Excellent post, Cornflower,

A number of other reports have reached the same conclusions. The 1997 American Academy of Sciences report is consistent with the House of Lords report, as is Australia's own Productivity Commission report. As Prof. Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) put it in the UK Sunday Telegraph (July 2, 2006):

"... the [UK] Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

Cheryl, I have linked to the policies of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) and of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). If these organisations were motivated solely or primarily by xenophobia, why is there nothing about race, ethnicity, or national glory in their policies or elsewhere on their websites? Zero net immigration (an SPA policy) is about 70,000 a year now. Why does SPA want to make the intake nondiscriminatory, rather than all British or all white European? If you want to see what a real far Right website looks like, visit the American Renaissance or the British National Party sites.

I am also puzzled that you think Malthusian collapse is a myth, seeing that you doubtless watched one in living colour on your television set in 1994 (Rwanda). Other countries would be in the same position without large amounts of food aid. See

http://www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/book_bytes/2010/pb4ch01_ss5

Mr Bolton's topic is both a serious and important one. Sadly his contribution is neither meaningful or useful. Like far too many important articles, they start from an emotional assumption and degenerate.

His dismissal of all possible options other than completely nihilist extremes reflects both his lack of vision and imagination.
If there is anything that differentiates man from the apes it's imagination and ingenuity.

The idea that the only options are either a mud hut technology or the excessively opulence of current western life style is overly simplistic to the point of absurdity.
Likewise stopping immigration would neither solve the problem or make a yobbos thong difference . Simply an excuse for xenophobic 'find someone else to blame', cop out.
NB we as a species, can't continue our profligate ways or multiply indefinitely.

The key to the problem is our individual or life footprint, a combination of all our impacts.
The maligned mud hut dweller's existence is based on inefficient exploitive technological
attitudes as we in the west only less so. e.g. they take from the environment what they need but never put back. e.g they chop trees for fuel but don't grow them, they take animals but don't breed them.
On the other hand we in the west simply take take on a grander scale we chop down whole forests and waste more much more etc.

We could reduce the size and waste of our cities (impact) simply by having smaller houses and consuming less.
We have created the system that rewards us with trivialities for consuming more.

It is possible to alter the whole way we as a species behave, and impact the environment by simply altering our value system.
No I'm not talking about flute playing universal nirvana . I'm simply saying there are viable alternatives . If we *want to*. My goal is that we do that before nihilism becomes a self fulfilling prophecy

Superb well written article. Thanks very much Melvin Bolton.

The key point in the short term is that only the rich and the elected officials they support, benefit from high immigration. The rest of us get lower wages, more expensive housing, food, water and power, a deteriorating environment, more congestion, etc.

The key point in the long term is that we have to be sustainable some day. Every day we continue on the current path makes it harder to be sustainable, so we are shifting the problem to our children. That is just simply the wrong thing to do.

Solutions for Australia: Stop baby bonuses and go to net zero immigration.

Best action for Australia regarding the rest of the world: Set a good example, show them we care about them and don't pilfer their best people.

*We could reduce the size and waste of our cities (impact) simply by having smaller houses and consuming less*

The problem here Examinator, is that you most likely think that
others should agree with your perspective on life. It frankly
ain't that simple.

So how many kids should we have max?
How big a house?
How big a tv screen?
How much fuel should we burn a week?

These are all subjective questions, with no right or wrong answers.

For instance, I bought an LED TV last week, so its good on power,
but its still a 40" screen. So is that too much consumption?
Well I never bred your tribe of kids, so my environmental inpact
is far smaller then yours, always will be.

So your point is a bit like how long is a piece of string

Spot on Ericc.

Exactly Leigh and could not agree more with you. You are spot-on and incredibly intelligent with your foresight [a main point regarding population growth] ie rectify Australia's balance of trade before allowing more immigrants into Australia. Unfortunately a line does require being drawn. Common sense prevails.

The Aged: Query: Where will all the nursing homes be constructed? What accommodation will be given to Australians in my age group when we reach our 70s or 80s [if alive]?

Very few farmers and graziers remain as landholders leased or owned, who support Australians via our exports [primary/critical] being wheat, crops, Fine Merino Wool, cotton, beef, lamb etc. Given that most of their land has and will continue to be taken over by developers and the Government forcing them to sell, at a pittance, to keep up with the demands of housing a greater population. Witnessing this again currently. Most country towns are now moving along to become small cities and land many years ago churned up into little blocks. This is great and not a complaint; however, expect no balance of trade: zilch primary exports to feed and support this country. There had better be some GREAT innovators and exporters amongst this next generation. The 60 Billion dollar Coal deal with China may assist a little in supporting Australia; however Australia really should have supported its farmers and graziers with exports back in the 90's and not sold out. Stock wool pile crap, Free Trade Agreements, The inaction of the AWC, list goes on. Our exports were adversely affected 20 years ago; without primary exports this country was stuffed long ago; growth in population topped it off.

The Medical, Crime: when and how are all these issues going to be addressed while populaton growth soars?