Forget doublethink, just think

I am a great fan of George Orwell, who wrote one of the best books ever, Animal Farm published in 1945.

In a later work Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell introduced a concept which can help explain natural resource management planning as it is occurring in NSW at the moment.  That is the concept of "doublethink".

Doublethink is when we hold two contradictory beliefs in our minds simultaneously and accept both of them.  Doublethink has been described as a form of trained, willful blindness to contradictions.

A lot of people associated with catchment planning under the new Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) seem to practice doublethink.

They accept the Darwinian view of evolution -- that is that the natural world is dynamic, not static.  Animal and plant species have evolved -- there was no Garden of Eden.

They accept that ecosystems, like human societies, are emergent complex systems.  That ecosystems change and adapt and change again.

Yet these same people develop catchment plans based on the idea that the landscape was in an ideal, pristine state before European settlement.  The benchmark year has been determined as 1750 -- over 250 years ago.

The ultimate objective of these plans seems to be to return the catchment to how it was in 1750.

Well, not exactly.  For example, though targets for some CMAs include 30 per cent of the catchment area being covered in vegetation exactly as it was in 1750.

Yet some basic things that determine which plants grow where have fundamentally changed.

For example, the planners seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the global climate was different in 1750.

In 1280AD volcanic eruptions on Iceland, and a change in ocean currents, started a period that has become known as the Little Ice Age.  Conditions were generally cooler and drier back then.

This period of cooler climate finished in the late 1800s.  And now, of course, many people believe the natural warming is being augmented by warming associated with the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from industrialisation.

When climates change, this causes changes to vegetation.

Interestingly, while it was generally drier in terms of precipitation (rainfall) during previous ice ages, parts of inland Australia which are now desert, were inland lakes during the last proper ice age (which finished about 15,000 years ago).

The lakes were apparently fed by glacial runoff from the Snowy Mountains.

Furthermore, before European settlement, the NSW landscape was actively managed by aborigines for about 40,000 years.

Aborigines used fire to favor open grassland areas as opposed to closed forest ecosystems.

With the end of aboriginal burning and the introduction of sheep and cattle there has been profound change.  This may not all necessarily be bad, unless we insist on 1750 as the benchmark.

I consider myself progressive and a progressive environmentalist.  I prefer to look forwards, while appreciating human and natural history.

If I were a member of one of these CMAs I would ask the questions:

• What might the vegetation in my catchment look like in 50 years time?
• How can I maximise biodiversity?
• How can I ensure a healthy landscape?
• What is the best return for the few dollars we have?

In asking these questions we free the mind from doublethink.

We acknowledge that change is real -- that it can not be denied.  We also redefine the paradigm in which decisions are being made.

Many people don't like change and they hate paradigms being redefined.

To be sure they might call you all sorts of names, even describe you are a right wing conservative!

Now that would also constitute doublethink.

ADVERTISEMENT