58 Vol. 22 No.

2 Winter 2006 POLICY

BOOK REVIEWS
that our current situationand,
say, the number of people that
it currently sustainsimposes
signicant constraints over what else
we can do. In part, it is that we have
to do things in a systematic manner,
and that any system that we use will
bring with it constraints as to what
else it is also possible for us to do,
or for how we can accomplish other
things which we value.
What seems to me badly wrong
with Jacobys accountand with
the tradition that lies behind itis
that it is utopian in the sense of
simply ignoring these issues. The
result is that those who follow
Jacoby may nd that they are led
to discontent with, and possibly
even to try to throw off, chains
which are, in fact, the other side
of the very things that are needed
to make desirable features of our
society operate. Of course, any such
specic claim is fallible; and there
is a lot of room for argument about
how things functionor might
function better than they doand
about what constraints they impose.
(This, of course, is an argument that
must be made not only in respect of
human social institutions, but also
in ecological terms.) It seems to
me that, in the end, it is upon this
crucial debate that Jacoby is inviting
us to turn our backs. While his book
is a rst-rate read, his views seem to
me attractive but dangerousnot
least because of just how powerful
his presentation of his case is.
Where does this leave us? I do
not see that we are stuck with just
how things are currently. But what
is needed if we are to explore ideas
about a better society, is indeed to
take a realistic view of how things
currently work, and to take seriously
the constraints that existing social
mechanisms impose upon us. We
need then to explore what the
options are to make things actually
function in new ways. The claims
of Hayek and Mises about markets
seem to me telling. But if they
are right, we are not condemned
to stagnation and, socially, just
to more of the same. Rather, the
classical liberal tradition opens up
the possibility of making use of
competition as a discovery procedure,
and for diverse forms of private
social experimentationprovided
that we can remove governmental
controls that currently limit us
to what bureaucrats and the less
imaginative of our fellow-citizens
think is sound.
Reviewed by Jeremy Shearmur
Please Just F* Off: Its Our Turn
NowHolding Baby Boomers to
Account
By Ryan Heath
Pluto Press
228pp, 2006
$25.95 ISBN: 1-86403-328-2
T
here are better things to do
than validate other peoples
marketing labels by talking up
generational conict, writes Ryan
Heath, a 25 year old expatriate
living in the UK. Its a refreshing
start to his book, simply because
most criticism directed at Heath has
argued he is doing precisely that.
But thats the trouble with penning
a book about generational warfare
isnt it? You leave yourself open to
accusations of lapsing into style at
the expense of substance.
To an extent its true: Heath
stringently avoids turning his work
into an academic treatise, pointedly
using words such as inefficient,
unfair and dumb. Think cute,
fashionable language with plenty of
expletives thrown in.
Similar in gist to Tony Blairs
Fabian pamphlet The Third Way:
New Politics for the New
Century, this book urges
us to harness capitalism
t o achi eve soci al l y
j us t goal s . Wher e
the difference arises
however, is in its focus.
Detailed discussion on
why, and how, Baby
Boomers shoul d be
held to accountand
pushed asideforms
the core of Heaths
analysis.
The result of Heaths foray into
the genre is that he spends much
of Please Just F* Off: Its Our Turn
Now attempting to abide by the
unwritten rules of generational
warfare, with memorable lines like
War is not 24/7theres lots of
dead timebut you have to be ready
59 POLICY Vol. 22 No. 2 Winter 2006
BOOK REVIEWS
is an interesting sociological blend of
perspectives on young people and is,
in sections, very insightful. It is also
a rare instance of Heath getting over
Boomer bashing to document the
areas where GenY is decient. Parts
two and three on the other hand,
add little to the worlds wealth of
knowledge. They pointedly illustrate
how the original ideas in part one of
the book were not carried over to the
other parts.
The author also resorts to
criticising Australian fashion:
on a trip back to Australia
i n Oct ober 2005 I
contemplated just how many
beautiful people there are in
(Sydney and Melbourne).
But something was missing.
Style. The people I was
gawping at had an amazing
appearance, but at the end
of the day it was shallow.
Beyond the great tans and
toned limbs was a decisive
lack of thought about what
their dress sense said to the
world.
If, as he claims, Boomers arent as
smart or adaptable as Gen Y, his own
snideness shows they are certainly
more mature.
Bu t t h a t a s s u me s h i s
characterisation of my generation
is legitimate. In fact, Heath is
not representative of, or even a
representative, of GenY. He is
an anomaly in the system, just
as his narrow usage of interview
subjects for the books chapter
on exilesmostly professionals
and those involved in mediaare
not representative of the wider
population. I readily accept the
narrow pool of people interviewed
in the chapter, he writes in response,
But the point is they are more
important in this debate than people
who work in barsbecause they
create more wealth.
The numerous typographical
Heath is, however, at his best
when discussing how young people
today are different from previous
generations.
A lot is demonstrated by way of
anecdotes: young people today are
more sophisticated; they are exible
and adaptable; they are extremely
comfortable with technology; and
importantly, they are pro-capitalism.
We run web businesses before
were done with Year 10 and teach
ourselves the skills and knowledge
to navigate the world.
His own views on capitalism are
not exactly favourable, judging by
the denouncement of price signals
in a market economy. First, they are
driving Australians abroad, which in
his polemic is necessarily a bad thing.
And second, his disdain of market
forces is evident in issues such as
property speculation or corporate
prot. As Ludwig von Mises wrote
in his Omnipotent Government: The
market is a democracy in which
every penny gives a right to vote
and where voting is repeated every
day. If his version of ethically based
capitalism is something Gen Y will
bring to the table then that is surely
not capitalism but something more
value laden than capitalismmerely
a means of structuring society
could ever be.
Effecti vel y compari ng ol d
Boomer techniques with a variety
of suggestions for achieving lasting
social change, Heath argues social
movements have to adapt to the
21
st
century with new methods
of activism. It is an argument
closely tied in with the decline
of left-wing political groups in
Australia. Whether this is because
they have allowed themselves to
lose relevanceas he argues in a
later chapteror whether this is a
natural result of the right winning
the battle of ideas is a matter for
interpretation.
Part one of this three part book
for the action. According to Heath,
one cant allow Australia to believe
that its 20-, 30-, or even 40-year olds
are just young people unworthy of
contributing to public lifemired
as Generation Next, stuck in a
queue that doesnt move, living in a
generational tent city.
If you believe Heath then young
people are discriminated against in
the media. If you believe Heath then
droves of young people are eeing
Australia like they would flee a
third-world nation that provides few
opportunities for its young. Ouch.
Were so mediocre it hurts!
But, if youre looking for a
consistently substantiated argument
to go along with that, you may as well
look elsewhere. From his bemoaning
of property apartheid to his criticism
of government under-funding of
higher education to the adoption
of green environmental arguments,
Heaths work is characterised by
sweeping generalisations coupled
wi t h s por adi c ref erences t o
demographic research.
Where some proponents of
change argue for a better lot for
everyone, Heath is heavily biased
in favour of young people, or to be
more specic, towards those whom
generational warriors would term
Gen Y (people born after 1970).
But is Gen Y the most educated,
skilled generation yet or the most
overqualied and selsh?
Disregarding the stereotyping
of Boomers, in the chapters where
he condemns the shortage of
opportunities for career development,
he fails to indicate specic examples
where one can objectively decide
whether a meri tocracy i s i n
operation. More common is the
usage of nasty anonymous quotes or
interview subjects like Holly Lyon,
who complains about the ageist
nature of the Australian television
industry and how it was impossible
for her to get work heading a script
department no lessas a 22-year
old.
60 Vol. 22 No. 2 Winter 2006 POLICY
BOOK REVIEWS
errors in Please Just F* Off: Its Our
Turn Now could be seen as indicative
of a book that has been carelessly
slapped together. But whats more
damning is Heaths sloppiness
with sources. A random check of
his assertions on pages 25 and 168
pointed to a UK poll as evidence
of Australian youth opinion on
unions as well as being indicative
of international opinion on the Iraq
war when the poll in question was
about neither. Instead, the Guardian
ICM poll of December 2004 was
about voting expectations. Whether
there is some legitimate reason for
this particular referencing bungle is
not as important as what it shows
about his loose way with research.
For Heath, the book will have
achieved its purpose of propelling
generational warfare to centre-
stage. I can sense the excitement
and intelligence of my generation
and Heath is right in pointing out
it is young people who will shape
the future of this countrybut
hopefully not in the ill-thought out
ways he advocates.
Surely throwing around labels
isnt all thats needed to make
Australia a better place?
Reviewed by Sukrit Sabhlok
Sukrit Sabhlok is 18 years of
age, and is presently studying
arts and law at the University of
Melbourne.
The potential palate of manmade
catastrophes can be as broad as
you wish to make it. Nuclear and
bio-terrorism, industrial activity,
accidents from scientic research
or even from milli-, micro- and
nano-technology could all be
considered.
The central issue is whether
mitigation of these risks is possible.
An extreme example would be
planning for human migration from
earth in three to four billion years
time as the sun swells to become a
red giant. Whether the race will have
survived that long or succumbed to
some other calamity is probably not
our concern but there is a known
time for this event.
But a s s e s s i ng
risk mitigation for
events with uncertain
timing but estimated
or known frequency
b e c o me s v e r y
difficult. Mitigating
human derived risks
is even more so. For
terrorism, a state can
take measures as far
as its citizens approve but the
issue of freedom and rights tends
to impose limits. On the other
hand risks derived from scientic
discoveries and procedures and
indeed their interaction with rogue
states and terrorism is a much more
vexing problem. In between these
poles are the risks derived from
ordinary activity, this includes global
warming, bio-diversity and disease.
Pos ner cons i der s nat ur al
cat as t rophes , s ci ent i f i c and
unintended accidents and intentional
catastrophes. He attempts to tease
out how the social sciences and
the law could help or even take
the lead in mitigation by following
three prime examples to exhaustion:
asteroids, bio-terrorism with science
and accidental science.
The risk of asteroid collision
could be mitigated. If the approach
Catastrophe: Risk and Response
By Richard A Posner
Oxford University Press
2004
332pp, 19.99
ISBN 0-19-517813-0
Have you heard, its in the
stars, next July we collide
with Mars Cole Porter
T
he s ubj ect , cat as t rophe,
ought to command attention.
Armageddon, global warming,
plagues, the end of the earth, the
galaxy or the universe are all possible
but with what probability? Some
are certainties but billions of years
hence. Others are a little
more immediate. What
should we do? Richard
Pos ner at t empt s t o
answer this question in
a book that is overlong,
humourless and with
suggesti ons that are
guaranteed to irritate the
various constituencies he
is trying to assist.
There are two broad
classes of disaster, natural and man
made. Man-made are accidental
or intentional. Catastrophes are
disasters on a larger scale. Posner is
at the grand end of catastrophes as
opposed to Disraeli whose modest
example was of a misfortune if
Gladstone fell into the Thames but
a calamity if he were shed out.
Natural catastrophes of an
extreme sort have ranged from the
massive activity of the volcanoes of
535 AD (possibly a super Krakatoa)
and Krakatoa to asteroid collisions.
Loss of biodiversity and global
warming, al though presented
as human induced, are not un-
natural phenomena and should be
categorised as such. Plagues, which
are a combination of the natural
and human induced inuences, the
result of organisms either new or
transferred from animals to humans,
should also be included.