The first thing that strikes me about the author's approach to all this, is his utter selfishness.

To get the full flavour, you need to follow the link from his blogger.com user profile...

http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/

Here's how it goes:

"We all agree that..."

Well actually Tim, we don't. Not all of us. Not me, anyway.

"Earth's human population is over 10 times what is optimal."

Says who? This is a number simply plucked out of the air.

Or somewhere fundamentally darker and less hygienic.

"The more natural resources per capita, the higher our quality of life."

He means, of course, the higher his quality of life. Selfish bastard.

"Reducing population by modifying natal and immigration policies for all countries starting with our own is necessary for the brightest future."

Tim, if every country stopped immigration as you suggest, how will that reduce the world's population? It won't, will it? It simply means that there will be fewer of them nasty furriners to bother you.

Admit it. You just don't like immigrants, do you.

"A major energy breakthrough such as thorium reactor technology or a massive oil discovery is not beneficial to humanity because it will only increase human numbers and human activity which will destroy quality of life and other species"

This is a winner. If we continue to find new energy sources, the anti-growth brigade won't be able to use energy depletion as an reason to stop immigration any more.

So stop innovating, everyone. It only encourages people to live and enjoy life. Can't have that.

"Governments worldwide should offer males and females generous compensation for getting sterilized."

Yep. And if they don't volunteer, Tim will come round and personally do the operation himelf, whether you like it or not.

Or more likely, one of his stormtroopers.

"If fines were issued and privileges were revoked for reproducing, reproduction would decline."

If that fails, line 'em up and shoot them.

I can't help but think that here is one very sad human being, who finds life on earth unbearable, and wants everyone else to feel the same way.

Pericles writes "Tim, if every country stopped immigration as you suggest, how will that reduce the world's population? It won't, will it? It simply means that there will be fewer of them nasty furriners to bother you.

Admit it. You just don't like immigrants, do you."

Ah, the racist card again. Admit it. You do not have any better arguments, and have not read my "Accusations of Racism Don't Change the Facts" at http://sustainablesalmonarm.ning.com/profiles/blogs/accusations-of-racism-dont

I sure wish that you would take the time to read what is at Tim's blog, as he has already dealt with your question. The word count restrictions for articles here prevent him from giving much detail about anything, so look around.

Halting immigration has a two-fold benefit. First, it stops the immediate expansion of consumption of most immigrants (and that consumption is multiplied by a factor of four or more for most immigrants). And second, it closes the safety valve that has let other countries avoid dealing with their own overpopulaton problems. It's time for those other countries finally deal with those problems, and we can target our aid for them to education of women, and to provision of contraception -- two methods proven to reduce the fertility rate.

Population or over consumption?

My household of nine uses less water and electricity than than that of my daughter's teacher (2 person household) who pontificated that families shouldn't have more than one sibling.

Didn't she look like the intolerant fool she was when she brought in her bills and compared them with ours!

This is the challenge for all the doom sayers. Are we living sustainably, and how can we improve this situation?

My children grow the best fresh fruit and veg on our quarter acre as they compost everything, use the rainwater to water etc etc. Not that hard, and as for fashion clothes etc, they just by-pass all of that.

Better to educate that eradicate?

Reality Check,

It is good that you are trying to live sustainably, but a simple calculation (involving the exp key on your calculator) can show you that the benefits of any reduction in consumption will eventually be wiped out if the population continues to grow. I once calculated the effect if the entire population of the US were to disappear, with its resources to be shared equally among the rest of the world. It would take about 20 years at the current global population growth rate to put everyone right back in the poverty where they started. Pericles understands this, but thinks that we ought to be glad to live in some wretched, crowded human factory farm to allow more hypothetical people to live. What is surprising is that he doesn't even expect Brownie points in heaven for it.

Reality Check, can you please do an analysis of the amount of fuel your family uses, not just for personal transportation, but also for manufacturing and transporting all the goods your family uses. Unless you are producing all your own food as well, that food must be produced somewhere and transported to where you can purchase it, and all the goods (clothing, furniture, and so on) used by your family must be produced somewhere and transported to where you can purchase it as well. In other words, please don't cherry-pick one item and use it as some sort of demonstration of an ascetic lifestyle. Let's see the entire picture. As well, if you have done your ecological footprint calculation, it would be interesting to see the number. How many people living as you do can this planet support?

And, finally, if the trends continue, then the teacher you mentioned will likely lead to only one or two additional people in the next generation. Your family, on the other hand, will lead to nearly 50 (I am assuming 7 children in your family continuing the trend of having 7 child families). How is that sustainable?

POLITICIANS NEED IMMIGRATION

There seems to be a lot of information in the posts here that points to immigration being the source of the overpopulation in Australia and other developed countries around the world not the Australian women ;who have a very low birthrate.
It has always been the politicians that have allowed the huge influx of immigrants usually against the majority wishes of the Australian people at any given time. That is because when the economy stalls the politicians are put in the hot seat, because when people aren’t prospering they usually blame it on the government of the day. The politicians know that without new consumers needing more homes and white goods and groceries etc that the economy will experience big slumps and they need constant new people to bouy the economy . Immigration is what keeps them in their jobs. Of course they don’t say this as they like to claim that it is all because of their own clever management.
While this is the situation I can’t see that they will ever put the brakes on immigration. Therefore dreams of a sustainable population will remain forever unrealized.