of us owes our existence to the unique cell that multiplied to become us when it was fertilised, at that exact instant, by a singular unique sperm.  The slightest variation in the circumstances of this event and you would not be reading this. You would not exist at all.

Because of the need for this precise event to have happened we are all exquisitely dependent on the exact past that led up to that fertilisation.  In the same way our successful birth and our path through life since has been determined by the circumstances and accidents of our lives; in turn resulting in our own children.






Your ancestors

Of course for each of us existence is equally contingent on many other accidents and events in the past.  Obviously every one of your ancestors had to exist; each with the same degree of chance and improbability: all four grandparents; eight great-grandparents; 1,048,576 twenty times great grandparents and so on.

This takes your ancestry back about 400 years.  

If I go back as far a William the Conqueror the number grows to around five thousand billion; after forty-two generations.  Since this is ten thousand times the number of humans on the planet at the time; and I’m definitely not related to everyone; there has been an awful lot of inbreeding by distant cousins going on; probably in a handful of towns or villages. My profile in Genebase.com shows that I am related to quite a lot of humanity within 100 generations; about 73% of their present database; including 12 Afro-Americans and 15 indigenous Americans. A similar ancestry applies to you; and to everyone alive today.

You may think that it is obvious that your parents (and theirs; and theirs; and so on) needed to be just as they were when these copulations led to you.  But it is amazing how frequently we hear in popular culture someone say: ‘if only my father had not been a drunk who beat my mother’; or ‘if only my parents had been wealthy’; or even more weird: ‘if my mother had married some other man I would have had a better life’; completely disregarding that in any of these circumstances they would not exist at all.

I have no such complaints. My father was an electrical engineer and an almost model husband; as was his father; and his brother.  My mother's family were similarly exemplary; as described elsewhere on this website.  My existence and those of my children are therefore directly dependent on the natural scientists that pioneered our knowledge of electricity; and technology in general.  But it is not nearly so interesting to attribute one’s existence to Newton; or Benjamin Franklin; or Michael Faraday; good people who were motivated by the quest for truth and knowledge; as to the opposite. 

Our existence depends equally on the evil doctrines of the past that motivated men like Hitler; Stalin; Napoleon; the Spanish inquisitors; or on the self-serving acts of mass murderers like those that poisoned indigenous people or perpetrated other similar atrocities for profit. 



A man who meant well

Often the best intentioned were among the worst killers in history.

One such pivotal man in history was Field Marshal Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig, KT, GCB, OM, GCVO, KCIE, ADC, (19 June 1861 – 29 January 1928).

He was another who was essential to my existence. It is certain that without him, and decisions he took, my grandparents would not have had my mother.  My Grandfather fought; was gassed; somehow avoided death; and won his Military Medal (in extreme peril), all under Haig's command.  My mother was conceived after these events.


Haig on his horse
Memorial to Field Marshal Douglas Haig, Edinburgh Castle - Military Genius or The Butcher of Flanders Field?


Haig commanded the allied forces at several critical actions during the First World War.  He is variously remembered as one of the greatest British soldiers: ‘The Master of the Field’ and, alternatively, as: ‘The Butcher of the Somme' (or the Butcher of Flanders Field). 

Haig was certainly a man of fixed opinions who was faced with, for him, an insurmountable learning curve; as the nature of war changed.  He was slow to grasp the importance of advances in technology: artillery; machine-guns; barbed wire; and war gas. 

Haig was a highly religious man who wrote that he was doing God’s work and that his hand was divinely driven.  Unfortunately for him the German officers had the same God guiding their hands; somewhat better as it turns out.

At the battle of the Somme the allies, including Australians, suffered 623,907 casualties including 146,431 dead.  On the first day, 1 July 1916, the British army suffered 60,000 casualties ‘before breakfast’. 

Haig went on to command the three battles at Ypres (/ˈiːprə/ [eepra] - but known by the Tommies and Diggers in the trenches, ‘Wipers’).   In third Battle of Ypres (21 July to 6 November 1917 - also known as the Battle of Passchendaele) British, Canadians, ANZAC, and French forces recaptured a minor strategic objective, the Passchendaele Ridge in three and a half months, at the cost of 310,000 allied and 260,000 German casualties.

When I grew up in Australia, Haig’s name was synonymous with British military incompetence; or worse, deliberate and criminal disregard for the lives of our finest young men. 

So when Grandma took me to see her name carved into the wall of the Banqueting Hall in the Civic Centre at Newcastle upon Tyne, as a result of her time as Sheriff, I blurted out that it would be more impressive if it was not shared with the ‘Butcher of the Somme’.  


Freemen of the City of Newcastle


Haig had apparently been made an Honorary Freeman of the City soon after the armistice in 1918.  Grandma was truly shocked and scandalised that I thought so little of the great man who had been instrumental in ‘winning the war’.



A man who didn't

But there is another angle to this.  On the German side a young school dropout, who had variously considered the priesthood and settled instead into the life of a somewhat bohemian artist, felt the stirrings of German patriotism when war was declared.  Despite an ailment that initially had him exempted, he partitioned to join the Prussian Army.  He became a runner at Ypres where he was wounded and was twice awarded for bravery while still a private soldier; earning the Iron Cross. 

This was the award that he later wore proudly as ‘Fuhrer of the Third Reich’ and commander of the greatest military machine the world had then seen.

Had the battles been conducted differently Hitler may have been killed, possibly by a shell from one of my Grandfather's gun's.  Had he not been a war hero he may not have commanded the respect that allowed him to become the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and political leader of the Kampfbund, a league of patriotic fighting societies.  These largely ex-soldiers held that the German Army was in fact undefeated but had been sabotaged by Marxists together with Jewish bankers and newspaper proprietors; and the corrupt politicians who capitulated at the Armistice.  In November 1923 they attempted an uprising against the Weimar Republic in Munich, the Munich Putsch.

The Putsch inevitably failed and Hitler was jailed.  He used his time in jail to write a book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) in which he describes his political opinions and how he came to hold them.  The book can be read on-line or downloaded from  Project Gutenberg Australia.

Hitler dedicates it to the 15 comrades who fell during the Munich uprising.

Today Mein Kampf is regarded to be an anti-Jewish rant of the worst kind and is still banned in many countries.  In the preface Hitler writes that one of its purposes is to: ‘to destroy the legendary fabrications which the Jewish Press have circulated about me’.

It is well documented that as an artist prior to World War One, many of Hitler’s clients for his paintings were wealthy Jews and that he seemed to get on well with them; against the growing anti-Jewish sentiment already gaining popularity. 

His anti-Jewish opinions seem to have developed and magnified as a result of the war and possibly as a  result of believing that a book: 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', was genuine.  This book originated in Russia as: "The Jewish Programme to Conquer the World", around the end of the 19th century.  It is a clever amalgamation of actual Zionist sentiment, based on verifiable sources, and imaginative conspiracy theory.   It is thought to have originated with the Russian Secret Police, in support of the widespread Pogroms against the Jews that broke out in Russia in the 1880's. 

These attacks on Jews resulted from the extreme religious beliefs of orthodox Christians, to the exclusion of other religions.  The Pogroms had an even more violent resurgence between 1903 and 1906 under Tsar Nicholas II, who failed to punish the perpetrators.  Some historians believe the Tsar himself to have been behind these later outbreaks.  He was certainly a religious fundamentalist who believed in magic and famously in the powers of the mystic healer Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin.  Thus many believed that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, during which the Tsar and his family were executed, was a manifestation and demonstration of a Jewish conspiracy.

In the thirties 'The Protocols' were widely believed to be genuine.  For example Wikipedia says that Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s. It was also widely distributed by the Fascists. 

All the while the Vatican was notably silent on the matter and maintained good diplomatic relationships with Mussolini in Italy and, in due course, with Hitler in Germany.  Scholars argue about whether ambiguous statements from the Pope (Pius XII) were anti-Jewish, or rather, anti-communist at the time. But it is fair to say that he did speak out against the mass-killing of the disabled and genetically defective and certainty did not sanction mass-killing of any kind.

The First World War is central to Mein Kampf.  A central theme is the sacrifice made by Germans in the war, only to be stabbed in the back by forces that he claims to have an international agenda: international Jews; Marxists; Capitalists (the New York Stock Exchange); or to be so degenerate and bourgeois (like the democratic political leaders and Wartime profiteers) that they blindly did the bidding of these more focused, sinister forces (like the Bolsheviks in Russia whom he claims are part of a larger Jewish conspiracy).

While Mein Kampf does not call for the mass annihilation of Jews it does suggest that some prominent Jews should suffer the same fate as did the German troops in the trenches:

’ At the beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from every social stratum and from every trade and calling had to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand of these malefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the lives of a million decent men, who would be of value to Germany in the future, might have been saved. But it was in accordance with bourgeois 'statesmanship' to hand over, without the twitch of an eyelid, millions of human beings to be slaughtered on the battlefields, while they looked upon ten or twelve thousand public traitors, profiteers, usurers and swindlers, as the dearest and most sacred national treasure and proclaimed their persons to be inviolable.’

Hitler sees a world dominated by struggle for race survival: ‘Man has become great through perpetual struggle’.  Ultimately he predicts there will be a crisis of territory:

‘Races which are culturally superior but less ruthless would be forced to restrict their increase, because of insufficient territory to support the population, while less civilized races could increase indefinitely, owing to the vast territories at their disposal. In other words: should that state of affairs continue, then the world will one day be possessed by that portion of mankind which is culturally inferior but more active and energetic.’ 

He claims that modern democracies perpetuate this by giving voice to the weak and that racial purity was being corrupted by allowing internal colonisation by weaker races.

This kind of racial thinking was already strong throughout Europe and is clearly evident in British and American writing in the 1920’s.  In Germany Friedrich Nietzsche was popular in the bohemian world of Hitler’s youth and some of his work can be interpreted to support Hitler’s racial and anti-Semitic beliefs. But it is said that Hitler was more ‘deeply and fundamentally’ inspired by the composer Richard Wagner, particularly his last opera Parsifal

When I went to school in the 1950's in Australia several of our teachers had fought in the first war; including the Headmaster who taught 6th class who bore a hip injury; shrapnel from a shell.  We could often divert his attention from some boring topic by asking about the war; and instead learn about strafing boats on the Nile with a Vickers machine gun or some other interesting bit of trivia. 

At his knee we learnt about the mass slaughter of the flower of Australian youth.  I can still be reduced to tears by the War Memorial in Sydney or Canberra.  We were encouraged to blame this incomprehensible slaughter on:  imperialism; an interrelated, inbred, bunch of royal families and their internecine politics; and the sheer incompetence of British military leadership.

Hitler appeals to exactly the same sentiment in Mein Kampf but he blames it on the Jews.



A man who knew not what he did

Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy argues that the stream of philosophy that was embraced by Nietzsche and Wagner has its roots in the romanticism of Lord Byron; the English/Scottish poet who was disgraced and expelled from England for allegedly siring a child by his married half-sister; and who was the father of Ada Lovelace, now recognised as a pioneer of computer programming.  Thereafter Byron had a major influence on continental and particularly German philosophy.

Without these earlier accidents of history Hitler may never have written Mein Kampf.

That Mein Kampf immediately struck a chord with many Germans in the aftermath of the First World War, and in this atmosphere of German nationalism, can be seen from the many newsreel records from the period showing the celebrity and adulation that Hitler commanded.

The book was an almost instant bestseller.  Some 260,000 copies were sold before Hitler came to power; enabling him to repay debts from his trial and buy a Mercedes car while still in jail.  He was soon released.

The book proves the adage that ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’.   Just seven years after publication Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany.  

After he became Chancellor, then Fuhrer, it is estimated that a further ten million copies were produced.

The tumultuous events of the ‘Weimar’ years, prior to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor are another story; vastly documented in the media and on the web.

But two elements helped Hitler’s rise to power: solid working Germans, Hitler’s power-base, were scandalised by the ‘degenerate behaviour’ of those in power, in particular at the libertarian recreations of the demimonde of Berlin, as described by Christopher Isherwood in his Berlin Stories; and the collapse of the economy of the Weimar Republic, that had been imposed on Germany by the allies after the war in 1919. 

To demonstrate the scale of this collapse: in January 1921 one US dollar cost seven Marks; by 1923 one US dollar cost 4.2 billion Marks. The resulting unemployment hit 'working Germans' badly.

The so called ‘moral collapse’ was accelerated by this downward path of the Mark.  Prostitution became rampant; simply to survive.  It was said that 'a dalliance with a 15 year old in Berlin cost no more than 30 US cents' at this time (I owe this to Mel Gordon's book 'Voluptuous Panic'). 






As many of the bankers and foreign capitalists blamed for this economic situation; and artists blamed for moral collapse; were Jewish, or had Jewish names, it was easy for Hitler to ascribe this ‘depravity’ to their deliberate intent.

The Weimar years were recently the subject of a series of art exhibitions in Sydney titled ’Mad Square’ encompassing Expressionism, DADA, Bauhaus, Constructivism, and eroticism (much of it fetishistic, homosexual and bisexual).  It was from these art and social movements that Hitler chose examples of degenerate art that he claimed demonstrated the general decline in cultural values.  Much of it was subsequently destroyed during the Reich; along with many books that were also labelled ‘degenerate’ or ‘depraved’.  Book and art burnings became symbolic of his rise to power.   It's one of the reasons that today we do not approve of book burning, or banning, and its slightly shocking that Hitler's book has suffered the same fate in some places.

Once in power Hitler's domestic and foreign policies centred on gaining Lebensraum (living space) for the Germanic races.  Germany rearmed, building a vast modern and efficient war machine, and set about ‘unification’ with, or conquering, neighbouring territories.  Citizens identified as ‘racially degenerate’, such as Jews and Gypsies and anyone with a genetic disease, were first marginalised and then purged; very large numbers being rounded up and systematically put to death.

It is estimated that as a result of Hitler as many as fourteen million people lost their lives.



And so to you and me

I am obviously not arguing that mass murder is a good thing because without it you, like me, would not exist.

Rather I want to encompass the whole past as the very fabric from which we arose;  with all its evil doctrines and wars; along with all its fine acts of self sacrifice and charity; artistic insights and creativity; together with the successful uncovering of truths about our universe. 

My choice of Hitler is 'close to home' for me, and particularly well documented, but I could equally have focused on the history of Scotland; the Spanish Inquisition; or Lord Byron.

Like a personal tartan, the past before our birth is our special fabric because had the smallest thread been different or the slightest bit out of place it would not have us to observe it; someone else perhaps.

When you think about it this goes for the entire universe.   The subtlest of changes just a few million years ago would have meant that no humans would be here at all to wonder at its mysteries.  This is the most fundamental prerequisite for your universe; and mine.

I find it endlessly fascinating.




I don't think that there is any flaw in the argument that we are each dependent for our very existence, and therefore our ability to observe the universe, on the exact events that preceded our birth.

But this has some interesting consequences.  Many of these have been the topic of much philosophical and theological debate.

If, for example, you like some, believe that you have a special relationship with a god and can converse with or at least send a message to that god in prayer, then do you also believe that you were destined by that god to exist?  Perhaps you don't think that you are so important but you might believe that certain prophets were.

The implication of such a belief is that all that went before you, or perhaps Mohammad, Jesus, Ezekiel, Moses or the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) was irrevocably required; and that the decisions made by everyone in the prehistory of that event were necessarily ordained.

Thus the decisions made by Napoleon to attack Russia or to escape from Elba, that he thought were his own, were in fact required by your god, down to the last detail of his life, in order that you and, if you have them, your children exist to interact with your god. 

Similarly your god arranged that all of history happened as it did: Hitler, Stalin and Slobodan Milošević are part of his/her deliberate creation in order that children born today exist. 

This is not a new idea.  It has long been argued by theologians and supports the the claim for the Judeo-Christian God's omnipotence and omniscience.  But as pointed out by its critics it also implies that criminals and sinners are not ultimately responsible for their actions; as their actions were ordained as a necessary part of creation. Judas was required to betray Jesus so that he might die for our sins.

Extending this idea implies that no one has 'free will'.  I had to behave exactly as I did: in school; and university; and at work; and socially; and in private; and all the interactions an apparent accidents of my life had to be just so; in order that my children would come into existence. 

This is a serious problem for theologians: either everything is ordained and even when sinning one is following God's plan; or God has largely stepped out of the picture, perhaps after the initial creation, and limits his/her interventions to a bit of judicious weeding; tilling and/or replanting according to whim.  These grand interventions may be perceived by us as lightening strikes;  natural disasters; meteor impacts; planitary extinction events; supernova; and so on.

While there are non-religious arguments for the view that the universe already exists in space and throughout time, related to Einstein's incorporation of time into a space-time continuum (see Free Will, Certainty and Uncertainty on this website), that the future is already determined runs counter to common sense; and our everyday belief in our own volition (ability to choose). 

Some philosophers, mathematicians and physicists argue that the universe is at its fundamental level, as described by quantum mechanics, is unpredictable and random;  that the global appearance of predictability, as described in physical laws, is a higher order phenomenon.  In this case the same starting initial conditions may not always result in the same outcome.  So it is possible that complex but apparently entirely physical things, like a meteor impact, may or may not happen; unpredictably. This may then provide an explanation for Free Will.

From my perspective my children are the the direct or indirect outcome of my considered and deliberate actions; even if one thing did lead to another.  But from their perspective they would not exist to perceive the universe unless I, and their mother, had behaved exactly as we did; we are a necessary part of their fabric of existence. 

As a result, if we reject the view that everything is ordained, and prefer to think that we make choices, we are obliged to believe in a universe in which the future is entirely contingent on the day-to-day actions of humans.  Its present was in the hands of our ancestors. 

That we are here is therefore entirely accidental; even though it is almost infinitely improbable.  This same improbability encompasses every human, past and present, on the planet. 

In this view, the future may also depend on any animal that has volition (makes a choice) such as: the dog that bites; the cat that scratches; the horse that throws; as these interactions are constantly changing the course of human decision making.

While some philosophers, like Descartes, have argued that no animal, except humans, has the ability to make such choices;  that other animals are simply reacting predictably to a situation; this seems unlikely when a chimp can be shown to out-think a human on certain tasks.  Either a chimp makes considered choices or a human does not.  And what's so special about humans anyway?

This impact on the future may encompass other living things that we interact with; like those that do not seem to have volition but may nevertheless behave unpredictably such as: the bee that stings; the weed that grows; or the bacteria that infects. Thus it may be that a characteristic of living things, as opposed to the inanimate, is our ability to change the future; or possibly everything subject to quantum uncertainty is constantly on the verge of a different future?

There was a time when we might have regarded our influence on the future to be limited to future human events, at arms length from the actual greater universe, but now human actions are depleting planetary resources; impacting on its climate; extending to other planets; and beyond the solar system itself.  We still, with good reason, regard and earthquake, tsunami or cyclone to be the work of nature (or God), beyond human influence or control, but we are more doubtful about a lightening strike; bushfire; loss of top-soil; epidemic; plague; or climate change.

In contemplating the perceived uniqueness of this present; and its apparent dependence on the actions of mankind; some philosophers have proposed that all alternative scenarios do in fact exist, in different parallel universes, but we only experience the universe that happens to have us in it.  But then why do I have the sense that the choices I made in life had only one set of consequences?  Why don't I perceive all the universes with me in them, for example when I decide to take a sip of coffee, or not; or on a grander scale, with different partners and children?

There are several extended discussions of these issues on this website - seek them out using the search function.



    Have you read this???     -  this content changes with each opening of a menu item


The United States of America – East Coast



In the late seventies I lived and worked in New York.  My job took me all around the United States and Canada.  So I like to go back occasionally; the last time being a couple of years ago with my soon to be wife Wendy.  She had never been to New York so I worked up an itinerary to show her the highlights in just a few days.  We also decided to drive to Washington DC and Boston. 


Read more ...

Fiction, Recollections & News

Julian Assange’s Endgame

A facebook friend has sent me this link 'Want to Know Julian Assange’s Endgame? He Told You a Decade Ago' (by Andy Greenberg, that appeared in WIRED in Oct 2016) and I couldn't resist bringing it to your attention.

To read it click on this image from the article:



Assange is an Australian who has already featured in several articles on this website:

Read more ...

Opinions and Philosophy

Climate Emergency




/uh'merrjuhnsee, ee-/.
noun, plural emergencies.
1. an unforeseen occurrence; a sudden and urgent occasion for action.



Recent calls for action on climate change have taken to declaring that we are facing a 'Climate Emergency'.

This concerns me on a couple of levels.

The first seems obvious. There's nothing unforseen or sudden about our present predicament. 

My second concern is that 'emergency' implies something short lived.  It gives the impression that by 'fire fighting against carbon dioxide' or revolutionary action against governments, or commuters, activists can resolve the climate crisis and go back to 'normal' - whatever that is. Would it not be better to press for considered, incremental changes that might avoid the catastrophic collapse of civilisation and our collective 'human project' or at least give it a few more years sometime in the future?

Back in 1990, concluding my paper: Issues Arising from the Greenhouse Hypothesis I wrote:

We need to focus on the possible.

An appropriate response is to ensure that resource and transport efficiency is optimised and energy waste is reduced. Another is to explore less polluting energy sources. This needs to be explored more critically. Each so-called green power option should be carefully analysed for whole of life energy and greenhouse gas production, against the benchmark of present technology, before going beyond the demonstration or experimental stage.

Much more important are the cultural and technological changes needed to minimise World overpopulation. We desperately need to remove the socio-economic drivers to larger families, young motherhood and excessive personal consumption (from resource inefficiencies to long journeys to work).

Climate change may be inevitable. We should be working to climate “harden” the production of food, ensure that public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, hospitals, utilities and so) on are designed to accommodate change and that the places people live are not excessively vulnerable to drought, flood or storm. [I didn't mention fire]

Only by solving these problems will we have any hope of finding solutions to the other pressures human expansion is imposing on the planet. It is time to start looking for creative answers for NSW and Australia  now.



Since my retirement Wendy and I have done quite a bit of travel, often these days to less 'touristy' places, although that's just a matter of degree. After all we're tourists and we were there.  On occasion we've revisited old haunts after a decade or so absence. 

Everywhere we go there is one thing in common with our home in Australia:  there are a lot more people than there were a decade or so back. Everywhere we go there is evidence of resource depletion, particularly water resources, and environmental degradation. Everywhere we go new dwellings have spread like a cancer across once green fields.and forests. Concrete forests now stand where humble dwellings or open fields once were.

It's no good blaming our parents, the underlying causes of the many environmental challenges we face go back the start of the 19th century and the Industrial Revolution when no longer were the great masses of humanity the children of farm labourers, serfs, slaves or servants serving a small cultured elite.

With industry came systematic applied science, engineering, and improved medical understanding. Now workers needed new skills and had to be educated. With education came many benefits, including independent volition, and improved living conditions.  Death rates declined; fertility improved.  By the end of the 19th century world population had more than doubled its pre-industrial record, reaching 1.6 billion.  But then it really took off.

By the mid 20th century many informed commentators were getting alarmed and calling for population restraint.

In 1968 the world human population had topped 3.5 billion, over a billion since the end of World War 2.

That year Professor Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in the US, published The Population Bomb correctly warning that: 'hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.'   Critics claimed that he was alarmist, yet very soon 260 of every thousand babies born in Zambia were dying due to malnutrition before their first birthday. In Pakistan the number was 140 per thousand (source: The Limits to Growth). 

In the same year concerned scientists in Europe formed The Club of Rome.  Three years later the Club published 'The Limits to Growth', the results of a state-of-the-art, yet primitive, multi-factorial computer model that projected the impacts on food consumption/production; pollution and the cost of reduction; energy resources; and non-renewable industrial minerals, of unrestrained exponential population growth. The model forecast multiple disastrous consequences early in the 21st century. The authors feared no less than anarchy, driven by food and resource riots, and the total collapse of civilisation.  The final sentence reads: 'The crux of the matter is not only whether the human species will survive, but even more whether the human species can survive without falling into a state of worthless existence.'



My copy of The Limits to Growth


Only a few paid any heed. Several of these were later described as the 'Asian Tigers'.


Singapore's Stop at Two policy
From 1972 Singaporeans were encouraged to have two child families
- incentives included payment for sterilisation and public housing for married couples without children
- disincentives included precluding couples with more than two children from applying for public benefits
The result was a decline in fertility from 4.7 in 1960 to 1.7 in 1980
Although the campaign stressed the need for girls, as in China, cultural factors resulted in a preponderance of boys
- an ongoing social and economic problem
Nevertheless, Singapore has gone from a struggling third-world country to become the fourth richest country in the world (
On the other hand, since independence in 1947 India's population has grown sixfold
- India will soon overtake China as the world's most populous country - visit and compare 


Critics of The Club of Rome, like Herman Kahn, of the Hudson Institute, cried: 'garbage in gospel out', a popular objection to computer modelling at the time, and lo, the Club's projections were soon proven to be overly pessimistic. In the 1970's science came to the aid of mankind. New crops were developed and there was a 'green revolution'; new processes and products improved efficiency and new mining technologies, like remote sensing from aircraft and satellites, together with new extractive methods, like deep-sea oilwells and 'fracking', redefined resource availability. In first world countries rivers and air was cleaned up and pollution ceased to be our number one concern.



The Hudson Institute's Herman Kahn's riposte - one of many
The Hudson Institute was later employed by the NSW Government to help plan the State's future
- no mention of global warning


Everyone breathed a sigh of relief - we didn't have to do anything.  The religious among us were right: God, or the Gods, had it all in hand - it was all part of 'The Plan'. It was business as usual.

Yet today, the Club of Rome's foremost prediction: that unless we did something, by 2020 world population would reach eight billion has proven alarmingly prescient. And Paul Ehrlich's predictions are also vindicated.

In 2013 a Global Hunger Summit in London(2) was told that: 'Malnutrition is the underlying cause of death for at least 3.1 million children [per year], accounting for 45% of all deaths among children under the age of five and stunting growth among a further 165 million [children].'

Although they factored in 'pollution' as a general concern, the research team behind The Limits to Growth said, or knew, nothing about the specific threat of carbon dioxide. Was this an oversight?

With our new skills scientists now have ice-cores, containing entrapped air bubbles, that go back half a million years.  These show a close correlation between global temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  The highest level ever was around 300 thousand years ago, when it was much warmer and carbon dioxide reached 300 parts per million.

Because of man's multifarious activities, including agriculture, the atmosphere broke that half million year record in the 1950's and we have been in uncharted territory ever since. While correlation does not necessarily denote causation, and it's still not as warm as it was back then, I find it rather alarming. Read my paper: Climate Change - a Myth?

It seems highly probable that climate change is at least in part due to the current mouse-plague that we call humanity: clearing forests; digging up the ground; building things; making stuff soon to go to garbage tips; consuming resources without concern for the future and, of course, burning things.

How long can this go on?  I hope there will be a deus ex machina, that some, as yet unknown, aspect of quantum science, genetic engineering and/or nuclear energy will save us.  Failing that, I hope that current civilisation will outlast my grandchildren and perhaps theirs?  One glimmer of hope is the declining fertility in first-world countries as more women have careers beyond motherhood and living standards improve. Yet as I pointed out in 1990 this would consume far more energy than the third world has to hand. Is it now a case of too little too late?

I won't be around to know.

As the The Club of Rome pointed out, and should be obvious to 'Blind Freddy', the indefinite exponential growth, that our economies are addicted to, is unsustainable. 'Soon or later,' as Alice remarked about drinking from a bottle marked 'poison': 'it's bound to disagree with you'.



Terms of Use                                           Copyright