Walter Starck grew up on, an island in the Florida Keys and began catching fish in salable quantities off the family dock at age five. At 6 he helped his grandfather build his first boat with which he began diving using a face mask.
He started scuba diving in 1954 (before scuba was a word). In 1964 he completed a PhD degree at the Institute of Marine Science of the University of Miami. In the process he determined that the world of academia was not to his taste so started his own business as well as a private research foundation. In 1968 he took delivery on a purpose built 150 ton research vessel, El Torito, and spent the next two decades exploring widely from the Caribbean to the Western Pacific.
Walter arrived in Australia in 1979 before boat people became unfashionable and established a home base on a 164 acre rainforest property on the north shore of the Daintree River.
His research interest has centered on coral reef biology and has included research grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research and National Geographic Society as well as various private foundations and individuals.
Walter has been a research associate of the Institute of Marine Science in Miami, the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, The Australian Museum in Sydney and the Western Australia Museum in Perth.
His wide experience of reefs around the world has encompassed the full spectrum of conditions ranging from heavily impacted to untouched as well as several opportunities for decade or longer familiarity with individual reefs. His views on reef biology derived from direct observation are not always in accord with popular theories.
But the articles that Walter now writes are increasingly read by practical environmentalists. His paper 'Threats to Great Barrier Reef' was the most popular online publication at the IPA website last year and shortened versions where published in 'Go Fishing' (Aug/Sept 2005) and 'News Weekly' (18 June 2006).
His presentation, based on the paper 'Marine Resources and The Growing Cost of Precaution', was a highlight of the recent Australian Environment Foundation Conference.
You can read more on Walter Starck's perspective at his website www.goldendolphin.com, click Eco-Issues for a list of recent environmental writings.
Walter's favourite quote is by John Maynard Keynes:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Quotable Walter quotes include:
"You are never so comfortable as when doing what you've always done but never so alive as when doing what you've never done."
"One of the most important lessons of history is that most people most of the time are wrong."
"The eco-bureaucracy has become a sheltered workshop for those afflicted by the saviour syndrome."
"Environmental management is characterized by the application of hypothetical solutions to imaginary problems."
"Ecology is above all holistic. Everything we do or don't do has consequences. We can't save nature by locking it up."
Walter is no fan of environmentalism and I once jotted down this comment from him:
"Environmentalism is about much more than concern for a healthy environment. You could describe it as a quasi-religious bend of new-age nature worship, junk science, left-wing political activism and anti-profit economics."
The main concern is the interpretation of "free" markets and the desirable pathway for undeveloped economies to get there, ie the opinions of too many that "free" or almost-free markets by themselves are the solution.
"My point is, how can you know the point of the statement if you take it out of context? Churchill was equally critical of potential abuses within democratic systems,"...I have not taken it out of context at all. I have merely stated that whilst it is far from perfect what other options are there?
Forgive me if I have misinterpreted things you have said in this and other threads, but I was under the impression you were advocating more control not less. Democracy does need to be flexible, surely that means fewer rules and regulations not more?
Those 'evil' MNC's that exploit the poor workers and transfer 30% of the profit back home...are you suggesting the poor workers would rather they were not there? Is it unreasonable for them to repatriate profits? ( What would you do if you were running a company? would you invest if you couldn t get your money out?). More importantly if you had a family to feed and were offered a job that gave you hope and possibly even the avenue to save some money and become entrepeunerial, would nt you be delighted that you had the opportunity of a job from that nasty MNC?
Hong Kong and Singapore are obvious examples of countries that were originally 'exploited' for their cheap labour...and whilst Singapore is hardly a democracy it has most certainly embraced Capitalism.
I presume you are talking about globalisation when you say "In our increasingly borderless and interdependent socioeconomic environment, democracy becomes less of a national consideration and more of a deeply intertwined local-national-global necessity. Democracy needs to be flexibile to ensure it is proportionate and representative. Inflexible structures die." Are you advocating more control not less? The NGO's are notorious for singing the evils of globalisation...but isnt globalisation the only hope they have?
Whilst we obviously need some laws and regulations in order to be flexible I would have thought less regulation was the answer not more?
Sorry but you are talking to somebody who believes in free markets as the only way to efficiently allocate resources in the medium to long run. Yes inflexible structures die...
My point is, how can you know the point of the statement if you take it out of context? Churchill was equally critical of potential abuses within democratic systems, ie the potential for superman type roles controlling policy. We are seeing a proliferation of these distortions of the economic system these days. Concentrated powers and influence, decline in media, reduction in personal freedoms (sedition laws etc), framing of issues for political convenience, political distortion of evidence and science, perverse subsidies that cost the masses and benefit the few, conflation of democracy with models of capitalism that increase inequality within and between countries, etc.
IMHO democracy is important and desirable and needs strengthening. Civil rights are crucial and technology is undoing traditional power bases and delivering powerful means for civil participation. IMHO our governance structures have inbuilt inflexibilities and tendencies to preserve and concentrate pre-existing power bases so they fall behind the pace with socio-political and technological developments. eg We've talked of African and other poor nations - what chance do they have to bargain with MNC's to bring in investment when the corporations are more powerful than the governments? They extract tax concessions, bring in external experts and repatriate 30% of the profits. There's little trickle-down effect in money or skills or technology without concerted efforts to make such transfers happen. In our increasingly borderless and interdependent socioeconomic environment, democracy becomes less of a national consideration and more of a deeply intertwined local-national-global necessity. Democracy needs to be flexibile to ensure it is proportionate and representative. Inflexible structures die.