First, population growth is ending. Current estimates are by 2065 the population of the globe will peak and then begin a steady decline. Most developed nations are already in population decline. If they enforced very strict immigration limits, it would accelerate the population decline, but at the cost of more suffering by people from countries whose populations are not in decline. It becomes a humanitarian decision.
Bottomline, the population will take care of itself.
Second, there is zero reason to curb economic growth. Your article and those of others who speak about limiting economic growth reflect a misunderstanding of economic growth. For example, if that growth were directed at producing more and more entertainment, which consumes virtually zero resources these days since most of it is digital, three times as much content would have zero impact on sustainability.
Another example, if increased energy consumption was a byproduct of increased use of plants to produce carbon fuels, then standards of living would go up without again zero negative impact on the planet. In theory, consumption could be limitless as long as the proper recycling mechanisms were in place to prevent the byproducts of consumption... garbage, CO2 emissions, pollution from accumulating.
Why is this distinction important? Simply because it is foolish and useless to assume you will convince the developing nations and the poor of the developed nations that should accept less. Nor is it likely that you will convince those people who are enjoying a good standard of living that they should take a step down so others can take a step up. But it is reasonable to assume that if we can make recycling of CO2 into energy cost competitive the people will migrate there. If we can recycle the human waste into fertilizer at a competitive price, that farmers will use. Or if we learn how to turn our landfills into "mining sites" where all the garbage is converted to useful resources to produce more products at a competitive price, that garbage would simply disappear.
The problem with those who question the infinite growth capability of the planet is that they begin with the presumption that we can't keep adapting to find new ways to grow the economy while at the same time reducing the waste we produce. If Mother Nature believed that it would never have evolved animals to consume all the oxygen being produced by plants and to have those same animals produce CO2 to keep plant life from dying due to a lack of CO2.
