I wrote “We need a weaker national identity and a greater identity with the rest of humanity.”

Col Rouge wrote: "That sounds like “internationalism”, a type of “Trotsky rubbish think”."

I regard Trotzky as a demonic figure. He was a brilliant man who might have done something worth while with his life. Instead he helped put and keep the bloody Lenin in power. Trotzky extolled violence and advocated permanent revolution until the Marxist ideology was established all over.

My inspiration is from two sources. One is Thomas Jefferson. Although I am not religious the other is the Bible.

In the Declaration of Independence for the United States TJ wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since we manifestly are not equal differing in intelligence, strength, sex and other attributes I believe he meant all humans should have equal rights. I am for equal rights regardless of ethnicity, religion, nationality and other human attributes.

In the Bible I am inspired by the vision of Isaiah. Isaiah 2:4 ...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

A strong national identity can and often does encourage us to war against those of a different national identity. A strong national identity is an enemy to peace.

Trotsky was in favour of class warfare. I favour identification with the rest of humanity regardless of class or nationality.

I am a citizen of two countries: Australia and the United States. One of my granddaughters is a citizen of the United States, France and Brazil.

I wish I could be a citizen of all nations, and that all citizens of all nations could have equal rights.

“However, I stick by my personal population targets and truly believe that with enough research and strategy it can be achieved without causing any serious damage…”

Aussie eagle, I wouldn’t have a problem with a 100+ million Australian population, if it was sustainable and did not lead to further environmental degradation or loss of ecological values.

Sure, if enough research can be done, so that we can be confident that a much larger population can be sustained, then fine. But of course, we would need to be absolutely confident of our strategy first.

At the moment we don’t have any such strategy. So population growth should be stopped in its tracks, or at least, greatly reduced…. which could be done very easily if Rudd would just see the light and pull the immigration rate right back.

“We have a great opportunity to lead the world in better ways of using water and natural resources through our devotion to sustainable development.”

Absolutely we do. This is the stuff we should be concentrating on for the sake of our own wellbeing and for the sake of all of humanity. It is vastly more important that we do this if we want to assert ourselves in a dominant position on the world stage than it is to grow much bigger and exert more economic muscle.

I think our positions are not too far apart. I thank you for this amicable discussion.

Col Rouge: I do associate with the idea of quality of life as much as I do with concern about Australia's role on the world stage. I would imagine that when you think of National Greatness, you think with at least a little bit of a internationalist view whereby National Greatness can be associated with conflicts and oppressive government regimes of past and present world-over. The sort of national greatness that resulted in deaths and oppression was that that saw too few people with too few people problems ruleing over too many. They were arrogant and driven by a excessive belief of conviction without consideration for the consequences of their actions, though the more smarter ones would of knew the consequences all too well, more than we realise, but quality of life and loss of life was not considered a priority. For starters, my personal view of what I wish to achieve does not involve instigating conflicts or massacres of any kind. The other end of the scale it involves a good balance with perhaps a slight bias towards improving our already relatively good quality of life whilst improving our National integrity and muscle in foreign affairs. For too long, Australia has been a active and as of the last 15 years or so a "significant" player but nonetheless sidelined politically when compared to our contributions which far outbalance the returns. We for the last 100 years have been trying to work out what we are, and what our place is with the nations of the world and thus far it has been one of caution with very little assertiveness regardless of the countless human sacrifices we have made for our allies and for what we call freedom of the world. We need to develop a positive vision for growth whilst alongisde improving the quality of life of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and taking the lead not following the lead in innovative solutions to our water shortage and rural food shortage crisis.

aussie_eagle2512 wrote;

'We need to develop a positive vision for growth whilst alongisde improving the quality of life of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and taking the lead not following the lead in innovative solutions to our water shortage and rural food shortage crisis."

Why must we develop a positive vision for growth? It seems to me easier to develop a positive vision for balance of our population with the rest of nature including our natural resources. I feel we would have a better quality of life if we did not set growth as an objective,

What does growth mean to you - more people, increased productivity, more books, more fighter planes, more doctors, more marinas? What kind of growth are you referring to?

How much is enough?

Economic growth can be a hindrance to well-being and economic cutbacks can lead to a better quality of life.

Zoning changes could be introduced which would place people farther from their place of employment. This would increase economic growth greatly. Expansion of highways, more cars, increase in sales of petrol, automotive repairs, more pollution and more accidents, increasing medical expenses etc. GDP is the total product of goods and services and such zoning changes would definitely increase the GDP.

Zoning changes could also be introduced which would place people nearer to their place of employment. This would decrease GDP but might increase quality of life greatly.

When population grows, so does everything from A to Z.eg.- Bad drivers are being blamed for the increase in car accidents! What a crock of crap.

EVO