"Population debates always devolve into an argument over race (and now pseudo race, Muslims), which is probably why this country has had so few debates on the topic, and why it remains a policy-free zone."

Thanks to Pericles and viking13, whose comment
above reiterates my initial point. I guess
in their own way Proxy and ALGORE also reinforce
it with their blatant attempts to turn the discussion
from one about population policy into one about those
awful Muslims.

Unfortunately, John Le Mesurier's article is as much
to blame as anybody else for sabotaging real debate
about Australia's population in this forum, by its
inclusion of a pretty blatant 'dog-whistle' to those
who wish to introduce discrimination against Muslims
into immigration policy.

[As if discrimination on the basis of religion is
ever going to be acceptable policy in this or any
other liberal democracy.]

At any rate, before entering into secondary social
factors, population activists need to secure some kind of
consensus about the necessity or otherwise of stabilising
Australia's population at an ecologically sustainable level.
In my view, only once Australia's human carrying capacity is
agreed upon do social and cultural factors belong in the debate,
if at all.

So some would now dictate which particular parts of a discussion may or may not be engaged in.
Does this betray a totalitarian mindset?
Combined with their accusations of bigotry and their own dearth of arguments one wonders about their motives.
I'm glad that they are not yet the final arbiters of our freedom of speech.

Addressing the topic, which is more than they appear to be capable of, I would argue that increasing the Islamic population lowers our living standards (the authors key point, judging by the name of the thread) not only because of cultural factors but also because of economic factors, not to mention security factors.

“According to the Danish police and the Danish Bureau of Statistics more than 70 percent of all crimes in the Danish capital are committed by Muslims. Our national bank recently published a report stating that a Muslim foreigner costs more than 2 million Danish kroner (300,000 euros) in federal social assistance on average, caused by the low participation in the work force. On top of this, we have to add many additional types of social welfare that unemployed people can receive in our country: expenses in connection with interpreters, special classes in school – 64 percent of school children with Muslim parents cannot read and write Danish properly after 10 years in a Danish school – social work, extra police etc.”
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/04/danish-psychologist-finds-integration-of-muslims-in-western-societies-not-possible.html

Fortunately, Denmark is starting to wake up and we need to heed their lesson.
Mohammedan immigration into Australia should be stopped immediately before it’s too late.

Pericles... your ugly side is showing.

How can you even remotely disassociate the religious idea of "Polygamy" from population ?

It follows like night after day that if a man has 4 wives he has 4 times the potential to increase population.

Calling for constructive selection criteria (discrimination) to avoid the possibilities of:

a) Our political discourse being dominated by a group which advocates Polygamy
b) The acceptance of people who's creed is violently opposed to our way of life and values.
c) promotion of discrimination, hate, fear and loathing of Jews and Christians
d) Increasing an element in society which sees the world in terms of "The War zone" (where Muslims don't yet govern) and "The peace zone" where Islam dominates

Your call for viewpoint discrimination here in this thread is, I'm afraid, nothing short of Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" behavior and is to be condemned in the harshest terms.

This is especially significant at this moment with Sweden picking up the pieces from a "happy friendly normal family man with lots of friends" who blew himself up while trying to murder as many Swedes as he could.

It's far better to attack the ARGument than trying to impose your "Ministry of Truth" on us.

For example, you COULD have argued that "Polygamous families have no impact on population" Oh wait.. no you couldn't have..because that would be irrational. So..take the easy way 'Call for censorship'

"it follows like night after day that if a man has 4 wives he has 4 times the potential to increase population.

While this is true, and is one means Muslims use to dominate non-Muslim population (it's worth noting too that Osama bin Laden is apparently one of 77 (yes, seventy-seven) children) I doubt polygamy is a big issue in Australia. It's not exactly popular amongst Muslim women, and the ability of a Muslim man to bring in a wife from overseas is compromised if he's already married.

Having said that, Muslims tend to have large families, more so even than Catholics (many of whom who practice birth control, despite Papal edicts). Generous welfare payments don't help, on that score, as Britain has found to its cost.

Really, this country needs an informed debate on carrying capacity and a survey of water, arable land, infrastructure and a whole gamut of topics.

"Really, this country needs an informed debate on carrying capacity and a survey of water, arable land, infrastructure and a whole gamut of topics."

That's exactly right, viking13.

But we're not going to have it if
every population debate gets hijacked
by those who insist on using it as a
platform from which to preach hatred
and intolerance.

This discussion is a very good example
of that. I note that neither Proxy nor
ALGORE seem to be at all interested in
the primary population issues of carrying
capacity and infrastructure. Indeed,
they haven't indicated where they stand
on the article's central point that Australia's
population growth needs to be reduced if
our living standards are to be maintained.

Instead, they just use the population issue
to promote discrimination against and hatred
towards Muslims. It's a damned shame, because
Australia really needs to have a proper debate
about population along the lines that viking13
suggests.

<<Populate for lower living standards>>
Populate (with Islamists) for lower living standards.

<<We should question the sanity of anyone who welcomes rapid growth of Australia’s population.>>
We should question the sanity of anyone who welcomes rapid growth of Australia’s (Islamic) population.

How does talking about the Islamic problem not address the topic?

Ignoring it will not make it go away.

There is an obvious correlation between an increasing population of Islamists and declining living standards.

Look around to what is happening in the world.

This debate is crucial to Australia's future wellbeing.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/