Where's the racisim in wanting to save jobs for our own Nhoj?

Kat .... it's your human race.....

Nhoj.

Rehctub .... here's where it is = "for our own". I'm so glad I could finally clear that up for you.

Here we go again. "Black is white" Ludwig strikes again.

>>But it is not about average footprints, it is about the total footprint.<<

Please refer to the opening line of the opening post:

>>According to the WWF: "Australia has one of the world's largest ecological footprints per capita, requiring 6.6 global hectares per person."<<

I expect even the WWF would agree that Australia's total ecological footprint is somewhat less than, say, China's or India's.

I don't quite understand what makes you come out with these counter-factual statements, but they don't tend to form a very sound basis for your arguments.

>>But that’s no excuse for your very odd pro-high-immigration and per-capita-footprint-with-no-consideration-of-the-total-footprint stance<<

The point being made, since you clearly missed it, was that the "remedy" of a halt to immigration proposed by NathanJ was entirely unsupported - even refuted - by the evidence he presented. Much as your claims of growing hardship are gainsaid by the evidence of per capita GDP.

Good morning Pericles.

Thanks for the laugh:

<< "Black is white" Ludwig strikes again. >>

( :>)

As I said previously, WWF’s very unbalanced perspective is no excuse for you to be very unbalanced as well.

I’ll remind you of what you wrote:

<< I am not convinced that my personal ecological footprint - which is apparently less than the Australian average, and less even than Ludwig's - is a justification for lowering our intake of immigrants. In fact, surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case. >>

Well…. where’s the sense in that??

I mean; if we are going to be talking about footprints or ecological impacts or sustainability in Australia in any way, then our population growth is going to be a very large factor. And for you to uphold our current immigration rate is just completely nonsensical and counterintuitive to any comments you make in support of lowering per-capita footprints.

What’s the point in talking about per-capita footprints if the number of ‘capitas’ is going to continue to rapidly increase?

if we are truely overpopulated then we should shoot a few more roos, knock a few more snakes over the head and kill all the sheep. The wwf are a bunch of religous zealots. They along with other alarmist open 'science' up for the mocking it gets. To think that so many gullible believe this nonsense. It shows that the public schools have won the propaganda battle by dumming people down so much.

I sometimes wonder whether you actually read stuff before jumping on your high horse and charging at the windmills, Ludwig.

(And I don't really consider that metaphor to be mixed. More blended, wouldn't you say.)

>>"...surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case" Well…. where’s the sense in that??<<

If you had bothered to follow through and read the justification for my somewhat contrarian position, you would have seen:

>>Given that many immigrants find themselves in a very similar situation - i.e. city-dwelling, little-travelling, high-density-living - then it follows that the more of them we have, the lower will be our average ecological footprint.<<

It is indeed all about averages, Ludwig. The overall ecological footprint divided by the population gives the average footprint - which is the apparent evil to which the WWF was directing our attention.

>>WWF’s very unbalanced perspective is no excuse for you to be very unbalanced as well<<

So, if it is the WWF's perspective that you disagree with, why aim your barbs at me? After all, One of the results of my thought experiment was to point out just how dumb their measurement is, when put into its proper context.

Given that, it is just as likely that this WWF is the wrestling version after all.