It's people like Tim Murray who give the notion of a sustainable population a bad name.

And the more power to his elbow.

David

There goes the Sea Shepherd vote

C J Morgan comments "It's people like Tim Murray who give the notion of a sustainable population a bad name."

At this point, that seems like a baseless personal attack. So, would you please explain that comment in the context of the issues and information in this article?

Here's a clue, Rick S:

<< But cultural diversity in Canada and the United States cannot be sustained without massive and fresh injections of newcomers to bolster existing immigrants who otherwise would assimilate.

Viable multiculturalism requires unrelenting mass immigration >>

Utter, completely unsubstantiated bollocks - and totally irrelevant to an argument about the ecological desirability of a sustainable human population.

It's the inevitability of this kind of crap being introduced into the argument that causes serious political parties to avoid debating population policy like the plague.

OK CJ, have a look at Mexico then. A more monocultural country would be hard to find. Why? Because no one wants to go there and they are all doing their darndest to leave. Have a look at Japan. No immigrants. Have a look at Australia before the second world war, pretty monocultural. What happened after the war? Mass migration and beginning of all this multicultural BS and getting more so by the minute. Same with England before all the Pakis and West Indians arrived.

Have I made my point?

David

CJ Morgan comments "Utter, completely unsubstantiated bollocks - and totally irrelevant to an argument about the ecological desirability of a sustainable human population."

Yes, in light of the examples of "closed" countries, or countries where little immigration occurs, I believe that there is relevance to the comments. Active multicultural policies seem to lead to calls for more immigration (they certainly do in Canada), which is causing the bulk of population growth in many countries. And that population growth is linked directly to the current Sixth Great Extinction of species, both in those developed countries, and in the developing countries where the environment is being destroyed to serve the consumptive needs of those developed countries. Population policy has to deal with population growth from all sources, and I too believe that it's time to break the taboo about immigration and multiculturalism.

"Serious political parties" are the ones who are actively contributing to trashing this planet, but one day they might see the light. Given the way they generally approach the economy, I'm not all that optimistic though.

I had a snoop at Tim Murray's blog page https://candobetter.org/tim
Most of the population related articles are about immigration but I also noticed some content on reduced birth rates and issues around tourism in environmentally sensitive area's.

CJ is correct in pointing out that population debates will bring out those who use the debate to flaunt their dislike of multiculturalism and or cultural groups not their own. I got the impression that Tim's concerns about multiculturalism are driven by the impact on population policies (or lack thereof) and not the other way around. I could be wrong about that but I'm willing to give Tim the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think we can viably refuse to have some debates because having those debates provides a platform for views we don't agree with (or which we consider dangerous). I think that just leaves the problem festering under the surface and potentially growing more extreme over time.

Get the discussion out in the open, discuss the pro's and cons, rebut the extreme views with good logic and evidence and the problem is lessened. Silence debate by whatever means possible and the concerns don't go away they just grow out of sight.

R0bert

Robert,

I completely agree with you. The issue is that most of the population growth in the US, Canada, and Australia (61%) is coming from immigration, not natural increase, which is likely to end in the fairly near future anyway, as the baby boomers start to die off in significant numbers. Fertility rates here have been below replacement level since 1976.

A new baby is responsible for more additional environmental pressure than taking in a migrant, because the migrant would still be consuming if he had stayed at home. However, he can still expand his consumption, and thus his pressure on the environment, by several times if he comes from a poor country, although it may not be politically correct to acknowledge this. The Center for Immigration Studies in the US, for example, has calculated a fourfold increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the average immigrant to the US. Pressure towards reform in the home country is also likely to be reduced if dissidents and surplus population can be sent elsewhere.

When the soft left are exposed to these facts, they like to waffle on about global versus national solutions, but in the absence of a world government, there is no global solution, only 195 national solutions.

I agree with C.J. that racism is bad. It is needlessly hurtful to individuals, wastes talent, and creates animosity between groups of people, making conflict more likely and making it hard for them to learn from each other or cooperate to solve common problems. However, comparing the harm done by racism to that due to growthism, which can cause extinctions, degrade carrying capacity, and lead to massive increases in human misery, even collapse, is like comparing a child caught shoplifting to a con artist who has bilked people of hundreds of millions of dollars.