Dam crazy - part 1

when is enough enough

John O'Grady once wrote a book called "they're a weird mob" I think an appropriate sequel today would be "they're dam crazy people"

Let me start this post with a quote from a paper on "FLOW RESTORATION AND PROTECTION IN AUSTRALIAN RIVERS" published in 2003

"Since 1857 new Australians have constructed many thousands of weirs (3600 in the Murray-Darling Basin alone) and floodplain levee banks, 446 large dams (>10m crest height) and over 50 intra- and inter-basin water transfer schemes to secure water supplies for human use."

So we've been building more dams than a family of beavers and we still haven't got enough water? Leaving any theory out of this and just looking at this in a "black box" way it is pretty apparent to the most common person in Australia that banging the same drum is not going to produce a solution.

Instead, all that seems to have resulted from that is increased spending, increased requirement of management and increasingly degrading our environment.


Despite these negative effects our government seem "hell bent" on pushing through the same strategies which have been shown to be inadequate and not provide sustainable answers to the question.

It seems that no matter how much we build dams we're always playing a game of catchup, but its now getting worse as now (due to the expansion of our population and urban sprawls) we find that we're rapidly running out of locations where we can actually put a dam without needing to drive people out of their homes or flood productive grazing and farmlands.

Actually this isn't a new phenomenon, back in the 1970's in the Gold Coast hinterland a small town in the Numinbar valley was "resumed" a dam built and the valley flooded. This dam was the Hinze dam and it served the population of the Gold Coast well for over 20 years.

But in the scale of things 20 years isn't really a long period and now the population is living on a dependency of "good years" of rainfall as it was shown in 2003 that if there is just 2 years of low rainfall that the dams run very close to failing to meet demands.

In fact if it was not for the evocation of water restrictions (close to martial law) on the population its certain that the dams would indeed fail.

This image was taken from a locatoin well below the ideal water line of the Hinze dam during the water crisis of 2003, and infact the dam got so low that some of the traffic signs from the immersed town began to appear.

Chicken little cry of "drought"

There's a drought there's a drought... The common thing is to blame this on drought and suggest that we're in the grip of the worst drought in living memory or some such nonsense. The solution to the problem is often ingeniously put forward that: we need to (wait for it ... drum roll) build more dams to drought proof the region.

Gosh ... that hasn't been tried before. Actually we've been trying to "drought proof" ourselves by building dams since the beginning of the 20th Century. Melbourne Water even has a nice reference to this on their history page.

We all know that Australia is a dry country, from the poems of Dorothea Mackellar through surveys as done by our early pioneers (Goyder) to our iconic images, we know we are intrinsically a dry land with limits to our water supply.

So why is it then that lack of rain is a "surprise" when it happens?

Short memory or media created social belief?

Perhaps its down to our short memories, perhaps because we're all so media fed we've forgotten how to remember ... I don't know. There seems to be a case however, that people believe what they're told and the the group believes what the group leaders tell them is true.

Firstly lets look at some data. Below is a chart showing the rainfall at Southport for around 100 years.

Two things are clear looking at this graph; firstly there are some serious spikes in the rainfall history with a big spike in around 1976 (when we had our worst flooding on record) and secondly that there is an overall trend up in rainfall around the middle of the period.

This data amount is short really (after all its only a hundred years) but it could well mean that its been drier than it has been in the last 50 years and that its a little early to be wondering if this is climate change or some other trend.

So what's changed?

Part of the problem is that the population goes up as 1) we move more people into our cites from the countryside 2) our population in Australia grows.

To take things from the general to the specific, lets pick a case study.

The Gold Coast and Brisbane represent a large fraction (like most) of the population of South East Queensland.

Since 1960 the population has grown to nearly 10 times its number, so when the Hinze Dam was being planned I think its fair to say that no one was thinking that the population would grow to around half a million people. Especially since at the time there was the "Little Nerang Dam" which was built just a few years earlier to supply the region.

Looking around at the topography there are not many clearly obvious sites for another dam, the ranges are close. Have a look around your self...


View Larger Map

go much further west and its too dry, go much further north and you hit Brisbane.

With more and more pressure (may someone please tell me why and where it is comming from?) to move to the area there is pressure to build more dams. Currently there is some targeting of the Mary river around the north side of Brisbane but there is strong opposition to that for a number of good reasons.


Planners seem to be bent on more dams as the solution to the problem (despite it not having solved it yet). There have been quite a many proposals for Dams in the South East Queensland regions which have either been scuttled, shelved, renamed or on the go.

But it continues to look bad for dams as if its not public opposition it internal problems. For example one of the requirements for a project these days is (thank god) that there must be an economic fesability study done to demonstrate that the project is justifiable. This seems to be quite an obstacle, as it is seldom found that the dam will provide water at a price which the market will accept.

For example One study done for the government into a previous dam proposal (Paradise Dam) suggests that it will not be economically viable and that water needs could be met with alternatives.

Alternatives ...?

You mean there is an alternative to building more dams? One thing is for sure, while we may have had droughts in the past we weren't as reliant on dams as we are now. In fact I'm not even entirely sure that they make good sence in our environment / geography / climate. The idea after all has come from Europe, where topography similar to the (quite successful) Little Nerang Dam exists.

You don't have to look far in outback Australia to find a house with a tank on the side to store rain water.

Now before you get steamed up on the problems with tank water I'd like to point out something important... diversity.

Something which seems to have come from the modern world is the destruction of our understanding of diversity of supply. We get all our water from reticulated water supply, we buy everything in Shopping Malls, we all seem to get our ideas from TV ....

Think about it ... Do you eat only one thing?

Like do you eat only bread or only meat?

Having a rainwater tank adds to your houshold water supply, you may not want to drink it, but do you really need to be flushing your toilet with water treated to high "drinking water quality" standards?

In part 2 I would like to present more about the alternatives and explain more on why I just don't get the Australian (government) mentality towards dams.

mobile phones

I never owned a mobile phone until I left Australia and lived in Japan (in the year 2000). On return home I found that the prices at home were quite extortionate, but thought I'd get one all the same as I'd become used to the ability to contact and be contacted.

To put some perspective on the costs, in Japan I was paying 10c a minute anywhere in Japan any time of day or night using the company AU (no guesses why I liked them at first sight ;-)

Today I read this article in the Australian where apparently:

THE mobile phone is eating a larger slice of the household budget than petrol this year

well bugger me ... seems like someone in the media has noticed.

A quick look around the world shows we're getting shafted on phone costs. How shafted? well I presently live in Finland, where my mobile call costs are 7c a minute. Yes that's right seven cents per minute. And its better than that, as there is no "call connection fee" and charging is by second.

What's more I don't get the cheapest calls possible because I'm not on a plan and I own my own phone, those are 2 cents a minute.

Now before anyone drags out the statistical mumbo on "how big Australia is" and "how we have to cover great distances with a small population" consider this:

Finland has 5 million people, and is hardly small. Wikipedia states that:

"The distance from the southernmost – Hanko – to the northernmost point in the country – Nuorgam – is 1,445 kilometres (898 miles) in driving distance, which would take approximately 18.5 hours to drive.

Population is quite well distributed around so coverage must be better than Australia (ever tried getting signal out of a major city in central NSW?

Given that the Australian population is concentrated along the strip of the East Coast with the greater bulk in the southern end of that its hard to make a case that Australia has a sparce population distribution. In reality the statistics of Australian population density are grossly distorted by the vast areas of emptiness.

Given the size of Australia, and that we have 4 times the populatoin is it really that much different to Finland when it comes to planning mobile coverage?

Actually I think its easier as we have more mountains and hilly areas to put towers onto and more cities with over 1 million populatoin (Finland has one we have three).


Now supposedly we have "competition" in Australia, but if you ask me its more like a bunch of big players all bidding the market up to how much the market will bear. So how much can the market bear and keep grinning?

I think we're on the edge ...

To make matters more filthy, when I was last in Australia (2007) it cost me almost the same to call Finland using my telstra prepaid as it did to call someone in the same town.

HUH?

Yep, it was (and prehaps still is) 77c a minute to call Europe but is still 78c a minute (plus call connection fees ... yadda yadda) to call Brisbane from Brisbane.

So next time you feel like your wallet has been pack raped, what will you do?

keep paying?

Welcome to that Banana republic Paul Keating used to threaten us with...

the population craze

When I grew up in South East Queensland it was a nice and quite place. Sure people ragged Brisso as being a large country town, but you could leave your back door open for days at a time and noone would rob the joint.

Traffic was annoying, but not manic and there were nice places you could go to get away from people and stuff without going for a major journey.

Our "burbs" were leafy with the mountains in behind the city giving us an easy drive to nice cooler temperatures in the evenings and great views for having a picnic (should you be that way inclined)

But the writing was on the wall that all this had to come to an end some time (to quote Vin) with baby boomer mentality in our economics areas saying we should aim for a larger population.

Yep, you guessed it, references to the good olde US of A were cited as exemplifying how we should be and where we should go to ... Some idiots (Greg Sheridan comes to mind) even wrote of figures like 50 million.

A couple of days ago I read this article in the Australian, where the author suggests that the population of Australia may be as high as 35million in 40 years. Some salient points:

The new population estimate for 2049 is much greater than the 28.5 million Treasury projected just two years ago. The unexpected growth in the population will bring a modest 3.3 percentage point reduction in the number of people aged over 65 from the 2007 estimate of 25.3per cent. Mr Swan says the number of people aged over 85 will rise from 1.7 per cent now to 5 per cent over the next 40 years. This compares with an estimate of 5.6 per cent made in the last intergenerational report.

Holy Shit...

One of the reasons for encouraging growth has been to get more younger people here (to stem the problem of the aging population) and an attempt to get more skilled labour to fill the "skills shortage". I guess that while encouraging people to have more babies that immigration is the fastest way to get "skilled labour" in here. But do we really need this?


I would not be the only one to suggest that the skills shortage seems most acute in the Planning and Administration of this nation.

As it happens I've been out of Australia quite a bit in the last 10 years, with returns every couple of years and absences of a couple of years. Just like irregular visits to a friend with a young kid this really helps to me to see just how much growth is happening and how fast.

Lets have a look at what sort of growth we're talking about here.

Since around when I was born the population of (say) the Gold Coast has grown to nearly ten times its level.

That has to have an effect on any number of things, and lifestyle is certainly the one I think we notice first, and I don't think many would agree its getting better.

So when the Government says things like "protecting the lifestyle of Queenslanders" (for example) I wonder just who they are talking about, cos its not me!

So before we even get down to who's migrating here and what that means I think we should consider the effects of increased population on our lifestyle as that's quite significant.


When I was a little fella we could see dolphins and flocks of migratory birds on our beaches at the Gold Coast. It was a nice little village to live in.

These days you get to see more skyscrapers, development and all the 'buzz' that brings with it. Shootings and robberies seem to be more common news on the Gold Coast than in Sydney.



Is that Queensland lifestyle? Sure ain't this Queenslanders idea of such

To 'escape' from this Florida Style highrise lifestyle these days I have to go far south or far north to get the same thing.

Even then its harder as Sydney is expanding more north, so Nth NSW is starting to become within reach of there more and more.

Living in dense urban conditions certainly isn't what I consider "Australian Lifestyle" to be.

Personally I prefer to be camping, or hiking, or exploring some coastline to perhaps do some fishing. Places like the quick video from the past is more where I consider I'll find "Australian Lifestyle"



But before you say it, yes we do need economic growth and prosperity. Strangely enough I am living in Finland right at the moment, where the population has remained at about 5 million since before World War 2. Lifestyle here has improved, everyone lives in more comfort, has nicer cars and decent jobs. Strange that they've managed to do this without a "resources boom" to fuel their economy?

Here's a sugestion, go grab a copy of the movie "Stone". Sure it'll make you cringe in its style and subject matter, but just look around the background of the movie at the Sydney of 1974 and ask yourself which you prefer?

Sure, I love the better access to food and stuff we have now, but did it have to come at that cost? We've had Vietnamese, Koreand Lebanese and Italian migrants here for decades, all trying to encourage us out of our "pommie bangers n mash" crap food. Deli's in Melbourne and Sydney offered fantastic European smallgoods. So it was all here back then.

I believe we just needed time to assimilate it. Now we find ourselves in the midst of population created problems like:

• collapse of eco-systems such as Murray Darling
  
• water supply problems
• traffic and infrastructure problems

So, has being "the lucky country" made us the stupid country?

Fortunately it seems that not everyone thinks like the boomers, as I found this article in the Australian at more or less the same time (hey, is that a tend toward balanced reporting??) suggesting we may not need to boost population. Here the author suggests that we may not need more people because " because more over-55s are staying on in their jobs."

As well, at about the same time, this quote appears at the bottom of Michael Stinchbury's blog.

The 21st-century echo of Australia’s colonial resources boom could be silenced by many things. China could blow up. Global warming could destroy our mining advantage. But we will need to better tackle the many challenges within our control, such as accommodating another 15 million people when cities such as Sydney are failing now to manage the demands of their existing populations.

Perhaps an answer to this is to resist the tendency to centralize everything. I am sure the country towns would be happy to have more businesses relocate there. With telecommunications making many jobs possible in a distributed model why aren't we doing it? Finland seems to be doing well that way...

Getting back to handling older workforce next we need to stop companies to treating older workers as second rate stuff and accept that ongoing training is needed. In fact places seem to be looking for greater skills and experience surely more experience is more often found in those who are older than younger?

Having an aging population is not only the downer the government spin doctors will sell you on as it seems that age brings with it more effecitve work ... an interesting stat from ABS:

Real unit labour costs: Trend - (2006-07 = 100.0)




which means that while our workforce is getting older we seem to be bringing per unit costs down too.

So perhaps its time to stop trying to pump our economy and instead perhaps just manage what we have ... you know ... consolidation?

:-)

---

But the debate gets more interesting when on this article "The more of us the merrier" some moron from the Australian tries to spin doctor the situation ... the comments he gets are heartening.

Your Comments:

19 Comment(s)

Rubylou of Sydney

3:28pm today

having just come back from camping in Central Australia, followed by a luxury trip to Uluru, I can confidently say that without permanent water supplies, Australia's population cannot expand beyond the coast to accomodate the anticipated numbers. As there are only 3 major cities in which people want to live, these will become overloaded. All 3 cities are already facing water shortages and infrastructure failures. Increased population will only increase devastation of our environment - unless some way can be found to green the inland. No one has come up with a viable scheme yet.

As for the aging population, the aged of the future will be healthier and more vital than ever before. I camped with 3 74 year olds who ran rings around me in fitness and remained keen and vital contributors to their communities. All of them were well supported by ample old school super schemes.

Aging is only a problem when accompanied by poverty and ill health. And those are issues for any government to face.

As to why there aren't more young people being bred in Australia? Just look at the economy - a crach every 20 years, constant job insecurity, need for 2 incomes to keep a decent lifestyle, inadequate childcare facilities, child-hostile workplaces. Again, whose job is it to fix these? The government, which has generally failed to do so, whatever its political persuasion.

So stop fantasising about getting people to live in adverse environmental conditions in the middle of nowhere and start acting on the things that can be improved so that families can raise children in comfort and security.

ivan b of Northern NSW
3:18pm today

Sorry but I do not share the sugar coated optimism of our writer.Reddish dust storms over East Coast will become more frequent as our dry continent suffocates under more population strain.And his "Sydney already meets most of the criteria to qualify as global city.." Hello ? On what planet this writer is living ?Sydney is chocking in its own urban sprawl and not a piece of any new infrastructure in sight.
But it is nice to be positive.I am still waiting for some trickle down effect of the W.Australian minig boom..Shacks ,has not come down yet...

Damo of sydney
3:14pm today

Congratulations to Arthur on articulating a brave vision for our great country. America is the leading world power - and will continue to be for the remainder of the 21st century - because it has 350m people, innovation and massive military spend.
It's nonsense that we don't have enough Water. We just have incompetent State governments that havn't spent enough to build the Dams, and we can do way more with technology to recycle what we use, generating additional capacity.
I don't know if any of you have travelled up and down the East Coast recently but there are heaps of vast empty spaces for us to fit way more people in.
The Future is 100% positive for Australia - we should aim to quickly grow to 50m and take our rightful place as a leader in the Asia-Pac region.

Drew of Surry Hills
2:33pm today

The world is already overpopulated, and you want Australia to join the overpopulation race? It's all about sustainability! Our land can only sustain so many people, especially with the kinds of drought this country receives. Overpopulate and you basically create a plague - of humans. A cancer that eats everything and produces nothing. This is why I found Archbishop Pell's ridiculous statements last year to be an absolute atrocity. Overpopulating so as to have more power - for either the country or for catholicism - is irresponsible in the extreme. I can't believe a learned journalist would promote such blatant irresponsibility.

Sammy J of Brisbane
2:27pm today

If Australian governments can't provide proper infrastructure for 20 million how could we possibly meet the requirements of 35 million?

steve of hoppers crossing
2:14pm today

Port Essington syndrome. Nice, but I'd suggest a rather dated observation. Times change.
Darwin is actually a lovely city which at the start of the second world war only had a population of three thousand. In the interim another hundred thousand people have chosen to call it home. While I consider it to be poorly designed for growth, I'd hold back from calling it Siberia with flies.
There is already substantial natural growth going on there. My point is that it should be encouraged and assisted with some vision of a future rather than see what goes.
The north does offer some intriguing opportunities and the resource development that is going on up there now could result in a lasting change.

Steve Roberts of Albury
2:02pm today

This article shows us why Sidonis should not be a politician. The growth in Australia will continue in our capital cities and the "Sidonis Plan" ignores our greatest challenges of water and food security, which oddly enough, underpin our sustainability and growth potential. Australia cannot allow its food bowls to change into unrecoverable dustbowls (and then deserts) by transplanting the agriculture to the North, which, by the way, is not as benign as many would have you believe. This is another plan based on the twin tenets of hope and optimism; almost as good as the 19th century refrain of rain follows the plough. Australia might be big but its sustainable carrying capacity is not, and how we will cope with 35M+ people in another 40-50 years is easy to predict. We won't, no Australian government can get a train to run on time, build a tunnel, provide adequate health care or make meaningful infrastructure changes (except motor vehicles tollways) or have an education revolution, unless new buildings can somehow educate people?!? Our PM needs to realise that he is the same situation that Menzies was in '66, faced with popular choice or start real changes, our reformist series of governments waited until the 1980s. We don't have that same luxury of time we endured previously. We are stuck in a once in a century opportunity for real structural change to our nation, from education, agribusiness, mining, manufacture, sustainable practices and designs or we will simply continue to make 'schemes' to tax old economy ways and compensate those who are unwilling to change, clean coal - like to see that. Only a few parliamentarians know what the problem is, and it's not the Greens. Australia needs make changes, almost twenty years of talk about climate change and environmental challenges has not achieved much. Ex-Brit PM Blair talked about these challenges and did nothing, I wonder if our new Blairesque PM is capable of anything other than an inefficient ETS.

? of Bris

9:14am today

While its nice to see someone see the glass as 3/4 full (when its 1/4) population graoth creates more problems than it solves. Look at south east QLD. Overrun by half of NSW, we dont have the rescources to sustain much more growth. We're already running short on water. Its not that there isnt enough water for the area, rather that there are too many people. Its not going to rain more just because more people move into an area!

steve of Melbourne
9:10am today

Your comments about populating the North are very pertinent. I would go a little further. We should be facilitating the development of rural cities in all states. Satellite cities with affordable housing, good infrastructure and high speed links to the capitals would take the ridiculous pressure off housing prices that is acting as such a drag on our economy.

In The north Darwin and Broome offer the opportunity to create significant cities with a truly enviable life style. Good quality transport across that region is conspicuous by its absence and only serves to underline our lack of commitment to the area. Our claim to the north west is tenuous and fragile. It needs to be accessible and populated.
Darwin at 100 thousand people is a respectable size, though it is laid out as if it were a suburb of a real city. Broome is scarily small. All of these regions have access to massive water resources if properly managed.

Hopefully some vision will emerge, directing funding like the the first home owners grant towards regions rather than inflating our already diabolically high house prices.

John of Drouin
8:52am today

Thanks goodness you are not running for Bradfield, there are enough 'sopping wet liberals - who just want to be loved and think it's political genius to out left the Labor Party' already in the parliament.

Frank Campbell of Victoria
8:51am today

A good case can be made for population increase in Australia. It is not made in this vapid piece. Develop the north? This cant has been around for 150 years. The Port Essington syndrome. The north is empty because it's a god-awful place to live. Siberia with flies. Like the centre. It's very difficult to get people to live in provincial Victoria let alone the north/outback. Neither has the author faced the crippling question of low-density Australian megacities. In the last decade, Sydney and now Melbourne have struck serious transport/water etc trouble. It will take a major effort to resolve these development bottlenecks, without babbling on about "The North". As for Sinodinos' alarm about migrant shortage, what tosh. There are vast reservoirs of potential migrants, from Indonesia to Pakistan and Eastern Europe. Even the British still pine for Australia, but he who pines for Darwin must be desperate indeed. If this op-ed reflects the standard of creative thought on Australia's future, then maybe Sydney isn't a "global city" after all.

Gary Dean of Brisbane
8:50am today

No one who is learned about the effects of human population on the planet would say that excessive population growth has benefits. In the long run it creates in-fighting and disillusionment with our neighbour, who is living too close. Fools see Australia as a large continent to be filled to overflowing with humans. The wise see Australia as already filled with fellow fauna and flora. Humans are only one of thousands of diverse species of life in this country and regardless of other countries already having destroyed themselves with over population, Australians don't have any where else to go. It is interesting to note that the non-indigenous author of the article mentions many countries from all over the world and yet shows complete and ignorant disregard for the indigenous Australian. The creators of the world's longest living culture went to great lengths to control excessive population growth and consequently outived all other cultures. Let's learn from the past, read about the dead and overpopulated cultures throughoout history before we begin to ignore the warnings of thoughtful control from the intelligent winners of long life through intelligent culture.

Jim of Brisbane
8:42am today

I am not one who subscribes to zero population growth, nor one who views the human race as a plague upon the planet. However, I do think that there are limits to growth, particularly in certain countries and areas. Without significant changes to our current urban planning and our current lifestyles, I do not think that Australia could easily sustain a population of 35 million people, let alone far more than that as you propose. Housing is already ridiculously expensive compared to average earnings, and as population increases and increasing pressure is placed on urban accommodation, this trend will most likely continue. Further stress will be placed upon our already stretched public transport, health and education systems. Is this really what Australia wants?

Changeling
7:34am today

If multiculturism is so good for us - what's this business about a volatile international environment?
If this guy Friedman has done his homework as well as you suggest he has he would know that history has proven that a single culture and common purpose is the greatest safeguard a nation can have to protect itself from external threats.
With you multiculturists calling for change for changes sake, there is no way the Australian nation can develop a common purpose, and 35 million people amongst hundreds of cultures will act more as an invitation to trouble than a defence against it. You don¿t even have to look at history to see that you only have to watch the news at night.

Mr Lincoln of Canberra

7:33am today

Arthur, it does not sound like a particularly attractive idea and unlikely to be a good one.
No matter it is 7 million more in population or more than that, it does not make Australia a bit different as compared to so many huge sized countries in our neighbourhood.
That has only a very small marginal effect to the most, if anything at all!
So better forget it as a strategy.
But it does not mean there are no other benefits to Australia from a larger population.

Shane of Melbourne
7:01am today

The article is a load of rubbish. Quality of Life? Ethnic tensions? Infrastucture problems? Political realities? These factors are only lightly touched upon and glossed over with a pollyanna attitude. The first political party to do a Hanson with an anti immigration stance is going to pick some major votes in upcoming elections.

SteveH.
6:57am today

I just don't understand how we can welcome a growing population while at the same time keep carping on about the environment and climate change?

frustrated of port melbourne
6:44am today

All very well but we dont have the water. Rudd has just reminded the world that we are a very dry continent. He forgot to mention that despite it being a dry place our state governments refuse to invest in water infrastructure. The Victorian government cannot build a north south water pipe that further drains the murray basin and call it water infrastructure when it does not carry any water. Instead we would rather spend billions on new school halls. We really needed another Snowy Mountains style and size project from all the Rudd promises not just wasting money to buy votes.

JP of Qld
1:36am today

Rather than focus on potential downsides? are you serious, in what parallel world are you living, population growth to further global influence. "Some object to a larger population on the grounds of environmental and resource pressures. In principle, it is possible to have both a significantly larger population and a better environment" this is about as arcane and idealistic as one can get and history of last 20 years or so shows that's impossible. What bit about climate change don't you understand? good grief with thinking like this we are all doomed!

why this is here

I guess that it all started when I travelled round the world living in different places. Sure as an Australian I'm always wondering "what the Fck" about the place, heck questions like that drove me to do my Masters Thesis.

Living elsewhere for a long time you go past looking outside and wonder(as Australians do) and start to look back inside as if it was a strange place.

The book "They're a Weird Mob" I guess was a book which (read in my childhood) started me questioning "us" and why "we" do things the way we do.

A liberal dose of Monty Python as a kid not only formed (or misformed) my sence of humor, but gave me a strongly English viewpoint of the world from which I could counter my Australian one.