Allocating Blame for Bushfire Damage

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

It's a popular topic, right now, to allocate blame for damage caused by bushfires.

(Note the phrasing: "blame for damage". Allocating blame for the bushfires occuring, that's another topic entirely.)

So, why is there so much damage from a bushfire? Too much fuel in the understorey? Too few slow, "cool" burns? Too many hot, heavy burns? Let's start with one suggestion, that we need to follow the pre-european settlement approach: regular, small burns in a patchwork pattern.

The protection of patchwork burning

For whatever reason, the original settlers -- those who arrived 10,000 years ago -- would burn a bit of bush. Several bits of bush, probably, each year. What did this achieve?

First, it cleared away some of the rubbish under the trees. So, in future years, there was less to burn. Less chance of having a major blaze that fed on fallen trees and dried out bushes.

Second, the patchwork approach acted as a series of firebreaks. Burn an area this year and it will be less likely to carry a wildfire the next year. Again, less chance of a major blaze destroying a large area.

So... say some people... that is what we should be doing today.

Under which rock have these people been hiding?!

Try this:

Go to your nearest area of bush. Consider lighting a bushfire, to burn just a few hectares. Uh oh! That few hectares will contain a couple of houses! Or fences, or sheds, or valuable livestock... Are you willing to burn -- destroy -- everything that happens to be in that few hectares of bush?

Sorry, but the patchwork approach to burning is no use. Not while we insist on living, working, building, on every hectare of Western Australian bush.

The fallacy of firebreaks

There was a brief report from Victoria, that one bush dweller could not get permission to clear a firebreak. His local council, apparently, would not allow removal of trees over a certain trunk diameter. Why is it so?

You move to a "country estate". Why? To enjoy the peace and tranquility of bush living. Wildlife and trees are a part of that life style. That's why it's become fashionable to refer to city dwellers seeking "a tree change".

To protect the trees: no-one wants to have a tree change to a bare and treeless desert, even if that's just the neighbour's yard. So councils act to protect the trees against being cut down.

Pretend that you have just bought 1,000 ha of virgin bush. Can you clear a firebreak and still leave all of the large trees? No worries, though the firebreak may need to wander a bit.

Now you subdivide and sell off 100 lots of 10 ha each. Can each of these lots have a firebreak? Well... with just 10 ha, some of those lots will have trees in awkward places. The firebreaks may be a bit harder to clear, because there is less room to let it wander around the large trees.

Then you see the chance of even more profit. You subdivide and sell lots of just one hectare. All of a sudden, a firebreak is a very large fraction of the total one hectare of land. If you avoid a tree here then you may run into your house there. Wander away from the fenceline -- to leave a beautiful grove of trees -- and your firebreak goes straight through the area where you hoped to grow fruit trees.

The smaller the block, the less room is available for a firebreak. Trees and firebreaks become mutually exclusive... Perhaps you should just take a chance, protect the trees, and do not clear a firebreak.

Hey! Your neighbour will probably clear fell his property! That should be enough to protect you... maybe...

So what has gone wrong? Well, the more people that live in the bush, the less room there is for effective firebreaks. But there are still enough flammable trees for a good, hot bushfire. As we found out from Victoria.

Consider the correct problem

There are too many people living in areas which are prone to bushfire. That is the problem.

Too many people mean that we are not able to protect ourselves by selective -- patchwork -- burning. Too many people mean that there are smaller blocks and less room for effective firebreaks.

Solutions

Okay, the obvious solution is, less people living in bushfire-prone areas. How far will we get with reducing the "bush" population? Probably, nowhere.

So we need to accept that there will be bushfires, that there will be property damage. (As an aside: the indigenous approach suited their nomadic lifestyle. When one area was worn out, littered with whatever rubbish and scraps are caused by people... You move on. And the next bushfire will clean up your previous settlement.)

We need to accept that there will be property damage. Do we need to accept that there will be loss of life? No!

Build a fireproof shelter. Every property owner should build their own shelter.

The shelter is for preserving life. Whatever is outside the shelter is expected to be destroyed. If the property owner does not accept that -- they can build a bigger shelter. Build the entire house as a fireproof shelter. Build in enough room to provide shelter for livestock. Shelter whatever is considered too precious to lose.

Or move out.

If you live in a bushfire area, there will be a bushfire. It's all very nice to be surrounded by trees, and grass, and wildlife. If you want to live through a bushfire -- build a suitable shelter. If you want to never face a bushfire that threatens your property -- live somewhere else.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Save 3% -- Cost Even More

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Hospital in the Home (HiH) service is to be cut. Part of the 3% savings from the Health department, apparently.

Until it was cut, I had never even heard of HiH. Still, it sounds like a good idea. Not every sick person needs full hospital care. Not everyone wants to be isolated from friends and family just because they are or have been sick or injured.

Oh well, 3% must be saved...

But wait! The Health Minister says that the HiH service will continue! "So," says Kim Hames, "we'll be making sure the services themselves stay but there will be more contracting out to Silver Chain." (The West, Anger over shake-up of hospital in home service, 18 Feb 09)

Let's follow the "logic"...

• HiH is said to save about $25 million a year. We cancel HiH and have an immediate cost of the $25 million, in hospital beds that are now required.
• But we have saved the cost of HiH. Let's pretend that that is $1 million.
• Now we pay Silver Chain to provide the HiH service. So we are back to saving that $25 million. (What do you bet, that that will be counted as part of the 3% savings!)
• Can Silver Chain provide HiH for the same $1 million cost? When you add the cost of setting up and managing a contract -- probably not. Can Silver Chain hire nurses for less than RPH? Probably not. Does this mean that the total cost of the outsourced HiH contract is higher than having it done by the Health department? Probably.

So why will HiH be stopped, to be replaced by an outsourced HiH? Because... there will be an apparent saving of $1 million... And -- when the smoke and mirrors are fully in place -- the Minister will be able to announce a $25 million savings in hospital beds. All because he was clever enough to outsource HiH...

Oh, sure, it will cost more in reality. But what politician -- or senior bureaucrat -- ever cares about reality?

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Aboriginal Problem

There is no "Aboriginal Problem". What we do have, is a series of issues which interact.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

(1) There are people in Australia who get drunk, who shout and stagger round the streets of the major towns and cities. Some of these people are Aboriginal but some are not.

On a recent visit to Kalgoorlie I saw six or seven people -- men and women -- swaying, shouting, smelling of alcohol -- on the footpath of the main shopping & tourist area. In the middle of the morning. A couple of children were with them. Is this an "Aboriginal Problem"? No.

For one thing, all sorts (and colours) of people get drunk and stagger down our streets. For another, the people that I saw were various shades of dark. Because many were mixed race, would we call this a "European Problem"? No? So why should we call it an "Aboriginal Problem"...

(2) Two days later, in Merredin, I saw a dark-skinned person walk down the main street. From a distance, purely on the evidence of the dark skin, I thought, "Aboriginal". I also decided that he was a teenager. He walked along the footpath, bought a packet of chips, walked back again. With no sign at all that he was drunk, nor shouting, nor drugged... In fact, he looked like a typical teenager.

Not all Aboriginals are drunk. If we refer to "the Aboriginal Problem" then we are unfairly insulting every person with a dark skin. Yes, there is a problem. Yet there are plenty of people who are Aboriginal or part Aboriginal but who are not a part of the problem.

(3) The problem is not just drunk & disorderly in a public place. Yes, there is a problem. Public drunkenness may be one visible sign. There are also: crime, violence, family violence, rape, incest, disease... The list goes on. This is a problem. Perhaps even a Problem.

So, why do we do nothing about it?

(4) Political correctness says, we must not be "paternal".

If your toddler tries to poke its fingers into an electric socket, what do you do? Do you, (a) Give your toddler a lot of money and hope that it will at least pay for its own hospital care? (b) Demand that the government provide and pay for a safer alternative to electricity in your home? (c) Give a lot of electrical safety pamphlets to your non-literate child? (d) Demand a lot of money for yourself because you were once a child?

If you really care about your toddler you will look after them, protect them as well as you can... and train them, educate them until they are finally able to take care of themselves. You need to be both "paternal" and "maternal". That is how we help people to develop. That is what we do when we really care.

(5) Some people shout "paternalism" and "racism" and you have to wonder why. They blame the past for the inadequacies of the present. The only "solution" -- so they say -- is... more money. Let's be cynical:

What do these people gain? Well, for one thing, they get a regular income. If "the Aboriginal problem" were actually solved, a lot of people would need to find other sources of income. These people also get personal power. If "the Aboriginal problem" were solved, they would need to find other ways to get people to listen to them. It is in their interests to maintain "an Aboriginal Problem".

(6) The same people who make a living from "the Problem" tell us that the fault lies in the past. For one thing, this absolves them of blame: it was "someone else's" fault, so there is nothing that "I" can do.

Plenty of convicts were sent to Australia. They were thrown out of their homes, sent away from their home countries, given no land, no rights. Many of them suffered. Some died. Some prospered. A mixed result. And we -- Australia -- can be proud of the convicts who overcame displacement and difficulties and built a new life, for themselves and for their families.

(7) Yet a minute shade of Aboriginal blood is enough, apparently, to destroy all hope. One past drop of Aboriginal blood is enough, it seems, to require government payment to you, to your family, your friends -- and your advisors. Get real!

Yes, there is a problem

Yes, there is a problem. Some people are not able, or do not want, to live within the strictures of our society as it exists today. Yes, it would be nice to solve that problem, to help people who are stuck in what we see as miserable conditions.

First, though, we need to be clear about the problem.

Identify the problem. Forget about blame: we either want to help, or we do not. Then look for some real solutions.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Why Make Athletes Play Politics?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Hidden in the middle of Paul Murray's column: "if we're not prepared to cut our trade ties to China and forgo the riches they have brought to WA, then we shouldn't be prepared to put the pressure of a boycott on our Olympic athletes." (The West, "Why make athletes play politics?", 29 March 2008)

From there, Murray takes the easy path: If we won't boycott trade then why should we boycott sport, so let's all go and have a good time at the China Olympics.

Do we really care about Chinese politics? Well... sort of... but not if it interferes with our access to Chinese money.

Forget about Murray and his apologia -- he may still be hoping to be an accredited journalist for the 2008 Olympics. Think -- for yourselves: Do you really care?

If you really object to China's repressive home rules, to its oppression in Tibet, to whatever it is in China that upsets you -- then do something real! Stop buying Chinese, stop selling to China, pressure others to do the same. In particular, pressure politicians to stop trade with China, pressure businesses to stop trade with China.

Do you really care enough? Enough to accept that you will lose some of your own money to the protest? Then do something real.

Murray's logic is, that business & politics will not change, so sport should not change. If we are really serious, then business & politics must change. Take the hard path -- the path that costs us money.

But forget the hypocritical apologia. If you really care -- take some real action.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Stupid Stunt, Crazy Logic, Earth Hour... and the Hypocrites of the AFL

So we are being encouraged to turn off power for an hour, to save the Earth. Whoop-de-do.

The letters page of The West, on 29 March 2008, has two views: Earth Hour is a ridiculous idea because it's just one hour -- and we will waste other resources while the power is off; and it's a great idea because every little bit helps. Hmmm...

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Yes, it is a ridiculous idea. What help will it be to save one hour of power? Especially if we burn barbecue wood instead. After the bbq we will all stay up an extra hour -- with the plasma tv switched on -- as we watch the shows that we recorded during earth hour.

And it's crazy logic which says that we should ignore earth hour. After all, every little bit helps. But the really crazy logic is this: it is all over after one hour.

It's like "clean up Australia day"... We're all disappointed when that one day collects less rubbish than the year before. Why? Presumably, we're disappointed because "other" people have thrown away less for us to collect on our one day of feeling good.

We need to clean up every day of the year... Better yet, do not litter at all, so there is nothing to clean up. We need to save power every day. Do we really need a large screen plasma tv? Are we -- if we support Earth Hour at all -- are we just being hypocritical?

Football management misses the point

Could we possibly be more hypocritical than the AFL? The Dockers first home game of the season runs through Earth Hour. "Plunging thousands of people into darkness would be dangerous, sports chiefs say." (The West, 10 March 2008) So... "event organisers plan to promote awareness about reducing the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions -- fossil fuel-fired energy -- by advertising Earth Hour 2008 on their big screens."

Advertising "on their big screens"! Wow, that will really save energy, won't it! Well -- for those who don't recognise sarcasm -- no. It would save more energy to turn off those big screens. But at least the AFL does care? Well, no. Not really.

Why is this big game on at night? I would guess that there are sound commercial reasons: higher attendance, more sponsors, much more money from a direct tv telecast at night.

The game is at night so that the AFL can make more money. If the AFL really cared about saving energy, they could play the game during daylight. But no... that would cost them money.

What a bunch of hypocrites... Just like the rest of us.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

St Trinians vs Blueburger

I absolutely agree with Mark Naglazas (The West / Today, 28 March 2008): If we're going to have a movie about schoolgirls -- especially if the movie claims to be a comedy -- then it just must have at least one head job. I mean to say, what's a schoolgirl movie worth without oral sex?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Marriage under Sharia Law, Tribal Law, Law of the Jungle

There have been recent suggestions that Australia (and England) should accept some parts of sharia law. The suggestions have been howled down. Why?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

First: Should we allow sharia law for those people who choose to use it, in areas in which they wish to apply it? Certainly not! No-one should be allowed to choose which part of our system of laws they will follow. We follow all the laws -- or we do not follow all and accept that we are criminals.

Second: Should a muslim be allowed to claim extra government payments for each of his four wives? What a load of rubbish! If you can't afford four wives then just marry one... or none. What about tribal law? There have been suggestions that Australia should allow tribal law to apply to some of our citizens. Again: What a load of rubbish!

One country, one set of laws, all citizens -- and visitors -- equal within that system of laws. (Okay, for today we won't comment on the value of an expensive law team.)

Does that mean that sharia law is wrong? That tribal law is unjust? That law of the jungle is out of date? No!

Our law is set by a consensus. It is possibly an accepted view of the wishes of the majority. Our current system of laws is not necessarily perfect.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Example -- four wives:

Sharia law allows a man to have four wives. If your aim is to out-breed the enemy then it makes sense for one man to have lots of wives. Protect as many women as possible while you breed as much cannon fodder as possible.

The development of safe contraception leads to a different scenario: One woman could have several husbands. Makes sense, doesn't it? One man has limited staying power... If a woman enjoys sex then why should she have to stop just because the first man is exhausted?

(Remember the old story about penis envy? "Mummy, Johnny showed me what's between his legs. I don't have one of them." Don't worry, dear," replies Mummy. "With what you have between your legs -- you can have as many of those as you want.")

Back to marriage: Men want to marry men. Women want to marry women. Muslims say that they want more wives. Logic says that women could have more husbands. Perhaps we can learn from this?

Is our law perfect? No way... It is time to examine other systems -- to see if we can improve our own.

Don't just reject the alternatives. Examine them! Approach our laws with an open mind. Is it time to loosen up our laws on marriage?

• Point one: If a man wants to marry several women -- why not? If a woman wants to marry several men -- why not? If several men want to marry several women -- let them! Men, women, couples, groups, combinations... perhaps we should allow it all?!
  
• Point two: Do we then give government handouts to anyone who claims to be a supported spouse? Why not? If there is not enough money to go round -- well -- there's less money per spouse. Why do we pay for spouses anyway? Is it so that Australia will out-breed our potential enemies in neighbouring countries? What an awful -- frightening -- reason! Let's just not pay for any support for any spouses. That removes one objection to mixed marriages.
  
• Point three: Sharia law comes with multiple wives and all-powerful husbands. Is this acceptable in Australia? Is this really one point? or two... We can adjust our laws to allow combination marriages. That does not mean that we adjust our laws to allow subjugation of women. (Unless, of course, we decide that a majority of Australians want it.)
  

So let's open our minds. Look at these other systems of laws. Take what's good -- good for us. And leave the rest.

One country, one system of laws. But that system of laws must live and breathe and grow.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com