snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 08:34 am
@Setanta,
I was going to comment that giving him negative feedback might also be keeping him constantly showing up, but upon consideration its pretty clear that he'll probably keep dumping the nonsequiturs, red herrings, straw men and outright lies no matter what anyone does.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 10:34 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

By the way, i would appreciate it if you didn't encourage that jackass, he's already done enough to trash the thread, without providing a single thought of any substance for which he can provide some evidence. All that he's done, essentially, is run around shouting the the sky is falling. I have no illusions that he'll go away, but you really shouldn't encourage him to think that anyone intelligent is actually going to have a conversation with him.

The trouble for you is that the reputation of the elites is rapidly evaporating...that old stand by conceit of labeling every oppinion you don't want to deal with as ignorance and hauling out to the trash does not work as well as it once did. Incrasingly it lookslike what it always was..evasion.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 07:36 pm
@Setanta,
Set, I'm interested to know what you think of this;

Would it be viable to suggest a highly simplistic connection between the growing worldwide population and the apparent rise of the far-right (particularly in Europe) who are the most vocal anti-immigration force?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 04:56 am
@Eorl,
Well, i don't know what exactly you mean by viable. Do you mean plausible? I'd say not necessarily, as there have been right-wing, even reactionary political movements (and existant forces preserving the status quo, such as the Holy Alliance) in Europe without reference to immigration. In the United States, there have been strong themes both of reactionary and "nativist" (i.e., anti-immigration) movements, such as the Know Nothings, as well as very liberal movements which have demanded the guarantee or expansion of civil rights, such as the Grange. In Canada, the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Federation) was created by welding together labor movement organizations with farmers organizations. Although the Tories were eventually able to torpedo the CCF by associating them in the minds of people with communism, it was reborn as the NDP (New Democratic Party), which has formed several provincial governments, and which is now the Official Opposition in the national government. That is despite a deep and persistent thread of "Toryism" and plutocracy in Canadian history.

I see your point, but either anti-immigrant sentiment (all this in my never humble opinion) will simply "envigorate" existing reactionary movements--that is to say, poison their rhetoric further; or it will spawn new political movements. The good news is that, in the United States at least, anti-immigrant movements had never had much in the way of "legs." The Know Nothings (as they were called--they called themselves various names, such as the Native American Party or the American Party) never attracted effective leaders, and their one trick pony never gave them even the status of spoilers or power-brokers. The slavery issue destroyed the party, such as it was, and that had only ever been a sometimes successful party in local politics. It was chiefly obsessed with the Irish and the Germans--most of the German immigrants of the 1840s and -50s had come from southern Germany, especially after the failed 1848 socialist uprisings, which meant they were Catholic. The Irish, of course, we automatically seen as Catholics, even when they happened to be Ulster Protestants, who never came in large numbers. So the Know Nothings were essentially a WASP movement. Their lack of appeal not only condemned them to a lack of effective leadership, but prevented them from becoming a force nationally. They were limited to the areas where immigrants were highly visible--Boston, New York, Philadelphia and, to a lesser extent cities on the Great Lakes (immigrants arriving in Boston or New York would travel north via the Erie Canal and then west across the Lakes).

Today's obsession with illegal immigrants is strongest in the border states of the southwest, although it does show up elsewhere. Of course, the Latin American immigrants come over the border there in large numbers. But there is some conservative anti-immigrant sentiment elsewhere in the country, because Latin Americans have become ubiquitous. (They are usually called "Mexicans" wherever they are found, but that's only because the hating class are too stupid to know or care that they come from many nations.)

In the 1840s and -50s, the Know Nothings never attracted strong, charismatic leadership for a very simple reason--they were swimming against the tide. All the "Lilly White" (i.e., white supremecist, Protestant) sentiment, all the instances of "No Irish Need Apply" were meaningless in the face of the prospect of cheap, uncomplaining labor. It was only late in the 19th century that the Irish and the Germans got involved in labor organizing movements--previously, they had been a source of cheap, compliant labor.

The same thing now applies to Latin Ameican immigration. Many of them take jobs which Americans have little interest in. When i lived in Ohio, Latin Americans had pretty well taken over the fast food labor market. High school kids turned their noses up at $10/hour jobs at MacDonalds or Burger King, while Latin Americans not only snapped up those jobs, but were soon well entrenched in the lower level management of fast food outlets. Whether legal or illegal, many employers have quite an interest in the Latin American labor force, so the reactionaries can fulminate to their hearts' content--nothing of real substance is going to come out of Congress about the issue, and the anti-immigrant movement will have no legs as long as people with money (and therefore political power and influence) find the labor force immigrants provide to be useful.

Although i cannot profess as detailed a knowledge of anti-immigrant movements in Europe, from what i can see, economics trump xenophobia and racism there, too.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 05:01 am
@snood,
Yes, i agree. The effect is that just about no one respects him, or takes him seriously.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 03:58 pm
@Setanta,
Thanks Set.

It does seem the extreme right are on the rise in Europe and that immigration is a key factor.

I guess I'm wondering whether the link can extended to worlwide population growth as the principle underlying cause rather than just immigration and globalisation.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 06:29 pm
Heard on CBC that of that 7 billion, for the first time in history, the over 60 crowd out numbers the 1 - 4 age demographic. It would appear if this is the trend, that topping out at 10 billion is most likely.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 06:41 pm
@Ceili,
I could be wrong, and I'm no statistician, but I think that would only hold true if the life expectancy was constant.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 07:31 pm
@Ceili,
Thus my stating that if it were the trend...
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 07:38 pm
@Ceili,
yeah, but let's say if people lived one year longer each year, then more babies could be born this year than last, and your statistic would still hold true, so the population would still be accelerating, but at both ends of life, rather than slowing as your stat suggests at first glance.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 07:43 pm
@Eorl,
Not many 60 + yr olds reproducing. Just saying...
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 07:58 pm
@Ceili,
I don't see how that's relevant.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 09:04 pm
@Ceili,
Eorl's right - 60 year olds aren't born - they take 60 years to make, and you don't require a breeding pair of 60+ year olds to make one...
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 09:33 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

Not many 60 + yr olds reproducing. Just saying...

You got that right.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 10:57 pm
@hingehead,
Hinge, of course 60 yr + aren't made, but if there are more old people than young, obviously, more people are dying than being born. People are getting older and aren't reproducing at a rate that would produce more young. Therefore, if the trend continues, there will be less children born. A 60 + woman isn't bearing children, and most haven't produced enough children to replace herself or her mate... I'm not a statistician either, or a mathametician, but if there are more older people than younger, then it would seem, either we are suffering catastrophic deaths of children or they are not being born in the first place.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 11:05 pm
@Ceili,
Oh I see your reasoning Ceili - but what's changing isn't lower birth rates it's life spans that are increasing at a higher rate than birth rates are increasing.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2011 11:59 pm
@hingehead,
I do believe you are wrong. When I was a kid it wasn't terribly unusual to see families of 10 or more. I personally know of 3 families with 8 children. Most of my friends/family have 4 or less. In canada the elderly out number the young, I'd say this is definitely proof that most people are having less children than in previous generations. I'm sure Oz has similar stats, no?
Yes life spans have increased but from what I've heard and from the info I've seen this is leveling off as well, we are living more sedentary lifestyles and diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancers are catching up. Canada, for example, has for years only kept up because of immigration, not live births.
This old age trend is not keeping up with the our ancestors either...
We are dying quicker than our parents and certainly not having as many babies. But we are wealthier seniors with many more advantages and privileges than previous generations. Possibly because we aren't spending our fortunes on children we haven't had...
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 12:47 am
@Ceili,
You are right for western countries in terms of falling birth rates,through most of the non-western world - where the bulk of the world's population sits (as do the higher birth rates) Life Expectancy At Birth has risen. Just looking at China and India - LEAB has added 20 years in each since 1960. Ave LEAB in China only cracked 60 in 2000 (1992 in India). That's a third of the 7 billion. Apart from Africa life expectancy continues to rise, and even in Africa the dip caused by HIV is slowly reversing, though not yet to 1990 rates.

We're not dying quicker than our parents - in the western world life expectancy is still creeping up.

The lifestyle diseases you mention are more likely to kill us now because we 'cured' the things that used to kill us earlier - the reduction in smoking in the developed world alone has helped without even looking actual communicable diseases. Even someone with diabetes today can expect to live longer than someone who had diabetes 50 years ago.


Edit: This is the source I got these figures from:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop-life-expectancy-birth-total-population
You can drill down to individual country trends from 1960 onwards, as well as do country comparisons back to 2003.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 12:52 am
@hingehead,
Thus the fact that for the first time in history, there are more 60+ than 1-4 yr olds.
I don't make the stats, just repeating them.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 01:09 am
@Ceili,
It's not the facts I'm disputing but the conclusion drawn from them. It did not necessarily follow, though it may be the case.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Overpopulation Hysteria - Question by ZarathustraReborn
Population - Question by karikari Anthony
Demography - Question by gollum
demographics spreadsheet - Question by futurenets
More Whites Died Than Were Born - Discussion by snood
Survival rates - Question by emnoun
Demography - Trends in the U.S. - Question by gollum
Overproduction - Discussion by Deckard
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SEVEN BILLION
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 09:56:12