Yuyutsu wrote: "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."

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religion is partially responsible for the scourge of overpopulation. Various religious groups have opposed sex education, use of contraceptives and education for women. Those are all measures which could counter the scourge of overpopulation.

Your whole point is wrong. Religion not only clouds the mind with its mumbojumbo but shares the guilt for overpopulation. Religion has not only opposed measures to control overpopulation but has actually encouraged people to multiply without restraint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull tells about one such group.

"Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative fundamentalist Christian couples, chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and elsewhere. It sees children as a blessing from God and promotes procreation, abstaining from all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization. Adherents are known as quiver full, full quiver, quiverfull-minded, or simply QF Christians. Some refer to the Quiverfull position as Providentialism, while other sources have referred to it as a manifestation of natalism. Currently, several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement.[

Dear David,

These Quiverfull people, between changing nappies and chauffeuring their older children, when do they ever find time for God?!

David, the 3.2 (40%) is what was mentioned on the news a while ago.

Until I see otherwise I have no reason to disbelieve it.

However, should you choose to challenge my figures, that is your given right, and should I find such info I will forward it.

In the mean time, you are welcome to bury your head in the sand and pretend we don't have a huge problem looming.

As for water, we are so stupid that we treat all water as 'A' grade drinking water, then we bath in it, wash to car, the boat, even the dog. We wash the driveway and hose the plants as well, and of cause we consume about 2%. There in lies the answer.

Add to this the billions of litres washed down our rivers and stormwater drains, much of which could be harvested, problem solved. And if these measures don't work, we have desalination to turn to.

In essence, we don't have a water problem, we have a water usage problem, one that is curable.

Dear rehctub,

In denying we have a water problem you are sticking your head in the sand. It is a far greater problem than our refugee intake.

http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Chartres_&_Williams.pdf

"Australia is a continent of extremes with respect to water resources; relative abundance in the tropical north where few people live and relative scarcity in the more populated, temperate south. In addition, both south and north are a#ected by wet/dry seasonal climatic conditions and the south, in particular, by increasing climate variability marked generally by declining rainfall. In the south, previous poor governance systems have led to the over allocation of surface and groundwater supplies and there is increasing competition for water from irrigators, urban/domestic, industrial and mining users. As a consequence, there has been a major deleterious impact on the health of many rivers and their associated environments. Therefore, Australia is confronted with a major question; can water productivity and water governance be improved to ensure environmentally sustainable and productive river systems? This paper examines how this may be achieved. It concludes that economic reforms coupled with scientific and management innovation may alleviate many of the water scarcity issues."

Note the last sentence. The problem is so severe that their recommendations MAY alleviate many of the water scarcity issues. They cannot be sure.

Dear rehctub,

I am glad that I live in a country where the government shows compassion by taking in refugees. You are worried about how productive they will be. I don't understand that kind of worry. When you lend somebody in need a helping hand if you are a caring person you don't worry about what that person can do for you. Take in someone who needs help, and you may have to continue to help them. Is there anything wrong in that? Are we to supposed to be so hard-hearted that we cannot help somebody without asking something in return? There is too much of the "What's in it for me?" attitude in this world. None of the Arab countries, as far as I know, are offering to take any Syrian refugees in. They are hard-hearted. Would you like us to be like them?

We see the world very differently. Sometimes my government does something to make me proud of it. Taking in refugees is one of those things. It makes me feel my taxes aren't entirely wasted.

Dear David,

I admire your sentiment.

However,

When a person does charity, they benefit from it even more than the recipient: it purifies their heart, improves their character and removes their guilt.

But when government takes our money away without leaving us a choice, then we are denied the opportunity to donate that same money ourselves along with all the accruing benefits. The result as you can see, is more hard-hearted people that ask "What's in it for me?".

Allow ordinary Australians to compassionately vote with our own purses how many refugees we accept.