The answer, by the way, is clearly control human fertility across the globe so there is little need for mass immigration in response to ecological and economic shocks. I.E. Through subsidised family planning services and contracpetion in the third world and removal of government incentives to have large familes in the west. As an emergency last resort some sort of biological vector that induces periods of temporary infertility in males, females or both along the lines of Malthus's suggestion about chemicals in the water supplies. It would be very difficult for any government to control the spread of a biological vector, once released, for the purposes of ethnic cleansing etc. This is a major weakness of Malthus's suggestion of contraceptive chemcials in water supplies. Perhaps a genetically modified cold virus would be appropriate as these have very limited life spans as pandemics. This biological fertility control vector would run its course for a period of time, reduce average fertility and then wane, along with fertility reduction, as the global population becomes immune to it. New genetically modified cold viruses would need to be developed if global fertility reduction is still required. Such a method would also be vastly more cost effective also.
Oh you have no idea. He is parroting the Australian Federal Government Opposition, whose membership came out and said that Australia should restrict Muslim migration and open up to Christians (ie whites).. This is around the same time that the Opposition spokesman on Immigration complained that the Federal Government had used tax payer funds to fly survivors of the Christmas Island December tragedy to Sydney to bury their loved ones who had perished that horrid day. Not to mention the comments made about Islam as well.. It is certainly politically motivated garbage. But it will never be scientific. Pauline Hanson would have been proud.
You are way off the mark. I do not want to see mass immigration from any country, regardless of the dominant race or religion. Primarily on ecological grounds, since Australian ecosystems simply do not have the productive capacity to sustain a significantly larger population than we currently have. In fact our current 22 million is almost certainly to high for long term ecological sustainability. But also on soscial sustainability grounds. I would be as dead against mass white immigration from the USA as I am against mass arab muslim immigration.. Again primarily on ecological grounds but also on social grounds. Despite being of the same ethnicity, there are never the less significant differences between US and Australian culture that would almost certainly generate xenophobic rifts in Australian society if there was mass immigration from the US. Those cultural differences include: 1) Secularism and seperation of church and state - I believe that the US is far closer to being a christian state than most Australians would be comfortable with. 2) Socialism - I believe that, on the whole, the US is very anti-socialism where as Australians respect socialists policies such as Medicare and are against total privatisation and outsourcing of government services. 3) Gun ownership - again there are stark differences between the attitudes of Australians and Americans on the issue of gun ownership. Australia has already had xeonophobic episodes with US servicemen during WW2. Similarly there are significant cultural differences between Australia and Britain. Most notebly Britain's class culture and Australia's egalitarian culture.
LOL, that evil "humanist lobby," with all of their... principled respect for humans! When will they learn the error of their ways, and the supremacy of Western Civilization? Also you seem to have "humanism" mixed up with "vulgar individualism," which is pretty screwy. It's not really possible for a "humanist" to argue against the "collective interests of our species," by definition. What scientific evidence? Of what? What are you even talking about? You realize that controlling immigration does nothing about the wider problems of the species, right? That's great and all, but it isn't an answer to any question that I've asked. I asked how immigration, as such, was "environmentally unsustainable."
Perhaps 'anthropocentrists' is a far more appropriate catch all term than 'humanists' then. You are right that it is a mixture of humanism and individualism, and you would probably throw in elements of humanitarianism as well. The fact that the west allows mass immigration from the third world, to some extent, perpetuates over population by allowing the third world to export its over population rather than dealing with it directly themselves. And it undermines ecological sustainability and reduces long term carrying capacity in the west, which helps no one in the end. If the west is to halt mass immigration from the third world then it will be our responsibility to implement zero net population growth in our own countries, subsidize family planning and contracpetion in third world countries, reduce our own consumption so that we no longer effectively steal resources from the third world and refocus foreign aid on reducing third world fertility and populations rather than only on providing them with more food and medical aid. The underlying principal of foreign aid should be to prevent at least as many births as lives it saves.
Wonderful. But still not much of a description of me - so maybe leave these mappings of the backs of your eyelids where they belong (inside your own head). The level of immigration from the "third world" (where is that, exactly?) to the west is not enough to make any appreciable difference in the population pressures on the environment inside said third world countries ("mass" immigration or otherwise). We'd have to be taking on, at least, tens of millions of immigrants per year for that, and we're nowhere near that level. But said immigration does enable said third world spots to better manage their populations, resources, etc. by empowering said immigrants, giving them access to capital and knowledge, etc. The reason they have strained environments and overpopulation is exactly that they are underdeveloped and so lack the means to effectively manage such - sharpening that conundrum is not going to solve the problem, unless what you have in mind is total ecological destruction in the third world leading to radical population collapse. Which is hardly "sustainable," let alone "humane." All population growth in the west (such as it is) already comes from "mass" immigration. Get rid of the immigration, and the West has a negative population growth rate (America is about neutral, Europe is decidedly negative). Already been doing this as well, for decades. If that were going to do it, it already would have. That's not how the global economy works. American consumption is not predicated on stealing extra goods from somebody else. Ending agricultural subsidies would do more to empower the third world than messing with consumption. You can perhaps see why many societies will not be interested in accepting such 'aid.'
With respect to immigration from the third world to the west, I am only interested in the environment in the west becoming as trashed as it generally is in the over populated third world. I don't think the west should be expected to become significantly more degraded due to third world immigration in order for the third world to "better manage their populations, resources, etc. by empowering said immigrants, giving them access to capital and knowledge, etc" The third world should be expected to solve its own over population problems, with our help where necessary, rather than simply exporting their problems to us. You may regard this as inhumane. I regard it as facing up to the responsibility of solving your own porblems, taking difficult decisions as necessary. Sounds good to me. Based on expected consumption in the west, we are already over populated. Few of us are prepared to cut our consumption, therefore there must be substantially less of us. Rubbish. If 'foreign investment' (oil production, mining etc) from the west, and America in particular, ceased then many of us would be living in poverty. Then they should recieve no aid period and be left to their fate. I see no reason why we should keep 'pouring grain into the mice infested barn only to have them steadily infesting our house'. I am sorry but humans are much like a mouse or rabbit plague, and there is only one acceptable long term solution to a people plague. And that is fertility control.
Does anyone here believe citizens should have a say on whether their state engages in mass migrant policies? In other words if the citizens of a host nation is not ready to accept large numbers of foreigners do they have the right to oppose it or is it the right of the state to impose it?
of course they do.... The Immigration Restriction League, was founded in 1894 by five Harvard College graduates, Charles Warren, Robert DeCourcy Ward, and Prescott Farnsworth Hall and two others. The members of the league felt it necessary to oppose the avalanche of supposedly "undesirable immigrants" that were coming to the United States from southern and eastern Europe. Many people in the U.S. at this time felt that these immigrants were threatening what they saw as the American way of life and the continued dominance in North America of the Nordic race. (wikishit) ..and to this day,you cant read and write....you aint getting in oh this might bring a tear to greg's eyes In 1920, Laughlin appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Using data for the U.S. Census Bureau and a survey of the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons and reformatories, he argued that the "American" gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe. Sympathetic to Laughlin's message, Committee Chairman Albert Johnson of Washington State appointed Laughlin as "expert eugenics agent." the good old days!
My opposition to mass immigration has nothing to do with any of this. I am not opposed to immigration period, merely opposed to mass immigration regardless of ethnicity. If there was any truth to your accusation then I would oppose all immigration and be advocating closed borders. Not so.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@gregaryb You don't understand that its the brain numbing that comes along with political correctness. The politically correct believe there are topics that should not be brought up and beliefs that should not be questioned, like mass immigration. It doesn't really matter why you would disagree with a liberal mass immigration policy, the numbed ones will decide you're a racist period or a conservative which they believe is a closet racist. Powell was interviewed and denied high and low that he was a racist but that didn't work either. The message is that immigration is good always good and so should never be reconsidered, challenged or come under any critical observation. To do so makes the person and their message 'racist' or 'intolerant' and god only knows what else. Its rubbish of course but that's why Bells and the others could never consider mass immigration as anything but 'good' and 'positive' even if there is evidence that its not as simple as that.
Ah, so all that stuff about "interests of the species" and so on was just a cheap cover for an openly parochial, selfish stance, after all. Good thing that said immigration isn't "degrading" the West, then. Rather the opposite. Isn't that what I just said? You do understand that the level of immigration allowed into the West is nowhere near the level that would actually ease overpopulation in the third world, right? As in, at least an order of magnitude too small for that? That we're already setting a level of immigration commensurate with our own interests, and not out of any philanthropic drive to address the problems of other countries for them? More to the point, I regard you as a cultural supremacist. And possibly a racist as well - difficult to say for sure at this point, but that would be the obvious presumption (what with all of the comparisons of third world populations to plagues and rodents that must be sealed out of the West). Foreign investment is not theft.
No! My primary concern with mass immigration in Australia is primarily its effect on ecological sustainability. Increased pressure on limited water sources, increased CO2 emissions, increased salination of land and rivers and greater habitat destruction. Next in line is my concern about its effect on traffic congestion, public transport congestion, housing affordability and general cost of living pressures due to increased demand (economics 101). Then I am concerned about the social sustainability issues as I have outlined. I don't have a problem with muslims on an individual basis. In fact they have been egaging my gardening services a great deal lately. Apparently they do not have a problem with me since I seem to be getting a great deal of word of mouth business from the local islamic community. What does that make you then? A self hating westerner? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Never the less current western immigration intakes are way beyond long term sustainable limits. The west itself requires population reduction based on current consumption patterns. I don't give a rats what you regard me as Gustav. In fact I don't think you even comprehend the true definition of 'racism' as used by Australia's Race Discrimination Act, and no doubt any similar legislation in the US or where ever it is you are from. And the human plague to which I was referring includes westerners. Based on current western consumption patterns, the west is also over populated although not breeding as rapidly as the third world. The excess of humnanity generated in the third world flows into mass immigration into the west, and when third world immigrants arrive, they also expect to over consume to the same extent as exiting westerners. The human tide from the third world must be stemmed if western civilisation is to have any future. Unless you would prefer to see the west revert to some form of tribal feudalism that is still common throughout the third world, e.g. warring tribes in Rwanda and Afghanistan. The way it is currently practiced by the west, and particularly by the US, it is indeed tantamount to theft. Even with foreign aid, the US in particular has no scruples. In Iraq a large proportion of the US's development aid was paid back to the US through the hiring of US contractors rather than Iraqis.
All of which are strictly parochial, self-interest issues - because you are only concerned about such in your own country, and not for humanity as a whole. Nope. No they aren't. The countries that are taking in lots of immigrants (USA, Australia on a per-capita basis) are significantly underpopulated, and exhibit very low population growth (including immigration). If there's something unsustainable there, it's the fact that Western models of development and progress assume and depend upon a population that grows indefinitely (while also gaining in per-capita income, indefinitely). Not really. There's a need for more sustainable modes of production to meet said consumption - but the basic set-up isn't "unsustainable" in any particularly salient sense (i.e., any more than any form of life, human or otherwise, is ultimately "unsustainable."). No, it doesn't. Almost all of it stays in the third world. Only a tiny fraction is allowed to immigrate to the West - not nearly enough to relieve population pressures in the third world. You say shit like this, and then act surprised when people note the racism? Meanwhile, you yourself keep describing Western civilization as a plague of its own, that must be destroyed. Consumption levels must be maintained if western civilization is to have any future - hack those back down to third-world standards, and what you'll be left with won't be "western civilization" in any recognizeable sense. Paying Americans to guard buildings or install equipment in Iraq is not the same thing as stealing Iraq's resources. For something to count as "resource theft," it has to involve one party ending up with the other party's resources, and not compensating them for such. And foreign aid is not the same thing as investment, which is what we were actually talking about.
Australia, and not even the US, can save the third world (all several billion of them) through immigration. So why in the hell would you even bother trashing your own nest in a pointless attempt to do so? Charity begins at home as they say. Particularly for those from the third world already in Australia and the US and enjoying a better life. Are you an Australian living in Australia? If not then who the hell are you to tell us we are under populated - you really wouldn't have an f'ing clue. By what standards are we under populated? Third world standards? With their trashed environments, endemic poverty, megaslums and political instability. I think we owe a little charity to our own children and grand children and great grand children, including those of former third worlders. A classic case of head in sand here. Western life syles and consumption are CLEARLY unsustainable at current population levels. Perhaps they could be sustainable if our population was half or so of what it currently is. Quite simply, I reject out of hand your charges of racism. As I said I seriously doubt that those who so freely hurl the racist slur around really comprehend the precise definition of racism. Like the rest of your lobby you just hurl the racist slur around hoping that some of the mud will stick. Spoken like a true economic rationalist. Western civilisation is a great deal more than simply the sum of its consumption, much of which is pointless and simply not required to maintain western civilisation. The only segment of western civilisation that requires the maintenance of consumption is the minority corporate community that has grown far to fond of the lavish life styles that wasteful consumption subsidizes. Doesn't matter what form of aid it is. In many cases western contractors are hired to do the work. In Iraq the US government paid billions in development aid to the administration setup and controlled by them. This administration then hired US contractors to do the bulk of the work and the money ends up in their US bank accounts and paid back to the US government as taxes. If the Iraqi administration had have hired primarily Iraqis then the money would stay in Iraq and do some long term good perhaps. Its called Indian giving.
