Public ideas
The politics of resurrection
The ABC in Tasmania asked its audience if they believed scientists should bring the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) back to life. Readers were promoted with views of Aboriginal elders and scientists who argued for its return, and others who had doubts about the consequences of the complex reproduction technique of patching DNA from the remains of long-dead thylacines with the DNA of their relatives.
“Yes, bring it back” won the day with 68 percent support, while “No – I’m against” had only 24 percent support, and another 8 percent were fence sitters.
No one could vouch for the rigour of such a survey, but it raises important questions of public policy. If it does turn out to be possible to bring back extinct species, would our attitudes to preserving biodiversity hold? Or would we justify extinction on the basis that we would always have an insurance bank of DNA?
The ABC quotes Environmental Sustainability Professor Barry Brook who believes that the cloned animal would not have to be an exact genetic replica of the thylacine, but that’s OK, “as long as it's a functional organism that effectively fulfils the same sort of ecological role”.
That’s all uncharted ethical territory.
What if the Matildas had taken the World Cup?
There was something very South American and even banana-republic-ish about New South Wales Premier Chris Minns promising to declare a public holiday if the Matildas were to win the World Cup.
One’s computational reaction is to regard a public holiday as one day lost in a working year of about 220 days – an irretrievable loss of about 0.4 percent of GDP.
Writing in The Conversation – Why a public holiday for a Matildas World Cup win could cost far less than you think – Peter Martin questions that view. By definition, even if we lose one day of production, there would be no loss in productivity, because both the nominator and numerator of the productivity measure would be down by one day.[1] There would be real but less tangible economic benefits flowing on from people’s engagement with national events. And, as Martin notes, in most (unfortunately not all) workplaces there is enough capacity to deal with a lost day – think of that bit of extra effort you put in to do the work of a sick colleague.
Of more policy relevance is that the publicity around the Matildas has resulted in an elevated interest in women’s sport. That’s a good development by the standards of anyone who believes in gender equality. Three quarters of those who responded to an Essential survey believe that “local sporting clubs should provide equal development opportunities for both male and female players”.
In response to this demonstrated interest, the Commonwealth has committed $200 million for women’s sport.
Writing in The Conversation – Albanese has committed $200 million for women’s sport – but spending money on infrastructure won’t change systemic issues – Alana Thompson and Meghan Casey point out that there are more cost-effective ways to facilitate women’s participation in sport.
But in terms of public health and other benefits, $200 million – $20 per household, about the price of a bit of Matildas merchandise – is probably public money well-spent. To quote from the Minister’s press release:
With an investment of $200 million, our Play our Way grants program will promote equal access, build more suitable facilities, and support grassroots initiatives to get women and girls to engage, stay, and participate in sport throughout their lives.
That’s all sound, but why should the Commonwealth be engaged in specific projects such as local sporting infrastructure? There is nothing in Section 51 of our Constitution (the bit that specifies Commonwealth and state responsibilities) assigning sport to the Commonwealth. As the Coalition’s practices demonstrated, Commonwealth involvement in specific projects is fraught with the possibilities of corruption. There is no reason why the Commonwealth could not give that money to the states, for passing on to local governments, accompanied with some Commonwealth auditing oversight. The Albanese government may lose the kudos on a plaque at the new clubhouse for the Betoota Women’s Ski Club, but it would not have been led to temptation as the Coalition was with its sports rorts. And there is the possibility that employees of local governments may have a little more understanding of local needs than Canberra public servants.
1. For mathematical purists there would be a tiny drop in productivity, because if a>b (productivity >1), then a/b > (a-1)/(b-1). ↩