Oh, I nearly forgot, Ludwig.

You asked:

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

Because, quite simply, the lower the individual (per capita) footprint, the better. And conversely, the higher, the worse.

In much the same way as the higher is our per capita GDP, the better. And conversely, the lower, the worse.

It's that simple.

Unless you can provide examples of how the opposite of these is true, of course. Care to give it a try?

Pericles, "dog-in-the-manger" applies to people holding onto something they don't want to stop others getting it.

Are you saying Australians *don't want* their own culture, identity, territory?
As if!

"Not entirely sure what is meant here by the term "panculturalists"

It's a more accurate term for multiculturalist.
There are no ethnic restrictions, no?

That means *all* cultures are potentially being introduced into Australia and other Western countries, and you are well aware what the prefix pan- means.

"Multi" sounds easy enough.
Most countries in the world have more than one resident culture.
Spain has, Russia has, even "homogenous" Japan has.

But *all* cultures in one place?
A number (multi) of similar/related cultures/peoples might work, but *every* culture/people?
Preposterous!

Your friends are not the "insane experiment".
The whole radical, sudden social transformation is.
No one individual person is the problem. It's the total sum.

Why must you play these pathetic games?
Oh that's right, it's all you've got.

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

How is "our own" racist?
Are all the people in Australia one race?

I'm sure rehctub means those already living here (700,000 of whom, of various ancestries, are unemployed), but like a true fanatic, you see racism everywhere.

You probably see it in Hundreds and Thousands.
Where's the black and brown ones?

Shockadelic, by "our own" rehctub is *NOT* referring to all current Australian citizens. He's referring to 1850 to 1950 style white, Anglo culture.

Rehctub in a recent post referred to a family that "in his opinion" were dole bludgers, and he immediately pointed out they were not white.

Rehctub (and about 6 or 7 other people here) is a racist through and through. It's a basic fact. And I should point out that calling a racist a racist is not abuse. It's stating a fact. Racists very rarely, these days, admit their racism.... it's always "I'm not a racist ... but .....".

Nhoj and Shockadelic,

I'm still trying to find out if both yourself and many others on this topic have sat down in the classroom and tried to 'take the test' re your ecological footprint: http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/human_footprint/footprint_calculator/ to see how you live and can save the environment.

It doesn't seem like it.

This is the problem. Being a person who is also vegetarian (around 2% of the Australian population) it is quite clear a lot of Australian people don't want to change how they live, throughout their whole life - for environmental and more sustainable lifestyle benefits.

Maybe both of you however - could start a movement and get more people enthusiastic about "taking the test" and lowering your ecological footprint - and then taking the message out to your neighbors, friends, family and other people living in your street.....?

NathanJ my boy, my ecological footprint is likely FAR lower than your's. I don't drive or use cars, don't use planes/trains/buses, I live in a small house and never use heating or cooling (owing to my superb geographical location), have not eaten animal flesh for over 20 years, grow 80% of my own food, my house is 100% solar powered.

Population increase is *NOT* the problem. The problem is inappropriate use of resources.

When people oppose immigration on the (false) grounds of future sustainability, a VERY ugly thing often happens. What happens? They become aligned with the racists/culturalists/bigots in our community, and my experience has been that both groups have one thing in common *NO IMMIGRATION*. This results in people who base their no immigration policy on sustainability only, NEVER criticising the anti immigration bigots who want our country to be ONLY of Anglo culture and white skins. It's an unholy alliance of convenience. Racism should have NOTHING to do with sustainability.

Pericles, you feeling alright? Your sense of logic is a bit warped at the best of times, but today it appears to have disappeared completely!!

I wrote:

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

You replied:

<< Because, quite simply, the lower the individual (per capita) footprint, the better. And conversely, the higher, the worse. >>

<< It's that simple >>

My goodness!!

So if we had a population five times bigger than at present, with an average per-capita footprint 0.8 times as big as at present, we’d be doing better would we??

I could address each statement in your last double post. But I see no point if you are going to make such a totally off-the-planet assertion as this.

Incidentally, we have an unfinished discussion here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6365&page=0