Muchas gracias, debo decir que este es el mejor Foro que jamás he visitado, lo cual es curioso, dado que me registré hace menos de media semana. De Casares no tengo una opinión. En cuanto a Borges, creo que fue un genio, hablando con propiedad y objetivamente. Sin embargo, en lo personal, prefiero al mentor de Borges: el escritor y filósofo Macedonio Fernández.

Some erudite mates (under Franco's era) did the same decades ago in Spain. Aussie Eucalyptus represents now 28% of Galician flora. Eucalyptus and pines were chosen by the caudillo to dry out swamps. Good choice back in the 1950s, mate! — javi2541997

Swamp desertification is a good use for Eucalyptus trees. But the problem with that, objectively, is what you correctly say in the following quote:

But now that green and tall Aussie tree is controversial in Spain. You may have heard about our heavy desertification and how Catalunya is literally running out of water. Well, some folks blame the eucalyptus because they dry out the territory surrounding them. These trees now dominate the Iberian flora and don’t allow local plants to develop properly. — javi2541997

It's a real problem. And it's a problem at a very "low", "basic", or "deep" level of Reality itself, because it's a problem at the level of ecology. Like, this isn't a purely political problem. It's not a purely religious problem. It's not a purely psychological or social problem. This is an objective problem, at the level of biological ecology itself. Potentially, it is extremely de-stabilizing for everything that is directly above it: economics, social relations, political structure, etc. I may be wrong, of course.

Shall we blame Australia because of this? Nah. — javi2541997

Nah, I agree with you there. Australia itself has nothing to do with this problem.

On a side note, Eucalyptus trees are also good for selling their wood. You can plant them, grow them, chop 'em up and sell them, repeat. That's what people did in my hometown for several generations, and other towns in the area have been doing the same thing for generations. I think no one does it currently, though. They just left the Eucalyptus patches as if they were "artificial forests", so to speak. Now people buy up those parcels of land and they just build houses. I don't think that anyone can complain that "we're destroying the Eucalyptus patches" when someone removes them to make a house. Like, this isn't Australia, mate. I'm allowed to cut down a God damn Eucalyptus in Argentina and not feel bad about it.

On a side note, Eucalyptus trees are also good for selling their wood. You can plant them, grow them, chop 'em up and sell them, repeat. — Arcane Sandwich

Yeah. Folks make tonnes of paper thanks to Eucalyptus' wood. It might be a win-win plant/product if they don't damage the local flora. I think the Eucalyptus is pretty neat, but only in Australian territory; I suppose this is the main point of the Eucalypteae topic. :lol:

Like, this isn't Australia, mate. I'm allowed to cut down a God damn Eucalyptus in Argentina and not feel bad about it. — Arcane Sandwich

I wholeheartedly agree!

And the third stage of the plan was the craziest: Bring the actual Australian people over here. Just bring them. Offer them land. Offer them money. Marry them. Kidnap them. Just bring a population of literal Australians to Argentina. It was an insane plan of course, with bogus ideas, which fortunately didn't succeed. — Arcane Sandwich

Argentine: "You want some land, mate? Just travel to Argentina, it's yours."

Australian: "Nah mate, I'm good."

Argentine: "You want some money, mate? It's yours if you step foot on Argentine soil."

Australian: "Nah I'm good, mate."

Argentine: "You wanna marry me, mate? You'll get a free, lifetime Visa, you'll be both a resident and a citizen of Argentina."

Australian: "Nah mate, I'm fine here in Australia."

Argentine (angry, violent, threatening) "You're traveling to Argentina whether you like it or not, mate." (proceeds to kidnap the Australian.)

Yep, a flawless plan, I don't see how it could possibly fail.

Can I blame Banno? Absolutely. :eyes: — javi2541997

Yeah, I did it. I planted the Eucalypts.

Australia had a unique biome at colonisation. In urban areas, much of that has been replaced by European, and indeed global, flora. Much of the rest is what might be described as "park land", cultivated and deforested and used for sheep and cattle.

Eucalyptus drop bark, not just leaves. The result takes longer to break down into soil than other types of tree. The natural result is a much more friable top layer of partially broken down bark and leaf, hardly soil at all. That layer might easily be a foot thick. Prior to colonisation, the largest animals were soft-footed humans and 'roos, who did not help much to break the soil. After colonisation, the trees were removed and the 'roos replaced by ungulates, which break the humus and compress the soil. The result is a compacted, thin layer of material with little organic matter, poor at absorbing water.

Hence much of Australia's soils are quite poor, especially on the plains. Coastal areas faired better. Australia produces large quantities of agricultural products, not becasue of the quality of its soil, but becasue it's big.

This by way of agreeing with the theme that introducing foreign species might not be such a good idea.

...here's the main problem that I have with mainstream Australian politics — Arcane Sandwich

That seems to be a problem with Australian geography rather then with it's politics. Sure, Papua and New Guinea are part of the Australian continent - should we take back New Guinea and invade Indonesia?

I'm not at all sure what you are suggesting.

That seems to be a problem with Australian geography rather then with it's politics. Sure, Papua and New Guinea are part of the Australian continent - should we take back New Guinea and invade Indonesia?

I'm not at all sure what you are suggesting. — Banno

Well, it's political geography, to phrase it more technically. I don't think that Australia should take back New Guinea, nor do I think that it should invade Indonesia. What I'm suggesting is that everyone (not just Australians) should stop referring to Australia as a continent. It isn't. It's part of a continent. You might think that this is mere semantics, but to me it's a metaphysical discussion, ultimately. Maybe that has nothing to do with Australian politics. But I would disagree: it's a matter of political geography.

What I'm saying is, Australian politics are not reflective of its political geography. And I say that as if it were a mere fact. And I think that it is. A mere fact, that is. There's a discrepancy between what Australians do as far as politics go, and what the actual political geography of that region -Oceania- is. And one of the very first corrective steps, in that regard, is to call Oceania what it is: a continent, that includes Australia, Papua, New Guinea, Indonesia, and other Oceanic countries.

I do not think that Papua and New Guinea are part of the Australian continent, because I don't think that Australia is a continent to begin with. It's a country within a continent.

No offense meant, it's just that it's a fascinating case in geo-political terms.

What I'm suggesting is that everyone (not just Australians) should stop referring to Australia as a continent. — Arcane Sandwich

Yeah, ok. Tough. A couple of caveats should tide you over. It's not an issue of much import.

You know about New Australia? Paraguay had more success at attracting Australians than Argentina.

Australia finally has fuel efficiency standards. Or at least, it will tomorrow.

You know about New Australia? Paraguay had more success at attracting Australians than Argentina. — Banno

I did not. Fascinating stuff. I just learned that Australian Paraguayans exist. See? To me this is metaphysics. This proves that realism is true, and that idealism is false. Australian Paraguayans already existed, in the external world, independently of my mind, because I didn't even know that they existed.

:wink:

Yep. Surprise, agreement and error - the trinity of realism.

Ok, so can I ask a political question? Don't respond it if you don't want to. What do you folks think of Australian Realism? It sounds like a respectable idea. Like, "The Hot Sun of Australia Forced Reality Upon Us", like, it's a good slogan, much better than "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

I pretty much agree with Malet. It's perhaps easier to hope its all in your imagination if you are stuck in a basement in Moscow rather than pumping water from tank to tank in thirty degree heat (my morning's work). The water and the tank and especially the heat become undeniable.

How's that political?

1) There is no ontological difference between political geography and political ontology.
2) If so, then: if political geography is respectable, then political ontology is respectable.
3) Political geography is respectable.
4) So, political ontology is respectable.
5) If so, then Australian realism is ontological.
6) If Australian Realism is ontological, then there is no ontological difference between it and political ontology
7) If so, then Australian Realism is political.
8) Therefore, Australian Realism is political.

Just goes to show how little Australian politics is known by those of other lands. Justification for this thread.
Not having a go at you Arcane Sandwich but you're a few million years out of date. S America and Australia and a few other now separate landmasses use to be part of one lump of dry land, let's call it Goanaland because of laziness and obscure humour,
Which means the biggest sin of Australian politics is to consider Australia contained the inland sea and is not simply the western (arbitrary) shoreline.
Please apply this to the term "the S. American continent" and apply your words of reason to the position of Argentina, that is, it's the eastern coastline of the earlier Gonanaland.
The point being, when last checked a continent contained more land out of water than under water ( not ice like Antarctica) to achieve the geographic recognition of being a continent rather than an ocean ( at this scale). "Oceania" says it all.
Must say though, Australia is slightly better off than you, inflation wise, which is also politics of the economic kind. Probably why kidnapping was mentioned. Argentina's boom and bust economic history comes to mind, while Australia's social history is conveniently ignored, for the moment.
On a side note, anyone care to explain Australian Realism to an ignorant ( of much including what Aust. Real. is) Oceanian ( nod to Arcane). Ignore the request of this side note, while Wiki truths will continue to be ignored by this ignorant Oceanian. (another nod to you know who)

Well stirred, Arcane. Sure you're not a displaced Aussie or Kiwi?

hearty laugh in keeping with the Christian season

@Banno.

You must have been somewhere cool or an early morning riser, yesterday. 37 C by 10.30 am yesterday in N E Vic. Thought about taking off the overcoat for political reasons, of course... displaced far north and western Qlder...
dry smile

Canberra. Only got to 30℃ yesterday.

Stay out of the smoke.

The point being, when last checked a continent contained more land out of water than under water ( not ice like Antarctica) to achieve the geographic recognition of being a continent rather than an ocean ( at this scale). "Oceania" says it all. — kazan

Folks are talking about an 8th continent now, which they are calling "Zealandia". It's almost entirely submerged. Their main country is New Zealand. Some people go one step further and they read this politically: New Zealand, as country, does not want to be considered a part of Oceania (to say nothing of Australia).

What do you folks make of this? Does it make sense? Let's start with that. Thanks for letting me, a non-Australian, participate in this Thread.