The uncut version.
Owen McShane
the last section of this week's column in NBR.
Lincoln
A Night at the Theatre of the Absurd
We are often told that New Zealand’s RMA is a world leader – and it
probably is. After all, it rejects “land use planning” in favour of
“sustainable management”. And sustainable management rejects
“sustainable development” which is so beloved of totalitarian planners.
So why do we invite so many foreigners to teach our own students about
our own Act? I suspect New Zealand’s centralist planners want to
minimise exposing our students to our own market-led legislation in
favour of the “holistic approach” of “sustainable development” which
Karl Popper warned us is the handmaiden of fascism.
Lincoln University’s web pages provide some useful insights into what
goes on in its planning school.
Dr Stefanie Rixecker is a Senior Lecturer within Lincoln’s Environmental
Management and Design Department. She teaches ERST101 which is a
compulsory first paper for the Bachelor of Resource Studies degree. This
course aims “to enable students to identify and explain the relevance of
three systems dimensions (i.e., biophysical, sociocultural, and
economic) for resource studies.”
Unfortunately for her students, this approach is completely hostile to
the concept of resource management, as defined in the RMA. These Lincolm
students are off to a great start.
The text for the course is “The Lorax – Dr. Seuss.” This may surprise
you, but it shouldn’t. The publisher’s blurb tells us:
"Long before saving the earth became a global concern, Dr. Seuss,
speaking through his character, The Lorax, warned against mindless
progress and the danger it posed to the earth's natural beauty."
The Lorax character warns us that:
"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot..nothing is going to
get better...It's not."
I suspect you won't find Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”
anywhere in this department.
Anyhow, when not searching through such hefty works for her compulsory
course material, Stefanie occupies her spare time with her research
interests which include (inter alia):
* Gender, development and environment
* Cultural studies and the environment
* Queer theory and (bio)technology
Which will all be a great help to Councils trying to write their
district plans.
Jean-Paul Thull, Dipl-Ing (TU Karlsruhe) lectures in Transport Studies
within the Environmental Management stream. He tells us that during a
cycling holiday in New Zealand in 1994/95, he learned first hand of the
problem of stock effluent spillage on NZ roads.
He must have got a faceful because this topic totally dominates his
recent publications.
Now we concede that this may be a problem to a visiting cyclist from
Germany, especially if he tries to ride the slip-stream behind a stock
truck on its way to the yards. But this is hardly high on the list of
transport issues facing our rural economy. Ask any forest owner.
I have long wondered why our District Plans display such a woeful
ignorance of the way the New Zealand rural economy actually works.
So I turned to the single course which appeared to address rural
development in New Zealand.
Our Resource Studies students at Lincoln are asked such useful questions
as:
"Has ‘development’ been a good thing for all rural communities? What is
the ‘new paradigm’ of development? Will the new paradigm lead to more
sustainable rural development?
Global issues such as free trade and national debt are covered in order
to explain the impact of national and international policy on rural
communities both in NZ and less developed countries. What have the
recent riots against the World Bank and WTO been all about? How do the
policies of global organisations like the World Bank and WTO impact on
people in rural communities?"
All is clear. The problems facing our rural Councils and communities, in
trying to meet their obligations under the RMA, are all due to the WTO,
the World Bank and free trade.
The reading list did not include a single publication about or from New
Zealand.
I hasten to add that if you investigate the courses given at Lincoln
University under topics such as transport, engineering, economics and
the like, you will a high quality academics, providing useful courses
which actually relate to real issues facing New Zealanders in New
Zealand.
But once the word “environment” or “resource” is attached to any
qualification, or course, then we enter the land of the fruit-loops,
whose courses focus on such useful matters as (and I quote):
* Symbolic Interactionism,
* Feminist Epistemologies
* Hermeneutics/Phenomenology
* Dramaturgical Analysis
My advice to councils is avoid staff who have graduated from any course
with “environment” in front of the topic. Employ “soil scientists” but
not “environmental soil scientists.” Employ “transport engineers” but
not “environmental transport engineers”.
Our planning and environment schools are actually schools of strange
theologies.
--
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)
Steve
> For those of you who wanted the whole thing here is the uncut version of
> the last section of this week's column in NBR.
>
> Lincoln
> A Night at the Theatre of the Absurd
> We are often told that New Zealand's RMA is a world leader - and it
> probably is. After all, it rejects "land use planning" in favour of
> "sustainable management". And sustainable management rejects
> "sustainable development" which is so beloved of totalitarian planners.
> So why do we invite so many foreigners to teach our own students about
> our own Act? I suspect New Zealand's centralist planners want to
> minimise exposing our students to our own market-led legislation in
> favour of the "holistic approach" of "sustainable development" which
> Karl Popper warned us is the handmaiden of fascism.
If Karl Popper said that, then he's full of doggy do-do's and so are you.
There is nothing wrong - and everything right - with enshrining in law
the principle of sustainability.
How you get Fascism from that is your own particular flavour of
madness...perhaps shared by the illustrious Mr. Popper.
Cliff Pratt
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
... the "holistic approach" of "sustainable development" which
Karl Popper warned us is the handmaiden of fascism.
Mmmm, after an extensive search I've not been able to find this
reference. Where is it from?
Cheers,
Cliff
See the happy moron?
He doesnt give a damn.
I wish I was a moron,
By god, perhaps I am!
Peter
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>My advice to councils is avoid staff who have graduated from any course
>with “environment” in front of the topic. Employ “soil scientists” but
>not “environmental soil scientists.” Employ “transport engineers” but
>not “environmental transport engineers”.
>Our planning and environment schools are actually schools of strange
>theologies.
>
Probably useful to hire one or two to give an 'alternative' viewpoint
to help refine reasoning and arguments, but not as decision makers. I
remember having a problem with landscape architects who wanted to
design the whole facility when their brief was to provide attractive
but low-maintenance landscaping. It seems that landscape architecture
has spawned the other environmental 'diciplines'.
Owen McShane
management" and our Parliament deliberately rejected the European notion
of "sustainable development".
And I would bet on sustainable management to promote true sustainability
over sustainable development every time.
Please read what I wrote rather than what your knee jerk tells you I
wrote.
Owen McShane
>
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:41:48 +1300, Owen McShane
> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> ... the "holistic approach" of "sustainable development" which
> Karl Popper warned us is the handmaiden of fascism.
>
> Mmmm, after an extensive search I've not been able to find this
> reference. Where is it from?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
thinking as part of the intellectual package which supports totalitarian
regimes. OF courese he does not link this to the words "sustainable
development" because they were not around then. But sustainable
development is seldom mentioned without holistic cropping up in the same
paragraph or the same page. Go and have a look at the Lincoln web pages.
> See the happy moron?
> He doesnt give a damn.
> I wish I was a moron,
> By god, perhaps I am!
--
Owen McShane
with and lectured us saw architects and lanscape architects working
together to create a whole.
The new generation from our environment schools are frequently hostile
to architecture. Their view seems to be that you can build a building if
you paint it green, surround it with trees and put it in a valley.
I once opened by cross examination of one of these lanscape consultants
by saying "Now I am an architect which means I design buildings. (nods)
and you are a landscape architect which means you design gardens."
He just about lept over the lectern with his rage and fury at such a
dreadful notion. HE launched into Holism, big pictures, grand views,
science of landscape visions and was generally fascinating to watch. He
damned near foamed at the mouth. In my day this would have drawn no such
reaction.
Peter
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>> I remember having a problem with landscape architects who wanted to
>> design the whole facility when their brief was to provide attractive
>> but low-maintenance landscaping.
> Their view seems to be that you can build a building if
>you paint it green,
Yes, that was the case
>surround it with trees
Yes (from memory) but no problem here.
>and put it in a valley.
Fortunately, it was an extension to an existing facility.
Steve
Thanks, Owen.
The terms "sustainable management" and "sustainable development" were
not defined anywhere in your post...so I am free to read into them what
I will.
I would think sustainable management implies all aspects of resource
planning, development and use.
I would think sustainable development means developing something in such
a way that it can exist as developed without degrading *because* it is
developed....as in build something next to a river that over time
destroys the river that was the reason for the development.
If you provide more clarity, I'll respond with greater accuracy. As it
was, I had to guess...and you didn't like my guesses apparently.
Owen McShane
statement of purpose.
This is our NZ developed definition which I believe is sensible and in
line with Anglo American tradition. Sustainable development is a
European notion which says that Bureaucrats can centrally plan
everything we do and that they have the wisdom to balance the triple
bottom lines of economic, social and environmental conflicts.
This is why Simon Upton, in the third reading emphasised that we have
only a single bottom line. The impact on the natural and physical
resources. The market led economy is the best means of allocating
resources but we must intervene to protect the environment.
Sustainable development assumes there are committees of incredibly wise
people who can centrally plan the lot.
The RMA rejects economic planning but is strong on economic analysis.
Sadly, because of the bias of our universities we get graduates who are
strong (sic) on economic planning but incredibly weak on economic
analysis.
However, the whole point of the column was to get this debate off the
ground and going from the responses I am getting it seems to have
worked.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
........
> The RMA rejects economic planning but is strong on economic analysis.
> Sadly, because of the bias of our universities we get graduates who are
> strong (sic) on economic planning but incredibly weak on economic
> analysis.
I have a lot of homework to do in this area....but from what you say, it
seems our approach of putting the environment first is the best one.
> However, the whole point of the column was to get this debate off the
> ground and going from the responses I am getting it seems to have
> worked.
You got my attention.....if that's worth anything. :-)
I'll read up on this in order to make more informed contributions in
future.