"focusing on people's religious beliefs is a distraction".. Andrew Bartlett.

Tell that to the victims of the London bombings, 9/11, murdered school children, Munich '72. Statues of the Buddha blown up. What a glorious "religion".

A "distraction". Tell that to little boys in Iraq.

Great lot of politicians in Canberra. Ask Pauline Hansen.

Nick Griffin has beaten two of four charges thus far.The tide turns.

FRIEDRICH (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30049),

Your points about acts of terror by Islamic fundamentalist extremists are valid, but we are not likely to get on top of this problem, until we put our own house completely in order and not provide any pretext, whatsoever, that could politically justify attacks on innocent civilians in the minds of people from those cultures.

Our country's participation in the invasion of Iraq, based on the mountains of deceit peddled by John Howard, has provided them with one enormous pretext.

Now that our country has got itself into this mess, at the very least it must distance itself from any efforts to steal the wealth of the Iraqi people. In particular it must distance itself from any efforts to privatise the oil wealth of Iraq and hand it across to oil corporations.

Given the shameful behaviour of our Government in regard to the Iraq wheat export deals, on top of everything else, it would be extremely naive to hope for this from John Howard, but at least the rest of us should make it clear to the rest of the world that we thoroughly repudiate the behaviour of our Government.

That is the only way we can hope to begin to win the war against terror. Resorting only to ever greater acts of violence against the people of these countries will lead us no-where.

FREIDRICH

We could all play the 'let's list the atrocity' game to reinforce a prejudice if wanted. The simple point is that extremism is the danger, not religion... and that's coming from someone who is not religious at all. Frankly, they all seem a bit silly. But atheist extremists have killed millions, and off the edge environmental extremists can be dangerous too.

Trying to keep all people out of a country on the basis of their religion is (a) a ridiculous ad monstrous over-reaction not justified by any evidence, and (b) utterly unworkable and asking for big trouble.

I don't think I'd go as far as Yobbo in saying Australia is grossly underpopulated (and obviously I don't agree with his comments regarding Islam at all). However, he is right to point out that the malthusian mindset is not consistent with how things have turned out.

Also, I don't think it's so much that the rainfall occurs in uninhabited places, more than we are laughably wasteful and profligate with what we have. Either way, there is enormous room for greater efficiency, as we are in the early stages of demonstrating in some regions.

daggett - I know what's happening in South East Queensland. I've lived my whole life here. Much of SEQ population growth (although obviously not all) is internal migration, which is rather harder to halt. I agree we could do way better at planning and constraining development in certain areas, but that is different to keeping people out all together.

Thermoman - I believe it is reasonable to assume the fertility rate will continue to decline, despite a brief halt in the last year or so. If it stays steady for another 10 years, or climbs back up, then I agree that migration intake would need to be trimmed. The point is that migration numbers are much easier to vary somewhat from year to year, and that current numbers (combined with fertility trends) are likely to generate a stabilised population. It is very quick rises or very quick drops which cause the biggest difficulties with economic and social adjustments.

Given that greenies are (quite rightly) always urging people to 'think globally', I don't understand why people don't see population as an issue without borders, the same as climate change. We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours. I don't see why one has to come before the other.

We also need to acknowledge more often that a key part of reducing population involves increasing health and prosperity, which also inevitably means some greater resource consumption. It's not all about numbers.

"I don't understand why people don't see population as an issue without borders, the same as climate change. We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours."

You are quite correct on that one Andrew, the world keeps increasing at 80 million a year. IMHO its a huge issue and every single woman on the planet should have access to family planning etc.

The real problem on that one is of course religion, specifically the Vatican. They lobby worldwide and have enormous political influence in many countries. The evils of condoms, the pill etc. They have also painted themselves into a corner. As the pope claims to be infallible and the pope spoke about all these evils, to now change opinions would make infallibility look rather silly. So they plod
on with their dogma, relentlessly.

Its time that the United Nations got serious about telling the Vatican where to shove it...

Andrew,
Im sorry but you just don't seem to get it - are you suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You say " We can continue to help (more) with other countries to contain their population - at the same time as moving towards stabilising ours"

Andrew, you are not proposing to stabilise our population. You are proposing to increase it by 10 million people. This is a 50% increase - not stabilisation - I hope youre not in weightwatchers!!

And tell me, what do you think your mates in big business are gonna say when the population reaches 30 m. I will tell you - exactly the same as they are telling you now - we want more.

Re: you comments on SEQ; dont you think the fact that Australias population is growing at a million every 4 years is the main factor in SEQ growth,

Also, you still have not answered the question - why? What are your reasons for, and the benefits of, your extra 10 million people. Please let us all into the secret. Its a bit silly saying you think its for all our good, if you won't tell us why!!

Anyway thanks for responding; I think its useful.