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