From - Fri Jul 5 23:18:25 2002 Message-ID: <3D25BC80.45B92D74@earthops.net> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:34:25 +0000 From: Tiny Human Ferret Organization: copyright 2002 all rights reserved -- non-UseNet transmission prohibited. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.38 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: Sustainable population a key concern for state References: <73ouhu8l21o57as04qq4lpicimq55s31g5@4ax.com> <3D1F9DD5.F6E988F@earthops.net> <4fp1iu4ktq5auu78ol9vfquav582hgk294@4ax.com> <3D20E91D.A88FA942@bellsouth.net> <9hc2iugqfaa3p9s0kic45h2ke5jfv7vfc3@4ax.com> <3d213bcc_8@nopics.sjc> <3D21B26C.892C9E64@earthops.net> <0qk7iu45bcnmbj1smr8ndu308352lrpcfh@4ax.com> <3D243E38.C87F2B96@earthops.net> <3D248C99.3D6E9595@aha.com> <3D24B914.3050608@beets.crib.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.205.1.226 X-Trace: vienna7.his.com 1025883265 65.205.1.226 (5 Jul 2002 11:34:25 -0400) Lines: 126 X-Authenticated-User: tjh22isp Path: vienna7.his.com Xref: vienna7.his.com alt.politics:855130 alt.politics.democrats.d:69380 alt.politics.immigration:18389 alt.politics.libertarian:18494 alt.politics.reform:3142 Jerry Okamura wrote: > > "Baster" wrote in message > news:p6o9iu0r31lmomjgdbmr6o4b95vlag1n9h@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 17:07:32 -0400, WhoMe? > > wrote: > > > > > It is very interesting to go off on technology and sustainability, I > > used to do it all the time in sci/tech fora, in years past. Fun! > > However, as these are developed-world political groups, sustainability > > will always come squarely back to Immigration. > > What in the world has immigration got to do with this issue of world > population growth and sustainability. If we're discussing The World, really very little. If we're discussing the US and Europe, it has a great deal of relevance. For instance, to focus on the US: Even though the US-born populations voluntarily achieved Negative Population Growth (nonviolent population decline) in about 1992, over the decade 1990-2000 the US population grew by a completely unprecedented 15-percent. No previous wave of immigration was of such magnitude; and during this last decade, _all_ US population growth was due to immigration. Projections of population growth based on this census data show staggeringly large populations in the US even by 2050. The US is the fastest-growing nation on earth, bar none; and we will have the population density of India by about 2100, no later, unless something is done to prevent it. Look at it this way: the US/Canada population already consumes some 40 percent of the world's resources, even with the best recycling and with world-leading industrial and civilian efficiencies in everything except motor-vehicles. If the population were to (merely) double and the current standard of living is not sacrificed, the US/Canada would be consuming almost all of the world's resources. The rest of the world may not appreciate this and some sort of conflict over resources would be inevitable. But we won't have to wait until our population doubles. For instance, in the PR of China, their standard of living is rising quite rapidly, even as their population moves towards nonviolent population decline. When the US and China have roughly the same standard of living, between the two of them they _will_ consume all of the world's resources. Perhaps the other nuclear powers will be willing to sit back and let this happen. China is taking famously stringent measures to enforce a population decline. The US-born Americans voluntarily elected to create a nonviolent population decline, starting in the 1980s, successfully in the 1990s. Yet, the population is rising due to immigration, rising at a truly astonishing rate. Why? Wicked politicians apparently stupidly sacrificed the future of the nation and of their own children so as to secure the tenuous and fleeting success of re-election. By kowtowing to their corporate whoremasters, they ensure the destruction of their future: and none was more offensive in this regard than was the "Clintonista" administration, which allowed at least 7.5 millions of illegal aliens to enter into and remain within the US. Yet, at the same time, vast numbers of other immigrants were permitted to enter legally. I don't have anything against the legal immigrants. I do feel that it's time to determine what would be a reasonable level of legal immigration, certainly a lower level than at present; and absolutely no more illegal aliens may be permitted to remain within the US. > > > > It is impossible to look fondly on those regions which parlayed > > large-scale subsistence ag into giant population blooms (China, India, > > etc.). What have those peoples gained by it? Has it given them a good > > quality of life, or any of the things that nations consider desirable? > > Has it made them more culturally creative, or promoted scientific > > advancement? In fact, is there one single desirable thing about giant > > population blooms made feasible by comeasurate advancments in material > > subsistance? > > It would seem to me that we are trying to make a connection to arrive at a > conclusion that seems to me at least to be unconnected. I thought China for > one, is trying to hold down its population growth. Certainly it is, and while the techniques used to achieve this goal are unpleasant, the goal itself is worthy. China will have to undergo a cultural change of unprecedented scale and scope if this population-growth restraint is to become a long-term trend. I believe the previous poster's remarks concern China _before_ the present policy was enacted. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, however, remain noteworthy for their rates of population growth, as does most of the eastern Mediterranean. For instance, the population explosion amongst Palestinians is remarkable amongst a field of fast-growing neighboring nations. > But in either case, it > would seem to me that a case could be made that the problem with these two > countries have more to do with their government policies than it has to do > with what they have been able to achieve for their people. Actually, in both India and China -- with must greater success in China since it's an anti-religious dictatorship -- the governments have been applying significant resources towards making family planning available (mandatory in the case of the PR of China). However, in both India and China, the cultures themselves place a very high premium on the fecundity of women and the fertility of men. It is very admirable that in both places, a cultural precept is emerging -- especially among the educated -- of limiting reproduction. But this too can have its drawbacks in the very longterm. > > > > This is all people are talking about when they look toward modern > > sci/tech to solve population problems, and this is the future they > > would inevitably bring on line. > > > > I realise that some posters know this perfectly well, and just enjoy > > digging into predictions and scenerios, and that's great, but I wonder > > about other folks who seriously consider material scientific advance > > as a manna that will save them from their own lack of bravery in > > saying no to immigration. > > > > It just seems to me that this posting is just a little bit inconsistent. > Both China and India are not noted for their generous immigration policies. Ah, they _already_ know what it is like to be nearly destitute due to overpopulation. It seems that the US is on a course to find out, though. -- Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae. Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/