Also In The News

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

It's a terrible pickle, the far-right are obviously no solution to anything, but neither are the politicians who want huge immigration into countries to change areas of it beyond recognistion despite it not being wanted by the population.

 

No idea how we sort it out.

Well, you know my opinion on borders and the nation-state in general in any case, but yes, I do have sympathy for those who feel the world is changing too fast and are caught either between having to accept that change or turning to those who will shed blood to stop it from happening and so being in part responsible for it.

[WigstonWanderer]

21 hours ago, E.Rose said:

Twenty-Two-Year-Old Instagrammer Thinks Learning About WWII Could Affect Kids' Mental Health

 

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-apprentice-star-learning-about-wwii-could-affect-kids-mental-health-20191101?source=facebook

 

Wow... just wow. 

This is a very fragile generation. God help them when they face the traumas that real life is bound to throw their way.

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50266955

 

We live in interesting times.

 

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Invite a million migrants in with no democratic mandate to do so.

 

Then they wonder why people turn to the far-right? Mental.

In a historical context, it needs to be mentioned that fascists have existed in Eastern Germany even before the Wall came down. Which may sound odd at first, but that's what it is.

Studies in 1954 noted that about 25% of all SDP party members used to belong to the Nazi party, as early as the early 1980ies, there were more and more skinheads in the big GDR cities, opposing the official anti-fascist party doctrine.

And suddenly, once the GDR ceased to exist, it all came undone.

People usually forget the racially motivated attacks on asylum seekers in places such as Hoyerswerda in 1991 or Rostock in 1992 - both cities in the former GDR.

There was initial sympathy towards refugees, especially based on the Yugoslavian War, but politics and media cultivated a negative view on foreigners back then.

This all led to a very lethal mix.

 

So, there has already been a certain ground for extreme right-wing views in the East of Germany in particular.

 

Now, what we have here is a case of a satirical party being taken seriously by the media. And the media then twisting a word such as "Nazinotstand" (which is meant tongue-in-cheek rather), then creating a story out of it.

 

Germany doesn't have a right-wing issue most and foremost, it's an issue of trust and dismay. The AfD is often quoted as being right-wing - from what I can tell, it's mainly a safe haven for people with all kinds of inferiority complexes and people who feel as if politics have failed them. That doesn't make their views right-wing in general, I think this is another case of the media oversimplifying things, and then not giving context also. Many people voting for AfD do so as a big "fvck you" to established parties, such as the SPD or even the CDU.

 

As @MattP has mentioned, the recent surge in right-wing politics in Eastern Germany also coincides with rather unprecedented amount of immigrants entering the country, By 2009, the total yearly influx was as low as 29'000. In 2014, the number had risen to more than 200'000, two years later, the government counted almost 750'000 people... And these are only the official statistics. Numbers have dropped down to 180'000 in 2018, so my hope is, these extreme political views start to go down with them...

Edited 2 November 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/468651-trump-at-rally-says-impeachment-an-attack-on-democracy-itself

 

At least Nixon had the decency to say "I'm innocent. You've got to believe I'm innocent. If you don't, take my job."

As long as people tend to take Trump literally and don't realize how simplistic his views are, the longer we get inundated with political non-stories, such as this one.

 

The discussion shouldn't be circling around what Trump says, but what he does. And what the Democrats are doing in terms of setting up an Impeachment - and whether the process is justified or not.

 

Trump quotes are but a simple solution to divert from the main issue(s).

[MC Prussian]

The people who died in that lorry in Essex were evidently all Vietnamese.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-50268939

Who in the media said Chinese first? Totally misleading.

 

Hope this trafficking network is wholly uncovered asap.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

As long as people tend to take Trump literally and don't realize how simplistic his views are, the longer we get inundated with political non-stories, such as this one.

 

The discussion shouldn't be circling around what Trump says, but what he does. And what the Democrats are doing in terms of setting up an Impeachment - and whether the process is justified or not.

 

Trump quotes are but a simple solution to divert from the main issue(s).

Things have come to a pretty pass when you can't take the words of ostensibly the most powerful man on the planet at face value.

 

Of course actions mean more, but there almost always seems to be an excuse for those when they get discussed, too.

Edited 2 November 2019 by leicsmac

[Carl the Llama]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

It's a terrible pickle, the far-right are obviously no solution to anything, but neither are the politicians who want huge immigration into countries to change areas of it beyond recognistion despite it not being wanted by the population.

 

No idea how we sort it out.

For one thing you could drop the hateful social engineering rhetoric used here to describe the act of allowing safe haven to people fleeing war-torn regions.

[Barrowblue]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

For one thing you could drop the hateful social engineering rhetoric used here to describe the act of allowing safe haven to people fleeing war-torn regions.

And some. The world is changing and has been for the last 2k years since the ability to travel overseas.  In the future we'll all just be a different shade of skin. 

 

I don't like this but it's inevitable, We're progressing as race beyond the speed at which we can comprehend. That brings out our bad side. 

 

The world has changed in the last 40 years beyond recognition. 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

For one thing you could drop the hateful social engineering rhetoric used here to describe the act of allowing safe haven to people fleeing war-torn regions.

How is it hateful?

Obviously, Matt was exaggerating to a certain degree. But you can and should question the amount of people coming to European countries during such a short period of time. If there were a more steady influx of smaller amounts of refugees over a prolonged period of time, the respective welcoming nation and society would be able to absorb them more easily or more organically.

Having such a large amount traveling and settling down at once - or in Germany's case, 2 million refugees in the space of four years - is a bit like a shock to the system.
At the same token, the country's own existing population is shrinking - each year, about 100'000 to 150'000 more people in Germany die than are born.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Geburten/Tabellen/lebendgeborene-gestorbene.html

 

Also, the large part of migrants from war-torn countries are male, mostly unskilled and in between 18 and 34. Testosterone aplenty.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/

They mostly stem from countries with another cultural and religious background as opposed to Western Europe's and face huge difficulties integrating properly - may I remind you of the New Year's Eve events in Germany in 2015/2016, for instance.

Also, upon arrival in Europe, they quickly find out that it's not all about milk and honey, as they tend to remain unemployed for long periods of time, which in turn favours delving into a criminal career or being a burden on the country's social expenses.

 

And there are so-called No-Go-Zones in Europe, as described by established media at home and abroad:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/europes-no-go-zones-inside-the-lawless-ghettos-that-breed-and-harbour-terrorists

Tempers flare regularly in France (in the banlieues of Paris or Marseille, for example). You remember Molenbeek in Belgium. Or Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö in Sweden.

https://www.thelocal.se/20190603/sweden-vulnerable-areas-decrease-positive-trends-police

It cannot be the aim for more parallel societies to develop in Western countries. This takes the concept of adaptation and integration ad absurdum.

Edited 3 November 2019 by MC Prussian

[Nick]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

How is it hateful?

Obviously, Matt was exaggerating to a certain degree. But you can and should question the amount of people coming to European countries during such a short period of time. If there were a more steady influx of smaller amounts of refugees over a prolonged period of time, the respective welcoming nation and society would be able to absorb them more easily or more organically.

Having such a large amount traveling and settling down at once - or in Germany's case, 2 million refugees in the space of four years - is a bit like a shock to the system.
At the same token, the country's own existing population is shrinking - each year, about 100'000 to 150'000 more people in Germany die than are born.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Geburten/Tabellen/lebendgeborene-gestorbene.html

 

Also, the large part of migrants from war-torn countries are male, mostly unskilled and in between 18 and 34. Testosterone aplenty.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/

They mostly stem from countries with another cultural and religious background as opposed to Western Europe's and face huge difficulties integrating properly - may I remind you of the New Year's Eve events in Germany in 2015/2016, for instance.

Also, upon arrival in Europe, they quickly find out that it's not all about milk and honey, as they tend to remain unemployed for long periods of time, which in turn favours delving into a criminal career or being a burden on the country's social expenses.

 

And there are so-called No-Go-Zones in Europe, as described by established media at home and abroad:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/europes-no-go-zones-inside-the-lawless-ghettos-that-breed-and-harbour-terrorists

Tempers flare regularly in France (in the banlieues of Paris or Marseille, for example). You remember Molenbeek in Belgium. Or Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö in Sweden.

https://www.thelocal.se/20190603/sweden-vulnerable-areas-decrease-positive-trends-police

It cannot be the aim for more parallel societies to develop in Western countries. This takes the concept of adaptation and integration ad absurdum.

😆 wow.

[Finnaldo]

I really don’t have issue with critiquing immigration law or failure in handling integration but can we move away from the Great Replacement Theory talk please? I feel like we’re a couple steps away from blaming a certain influential religious group...

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

I really don’t have issue with critiquing immigration law or failure in handling integration but can we move away from the Great Replacement Theory talk please? I feel like we’re a couple steps away from blaming a certain influential religious group...

Ah, don't mind Prussian, he's just big on his Malthusian race theory.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50284656

 

Oh, I forgot that "better forest management" can totally nullify the risk of wildfires and climate change has zilch to do with their increased incidence and ferocity. Never mind, then.

[Smudge]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, don't mind Prussian, he's just big on his Malthusian race theory.

I thought Rev Malthus was predicting population growth based on arithmetic vs geometric progression. Mind you I learned that 1000 years ago.

What was his race theory?

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Smudge said:

I thought Rev Malthus was predicting population growth based on arithmetic vs geometric progression. Mind you I learned that 1000 years ago.

What was his race theory?

Malthus predicted a crisis based on overpopulation that some people have taken and run with wrt overpopulation of only certain demographics being problematic at this point in time - hence the "Great Replacement Theory".

 

That's what I mean by "Malthusian race theory" - using Malthus' ideas to argue race theory. Sorry that wasn't clearer.

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

I really don’t have issue with critiquing immigration law or failure in handling integration but can we move away from the Great Replacement Theory talk please? I feel like we’re a couple steps away from blaming a certain influential religious group...

 

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, don't mind Prussian, he's just big on his Malthusian race theory.

Well, just happens to be that the vast majority of immigrants to Western Europe stem from countries dominated by the very same certain influential religious group.

My main concerns are integration (learning the language, adhering to the laws and practices in the welcoming country) and adaptation for the society to work properly, not religion or country of origin.

 

You don't need to know or follow Malthus in order to question the consequences of the world's population growth as it is and is predicted - luckily, the increase has slowed down a bit percentage-wise, and it appears as if we're approaching a bit of a standstill. Still, we're looking at close to 10 billion people by 2050 - how are food production and water supply supposed to keep up with that rate? New technology and processes are desperately needed.

[StanSP]

On a lighter note... 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1368927049938319&id=213485125482523

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Well, just happens to be that the vast majority of immigrants to Western Europe stem from countries dominated by the very same certain influential religious group.

My main concerns are integration (learning the language, adhering to the laws and practices in the welcoming country) and adaptation for the society to work properly, not religion or country of origin.

 

You don't need to know or follow Malthus in order to question the consequences of the world's population growth as it is and is predicted - luckily, the increase has slowed down a bit percentage-wise, and it appears as if we're approaching a bit of a standstill. Still, we're looking at close to 10 billion people by 2050 - how are food production and water supply supposed to keep up with that rate? New technology and processes are desperately needed.

Thank you for the clarification. Personally I see the current immigration concerns as no more drastic as many such immigration pushes that have happened in the past - the scale has increased, but then so has the size of the receiving infrastructure, mostly commensurately. And the more we know about each other, the less we should fear each other, I think.

 

I actually share the same concerns about population; unchecked growth in that area can only end disastrously barring some miracle find that allows us to synthesise resources from practically nothing and on demand everywhere. But it does seem that the population growth is indeed slowing up, and with the tech we have now, let alone the tech we can develop in the next few decades, being able to feed and water 10 billion people would not be an unimaginable or even vastly onerous task. If we fail at that, it will be down to greed and its associated logistical bottlenecks, not availability of resources as a whole.

[WigstonWanderer]

For anyone interested in the population growth issue, I can really recommend this entertaining and optimistic presentation if you can find the time.

 

His arguments are very persuasive, but despite that, I can’t help thinking that it’s a shame that world population couldn’t have stabilised at say 3 billion or so.

 

Edit: It was made a few years ago, presumably circa 2013, but I assume is still valid. Apparently the presenter/statistician passed away in 2017.

Edited 4 November 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[MC Prussian]

7 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

For anyone interested in the population growth issue, I can really recommend this entertaining and optimistic presentation if you can find the time.

 

His arguments are very persuasive, but despite that, I can’t help thinking that it’s a shame that world population couldn’t have stabilised at say 3 billion or so.

It's a complex issue, well, depending on whether you regard it as an issue in the first place.

 

I'd say better access to better food, improved living conditions (sanitation, housing), better job prospects, technological progress, more general safety of living e.g. the absence of large-scale wars in most areas of the globe in the past few decades (the last World War ended 74 years ago, so about three generations over here in Europe have now lived in total peace by now), social security, better human adaptation to natural disasters - all these factors (and others) have led to a population increase. And then there's also a certain religious angle to it, when you look at many African, Arabic or Asian countries.

 

Also don't discount the economic factor which also links to it - economic growth is essentially based on more people buying more things, so an ever-growing population plays straight into that concept.

But that and the global credit system, for instance, are themes that would require a topic of their own.

Edited 4 November 2019 by MC Prussian

[spacemunky]

19 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

For anyone interested in the population growth issue, I can really recommend this entertaining and optimistic presentation if you can find the time.

 

His arguments are very persuasive, but despite that, I can’t help thinking that it’s a shame that world population couldn’t have stabilised at say 3 billion or so.

 

Edit: It was made a few years ago, presumably circa 2013, but I assume is still valid. Apparently the presenter/statistician passed away in 2017.

 

So, minus one then.

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It's a complex issue, well, depending on whether you regard it as an issue in the first place.

 

I'd say better access to better food, improved living conditions (sanitation, housing), better job prospects, technological progress, more general safety of living eg. the absence of large-scale wars in most areas of the globe in the past few decades (the last World War ended 74 years ago), social security, better human adaptation to natural disasters - all these factors - and others - have led to a population increase. And then there's also a certain religious angle to it, when you look at many African, Arabic or Asian countries.

 

Also don't discount the economic factor which also links to it - economic growth is essentially based on more people buying more things, so an ever-growing population plays straight into that concept.

But that and the global credit system, for instance, are topics that would demand a topic of their own.

...but predominantly white ones don't have a religious angle pushing them to reproduce more as well?

 

I mean, most of the Western countries as well as East Asian ones have very little to null population growth now, but I really don't think that's because of the absence of religious fervour to get down and dirty and have babies. In fact, I'd say the stability caused by a shift to those improved living conditions and technological progresses and a general better safety of living has the most to do with it - and as those African, Arabic and Asian countries get on a level state with the same standards of living across the board their own population increases will taper off too, religious will or no. 

 

Unless, of course, you believe such people to be unable to sway themselves from the will of their religion or whatever other cultural influence and therefore of a lesser mind than their lighter-skinned counterparts, that is.

Edited 4 November 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

...but predominantly white ones don't have a religious angle pushing them to reproduce more as well?

 

I mean, most of the Western countries as well as East Asian ones have very little to null population growth now, but I really don't think that's because of the absence of religious fervour to get down and dirty and have babies. In fact, I'd say the stability caused by a shift to those improved living conditions and technological progresses and a general better safety of living has the most to do with it - and as those African, Arabic and Asian countries get on a level state with the same standards of living across the board their own population increases will taper off too, religious will or no. 

 

Unless, of course, you believe such people to be unable to sway themselves from the will of their religion or whatever other cultural influence and therefore of a lesser mind than their lighter-skinned counterparts, that is.

Not in the same realm as most African, Arab or Asian countries.

I'm not saying religion is THE reason for the growth in population, but one of the main reasons. Of course, economic development and improving living conditions play their part, as well.

But when you have a large portion of your population adhering to the one dominant religion whose teachings are the same in various continents, as in Islam, for instance, with people actually taking ones religion seriously, it does have an effect on family planning. It acts as some sort of healthy foundation.

 

You could equally say that the absence of religion or the diminishing influence of the Church (not that I'd consider this development a bad thing - on the contrary) has led plenty of European countries to develop a more self-centered, individualistic approach to partnerships and marriage, religion isn't as dominant as it used to be. Couples marry later in life and have kids later. And less and less kids, that is.

Religion in most Western countries is losing its grip on society. But as we rightfully break free from former doctrines, we struggle still to find meaning. It's a learning process - and food for yet another thread, another topic.

Edited 4 November 2019 by MC Prussian

[WigstonWanderer]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...but predominantly white ones don't have a religious angle pushing them to reproduce more as well?

 

I mean, most of the Western countries as well as East Asian ones have very little to null population growth now, but I really don't think that's because of the absence of religious fervour to get down and dirty and have babies. In fact, I'd say the stability caused by a shift to those improved living conditions and technological progresses and a general better safety of living has the most to do with it - and as those African, Arabic and Asian countries get on a level state with the same standards of living across the board their own population increases will taper off too, religious will or no. 

 

Unless, of course, you believe such people to be unable to sway themselves from the will of their religion or whatever other cultural influence and therefore of a lesser mind than their lighter-skinned counterparts, that is.

If you listen to the guy above, he says that in Asia the birth rate is already approaching steady state. His argument is that once people are raised out of extreme poverty and have access to proper food, healthcare and education (particularly for women), the birth rate automatically declines to just over 2 as required for steady state.

 

He says most of the remaining population growth will be in Africa where these conditions have not yet been met.

 

If he is correct, the only question is whether the planet can sustain the 11 billion without massive environment damage. Again, his argument is that the vast majority of the damage that has been done by for instance CO2 pollution has been done, and is still being done by the richest 20% who therefore need to take the lead in change.

 

Edit: For anyone who is interested in these topics and hasn’t watch the 2 videos I posted above, you should really try to find the time to do so. They are highly compelling and may even alter your views. I know they did for me.

As for growth, @MC PrussianI cringe every time I hear some economist praising prospects for it. It is true that we have come to rely on it, and the economic and monetary system depends upon it, but we cannot simply continue with business as usual. The simple fact is that exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely on a finite planet. This is just a matter of arithmetic. Exponential growth implies a doubling over a specific time period. How many more doublings can the planet take? This is why I actually found Greta Thunberg’s words about “fairytales of eternal growth” quite appropriate.

 

 

I’ve been following this guy’s narrative since before the 2008 financial crisis and he always makes sense.

 

Hopefully at some point with a new unlimited, cheap energy source we can recycle better, clean up some of the damage that has been done, and still provide for the eventual population. I can’t honestly see how that can be done under the current crony capitalist system in which the lions share of benefits accrue to an ever smaller percentage of the population who are then sufficiently powerful to game the system even more.

 

Edit: For anyone who has an interest in these topics but hasn’t watched the videos I posted above, you should really try to find the time to do so. They are highly compelling, quite easy and entertaining to follow and may even alter your views. I know they did for me.

Edited 4 November 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Not in the same realm as most African, Arab or Asian countries.

I'm not saying religion is THE reason for the growth in population, but one of the main reasons. Of course, economic development and improving living conditions play their part, as well.

But when you have a large portion of your population adhering to the one dominant religion whose teachings are the same in various continents, as in Islam, for instance, with people actually taking ones religion seriously, it does have an effect on family planning. It acts as some sort of healthy foundation.

 

You could equally say that the absence of religion or the diminishing influence of the Church (not that I'd consider this development a bad thing - on the contrary) has led plenty of European countries to develop a more self-centered, individualistic approach to partnerships and marriage, religion isn't as dominant as it used to be. Couples marry later in life and have kids later. And less and less kids, that is.

Religion in most Western countries is losing its grip on society. But as we rightfully break free from former doctrines, we struggle still to find meaning. It's a learning process - and food for yet another thread, another topic.

Nah, I'm not with you here, or I'm not quite grasping what you mean.

 

The progress of tech and increased living standards gives rise to both increased secularity and resultant security that leads to a lower birth rate, while religion does tell people to go forth and multiply quite often, that doctrine would still be around in Western countries too if the living standards were lower. Religion and other such beliefs often stem from a need to see fairness in an unfair world ("get your reward in the next life for suffering in this one") and as such are not adhered to as religiously (hur hur hur) when things are better for more people.

 

As above, give African, Asian and Arabic countries the same quality of life across the board as the Western nations and watch population growth rates and strict religious adherence plummet.