|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 5, 2023 23:52:21 GMT
You think the two are entirely unconnected? Or that overpopulation is not an issue? Overpopulation is the huge Elephant in the room. What do you propose we do about it? Tell Asians they need to stop breeding like Rabbits perhaps or just start a massive war as that usually works. Correct. The global population increases by 82 million a year, and they all need water, food, energy, 'resources'. As the darling of the BBC said... .. .“All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.”Sir David Attenborough. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Jun 6, 2023 13:52:18 GMT
Overpopulation is the huge Elephant in the room. What do you propose we do about it? Tell Asians they need to stop breeding like Rabbits perhaps or just start a massive war as that usually works. Correct. The global population increases by 82 million a year, and they all need water, food, energy, 'resources'. As the darling of the BBC said... .. .“All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.”Sir David Attenborough. So the question is, which posters are prepared to top themselves for the common good ? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 6, 2023 14:45:40 GMT
Sorry but's that's just one of those urban myths that the charlatans in the Immigration Industry like to put about. Have you ever read David Coleman's classic paper "The Myth of Replacement Migration, or why everyone is going to have to live in Korea: a fable for our times from the United Nations"? If not, it's highly recommended. Are you sure though? Have you got any numbers that back it up. My understanding of how our economic system works is that those of working age support those of retirement age from current taxation, and the whole system relies on there being a higher number of younger contributors than older beneficiaries. If you take all the numbers out of the worker bracket i'd have thought you would create a big problem and it'd be compounded by the need to have an immediate and long term breeding incentive programme which is going to take 20 years to start producing taxpayers and put a lot of cost burden on the state for education infrastructure beforehand. then you should search for a paper put into the commons library by paid researchers working for Norwich Union I wont bore you too much but their planners proved the fatties paid their way, the disaster was the joggers and other fit bastards whose brains would addle decades before their bodies gave out leaving the NHS to look after fit corpses with bo meaningful brain activity and we all ought to worship smokers who at best lived to get back a fifth of that they put in. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 6, 2023 14:48:26 GMT
"So the question is, which posters are prepared to top themselves for the common good ?"
I'm not sure that's the right question to be asking. If the entire membership were to commit seppuku tonight their numbers would be immediately replaced by tomorrow's small boat arrivals, and completely dwarfed by the eleven jumbo-loads of 'regular' migrants arriving that same day. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 15:40:07 GMT
"So the question is, which posters are prepared to top themselves for the common good ?"
I'm not sure that's the right question to be asking. If the entire membership were to commit seppuku tonight their numbers would be immediately replaced by tomorrow's small boat arrivals, and completely dwarfed by the eleven jumbo-loads of 'regular' migrants arriving that same day. You jest but the appropriateness of that question coupled with guilt of being a burden is the reason why it isn't asked, and why offering euthanasia to old people or those with chronic incurable conditions is resisted. I don't think therefore, that voluntary suicide is a viable option to contribute towards the culling of 20 Million. You didn't come back with any meaningful figures to my prior posts so while I do think reducing the UK population and aiming to limit it to a 'maximum sustainable number' is a good idea, I do think that a number of things need to happen first. 1.) rework the UK economic system so it isn't dependent on a) growth. b) one generation covering the bills of another. 2.) address education and training so it isn't necessary to import skills in high volumes. 3.) Put systems in place so the UK can adopt a one out one in policy. 4) reject the concept that only immigrants will do certain jobs and return to the ' where there's muck there's money' concept. Give employers no choice but to raise wages to the point they do get enough applicants to fill less desirable positions. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 6, 2023 16:06:34 GMT
I didn't see your earlier question but if I had I would have responded that Coleman's paper contains lots of numbers explaining why the Myth of Replacement Migration is just that, a myth.
AS for your laundry list of 'things to do', you skipped over item 0 in the list: "A hard-stop to all immigration". None of the rest of it is going to make a smidgen of difference as long as we continue to roll out the red carpet for several dinghy-loads and eleven jumbos full every single day.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 6, 2023 16:22:33 GMT
I also bet those who shout the loudest about the great benefits of mass unskilled immigration never see one iota of it for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 17:34:36 GMT
I didn't see your earlier question but if I had I would have responded that Coleman's paper contains lots of numbers explaining why the Myth of Replacement Migration is just that, a myth. AS for your laundry list of 'things to do', you skipped over item 0 in the list: "A hard-stop to all immigration". None of the rest of it is going to make a smidgen of difference as long as we continue to roll out the red carpet for several dinghy-loads and eleven jumbos full every single day. I didn't skip over hard stop, I just suggested a one in one out policy. since that would have the desired effect of controlling total number of people in the UK as part of a overall reduction strategy. I don't think a hard no immigration policy is likely workable, because there will likely always be a need for someone with a unique skillset to be brought in from time to time. Also multinationals are going to want to move people from location to location from time to time. I figured a one in one out policy would be compatible the desired goal. It could also be a benefit. Say for example a multinational wanted to send a new senior exec to the UK, they would have the choice of moving someone else in their employ from the UK but also they could potentially pay someone else to leave. Your incentivised departure programme could in part be financed by multinationals wanting to free up a place for one of their transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 6, 2023 17:48:52 GMT
I can think of 17,410,742 people we could lose straight away without anyone being missed.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 6, 2023 19:33:31 GMT
I didn't see your earlier question but if I had I would have responded that Coleman's paper contains lots of numbers explaining why the Myth of Replacement Migration is just that, a myth. AS for your laundry list of 'things to do', you skipped over item 0 in the list: "A hard-stop to all immigration". None of the rest of it is going to make a smidgen of difference as long as we continue to roll out the red carpet for several dinghy-loads and eleven jumbos full every single day. I didn't skip over hard stop, I just suggested a one in one out policy. since that would have the desired effect of controlling total number of people in the UK as part of a overall reduction strategy. I don't think a hard no immigration policy is likely workable, because there will likely always be a need for someone with a unique skillset to be brought in from time to time. Also multinationals are going to want to move people from location to location from time to time. I figured a one in one out policy would be compatible the desired goal. It could also be a benefit. Say for example a multinational wanted to send a new senior exec to the UK, they would have the choice of moving someone else in their employ from the UK but also they could potentially pay someone else to leave. Your incentivised departure programme could in part be financed by multinationals wanting to free up a place for one of their transfers. One in one out won't do a thing for already unsustainable population figure.
The Optimum Population Trust (patron Sir D Attenborough) reckons that the long term sustainable population of the UK is around 21 million. I thought I was being conciliatory in proposing a population goal of around 50 million, the same as in 1950, but I guess there's no pleasing some folk.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 20:24:21 GMT
I didn't skip over hard stop, I just suggested a one in one out policy. since that would have the desired effect of controlling total number of people in the UK as part of a overall reduction strategy. I don't think a hard no immigration policy is likely workable, because there will likely always be a need for someone with a unique skillset to be brought in from time to time. Also multinationals are going to want to move people from location to location from time to time. I figured a one in one out policy would be compatible the desired goal. It could also be a benefit. Say for example a multinational wanted to send a new senior exec to the UK, they would have the choice of moving someone else in their employ from the UK but also they could potentially pay someone else to leave. Your incentivised departure programme could in part be financed by multinationals wanting to free up a place for one of their transfers. One in one out won't do a thing for already unsustainable population figure.
The Optimum Population Trust (patron Sir D Attenborough) reckons that the long term sustainable population of the UK is around 21 million. I thought I was being conciliatory in proposing a population goal of around 50 million, the same as in 1950, but I guess there's no pleasing some folk.
To clarify, I was talking one in one out excluding the culling of the 20million. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 6, 2023 20:58:01 GMT
What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 22:38:32 GMT
20 million go, population at 50 million maintained by a one in one out policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 7, 2023 7:12:00 GMT
That could work. It all depends on the fecundity of the 50 million and of the incomers versus outgoers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 7, 2023 10:35:38 GMT
Correct. The global population increases by 82 million a year, and they all need water, food, energy, 'resources'. As the darling of the BBC said... .. .“All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.”Sir David Attenborough. So the question is, which posters are prepared to top themselves for the common good ? We don't need to top ourselves. Someone the UN perhaps needs to acknowledge the elephant in the room and tell governments in Africa and Asia to encourage people to stop having so many kids. Obviously that particular elephant will never be acknowledged because telling Africans and Asian to have fewar kids would be racist, the word of our epoch. |
|
