Of course, it sounds like a pretty extreme proposal - and didn't the rabid hordes let everyone know! Complaints about "taxpayers are funding these nutters!" (even though they aren't) and "who's gonna pay for this little dream-up?". One particular comment amused me "oil will be of such dwindling availability and so expensive that only the super-rich will be able to afford to drive over it. " Apparently someone thinks we will still be driving petrol-powered cars in 50 years time?

One person seemed to be rather displeased with the suggestion when he suggested that "These people will destroy Tasmania!"

It's quite obvious that no-one looked at the design in context. It is an entrant in the 2010 Venice Architecture Biennale - an international architecture exhibition. Entrants have been asked to explore possibilities for urban developments 50-100 years in the future. Room 11's entry, Island Proposition 2100, sets out a design which answers the question - "If, in the face of climate change, Tasmania had to accept 5 million eco-refugees, how would they do it?"


The bridge is only one part of this proposal - obviously the Mercury used it as a headline grabber - but it doesn't give credit to the rest of the design. The basis of it is a high-density, urbanised spine running from Hobart, through the Midlands, Launceston, Devonport, Burnie, through to Smithton - and then continuing on in the form of a bridge to King Island and Victoria. This "spine" would contain infrastructure such as high speed (maglev) rail as well as energy generation (wind and solar) and grey water processing.

All these details are available by simply reading the website - obviously many of the comment writers are incapable of doing so!

Tasmania's small, decentralised population and physical separation are the root of so many issues in the state - here is a concept which would solve all of them in one go! And it is just that, a concept. It is designed to make us open our eyes and look at things from a different perspective. But we could never have that in Tasmania - the "can't do" state - could we?

Warning: If you are religious and thin-skinned then stop reading now!

Imagine there’s no religion.  (No, I’m not channelling John Lennon.)  Imagine that someone comes up to you and tells you that there was a man who turned water into wine, who walked on water, who rose from the dead.  Imagine that he told you that the earth was less than 10000 years old despite scientific evidence that it is over 4 billion years old.  You would think he was crazy.

So why is it that when a billion people believe it, it becomes acceptable?

Evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins was on ABC1 program Q&A this week and as expected he ruffled a few feathers.  I’ve known who he was for a long time, but have never read any of his books or heard him speak until tonight.  He has quite a knack for phrasing his arguments in such a way that it is difficult to logically refute them.   But I guess that is the point – his arguments are that the rules of our society should be based on logic and reason.

He was seated next to Family First Senator Steve Fielding.  Family First is well known as a Christian fundamentalist party, although for some reason they don’t promote this fact very strongly!  Dawkins asked Fielding straight out, and directly "Do you believe that the earth is 10000 years old?" a.k.a. asking if he believed in creationism.  This clearly made him very uncomfortable and cagey.  "Look, different people have different views, and I think it’s up to each person to decide what they choose to believe."  Of course, it turns out he did (being an evangelical Christian), but the question is, why didn’t he want to answer?  Is he ashamed of his beliefs?  Did he have a sudden realisation that saying "Yes, I believe in creationism" sounds as ridiculous as "Yes, I believe in the Easter Bunny"?

Another point that Dawkins brought up was the brainwashing of children.  Kids of strongly religious parents are told “you are , that is the religion that you belong to”.  Forcing this sort of belief onto a child is wrong – they should be told “There are people called Christians who believe this, people called Jews who believe that, people called Muslims who believe the other” – and then let the child decide for themselves when they are old enough.  If this happens the child will realise that all these different belief systems conflict with each other and none of them can be correct!  I recall a story posted on a forum a few years ago (around the time of the last census) where the question on religion was being filled in, and the person’s mother refused to allow him to list himself as "atheist" – because he was christened a Catholic - and there was a $1000 fine for lying on the census!

I remember at chapel at school, halfway through a hymn, looking up and thinking "What the hell (no pun intended)?  There are a bunch of teenagers and grown adults here singing to a big invisible man in the sky, who no-one has ever seen, telling him how wonderful he is and that we are insignificant to him.  A room full of people doing this and no-one is questioning it?  Is everyone here completely mad?"

As for the link between religion and morality – why do some people need to base their behaviour on (using Christianity as an example) the promise of going to heaven or the threat of going to hell?  Wouldn’t a truly moral person not need to be bribed in this way?

Religion might have been useful in the dark ages when humans didn’t understand a lot about the world, and the leaders at the time needed a way to control the underlings… I'm sure at the time it worked well on the less educated.  Since then, however, we have developed this wonderful thing called "scientific method" – it lets you discover things about the world using observation, empirical evidence and reasoning!

Tasmanians have somewhat of an inferiority complex ... like the youngest child in a large family, you tend to get forgotten about.  A quick look through my (and my friend's) Facebook groups about Tasmania reveal groups begging for teams in the AFL and A-League.  There are groups begging for the Big Day Out, Foo Fighters and AC/DC to include us on their schedule.  There are those who want Krispy Kreme and Ikea to set up shop here, who want digital radio available here, paintball to be legalised, a Tasmanian venue as part of our World Cup bid .. even to complain that Tassie was omitted from My Kitchen Rules!

Sometimes there have been successes - the Basslink fibre optic cable is now going, bringing us cheaper broadband.  Bellerive Oval got their lights and hosted a sold-out international Twenty20 match last month.  Tasmanians got One HD eventually - a few months after the rest of the country.

In short, we want to be treated as an equal as the other five states!  Our population may be smaller but there are some services that need to remain in the state - we can't just hop in the car and drive to Melbourne whenever we want!

It was rather interesting news this week to hear that Professor Jan Gehl, an architect and urban planner from Denmark, has been hired by the Hobart City Council to design a new vision for the CBD.  He has previously done similar things very successfully for Copenhagen, London, New York, Melbourne and Sydney.  What a fantastic coup for little ol' Hobart to score his services!

Hobart certainly needs a bit of help - for those who aren't familiar with the area, central Hobart is kind of split in half - the CBD area and the waterfront area are separated from each other by Davey and Macquarie Streets - two one-way streets, four lanes each, which are pretty much the only route between the north and south of the city.

So, what is the local response to Professor Gehl's plans - all these people who want Hobart to have the services and facilities of cities four or ten times their size must surely be supportive of him, right?

The comments from the Mercury articles (1) (2) (3) tell the story.  Many are extremely supportive, but sadly there are some that are typical of the other half of Tasmanians.  Paraphrasing: "We don't want to be another clone of Melbourne or Sydney" Hmm, if you look at the cities that Gehl has previously worked with, they are all quite unique - not clones of each other!  "What do all the elderly people do if no cars are allowed?"  Whoever said cars were not allowed?  Gehl's designs generally encourage walking/cycling and discourage cars in the city centre - but 'discourage' is different from banning them!

This one really gets to me: "We are a small city, and we like it this way, leave us alone" - ah, no.  The reason so many of our young people leave for the mainland as soon as they are able is because Hobart (and Tasmania in general) is not big enough to be able to provide all the services that they are after.  Hobart is a capital city, not a rural village, and should be treated that way.  If you want to live in a rural area, perhaps you would like it more at Richmond, Huonville, Seven Mile Beach or New Norfolk.  Meanwhile, let's grow our cities - so one day we might get that Foo Fighters concert!