Dear David,

I wholly support your ideas and effort to reduce population in Australia and elsewhere.

However, I am unhappy with your blaming of religion as the culprit for overpopulation.

Not only the environment, but religion too suffers from overpopulation: overpopulation brings about a stressful lifestyle which leaves no room and peaceful time for the practice of religion.

Religion teaches that one should restrain their sexual energy so it can be used to concentrate on God instead. When one needs to care for a family, it is much harder to find the time to reflect on God, pray and serve Him. While anyone who wants God should try to abstain from (or at least limit) sexual activities, this is very difficult so at the point when one finds it too difficult, they better use contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and other complications. How possibly the Catholic Church and Islam arrived at the opposite conclusion, is beyond me - and I believe that it has everything to do with culture, genetic-pressures and hypocrisy and nothing to do with religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Religion teaches that one should restrain their sexual energy so it can be used to concentrate on God instead."

Some religions teach that. Others, like Buddhism, do not acknowledge God. Your statement is not applicable to all religion. To me it seems rather stupid to restrain one's sexual energy to concentrate on something that doesn't exist unless it is good fiction or entertaining myth. To restrain one's sexual energy to concentrate on science, mathematics, nature, literature, music, philosophy or cooking has a point. The restraint can lead to knowledge or other sensual pleasures. I believe in maximising sensual pleasures. Nonsense as in Lewis Carroll is also a sensual pleasure, but too much time can be wasted in such silliness as belief in god, devil, heaven, hell, messiah, nirvana and all the other nonsense associated with religion of one kind or another. Pleasure should be restrained for a useful purpose not to concentrate on the inanities of religion.

At 90 years of age I look back on some opportunities for sexual pleasure that I didn't take advantage of with wistful regret. I also regret not letting go of the idea of God earlier in life.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Sexual pleasures do not have to result in procreation. Part of the nonsense that some religions promote is that sex not resulting in progeny is somehow sinful. They actually encourage procreation.

Let us enjoy the full range of pleasures that sex can provide according to one's inclinations. Oral, anal and homosexual sex do not result in progeny. Contraceptives prevent conception in genital intercourse. Some religions discourage all of the foregoing. They encourage uncontrolled population growth.

More sex for recreation. Less sex for procreation. More sex. Less religion. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

David, numbers are not a problem, nor is water because what we consume is miniscule to the amount we waste, or allow to be wasted, then there are options such as desalination, so no real problems t, while allowing non productive people in.here in my opinion.

The disturbing part for me is that while there may only be 8 per 10,000, of those 8, 3.2 are illiterate in their own language, so we are essentially inviting passengers, with little or nothing to offer by way of contribution.

As for religious beliefs, we as the people have been powerless to pick and chose who comes. A position we still have no say in.

rehctub wrote: “numbers are not a problem, nor is water because what we consume is miniscule to the amount we waste, or allow to be wasted, then there are options such as desalination, so no real problems t, while allowing non productive people in.here in my opinion.”

Dear rechtub, Unfortunately your opinions seemed to be backed by a lot of prejudice but a great lack of facts. Water supply is a great problem which does not have an easy solution. You might start learning about it.

http://www.natsoc.org.au/our-projects/biosensitivefutures/part-4-facts-and-principles/ecological-issues/water-issues-in-australia is a place to start.

You wrote: “The disturbing part for me is that while there may only be 8 per 10,000, of those 8, 3.2 are illiterate in their own language, so we are essentially inviting passengers, with little or nothing to offer by way of contribution.”

What is the source of “3.2 are illiterate in their own language”? You throw out these figures, but you don’t back them up with sources. I have already questioned you on 3.2, but you merely repeat the statement. Repetition is not validation.

You also wrote: “As for religious beliefs, we as the people have been powerless to pick and chose who comes. A position we still have no say in.”

Australia has a constitution which does not allow favouring or suppressing any religion.

Article S. 116 of the Australian Constitution: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

You want to discriminate according to religion? Change the constitution.

I would appreciate it if you would back up your opinions with facts rather than just rant on. I don’t want to waste more of my time.

Dear David,

Regardless of the different rationales/theologies given, religions explain that:
1) One should concentrate their energy on some higher purpose; and
2) If one dissipates their sexual energy every time it rises, then one will lack the energy to concentrate and break through beyond their current comfort-zone towards whatever they wish to achieve, be it material of spiritual, including science and mathematics, etc.

We have been discussing religious beliefs before and we could well also discuss the merits and demerits of sexual pleasure, but both would get us even further from to the topic at hand, my whole point here being that religion is not responsible for the scourge of overpopulation.

Whoever invented this stupid idea that "sex is more sinful if it does not result in progeny" was not a religious holy-person but probably a manipulative politician who wanted others to produce more children so they become their slaves and cannon-fodder.