CL Morgan confidently says:
“Boazy shouldn't worry though - despite his novel perspective and theories, the actuality is that the majority of Australians simply aren't very religious. After a couple of generations, 'Muslim' Australians won't be very religious either. It's a cultural thing, you know :) Secularism rules, OK?”

Morgan old mate, you might do well to study the history of modern Iran. I recall reading an article by some Europeans who were living in Iran at the time of the revolution. They were astounded how their modern, progressive Iranian neighbours became religious fundamentalists- almost overnight…
( another good source on the same theme is a book “Teaching Lolita in Tehran”.

We are all secular rationalist/moderates when the ship is sailing in calm waters . But should it hit a rock, most of us will quickly become born-agains of what ever creed is around.

( & come to think of it - some of the argument styles used by liberals/leftists/conservatives/gays are not far removed from fundamentalism anyway!)

Interesting you bring up Malthus VK3... before him, most britons were convinced the population was in decline.

Funnily enough, birth rates in the first world are stable. Just thought I'd note that, because it's something of a contrast to Malthusian doctrine.

Arjay - my point about rabid right v lunatic left is the either way you are using emotive language rather than reasoned arguments. Kind of makes it look like your arguments are based on anger rather than logic.

When you say strength, I notice you don't mention responsibility - I get the distinct feeling when you say that, that strength is a euphemism for making decisions without taking into account opposing views.

Dunno about you, but I certainly don't see that as strength.

BOAZ_David, I'm fine thanks.

Your novel definitions are a worry. Ethnocentrism, for example, is not just a matter of benignly defending ones 'ethnic kin' as you claim. It's more malignant than that. Why would an Anglo-Celt defend David Hicks or Chapelle Corby or for that matter Jack the Ripper or Oswald Mosely simply because they were 'ethnic kin'? Would you personally defend them over and above people like Ghandi, Nelson Mandella or Martin Luther King on the basis of 'ethnic kinship'?

Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging human behaviour and values based on deeming one's own 'ethnic values' as the 'natural' norm and, therefore, ipso facto superior to other 'ethnic values'. In that view, the closer other people approximate our own 'ethnic' standard the more they are regarded as OK .

Xenophobia, you say, relates to 'race'. It's broader than that. It actually means hatred of strangers. And that hatred can - and often does - manifest itself in a fear of the stranger's ideas.

Both ethnocentrism and xenophobia are readily observed in Australia; they get an easy run on OLO. A significant cause for concern.

High immigration is a scam to enrich land speculators, property developers, real estate agents, bankers, uscrupulous employers, etc at the expense of our environment, future generations and current inhabitants of this country. For further information, see my posts here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=339#5794
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=310
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834

Also, please have a look at an excellent recent "Time and Place" aticle, "The growth lobby and Australia's immigration policy" by Katharine Betts and Michael Gilding, available at:

http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/growthLobbyAndImmigration.pdf

Also, feel welcome to grab a copy of Sheila Newman's 2002 Master's thesis:

"The Growth Lobby and its Absence: The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy
in Australia and France"

... available at: http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/

It's well worth the effort of downloading and printing out all 380 pages of it (the core document is only 240 pages). Appendixes can be obtained from Swinburne Uni.

Over the last few hundred years the following have happened in parallel:

Population explosion
Economic boom
Technological advancement
Environmental devastation

Since they all happened at the same time,
Perhaps I should write an article on how Global warming causes Technological advancement.

Anyway,
Many fisheries have collapsed,
Many species have died or will soon die.
The cost of residential land has far outstripped affordability improvement brought about by pitiful increase in economic activity due to unsustainable influx of consumers.

The problem is too many people.

Can we as human beings afford to entertain ridiculous notions of economic improvement due to overcrowding ?
Or is it like listening to a drunken madman howling at the moon.

Rather than bringing an overpopulated world to Australia, can I suggest doing everything possible to reduce populations in poor, overpopulated countries.

Whatever we spend now should be multiplied by 10 or 20. ie about the equivalent cost of a Collins class sub, or the gov. subsidy to 4 wheel drive imports

I'm sure Planet Earth would be grateful.