Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Big Ideas -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) for our titles, who are real detail people, that have that ability to be able to... ..manage a group of, you know, up to 20 or 30 people and meet a deadline. And stay to a schedule and finish a game and get it in a box and on a shelf, which is what we're all about. Probably about the most important thing I do every day is liaise with our producers here at Tantalus because they're responsible for their individual projects and I'm responsible for making sure that all the projects that we've got running here are working the way we want them to be. If you're thinking about getting into the video game industry, all I'd say is it's really important to love video games because you're gonna be surrounded by people who, for whom, this is their life. I was lucky enough to represent Australia in athletics, so being able to achieve what I achieved in athletics

has definitely helped me in business and it's mostly just through the discipline that comes with being a sports person. In 10 years, I didn't miss one training session. Running my own video game studio is definitely pretty close to my dream job, I think so. I'm certainly happy here for the next little while. Closed Captions provided by Captioning and Subtitling International Pty Ltd This Program is Captioned Live. # Theme Music Hi there, and welcome to Big Ideas, I'm Waleed Aly. Amongst our selection of Short Cuts today, Hugh Mackay on the ten desires that drive us. Plus an intriguing presentation on why the nuclear bombs have fallen silent. Total number of detonations on the bottom right. Russia gets the bomb. (Electronic beeping) Great Britain starts testing, notice never in Great Britain Australia and the United States. (More beeping) And on it goes. More of that disturbing piece of animated data, from a talk called Twilight of the Bombs, a little later. First up though, we live in a time when global poverty is on the decrease, but economic justice is still a distant dream. So, how do we change this? If the world was a fairer place, who should get what, and why? That was the subject of a debate organised by the social justice group One Just World. One of the speakers, Mary Ellen Iskerdarian, who heads up the worlds biggest network of micro-banks, say the key is putting women in charge of the purse strings. Um, Women's World banking was really conceived at the first UN Conference on Human Rights for Women in Mexico city, in 1976.

Where a group of women came together and realised that women would never really, truly have full human rights if they did not have economic rights and the access to their own financial independence and the ability to make their own financial decisions. So, over the course of the next three years,

these women came together and pretty much, in some senses, collided with the microfinance movement, which was getting started at the same time. So in 1979 it was very much with the intention of women helping other women to fully realise those rights, that Women's World Banking was born. Today, as you mentioned in your remarks, we are in network of 39 microfinance institutions and banks, in 27 developing countries. All of whom - and they range from full fledged banks to savings cooperatives, to NGOs - a whole range of legal structures, but all of the organisations in the WWB network are committed to providing access to financial services and products

to low-income entrepreneurs, with a particular focus on women and their households. And, as I imagine will talk a little bit throughout the afternoon, that need is absolutely as great as it was back in 1976 - because we've seen, as microfinance has in some ways been a victim

of its success, it's very commercially viable now, there is a great deal of investment capital flowing into the sector, we've seen the business model really move up market to a great degree, and unfortunately away from women clients to a very great degree. So what, the percentage of people who actually get the microfinance loans nowadays has dropped in proportion to the total amount of loans that are given? Well, in terms of women, yes. You've seen a very stark, very dramatic drop-off in the percentage of women clients that are served by microfinance institutions. I should say, commercial capital has been the greatest engine of growth for the microfinance industry, - you've seen great growth in those institutions that have made that shift - and in some cases you've really seen the absolute number of women grow, in terms of being served by those institutions. But that growth is greatly outstripped by the increase in growth of male borrowers.

And again, we can talk a bit about why it remains so important that women have access to capital. Because of the way they spend their money, when they are empowered to have economic independence. Yeah, well I think we should explore that later actually, because people might think 'well why should they get more money'. Professor Buckley Ross, could you tell us what you feel has been the biggest lesson learned over the years in which this issue has been addressed about - what's the biggest lesson in terms of how to effectively deliver aid and where have we got it wrong and where are we getting it right? I think we've learned a lot about aid and development assistance and I think in my experience there's a big gap between what most people think aid is and what it generally is, these days. Generally, in my experience, it's much more longer term programs focused on empowering countries to be able to do things better themselves. It's much more focused on capacity building. And some of the development projects I've been involved in are really, really effective. I don't think the problem's so much at the aid end of the spectrum, I think the challenges are in the framework. You know, our global economic framework, and trade arrangements our financial arrangements are desperately unfair, and these are the things that mean that the playing field is never level and developing countries have huge challenges. The problem is not, in my experience, with the individual aid projects or the individual entities delivering those projects. I think we've learned an awful lot about that. But we haven't reformed the World Trade Organisation, we haven't reformed the international financial system and that's the source of the injustice, globally. Thanks, and finally Emilia, speaking from your perspective as finance minister of one of the worlds poorest nations, are you optimistic about the preparedness of the rest of the world to actually address the issues that people are saying needs to be addressed. What's your sense of how it's going as a recipient? From my experience, and you mentioned it before, we are now part of the Little G7. The reason why the Little G7 was born, is because we don't actually believe that the world will change if we don't do something about it. And this is why countries like ours, small, poor countries, beneficiaries of aid, for example in Timor-Leste, from 99 to 2007, there were $8 billion invested in Timor-Leste in terms of humanitarian aid and development assistance. But poverty doubled in many of our regions, to 50% in some areas. So, something must have gone wrong. And nowadays, Timor-Leste is actually leading this Little G7 prowess forum, which is made up of 17 nations facing similar problems, to actually help a dialogue between us and the developed countries, on looking for minted ways on how to fix this problem, because it's not working and that's the experience, and we need to do something about it.

And right now we are in this process whereby we think that the answer is not only within developed countries, it is also within us. What is it that we have to do to insure that we guide the aid in a better way? And then we come in together to strengthen our voice so it can be heard. Have you identified any specific reasons why that didn't work? Because I think that's something people find really dispiriting when they feel that aid's given, and poverty gets worse. Yeah, it's probably the 'how.' Right now we have four working groups, one of them is on the planning, because we do hear a lot from the developed country side that when they come in to the developing country, the developing country does not have a plan, and therefore they don't know where to actually target their aid. So it's all over the place, uncoordinated and therefore it doesn't actually produce at the end of the day, any nobody actually owns the process. And so there is a working group looking at this planning, who should lead that plan? Obviously it should be the recipient country. And therefore everybody else can follow that plan and implement that plan and then maybe we can see more results.

The other working group is on the aid instruments. Are they working? Because at the moment we have for example, let's state Timor-Leste again, the money doesn't come straight to the country, it doesn't come into my treasury. Everybody manages their money, and therefore it's impossible to actually coordinate this. And sometimes you make a plan and you need that money to be implemented today or tomorrow, it only comes the year after. So it just loses its momentum, loses its effectiveness. And then there's another working group on political dialogue, because there has to be political will at the highest level, for all these things to be implemented. I can't remember the third, the fourth... Does any of this sound familiar to you, Andrew? Desperately familiar. Just on the question of coordination, for instance, This is supposedly an area that aid donors have been trying to get their act together.

but I remember a colleague of mine, two or three years ago was meeting a minister in the Laotian Government I think in the agricultural department. and his department, that previous year, had hosted 328 separate donor visits. And that's a department which would have very limited human capacity to actually manage that donor relationship but they had to use their more senior staff to relate to donors. Donors basically, had different standards of reporting, demanded direct engagement, there was little coordination. And that is repeated time, after time, after time again. The international community for The Paris Declaration for the mechanisms that Emilia was talking about has signed up for a greater level of coordination but I think there's been quite a gap between the promising and the delivery. In terms of impacts that are affecting people's lives presently in East Timor has the Global Financial Crisis in the sense exacerbated the kinds of problems you were talking about, or not feeling that. In Timor-Leste we've been fortunate for on one hand, when the Global Financial Crisis was happening I was actually reading in the newspapers about it and then reading the reactions of ordinary citizens in countries where there was a huge, big impact. And then I ask myself the question - 'What are they on about?' This is what we, in Timor-Leste, has been experiencing for the last 400 years. And why did I say that? Because were not integrated today, into the global economy and so there was no such big impact except on our gas and oil revenues. But then on the other hand, there's a little bit of a paradox in there as well. Because with the Global Financial Crisis, the price of the oil also went down and then it's gone up even though the dollar is down, but for us it kind of works on the positive side rather than the negative side so it's a bit... ..So you are waiting to get integrated into the world economy so you can be effected by it? We have to be very careful because as you get integrated - that's why we want to change the global system so that when we get to that stage, when we get intergrated we wont suffer like everyone else suffered. What's been your experience, Mary Ellen?

Has it effected the kinds of loans your able to give and the amount of money that's flowing around? Micro finance - knock on wood - as an industry, has actually been has been quite resilient coming out the Global Financial Crisis. Initially, late 2008, early 2009 you saw the populations that microfinance serves really having already been weakened by the food and fuel crisis of that previous year and then going into the Financial Crisis. At least the 39 institutions of the WWB Network I think were very wise in slowing growth, going back to basics in terms of credit analysis. For example, we had some institutions that didn't do a proper credit analysis for repeat borrowers. So they cut that out and went right back to their knitting - and actually as a result really were able to respond quite effectively to the crisis. Mary Ellen Iskenderian from Women's World Banking speaking at the Sustainable Living Festival in Melbourne. If you'd like to see that talk in full you can head to our website at: Next, the ten desires that drive us. At a recent talk to the Sydney Institute, social research veteran Hugh Mackay discussed his latest book which poses a very human question - why do we talk as if we're rational but act as if we're not. One of the oddest questions that humans ever ask themselves, I think, and reflect on this and ask whether you've ever asked yourself this question, is 'why did I do that?' It's an odd question, isn't it, because you've done it. And now, reflecting on it, you're saying, 'why did I do that?' Perhaps the central theme of this new book is that we shouldn't be surprised when we're surprised by our own behaviour. For a couple of reasons. One is that although we like to describe humans as rational creatures, the evidence for that is very thin indeed. And it seems to me we'll have a happier life and the world will make more sense to us if we accept that humans, by and large, are deeply irrational creatures, ruled most often by the heart rather than the head but capable of occasional remarkable bursts of rationality. And that's what should surprise us. Not when people are rational - not when they're irrational but when they're rational. But the other reason why we shouldn't be amazed when our own behaviour surprises us is that the motivations that drive us are extraordinarily complicated and subtle and I think it makes sense to think of any piece of behaviour as the outcome not just of one drive, one desire, one motive, but the outcome of a dynamic interplay between ten. I'm going to discuss tonight ten desires that are driving us constantly. They don't take it in turns, they're a bit like a room full of anxious kids all punching the air, saying 'pick me, pick me.' Each of these ten desires would love to control us and if we let any one of them take charge, we're going to lead unbalanced and miserable lives. But they're in conflict very often, they're in competition very often, they interact, they overlap and it's this interplay between them that determines why we do the things we do on any given occasion. And of course, we're rarely conscious of that dynamic interaction which is why we're so often puzzled not only by our own behaviour but of course most of us have heard ourselves saying to other people, especially spouses and kids, 'why did you do that?' And then been deeply unsatisfied by the answer because who knows why they did what they did. Well, I've said there are ten and if you get hold of a copy of the book you'll notice that the chapters - one desire per chapter - the chapters are not numbered and that's because I do want you to think of these desires as being like the strands of a web where the strands are all interconnected, there's a lot of overlap, there's a lot of interplay, and there's a constant vibration in this web. They're not going to be presented tonight in order of importance, there's not a hierarchy of these desires in my view, they all have their day and mostly we're only conscious of them when they're frustrated and they demand to be heard but there is one to which I give a bit more emphasis than the other nine and that's because, it seems to me, in any collection of desires driving a particular piece of behaviour you'll always find one that's present. Perhaps the most fundamental of all the desires that drive us, the one that's usually part of the explanation, and that is the desire to be taken seriously. Now, I should hasten to say that that doesn't mean that we desire to be regarded as serious people - most of us don't want to be thought of as serious, most of us want to be more fun than that but this is the desire to be noticed, the desire to be acknowledged, the desire to be appreciated, the desire to be valued, perhaps even the desire to be remembered. Some of you may have seen an interview that Andrew Denton did on his Enough Rope - Elders series a year or so ago with a very old English woman called Helen Bamber who's been a life-long campaigner for the rights of torture victims and in the interview, Helen Bamber described the experience as a very young woman of being at the gates of the Belsen concentration camp when Belsen was liberated and she said she watched this pathetic stream of humanity staggering out of the gates of Belsen, one woman in particular obviously spent, virtually at the end of her life, and Bamber went up to this woman, knelt in the dust beside her, cradled her in her arms and listened while this woman tried to tell the story of what life had been like in Belsen. And as she was speaking, Helen Bamber said to her, 'I'm going to tell your story' and she said at that moment, almost at the point of death, the woman seemed to become calm as though it was enough for her to know that she would not be forgotten, that her identity would not just evaporate but that her story would be told. We all need to know that we won't be forgotten, that our voices will be heard. I don't know how often I've heard young people in particular, although you do hear older people saying the same thing but younger people in particular talking about the experience of applying for jobs and saying, 'you send off dozens of applications, mostly you don't even receive an acknowledgement of the application. As one such person said in one of my research projects that I've quoted in the book 'it's as if you don't exist.' Some of us feel like that if we're kept waiting too long in a doctors surgery, don't we? An hour goes by, no-one explains, no-one apologises, you feel as though you're unimportant, you don't exist. A lot of people have been cynical about what is not emerging as a bit of a spate of official apologies

that are being made by various governments and institutions around the world, in Australia, of course, most famously, the Federal Government's 2008 apology to members of the Stolen Generations but we've seen many other apologies around the world, the Roman Catholic Church apologising to the Jews for its role in Nazi Germany or to the victims of child abuse. And the cynicism that many people express about this is - what's the point, what does it achieve, to make these official apologies? Especially if there's no follow-through, no compensation or reparation. Well, we saw in Australia, didn't we, in 2008 what the point of an apology is. It says to the recipients of the apology, 'Yes, we acknowledge that we haven't been taking you seriously and now we are.' And the outpouring of emotion in response to that apology to the Stolen Generations was an eloquent demonstration of how powerful is this desire to be taken seriously.

So, what happens when we're not taken seriously enough? Of course we hate it. One of the signs that we're not being taken seriously is if we're lumped into a category - that's why we hate being the victims of racism or sexism. You don't want someone to say, 'oh well, they're baby boomers,' or 'she's a single mother' or 'he's a Presbyterian' or gay or something as though that's all you need to know, just a member of a category. Of course, that denies our uniqueness as individuals, wanting acknowledgement of our uniqueness as individuals. But if we're not taken seriously enough, it usually brings out the worst in us. Much anger in humans - individually and in entire nations - comes from feeling as if we haven't been taken seriously. I've already mentioned Nazi Germany - Germany between the two wars is a classic example and there are others on the planet right now, of course, nations who feel they haven't been taken seriously enough and respond very aggressively to that. Occasionally, there's a happy ending to not being taken seriously - Ken Moroney, the recently retired commissioner of police in NSW tells the story of his very first performance review as a probationary constable when the reviewing officer said to him, 'Moroney, you're never going to amount to anything.' And his response, of course, was to become commissioner in the end. Well, you hear those stories because they're so exceptional. What normally happens when young people especially - adolescents, young adults - are humiliated, ignored, marginalised or exploited is that they carry that as a wound which sometimes takes a lifetime to heal. There are, of course, people who respond to not being taken seriously enough by doing the job themselves -

if you won't take me seriously, I'll take myself seriously, so, hubris and arrogance can almost always be traced to early experiences of having been humiliated, mocked, overlooked or belittled in some way. It's the desire to be taken seriously that explains why listeners are so highly prized in our society. Isn't it a wonderful gift when someone attends closely to what you're saying, because, of course, the unspoken message is 'I take you seriously as a person, that's why I'm listening.' But, of course, the opposite is also true - if someone isn't listening, we know that the unspoken message is 'I don't take you seriously enough to offer you the gift of my undivided attention.' I think one of the most tragic things we hear in marriage, often from couples who've been married for a very long time, one or other partner saying, 'oh, he doesn't listen to me anymore.' Meaning, he doesn't take me as seriously as he once did. We all need to know that someone is taking us seriously, even if it's only the dog. (Laughter) Some people do procure a dog so that when you get home after a rough day at least one creature will wag its tail enthusiastically and appear to be taking you seriously. Perhaps counter-intuitively, it's the desire to be taken seriously that also helps to explain why minorities thrive on persecution. That sounds like a contradiction of what I was saying about individuals who are humiliated but persecution of ethnic or religious minorities never results in them shriveling up and just going away

and saying 'we've obviously made a mistake, let's do something else, let's be someone else.' What always happens is faith reinforced, ethnic identity is affirmed by the very fact of persecution - because if a group like that is being persecuted, they're being taken seriously, they're someone's target. It's indifference that's the enemy, not persecution. So, the extent to which we're prepared to listen to each other, to make time for each other, to attend to each other's passions, even if we don't share them, they way we respond to each other's needs, even the way we make love to each other, all of these things send unspoken messages

about how seriously we take each other. Tips on life and love from social researcher Hugh Mackay speaking there at the Sydney Institute. Next, the atomic bomb is no more and that should make us happy, right? Well, maybe. It's the single weapon that profoundly shaped world history for most of the last century, but as Pulitzer Prize winner, Richard Rhodes, told the Long Now Foundation, its disappearance has had equally profound effects. Rhodes' talk is introduced by an amazing short film by Japanese artist, Isao Hashimoto, called 1998, the year nuclear bomb testing stopped.

How many of you think we've detonated less than 100 atomic bombs since 1945? less than 500 atomic bombs? How many of you think we've detonated less than 1,000 atomic bombs? OK, and how about 2,000 atomic bombs?

OK. Please, roll the movie. (Small explosion sound) I'll narrate just a little bit. So, up in the top right are the months going by in the year, the bottom is the number of detonations. So, you just saw Trinity. Now, the two bombs dropped on Japan. And the flags, you'll see, come up, as the different countries do their tests. (Blipping sounds) Pacific Atoll tests by the US. Total number of detonations on the bottom right. Russia gets the bomb. Great Britain starts testing - notice - never in Great Britain. Australia and the United States. France gets the bomb. Also not testing in France - Africa and the Pacific Atolls. (Frenzied blipping) China gets the bomb. We're now passing 1974. Notice we just passed 2,000 mark in number of detonations. And then the testing treaty was signed. (Audience applause) Thank you. One of the things that intrigues me about that sequence that we just saw is the extent to which those tests over the years were kind of a communication, very low grade communication back and forth between the United States and the Soviet Union. The other things that's intriguing and, I think, hopeful in a quantifiable, hard-data sort of way, is that they slowed down and essentially stopped. The only tests that have been conducted in this century have been those tests in North Korea. It may well be that they're going to be the last of them we'll see, or we may have a few outliers like Iran that need to express that particular national will, that particular reach for national prestige

before they're prepared to go any further.

But what I'd like to talk with you about tonight is where we got to after the end of the Cold War, where we are now,

and how we might move from here to some more stable state - which might be the abolition of nuclear weapons. I think we'd all like that - if it played out right. Or it might not be. It might be something else. But one of the things that surprises me is how many Americans

evidently think we got rid of our nuclear weapons

at the end of the Cold War. At first that sounds ill-informed but on the more fundamental level it's really interesting that people would feel the connection between the nuclear arms race and the long, cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and understand at some really quite profound level that with the end of that long conflict we don't need nuclear weapons anymore. At the same time the opposite response has been present in our government in particular. An effort to find some way to rationalise keeping all the weapons

that we built during the Cold War or at least some large subset of those weapons, almost a process of looking for new enemies. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense in the years immediately after the Cold War, under George H.W. Bush, and he is, as he's often said, someone who believes that you should be ready for any possible future. For him there was a real effort in the early '90's to write the Defense Department document that would define a more dangerous world than I think most people here and abroad felt we had come to. And in particular there was an effort on the part of political conservatives to reframe China as the coming enemy with the potential for another Cold War with China. It's been quite a struggle in those years to pull away from that particular approach and to try to rethink everything because the obvious thing to do is to stay with whatever you have as if somehow the future isn't different from the present. I hear from any number of people in the nuclear weapons business that everything is nice and stable - let's stay where we are.

But, of course, that's not the way the future works, certainly not the way we've seen history working. Richard Rhodes speaking there at the Long Now Foundation in San Francisco. Finally today, The Merchants of Doubt - that's the title of a book by science historian Naomi Oreskes who outlines how a shadowy clique of ideologues have clouded the public interpretation of scientific facts on climate change. On a visit to RiAus, Adelaide, Professor Oreskes argues their misinformation campaigns have been deliberate

and extremely well funded. 'Doubt is our product,'

ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, 'since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the general public.' So we see here in this one memo which is now very famous

encapsulated the strategy - use doubt to compete with facts. Use doubt to confuse the public and persuade the public that we didn't really know. Now, a key part of this strategy, however, involved one additional insight. The tobacco industry realised that if a tobacco executive got up in public and said, 'Well, you know, we don't really know if tobacco is harmful,' most of us would realise that didn't pass the laugh test. But if they could recruit scientists to say that -

particularly distinguished scientists - a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences - that would be a different matter. That would have credibility, and not just with the public but that would have credibility with journalists. And so, a key part of their strategy was to recruit distinguished scientists who could promote doubt, particularly to journalists. That is to say they needed scientists to supply the doubt.

And so in our book, Eric Conway and I describe how these scientists, these men, supply doubt, but not just about tobacco,

also about the reality of acid rain - a whole host of environmental issues

in which science had come to the fore, to demonstrate that these problems were real and serious.

So they included the reality of acid rain, the severity of the ozone hole, the human causes of global warming, and more recently, in a kind of revisionist attack on old science, to challenge the scientific evidence of the harms of DDT. These physicists deny the severity of all of these problems and in every single case, in case, after case, after case they insisted that the science was too uncertain to justify government action. Now, to find out how they did this you'll have to read the book, but I'll give you here the short version. They did it through the systematic misrepresentation of the scientific evidence just as the tobacco industry had done before. They cherry picked data, they took data out of context. They claim that the ozone hole was caused by volcanoes. They insisted that if one glacier in New Zealand was expanding then there couldn't possibly be global warming. They launched personal attacks on leading scientists, stealing their emails, accusing them of fraud. They also attacked - personal attacks - on historians of climate science.

They pressured journalists to write 'balanced stories' giving equal weight to the industry position,

even when those positions were not supported by the weight of scientific evidence.

And one of their most important strategies, which we see continuing today - and particularly here in Australia in recent months - finding a tiny handful of dissenting scientists, two geologists, one chemist, a physicist and promoting them on television, radio and in the print media

to create the impression of real scientific debate even when the actual scientists, the real scientists had no doubt about the reality of these problems. So, what I'd like to talk about then for the rest of my talk today

is why they did it. When Eric and I started this work

one of the things we found most perplexing was why distinguished scientists would attack the work of their own colleagues. Why people as distinguished as Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow and Bill Nuremburg risked their own reputations to take positions that were way outside of the mainstream of scientific opinion, in areas in which they themselves had never actually done any research.

and the short answer is that it was not for money. That is to say, it was not for their own person financial gain. The story is more complicated and more interesting than that. And it has to do with the political ideology of free market fundamentalism. This is a term that George Soros developed to described a kind of end-member in a spectrum of beliefs that can be collectively referred to as modern neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism is focused on deregulation of markets and releasing the so-called 'magic of the marketplace.' It came to prominence in the early 1980s under Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States but continuing through the 1990s, promoted by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, John Howard here in Australia, and it finds its intellectual roots in the ideology of two key thinkers,

Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayak. Milton Friedman is an American economist most famous as the founder of the Chicago School of Economics.

His most famous work is a book called Capitalism and Freedom,

published in 1962 at the coldest moment of the Cold War, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And the title of the book encapsulates its central argument, namely that civic freedom and free markets are inextricably linked. Friedman argued that political and economic freedom were two sides of the same coin, and that without economic freedom we would find ourselves, sooner or later, without political freedom as well. Why? Well, because if governments try to control markets, if they try to plan an economy and control the marketplace, the only way to control the marketplace is to control the people who are the actors in that marketplace. And therefore, if we allow our governments to control the markets,

We're on the slippery slope to tyranny. Friedman, in the the introduction to Capitalism and Freedom, acknowledges his debt to an earlier thinker, the Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, who in 1944 wrote his book, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek believed that fascism -

Hayek was Austrian and had fled Austria after the Anschluss, went to London, where he became a professor

at the London School of Economics, and he began to write about the rise of fascism in Europe. And he believed that the rise in fascism in Austria had risen in response to the failures of socialism, and so he became a passionate opponent of socialism, but not just of Soviet-style, totalitarian communism, but of any form of socialism, even of Western European social democracy, fearing that it would put us on the road to serfdom. Now, the contrarians in our book took this argument one step further, arguing that environmentalism was the slippery slope to socialism. Why? Because almost invariably, environmentalists argued for government regulation, whether it was controlling the emissions that caused acid rain, controlling the chemicals that depleted the ozone layer or controlling the use of fossil fuels to prevent global warming, inevitably environmentalists were calling for government action, for government regulations.

And these men argued that from the regulation of acid rain - or second-hand smoke - it was only a small step towards government control of our lives more generally. Today - tobacco, tomorrow - the Bill of Rights. This idea was articulated in various place in their writings but most most clearly by a fourth scientist who joined the cause - Singer's biography was remarkably different to the other three. He was also a Cold War physicist - in fact, the proverbial rocket scientist. He was the first director of the US national weather satellite service - although not because he was an expert on weather, but because he was an expert on satellites - he had worked in the early rocketry programs. In the 1980s...(Continues reading)

In the 1990s...(Continues reading) ..and to cast doubt on the evidence of the harms of global warming. Now, I mentioned that Fredrick Seitz had spent six years working for the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Corporation. He ran a biomedical research program in which he distributed $45 million for scientific research, whose purpose was to distract attention, deflect attention from the harms of tobacco. So, for example, studying other causes of cancer.

In the early 1990s, Fred Singer began to work for the tobacco industry as well, this time, joining forces with the tobacco giant, Phillip Morris, to defend tobacco - to defend second-hand smoke. And this defence took the form of an attack on the US Environmental Protection Agency. Now, there's an interesting little aside here, at this time, most people referred to the issue as second-hand smoke and the tobacco industry, of course, and market research people had a whole army of PR

about what kind of language to use, who gave them advice

what kind of discussions. what kind of slogans, like the term 'second-hand smoke' And they decided that they didn't didn't like second-hand things. because they reckoned that Americans So they decided they'd call it instead. 'environmental tobacco smoke' to be a tactical error, Well, this turned out to be environmental tobacco smoke, because if this turned out

the Environmental Protection Agency. then it feel under the rubric of (Audience chuckle) on the part of the tobacco industry. A rare mistake Ken Jeffries launched an attack. In 1993, Fred Singer and a man named They wrote a report of Environmental Tobacco Smoke.' called 'EPA and the Science by another think tank It was published

Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, called the from the Tobacco Institute, but with funding by the tobacco industry which was an organisation set up ostensibly to promote research, from the tobacco corporation. but with funding So, why were they attacking the EPA? Agency had declared second-hand smoke Well, the Environmental Protection

or proven carcinogen, to be a class-A,

by the US Surgeon General. and this result had been affirmed An independent expert panel and public health officials of oncologists, epidemiologists had confirmed that second-hand smoke adult cancer deaths per year was responsible for 3,000 additional in the United States alone, with many more in other countries,

from Japan and Germany, including detailed studies cases of bronchitis and pneumonia and as many as 300,000 additional in infants and young children. Perhaps most important of all, from this particular report, the most staggering result was implicated that second-hand smoke Infant Death Syndrome, or cot death. in an increase in Sudden by diverse independent studies, So the evidence was supported studies from the United States, over 1,000 different independent Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia. challenge this scientific evidence? So, why would a rocket scientist defend a product Indeed why would anyone that kills infants in their cribs? answered that question. Well, Fred Singer delineate the government's role And he wrote, 'If we do not carefully there is, essentially, no limit in regulating dangers, can ultimately control our lives.' to how much government The Road to Serfdom. So, there it is - And it was this conviction, to control tobacco, that if we allow the government then there's no limit can control in our lives, to what else the government in some cases, the overt allegation, leads to this suspicion, and that environmentalists are actually in disguise. socialists and communists as watermelons - They refer to environmentalists red on the inside. green on the outside, George Will, the US commentator, 'a green tree with red roots,' has called environmentalism, an Oklahoma senator, James Inhofe, to indict climate scientists has threatened of a liberal conspiracy for being part to bring down global capitalism, 'Scientists should be so organised!' to which I replied that, (Laughter) Throughout their writings that environmentalists, contrarians assert working on environmental issues, and by implication, scientists have a hidden socialist agenda. So, for example, Fred Singer, of the ozone hole, wrote, when discussing the issue with hidden agendas of their own, 'And then there are probably those not just to save the environment, but to change our economic system. are socialists, Some of these coercive utopians some are technology-hating Luddites, on as large a scale as possible.' most have a great desire to regulate And this conviction, that environmental regulation the conviction rear-guard attack on freedom is actually a helps to explain the origins of the story in strategic defence. were all Cold-Warriors The fact that these scientist to protecting the free world. who had dedicated their lives of free markets And they saw the defence defending the free world. as an extension of their life's work, key part of the story, It also explains one additional admittedly rather US-centric story a part that links this to the rest of the world. The promotion of doubt, but overseas as well, not just in the United States free enterprise, by think tanks promoting and supported, in turn,

for whom money is what is at stake. by major corporations, and Jeffrey's 1993 attack on the EPA, So if we go back to Singer the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute. I mentioned that it was published by Alexis de Tocqueville Institute? So, who are the Well, by their own description, 'the extension and perfection they're a think tank whose goal is and political freedom.' of democracy and economic liberty In practice, what that means and less regulation of industry. is that they lobby for lower taxes Professor Naomi Oreskes of Australia, in Adelaide. speaking there at the Royal Institute

of big ideas for this week. That's it for our taste test talks Remember, you can find all of the and more, you've seen on the show today, at the Big Ideas website. Check the address on your screen. of our shows on News24, And look out for more Saturday and Sunday at 1pm. I'm Waleed Aly. See you again. Captioned by CSI

Summer - Presto VIVALDI: The Four Seasons

What happens, do you think, smelly water to the hundreds of litres of dirty, we all produce every day?

at a sewerage farm. Well hopefully, it ends up here, A huge network of pipes called sewers away from our homes will carry the waste where it is filtered and cleaned. a very coarse filter, This is of course not broken up in the pipes. picking up any large objects And this rather majestic fine filter gets the smaller bits and pieces.

Look how cleverly it cleans itself, collects it, like an escalator. lifting up all the rubbish as it very fine particles of dirt The water now is carrying only we use a separation tank. and to get rid of them, Coming up in the middle, the water takes two hours to make its way to the edges of this very deep tank and it moves very slowly.

On the way, many of the small particles of dirt fall to the bottom. From the top, the water runs out and as you can see, it looks a lot cleaner. What comes out of the bottom, however, is disgusting. This concoction is called slurry,

and believe it or not, farmers actually buy it and they nourish the fields with it, so in one sense, we end up eating it. There are still some unpleasant chemicals left in the cleaner water and to remove them, we use a biological process. These pumps push millions of tiny bubbles of air into tanks that are full of friendly bacteria. Encouraged by the air, these bacteria, or germs, eat all the horrid chemicals and turn them into harmless ones. And soon, the water is ready for the next stage - yet another separation tank. By the time it has run through this one, the water is looking good enough to drink. So it's a chemical check by the computer, and if everything is given the green light,

the clean water is pumped out into a grateful environment. Closed Captions by CSI

This Program Is Captioned Live. Rebels regroup, while

coalition planes keep Gaddafi's returning. The PM pushes the

case for carbon pricing after

getting a poll filip. The rest of

of the world is acting and we of the world is acting and we

can't risk being left

behind. Making a difference. A

new effort to personalise the

plight of the homeless. And

through the eyes of the children. One family's

heartbreaking search. I hope

we'll find out we'll find out alive --

find dad alive and well soon. Hello. Welcome to ABC News Hello. Welcome to ABC News

across Australia. I'm Ros