Democratic Presidential Debate

[mfckrz]

We've all seen that. What's your proof that it's the result of overpopulation..?

The numbers have already been run before: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-American-Worker

Total GDP of course rises from immigration—but nearly all the gains go to firms (i.e., the wealthy) or to the immigrants themselves:


Everyone else loses. Little wonder that income inequality has been surging with massive gains going to the top 0.1% and above.

If population growth puts this much downward pressure on wages, why did purchasing power improve between 1900 and 1964?

Probably because the US was still something of a developing country, and we weren't letting in crazy amounts of people like now:


Quite the inflection point circa ~1970. Maybe a little too coincidental with post-1964 wage stagnation.

[mfckrz]

There are sophisticated arguments against immigration owing to the fact that first-world living standards contribute more to pollution and climate change. But the people smart enough to accept climate change are often too left-wing to vocalize these ideas for fear of promoting xenophobia.

Then it's clear where their priorities really are. And it's not with the environment.

Every time Conservatives talk about limiting immigration, they're opposed to it because because of some weak bullshit having to do with preserving their culture or way of life.

No more invalid than when people complain of colonization ruining their culture & way of life. Or when people make the same complaint about gentrification.

It's hard for me to give a shit about preserving something that changes every generation (change which is going to kick into overdrive thanks to incoming technology). It also seems sad and pathetic to lead a censored, quasi-choreographed life devoid of exploration and novelty.

Right. The novelty of living with a bunch of contemptuous ethnics. Sounds great.

[xerx]

The numbers have already been run before: https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-and-American-Worker

Total GDP of course rises from immigration—but nearly all the gains go to firms (i.e., the wealthy) or to the immigrants themselves:


Everyone else loses. Little wonder that income inequality has been surging with massive gains going to the top 0.1% and above.

The bolded part is the devil you're looking for. The reason firms take most of the gains has to do with class inequality; there are any number of possibilities as to why this exists, which deserve a thread of their own, but shutting down immigration won't get rich people to start giving a shit about the common man. At best, it'll be a feel-good exercise that ends in complete disappointment... kind of like electing Donald Trump.

Probably because the US was still something of a developing country, and we weren't letting in crazy amounts of people like now:


Quite the inflection point circa ~1970. Maybe a little too coincidental with post-1964 wage stagnation.

According to that chart, the proportion of immigrants was higher between the 1860s and 1910s than it is today, and much higher than it was during the 70s-80s when real incomes were beginning to stagnate. If immigrants are indeed the driving force behind stagnation, that chart has to be one of the worst pieces of evidence for it.

[xerx]

Then it's clear where their priorities really are. And it's not with the environment.

Nah! Plenty of Environmentalists do raise the issue (see David Suzuki). But the truth is that stopping immigration would be small potatoes compared to the advocacy of renewable sources energy.

No more invalid than when people complain of colonization ruining their culture & way of life. Or when people make the same complaint about gentrification.

Right. The novelty of living with a bunch of contemptuous ethnics. Sounds great.

I don't find them contemptuous at all. Maybe if you found the time to feel love towards your fellow man instead of resentment, you'd accept that immigrants are regular people just like you.

[mfckrz]

The bolded part is the devil you're looking for. The reason firms take most of the gains has to do with class inequality; there are any number of possibilities as to why this exists, which deserve a thread of their own, but shutting down immigration won't get rich people to start giving a shit about the common man. At best, it'll be a feel-good exercise that ends in complete disappointment... kind of live electing Donald Trump.

Until the (deliberate) oversupply of labor is addressed, there's nothing to be done. Obviously further actions would have to follow after an immigration moratorium.

According to that chart, the proportion of immigrants was higher between the 1860s and 1910s than it is today, and much higher than it was during the 70s-80s when real incomes were beginning to stagnate. If immigrants are indeed the driving force behind stagnation, that chart has to be one of the worst pieces of evidence for it.

The slope of the blue line is what was relevant. I know you know how to read a graph.

[mfckrz]

Nah! Plenty of Environmentalists do raise the issue (see David Suzuki). But the truth is that stopping immigration would be small potatoes compared to the advocacy of renewable sources energy.

Lol. If anyone was serious about this they'd be screaming from the rooftops to rollout nuclear plants everywhere as fast as possible.

I don't find them contemptuous at all. Maybe if you found the time to feel love towards your fellow man instead of resentment, you'd accept that immigrants are regular people just like you.

It's easy to get along when there's nothing at stake. But regular people become clannish/tribalistic little shits when there's actual skin in the game.

[xerx]

Until the (deliberate) oversupply of labor is addressed, there's nothing to be done. Obviously further actions would have to follow after an immigration moratorium.

The slope of the blue line is what was relevant. I know you know how to read a graph.

The orange "Immigrants as a percentage of the U.S. population" is the only relevant line on that graph, and its slope directly contradicts the claim that immigrants are the driving force behind wage stagnation. If wage stagnation kicked off during the 1970/80s, then it kicked off during the period of lowest proportion of immigrants inside the United States.

The blue line is completely irrelevant and doesn't prove what you want it to prove: 45 million is the absolute number of immigrants. The percentage or per capita figure is unambiguously the relevant criterion when measuring the overall effects of changing demographics.

Lol. If anyone was serious about this they'd be screaming from the rooftops to rollout nuclear plants everywhere as fast as possible.

It's easy to get along when there's nothing at stake. But regular people become clannish/tribalistic little shits when there's actual skin in the game.

Believe it or not, I agree with you about nuclear energy, although I can understand the fear surrounding the environmental impact of toxic waste. My opinion is still developing because it's such a complex issue, but I believe that the trade-off is probably necessary.

People aren't as tribalistic as you think they are when treated with dignity and respect. I think it's absurd and silly to automatically assume the worst intentions in people, and I do hope that you find the wisdom to be more charitable in the future. I'd wager that most incoming immigrants are just as optimistic and good-natured as many native persons.

[mfckrz]

The blue line is completely irrelevant and doesn't prove what you want it to prove: 45 million is the absolute number of immigrants. The percentage or per capita figure is unambiguously the relevant criterion when measuring the overall effects of changing demographics.

For a developed country to go from historic lows to enormous influxes of migrants in such a short space of time will cause systemic economic disruption—particularly in the form of labor supply gluts. Which is absolutely going to put downward pressure on wages.

I shouldn't need to spoonfeed this.

Believe it or not, I agree with you about nuclear energy, although I can understand the fear surrounding the environmental impact of toxic waste. My opinion is still developing because it's such a complex issue, but I believe that the trade-off is probably necessary.

Excellent.

People aren't as tribalistic as you think they are when treated with dignity and respect. I think it's absurd and silly to automatically assume the worst intentions in people and hope that you find the wisdom to be more charitable in the future. I'd wager that most incoming immigrants are just as optimistic and good-natured as many native persons.

It's not assuming the worst. Most people are indeed fine—well, until they're not.

Don't expect charity and good-nature to be the norm in our future of rising scarcity. Emerging politics are existentially depraved enough as is.

[xerx]

For a developed country to go from historic lows to enormous influxes of migrants in such a short space of time will cause systemic economic disruption—particularly in the form of labor supply gluts. Which is absolutely going to put downward pressure on wages.

I shouldn't need to spoonfeed this.

Dude. If you're competing for jobs, the absolute number of competitors (blue) doesn't matter; only the share of competitors in terms of the total population (orange) is relevant. Why did real income stagnation start at the exact moment that immigration was at its lowest point in a century or more?

It's not assuming the worst. Most people are indeed fine—well, until they're not.

Don't expect charity and good-nature to be the norm in our future of rising scarcity. Emerging politics are existentially depraved enough as is.

It sounds stupid now, but otherwise intelligent people like Ben Franklin hated German immigrants and never believed they would assimilate due to their cultural insularity. Future immigrants will follow the same course. Skepticism about immigrants was stupid then and it's stupid now.

[mfckrz]

Dude. If you're competing for jobs, the absolute number of competitors (blue) doesn't matter; only the share of competitors in terms of the total population (orange) is relevant.

It clearly matters when large numbers are suddenly added to an economy that can't accommodate them at the prevailing wage rate. As was (and continues to be) the case.

Why did real income stagnation start at the exact moment that immigration was at its lowest point in a century or more?

1965 Hart-Celler Act.

It sounds stupid now, but otherwise intelligent people like Ben Franklin hated German immigrants and never believed they would assimilate due to their cultural insularity. Future immigrants will follow the same course. Skepticism about immigrants was stupid then and it's stupid now.

Ben Franklin was right, and none of the major waves of immigration over the past 240yrs have been all that beneficial to the American body politic.

[xerx]

It clearly matters when large numbers are suddenly added to an economy that can't accommodate them at the prevailing wage rate. As was (and continues to be) the case.

1965 Hart-Celler Act.

There wasn't a "sudden" influx of immigrants: it ramped up slowly as your graph shows. If there was a strong relationship between wage stagnation and immigration, real income growth would have slowed down gradually. Your first graph OTOH shows real income as a constant curve.

Ben Franklin was right, and none of the major waves of immigration over the past 240yrs have been all that beneficial to the American body politic.

Not beneficial how wrt. Germans..? They make up the plurality of White Americans.

[End]

I heard it was quite the popcorn fest. Just making a blind assumption but I'm gonna say they rather helped Trump. Say what you will about Orange/Cheeto "whatever" you can't help but get the sense that he's the reformer. The one thing all the factions within that party could agree to hate enough to rally behind/against it. That backfired yeah but hey, a data point worth archiving. Turns out that when you snub the commoners in fly over country enough, they fuck you over for reasons. Ever wonder why things like the "dynastic cycle" exist? That's why.

I mean, for instance, my foreign affairs Professor (one of my favorite dudes BTW, he kept me from falling asleep during class which is an achievement I do not fail to notice years later) was an Indian dude and he told us point blank that the reason English is taught far and wide there is because the universal hatred of the language of the oppressor was a unifying enough factor to make it a national policy right after they achieved independence (he also said that, as we 'Murricans had next to no part in his people's plight from an objective standpoint, he had nothing against us. Try getting that sentiment out of a modern SJW. Not holding the sins of our fathers in some way against us? Blasphemy!)

[Hitta]

we should colonize the sun.

actually....

[Hitta]

Environmentalists serve absolutely no purpose at all, they just want to create hysteria without offering any actual solutions. It's like they want to rage about whether or not republicans acknowledge whether global warming is a real phenomenon, when it doesn't matter at all if they acknowledge it. We'll continue to do the same things regardless, because liberal policy restrictions prevent us from pushing forward real solutions that actually matter.

Nuclear power is probably the only thing in the short term that could lower emissions now, but hysteria over the ramifications of nuclear power ruin any sort change. In addition, it is a fucking shame that we have made such small strides in producing thorium based reactors. If we actually allowed the marketplace to commit to the research of nuclear power, we would have had thorium based reactors over 20 years, instead we just keep flipping out over the prospect of nuclear energy, even though it is quite safe. Solar energy will play a large role in the future, but it is too much of a long term project to sustain our global energy needs now. When it comes down to it, liberals are actually more harmful to the environment than conservatives because they refuse to actually accept solutions.

[Raver]

@mfckrz
@Raver

There are sophisticated arguments against immigration owing to the fact that first-world living standards contribute more to pollution and climate change. But the people smart enough to accept climate change are often too left-wing to vocalize these ideas for fear of promoting xenophobia.

Every time Conservatives talk about limiting immigration, they're opposed to it because because of some weak bullshit having to do with preserving their culture or way of life. It's hard for me to give a shit about preserving something that changes every generation (change which is going to kick into overdrive thanks to incoming technology). It also seems sad and pathetic to lead a censored, quasi-choreographed life devoid of exploration and novelty.

I'm opposed to mass immigration for several reasons. In terms of preserving culture and way of life, I apply that primarily to Europe. I firmly believe European nations should remain ethnically and culturally European in the same way I think Africa should remain ethnically and culturally African and China should remain ethnically and culturally Chinese. I don't think the entire world should become multicultural and I don't see the issue with preserving all ethnicities within their own nations. Of course, I don't have this same ethnic and cultural standard with European colonial nations (US, Canada (which I reside in), Australia, New Zealand). The reason why I don't mind if these countries become multicultural is because Europeans were never originally from there so that same standard should not be applied in those nations like it does to Europe. It's because of this, I have much higher standards for immigration for European nations.

As for why I'm opposed to mass immigration even in the nations that I don't mind becoming more multicultural, it is because of first-world living standards contributing more to pollution and climate change like you just said. However, it's also because of rich immigrants driving up the prices of housing that they become unaffordable. Because of mass immigration into the city I live in, I cannot afford to buy houses that simply a few decades ago would of been considerably more affordable to me with the amount of money I make. When thousands of refugees enter my nation and are literally given free houses that I would have to spend my entire adult life working until I retire then that also affects me directly. Not to mention poor immigrants using up welfare that we have to pay with our tax dollars. I do think steady controlled immigration is fine for most 1st world countries outside of Europe as long as it stems the problems I mentioned.

[Singu]

Nuclear power is probably the only thing in the short term that could lower emissions now, but hysteria over the ramifications of nuclear power ruin any sort change. In addition, it is a fucking shame that we have made such small strides in producing thorium based reactors.

Thorium doesn't work, it'll take decades of research and billions of dollars of government funding to just get it going.

Basically, nuclear is "too little too late".

If we actually allowed the marketplace to commit to the research of nuclear power, we would have had thorium based reactors over 20 years, instead we just keep flipping out over the prospect of nuclear energy, even though it is quite safe. Solar energy will play a large role in the future, but it is too much of a long term project to sustain our global energy needs now. When it comes down to it, liberals are actually more harmful to the environment than conservatives because they refuse to actually accept solutions.

They can, it's just that nuclear is hugely expensive and no private investor is going to touch it with a 10-foot pole because it's too risky. They need tax-payer's government funding.

France and Japan are some of the biggest proponents of nuclear power, and they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars into nuclear research. Their biggest failure and cash-drain project is the nuclear fuel reprocessing and the "Fast Breeder" reactor. They were the "light of hope" for nuclear power for supposedly being able to generate near-unlimited nuclear energy by recycling used nuclear fuel.

After wasting away billions of dollars and decades of research, after long delays and many failures and accidents, their "Superphenix" and "Monju" Fast Breeder reactors generated around whopping 100MW of electricity, and then now it's sitting away doing nothing. It'll be costing them yet another billions of dollars to just decommission the plants.

They have no idea what to do with the reprocessed MOX fuel, which is basically useless now. Again, it'll be costing them billions of dollars.

[mfckrz]

Thorium doesn't work, it'll take decades of research and billions of dollars of government funding to just get it going.

Basically, nuclear is "too little too late".

They can, it's just that nuclear is hugely expensive and no private investor is going to touch it with a 10-foot pole because it's too risky. They need tax-payer's government funding.

France and Japan are some of the biggest proponents of nuclear power, and they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars into nuclear research. Their biggest failure and cash-drain project is the nuclear fuel reprocessing and the "Fast Breeder" reactor. They were the "light of hope" for nuclear power for supposedly being able to generate near-unlimited nuclear energy by recycling used nuclear fuel.

After wasting away billions of dollars and decades of research, after long delays and many failures and accidents, their "Superphenix" and "Monju" Fast Breeder reactors generated around whopping 100MW of electricity, and then now it's sitting away doing nothing. It'll be costing them yet another billions of dollars to just decommission the plants.

They have no idea what to do with the reprocessed MOX fuel, which is basically useless now. Again, it'll be costing them billions of dollars.

Your entire post is fabrication.

Superphenix and Monju were prototype reactors—Monju was problematic, but Superphenix ran fine for years with an annual output of ~3,400GWh. Apparently the French are better at nuclear power than the Japanese, who knew?

Not a lot of research is done on these sorts of reactors because uranium is actually quite abundant. And ofc because of irrational fearmongering about nuclear power.

Anyway, nobody is going to run a modern civilization on renewables. Renewables are only good for ecological ruin, and enriching the political class who want everyone enchained to expensive energy.

[Singu]

Your entire post is fabrication.

Superphenix and Monju were prototype reactors—Monju was problematic, but Superphenix ran fine for years with an annual output of ~3,400GWh. Apparently the French are better at nuclear power than the Japanese, who knew?

Running at its expected full capacity, Superphenix operating 24/7 (as a nuclear plant should) from 1986-1996 would have generated 105,120 GWH of electricity. It instead produced a total of 7494.72 GWH of electricity, which is a measly 7.1% of its expected production. And I believe most of this was as a normal reactor and not as a fast breeder.

Not a lot of research is done on these sorts of reactors because uranium is actually quite abundant. And ofc because of irrational fearmongering about nuclear power.

Tens of billions of dollars have already been invested in a joint worldwide research of fast breeder reactors, and the result is that they have produced basically no electricity. They have no idea what to do with it because it's been a massive failure of a project. And this was supposed to be the ultimate dream of nuclear - unlimited supply of cheap and abundant nuclear energy, "too cheap to meter". What they got instead was too risky and too expensive.

Anyway, nobody is going to run a modern civilization on renewables. Renewables are only good for ecological ruin, and enriching the political class who want everyone enchained to expensive energy.

It's even more unrealistic to run the entire world on all or even mostly nuclear, as that would require thousands of new nuclear plants, and that's just not feasible. The risk of nuclear plants is so high these days that it costs about $10 billion per plant and 10 years to build it.

If you want expensive, then it's nuclear, and not renewables, which is going to get cheaper than even fossil fuels, and it's already cheaper in some places, especially in the US.

But of course, private investors are free to invest in billion-dollar projects that are hardly guaranteed to work or have any expected returns. Just don't rely on government subsidies.

[mfckrz]

Running at its expected full capacity, Superphenix operating 24/7 (as a nuclear plant should) from 1986-1996 would have generated 105,120 GWH of electricity. It instead produced a total of 7494.72 GWH of electricity, which is a measly 7.1% of its expected production. And I believe most of this was as a normal reactor and not as a fast breeder.

Lol, your numbers are ridiculous. 105,120GWh/yr expected output means one could power the entire country of France with just 5 of these reactors.

Tens of billions of dollars have already been invested in a joint worldwide research of fast breeder reactors, and the result is that they have produced basically no electricity. They have no idea what to do with it because it's been a massive failure of a project. And this was supposed to be the ultimate dream of nuclear - unlimited supply of cheap and abundant nuclear energy, "too cheap to meter". What they got instead was too risky and too expensive.

It's more that nobody cares because uranium is cheaply plentiful enough.

It's even more unrealistic to run the entire world on all or even mostly nuclear, as that would require thousands of new nuclear plants, and that's just not feasible. The risk of nuclear plants is so high these days that it costs about $10 billion per plant and 10 years to build it.

20% of the US electricity comes from just 98 nuclear plants, ergo we'd only need 500 for a full nuclear grid. Not bad.

If you want expensive, then it's nuclear, and not renewables, which is going to get cheaper than even fossil fuels, and it's already cheaper in some places, especially in the US.

Either you're stupid or a liar:

But of course, private investors are free to invest in billion-dollar projects that are hardly guaranteed to work or have any expected returns. Just don't rely on government subsidies.

Won't happen because it's easier to get rich on the renewables scam.

[Singu]

Lol, your numbers are ridiculous. 105,120GWh/yr expected output means one could power the entire country of France with just 5 of these reactors.

105,120GWH from 1986-1996 in 10 years, not /year. Superphenix only managed to produce 7494.72 GWH of electricity in 10 years, due to accidents, set-backs and failures.

It's more that nobody cares because uranium is cheaply plentiful enough.

They spent 6 decades and tens of billions of dollars into fast breeder reactors. What will you do with the used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste? Nobody knows how to deal with them. Nuclear fuel reprocessing was supposed to solve that problem, but it has been nothing but a spectacular failure.

In 2010 the International Panel on Fissile Materials said "After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialize them have been steadily cut back in most countries".

20% of the US electricity comes from just 98 nuclear plants, ergo we'd only need 500 for a full nuclear grid. Not bad.

That will roughly cost $5 trillion dollars, and many many decades to build them since you can't possibly make 500 all at once due to safety regulations, NIMBY and economic costs.

That's also 500 times more likely to have a nuclear accident, and where will you store all the nuclear waste?

Either you're stupid or a liar:

Not a lie:

Around 75% of US coal production is now more expensive than solar and wind energy in providing electricity to American households, according to a new study.

Renewables are making electricity prices in the US cheaper. Who wouldn't want cheaper electricity?

Won't happen because it's easier to get rich on the renewables scam.

You're free to invest tens of billions of dollars into nuclear research, so why aren't you? Because it doesn't work, especially without government funding.

[mfckrz]

105,120GWH from 1986-1996 in 10 years, not /year.

Few if any power plants run 24/7. Electricity demands fluctuate constantly and it's completely normal to take plants on/offline as needed.

Superphenix only managed to produce 7494.72 GWH of electricity in 10 years, due to accidents, set-backs and failures.

That's not what the numbers actually say.

They spent 6 decades and tens of billions of dollars into fast breeder reactors.

Tens of $billions over ~60yrs is an insignificant expenditure for something of this magnitude. Put in perspective that the US will have managed to spend $1.5T on the F-35 over 55 years.

What will you do with the used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste? Nobody knows how to deal with them. Nuclear fuel reprocessing was supposed to solve that problem, but it has been nothing but a spectacular failure.

Liar. Many countries have had working demonstrations of the technology. There's just no economic exigency right now to deploy them at scale, and won't be until they're more cost-effective than normal reactors.

That will roughly cost $5 trillion dollars, and many many decades to build them since you can't possibly make 500 all at once due to safety regulations, NIMBY and economic costs.

Obviously if people are serious about 'climate change', it's a small price to pay. Going 100% renewable would cost at least the same, or more (and incur far higher electricity costs to consumers).

That's also 500 times more likely to have a nuclear accident, and where will you store all the nuclear waste?

You're not good at math, are you?

Not a lie:

Around 75% of US coal production is now more expensive than solar and wind energy in providing electricity to American households, according to a new study.

Yet in Germany they're firing up more coal plants, despite their obscene commitment to renewables.

Renewables are making electricity prices in the US cheaper. Who wouldn't want cheaper electricity?

Another lie. The EROI for renewables is economically unsustainable without govt subsidy.

You're free to invest tens of billions of dollars into nuclear research, so why aren't you? Because it doesn't work, especially without government funding.

US Govt is increasingly unlikely to fund energy research that doesn't contribute to the renewables scam.

[xerx]

I'm opposed to mass immigration for several reasons. In terms of preserving culture and way of life, I apply that primarily to Europe. I firmly believe European nations should remain ethnically and culturally European in the same way I think Africa should remain ethnically and culturally African and China should remain ethnically and culturally Chinese. I don't think the entire world should become multicultural and I don't see the issue with preserving all ethnicities within their own nations. Of course, I don't have this same ethnic and cultural standard with European colonial nations (US, Canada (which I reside in), Australia, New Zealand). The reason why I don't mind if these countries become multicultural is because Europeans were never originally from there so that same standard should not be applied in those nations like it does to Europe. It's because of this, I have much higher standards for immigration for European nations.

* Doesn't culture already change though? European culture today is nothing like it was in 1919, which was itself a very different culture from 1819. With the rise of mass media, culture is already homogenizing on a global scale; the Europeans on this forum relate easily to American culture and appear to understand most American references without the need to have it explained to them.

* With respect to ethnicity: if a child of Italian immigrants can become culturally and ethnically French, why can't a child of Ethiopian immigrants become Italian..?

As for why I'm opposed to mass immigration even in the nations that I don't mind becoming more multicultural, it is because of first-world living standards contributing more to pollution and climate change like you just said. However, it's also because of rich immigrants driving up the prices of housing that they become unaffordable. Because of mass immigration into the city I live in, I cannot afford to buy houses that simply a few decades ago would of been considerably more affordable to me with the amount of money I make. When thousands of refugees enter my nation and are literally given free houses that I would have to spend my entire adult life working until I retire then that also affects me directly. Not to mention poor immigrants using up welfare that we have to pay with our tax dollars. I do think steady controlled immigration is fine for most 1st world countries outside of Europe as long as it stems the problems I mentioned.

* I completely agree with you about rich people exploiting the immigration system; real estate purchases are often a legal means for them to embezzle money. If it was up to me, I'd add some strenuous civic duty requirement to the eligibility for citizenship, which ought to turn away at least a portion of opportunists.

* With respect to refugees entering Canada: refugee housing is only temporary according to the Canadian government. (source = http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcen...num=098&top=11) [EDIT: they also get "assistance" finding affordable housing. I'm not sure what that means and I couldn't find out, but I don't get the impression that they're being given a free house in some big city downtown or suburb].

[mfckrz]

* Doesn't culture already change though? European culture today is nothing like it was in 1919, which was itself a very different culture from 1819. With the rise of mass media, culture is already homogenizing on a global scale; the Europeans on this forum relate easily to American culture and appear to understand most American references without the need to have it explained to them.

Only if culture is conceived strictly in terms of external forms (memes, food, clothes, etc). Whereas psychosocial aspects typical to the native population (i.e., ethnicity) of a culture remain robust over time—as we'd expect given the nature of their heritability.

* With respect to ethnicity: if a child of Italian immigrants can become culturally and ethnically French, why can't a child of Ethiopian immigrants become Italian..?

To be ethnically French necessarily implies something about having common French ancestry. But an Italian will likely fit into French culture easier than an Ethiopian will into Italian culture, given the tighter genetic proximity between French & Italians.

[Singu]

Wow, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, mfckrz.

Few if any power plants run 24/7. Electricity demands fluctuate constantly and it's completely normal to take plants on/offline as needed.

There's little point in turning off nuclear plants, as it doesn't cost any resources to produce a nuclear fission reaction from uranium. The only time that you turn off a nuclear plant is due to maintenance or accidents. And since a nuclear plant is typically very expensive, you'd want to have it turned on as much as possible to get its money's worth - that's the whole point of nuclear energy.

What you're saying is nonsensical.

That's not what the numbers actually say.

It's actually what the numbers say:

"It was plagued by a number of technical and administrative problems, however, and was shut down more than half of the time until 24 December 1996 when it produced its last kWh. Superphenix generated 8.2 TWh (gross) in total, almost half of which was generated during its last year of operation. Its lifetime load factor was less than 7%."

https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/17-1-Schneider-FBR-France.pdf

Tens of $billions over ~60yrs is an insignificant expenditure for something of this magnitude. Put in perspective that the US will have managed to spend $1.5T on the F-35 over 55 years.

What kind of a silly comparison is that? Tens of billions of dollars for producing virtually zero electricity - now that's the "most expensive electricity in the world".

Liar. Many countries have had working demonstrations of the technology. There's just no economic exigency right now to deploy them at scale, and won't be until they're more cost-effective than normal reactors.

The whole point is that they spent tens of billions of dollars over 60 years, and they still have no commercially viable reactor.

Obviously if people are serious about 'climate change', it's a small price to pay. Going 100% renewable would cost at least the same, or more (and incur far higher electricity costs to consumers).

Didn't you read that the renewables in US are already getting cheaper than coal?

You're not good at math, are you?

If you add 1 more nuclear reactor, then that's 1 as more as likely to have a nuclear accident. It's not that hard.

Yet in Germany they're firing up more coal plants, despite their obscene commitment to renewables.

They are not, coal has been reduced in Germany from 2016-2018.

US Govt is increasingly unlikely to fund energy research that doesn't contribute to the renewables scam.

Erm, you do realize that the US has funded more into nuclear than renewables, in fact much more than any other sources of energy, right?



Basically, if you're against the cheaper electricity of renewables, then you're out of your mind, no matter how you put it.

[xerx]

Only if culture is conceived strictly in terms of external forms (memes, food, clothes, etc). Whereas psychosocial aspects typical to the native population (i.e., ethnicity) of a culture remain robust over time—as we'd expect given the nature of their heritability.

To be ethnically French necessarily implies something about having common French ancestry. But an Italian will likely fit into French culture easier than an Ethiopian will into Italian culture, given the tighter genetic proximity between French & Italians.

1. I'd like a thorough description of what "psychosocial" is and how populations can have shared psychosocial characteristics. The description should be from an academic source.

2. Saying that culture is not transmissible across human populations because of hard-coded genetic factors is an incredibly forceful claim to make. I'd need to see credible studies to even begin to believe this.

[mfckrz]

There's little point in turning off nuclear plants, as it doesn't cost any resources to produce a nuclear fission reaction from uranium. The only time that you turn off a nuclear plant is due to maintenance or accidents. And since a nuclear plant is typically very expensive, you'd want to have it turned on as much as possible to get its money's worth - that's the whole point of nuclear energy.

What you're saying is nonsensical.

Generating electricity in excess of a grid's storage capacity is entirely wasteful. Completely normal for plants to be taken offline periodically to avoid this.

It's actually what the numbers say:

"It was plagued by a number of technical and administrative problems, however, and was shut down more than half of the time until 24 December 1996 when it produced its last kWh. Superphenix generated 8.2 TWh (gross) in total, almost half of which was generated during its last year of operation. Its lifetime load factor was less than 7%."

https://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/17-1-Schneider-FBR-France.pdf

It was an experimental reactor, retard. Meant for testing & prototyping, not meant to be deployed at operating capacity anywhere near its peak theoretical load.

What kind of a silly comparison is that? Tens of billions of dollars for producing virtually zero electricity - now that's the "most expensive electricity in the world".

The whole point is that they spent tens of billions of dollars over 60 years, and they still have no commercially viable reactor.

R&D money which successfully demonstrated proofs of concept. Future research may field more economically viable designs, but there's no pressing reason to pursue it right now because uranium fuel is cheap.

Didn't you read that the renewables in US are already getting cheaper than coal?

I saw. Depends what is meant by 'renewables'—e.g. hydroelectric has a solid EROI that beats coal by a large margin. Wind, solar, and biomass on the other hand have utterly terrible EROIs. So renewable energy charlatans play a sleight of hand by pointing to the higher average EROI which includes hydro, and then sell you on low EROI biomass turd plants or ugly bird shredding windmills.

If you add 1 more nuclear reactor, then that's 1 as more as likely to have a nuclear accident. It's not that hard.

Lol. Relative tiny risk rises by 5x (ceteris paribus)… 98*5 ≈ 500.

They are not, coal has been reduced in Germany from 2016-2018.

Yet they're now planning to destroy Hambach Forest so they can mine the coal underneath.

Erm, you do realize that the US has funded more into nuclear than renewables, in fact much more than any other sources of energy, right?

Your budget chart spans 1948-2018 lol. Look at the trend instead:


Clear where the crony money has been headed.

[mfckrz]

1. I'd like a thorough description of what "psychosocial" is and how populations can have shared psychosocial characteristics. The description should be from an academic source.

2. Saying that culture is not transmissible across human populations because of hard-coded genetic factors is an incredibly forceful claim to make. I'd need to see credible studies to even begin to believe this.

Food for thought re: both questions:


https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/5/2-3/203/1664339

Obviously there are complex pleiotropic/polygenic/epistatic interactions that give rise to manifest human behavior (and thus culture). But silly to pretend there's no genetic determination whatsoever, such that all cultural inheritance is mutable or socially constructed.

[xerx]

*snip*

Now that you brought it up, I recall seeing this study before and I'm actually very intrigued by the action of genes on culture.


Where it becomes problematic is when the concept of population becomes tightly coupled with the concept of nationality. A nation isn't a big family of related individuals, and invoking the concept of heritability to define it is an overreach. Nations are patchworks of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (in many cases conquered) by an overseeing political authority.

The nation-state as we know it is only 200-300 years old and its formation was usually accompanied by the exercise of power -- throughout the industrial age, political and economic force was wielded to force people to assimilate into cultural practices invented or delimited by centralized bureaucracies. Even an ostensibly homogeneous country like France would have looked like an unrecognizable patchwork of different cultures that emerged or immigrated separately. Homogeneous ethnicities had to be manufactured.


With respect to the idea that social-genetics should play a role in the selection of immigrants:

To the extent that a nation is composed of separate tribes, it's entirely possible to discover sub-populations belonging to different nations that share more characteristics with each other than they do with their respective nationalities. The study makes the even bolder discovery the geographically distant nations can have statistically more in common with each other than with their neighbors.





It appears that Swedes are closer to Nigerians than they are to the Swiss with respect to the presence of G-alleles. The Danes are about as close to Swedes as they are to Mexicans, whereas Swiss are nearly identical with Mexicans. Given the prodding of new socioeconomic conditions, Nigerians and Mexican immigrants might find an environment more fitting to their genetic characteristics.

[Singu]

Generating electricity in excess of a grid's storage capacity is entirely wasteful. Completely normal for plants to be taken offline periodically to avoid this.

It's normal for any other plants, not for nuclear plants. In fact nuclear plants cannot be easily turned on/off frequently, because doing that will cause thermal expansion and contraction, and will damage the reactor.

Typically a stable nuclear reactor in a favorable geographical location will have 85%~90%+ load factor:

It was an experimental reactor, retard. Meant for testing & prototyping, not meant to be deployed at operating capacity anywhere near its peak theoretical load.

It was a "demonstration reactor":

demonstration reactor
a reactor designed to demonstrate the technical feasibility and explore the economic potential of a given type of reactor.

https://www.energy.eu/dictionary/data/433.html

Obviously it has failed terribly on this regard.

R&D money which successfully demonstrated proofs of concept. Future research may field more economically viable designs, but there's no pressing reason to pursue it right now because uranium fuel is cheap.

They have already admitted that it has failed (not just economically, but it's also technically infeasible at the moment), that's why France and Japan have finally given up on it after 60 years of research.

Not being able to admit mistakes and failures seem to be a characteristic of pro-nuclear culture. Only a very desperate person will say that a 7% load factor is a "success".

I saw. Depends what is meant by 'renewables'—e.g. hydroelectric has a solid EROI that beats coal by a large margin. Wind, solar, and biomass on the other hand have utterly terrible EROIs. So renewable energy charlatans play a sleight of hand by pointing to the higher average EROI which includes hydro, and then sell you on low EROI biomass turd plants or ugly bird shredding windmills.

It said wind and solar.

Wind and solar are contributing to the decline of coal in the US:


https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38053#

Among other findings:

• Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.
• New solar and wind installations will increasingly undercut even the operating-only costs of existing coal-fired plants.

https://www.irena.org/publications/2...-costs-in-2018

Your budget chart spans 1948-2018 lol. Look at the trend instead:

Clear where the crony money has been headed.

So you somehow think that funding for renewables is "crony money", but the exorbitant funding money that has been spent on nuclear is perfectly fine. Ok.

But it is clear that the trend is now renewables and not nuclear. This is a good thing. We've tried nuclear, and it has clearly failed us. We're now finally giving renewables a chance. This means cheaper electricity, so everybody wins.

[Raver]

* Doesn't culture already change though? European culture today is nothing like it was in 1919, which was itself a very different culture from 1819. With the rise of mass media, culture is already homogenizing on a global scale; the Europeans on this forum relate easily to American culture and appear to understand most American references without the need to have it explained to them.

* With respect to ethnicity: if a child of Italian immigrants can become culturally and ethnically French, why can't a child of Ethiopian immigrants become Italian..?

Culture changes over time of course because of technology and globalization, but there's still several cultural aspects that remain intact. Ethnicity is partially genetic even though there are non-genetic aspects so a child of Ethiopian immigrants can't become ethnically Italian, but he can become culturally Italian. A French person has more in common with an Italian than an Ethiopian due to proximity ethnically and culturally despite having numerous differences between them.

I noticed you posted a graph comparing the genetic differences between Europeans and Africans, but I think that graph was misleading. Genetically, the differences between most Africans (excluding North Africans) and the rest of the world is pretty distant:



As you can see on this graph, there's not much of a genetic difference between an Italian, a Danish and an Iranian, but there's a substantial difference between them and a West African or them and a Japanese or them and an Indonesian:



Basically ethnicity in a genetic sense is like a spectrum so neighboring countries regardless of culture and ethnicity will have much more in common with each other than with people at another continent.

* I completely agree with you about rich people exploiting the immigration system; real estate purchases are often a legal means for them to embezzle money. If it was up to me, I'd add some strenuous civic duty requirement to the eligibility for citizenship, which ought to turn away at least a portion of opportunists.

* With respect to refugees entering Canada: refugee housing is only temporary according to the Canadian government. (source =http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcen...num=098&top=11) [EDIT: they also get "assistance" finding affordable housing. I'm not sure what that means and I couldn't find out, but I don't get the impression that they're being given a free house in some big city downtown or suburb].

Your suggestion to turn away opportunists is reasonable and I can agree with you on that. It's funny because they decided to stem the problem of rapidly rising housing costs by adding in a 15% tax for foreigners purchasing homes and it actually worked and housing prices started to increase at a much more slower and reasonable pace. I'm not aware of the details either on finding affordable houses for refugees. If they're not literally given free houses and instead simply given assistance then it depends on that means. I guess when it comes to lower income immigrants, it's about them putting pressure on infrastructure and our taxes. Like I said, I'm not against immigration in my country, but lowering it to more reasonable levels would be beneficial in the short term and long term IMO.

[Singu]

Those data seem cherry-picked, there are about as genetic differences among the same race and ethnicity as there are among different races and ethnicities:

Dr. Jurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Me., said: ''These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't use 'Caucasians' as a group. They're too diverse. No journal would accept it.''

Even if you're going to separate people by their genes, you're going to have to explain which genes are relevant for doing so.

[Raver]

Those data seem cherry-picked, there are about as genetic differences among the same race and ethnicity as there are among different races and ethnicities:

Even if you're going to separate people by their genes, you're going to have to explain which genes are relevant for doing so.

The point is even if you discredit the notion of race (African, Caucasian, Asian) as being merely a social construct, you still can't say that someone that is ethnically Swedish is the same genetically as someone that is ethnically Kenyan. The way genetics work in respect to ethnicities is that it functions like a spectrum so neighbouring regions will share genetic similarities due to proximity.

Even if you can't make clear cut definitions of where race starts and ends because it's a spectrum with a lot of diversity within race does not mean that genetic differences between ethnicities suddenly magically disappear either. Also, just because there's genetic differences within the same race doesn't mean you can't have genetic differences outside of race either, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[Singu]

The point is even if you discredit the notion of race (African, Caucasian, Asian) as being merely a social construct, you still can't say that someone that is ethnically Swedish is the same genetically as someone that is ethnically Kenyan.

So...? What's the reason for separating people by their genetic differences? You might as well say that people who are prone to Alzheimer's disease shouldn't live in proximity to people who are not.

[Raver]

So...? What's the reason for separating people by their genetic differences? You might as well say that people who are prone to Alzheimer's disease shouldn't live in proximity to people who are not.

Why shouldn't countries be allowed to keep their own ethnicity intact whether that be France, Italy, Japan, China, Egypt, Kenya, etc...? Multiculturalism is fine to implement in some countries that have always had immigration like Canada, US, etc..., but why does it need to be enforced worldwide? The other reason is because human beings are tribal and ethnocentric in general. You can't undo tens of thousands of years of evolution within this century. Despite all our advanced technology and dramatic changes in our way of life, our mentality has not changed much from our tribal existence.

Despite our good intentions and aside from an authoritarian government forcing people to get along despite their differences, people will likely behave tribalistic and support people similar to them and reject people different to them regardless of their ethnicity at a group level because that's how we lived and learned to survive for most our existence. Obviously, at an individual level it won't matter as much, but I'm talking about group behavior and not one on one interaction.

[mfckrz]

Now that you brought it up, I recall seeing this study before and I'm actually very intrigued by the action of genes on culture.

Where it becomes problematic is when the concept of population becomes tightly coupled with the concept of nationality. A nation isn't a big family of related individuals, and invoking the concept of heritability to define it is an overreach. Nations are patchworks of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (in many cases conquered) by an overseeing political authority.

The nation-state as we know it is only 200-300 years old and its formation was usually accompanied by the exercise of power -- throughout the industrial age, political and economic force was wielded to force people to assimilate into cultural practices invented or delimited by centralized bureaucracies. Even an ostensibly homogeneous country like France would have looked like an unrecognizable patchwork of different cultures that emerged or immigrated separately. Homogeneous ethnicities had to be manufactured.

Nation-states eventually dissolve into incoherency as they become more state than nation.

Like any empire, force only goes so far in keeping increasingly disparate peoples dysfunctionally welded together.

With respect to the idea that social-genetics should play a role in the selection of immigrants:

To the extent that a nation is composed of separate tribes, it's entirely possible to discover sub-populations belonging to different nations that share more characteristics with each other than they do with their respective nationalities. The study makes the even bolder discovery the geographically distant nations can have statistically more in common with each other than with their neighbors.

It appears that Swedes are closer to Nigerians than they are to the Swiss with respect to the presence of G-alleles. The Danes are about as close to Swedes as they are to Mexicans, whereas Swiss are nearly identical with Mexicans. Given the prodding of new socioeconomic conditions, Nigerians and Mexican immigrants might find an environment more fitting to their genetic characteristics.

Sure, but it's only one of many probable biocultural dimensions relevant to societal compatibility.

Ideally one might have a panarchic situation with thousands of polities that had both low barriers to entry (and no socialized perverse incentives) so everyone could freely associate into societies most compatible to themselves.

[mfckrz]

It's normal for any other plants, not for nuclear plants. In fact nuclear plants cannot be easily turned on/off frequently, because doing that will cause thermal expansion and contraction, and will damage the reactor.

Typically a stable nuclear reactor in a favorable geographical location will have 85%~90%+ load factor

Irrelevant, as this was not intended as a typical reactor.

It was a "demonstration reactor"

… which by 1996 was reaching its intended operational targets.

They have already admitted that it has failed (not just economically, but it's also technically infeasible at the moment), that's why France and Japan have finally given up on it after 60 years of research.

Said no one ever.

It said wind and solar.

No sane analysis exists profitable EROIs for wind & solar.

Wind and solar are contributing to the decline of coal in the US:

You mean natural gas is doing that. And onerous regulation.

So you somehow think that funding for renewables is "crony money", but the exorbitant funding money that has been spent on nuclear is perfectly fine. Ok.

It's all crony money now. And the crony money really likes renewables.

But it is clear that the trend is now renewables and not nuclear. This is a good thing. We've tried nuclear, and it has clearly failed us. We're now finally giving renewables a chance. This means cheaper electricity, so everybody wins.

Right. Lemme know when we magically upend the laws of physics by legislative fiat making renewables more cost-effective.

[mfckrz]

So...? What's the reason for separating people by their genetic differences?

[xerx]

Culture changes over time of course because of technology and globalization, but there's still several cultural aspects that remain intact. Ethnicity is partially genetic even though there are non-genetic aspects so a child of Ethiopian immigrants can't become ethnically Italian, but he can become culturally Italian. A French person has more in common with an Italian than an Ethiopian due to proximity ethnically and culturally despite having numerous differences between them.

There are genetic differences between people with cystic fibrosis vs. the rest of the population too. There are genetic differences between geniuses and people with down syndrome -- considerably so. Why do they belong to the same ethnicity and why are you focusing only on a carefully cherrypicked set of genetic differences to define ethnicity?

I noticed you posted a graph comparing the genetic differences between Europeans and Africans, but I think that graph was misleading. Genetically, the differences between most Africans (excluding North Africans) and the rest of the world is pretty distant:[



As you can see on this graph, there's not much of a genetic difference between an Italian, a Danish and an Iranian, but there's a substantial difference between them and a West African or them and a Japanese or them and an Indonesian:



Basically ethnicity in a genetic sense is like a spectrum so neighboring countries regardless of culture and ethnicity will have much more in common with each other than with people at another continent.

According to your two graphs, there isn't much different between a European and someone from the Middle East.

[xerx]

Sure, but it's only one of many probable biocultural dimensions relevant to societal compatibility.

Ideally one might have a panarchic situation with thousands of polities that had both low barriers to entry (and no socialized perverse incentives) so everyone could freely associate into societies most compatible to themselves.

Maybe, but that's a Utopian solution that's effectively relegated to the far future. For the moment, the proposal to include or exclude certain people due to clashing genes and culture has evidence working against it.

[Raver]

There are genetic differences between people with cystic fibrosis vs. the rest of the population too. There are genetic differences between geniuses and people with down syndrome -- considerably so. Why do they belong to the same ethnicity and why are you focusing only on a carefully cherrypicked set of genetic differences to define ethnicity?

I understand that there are genetic differences not covered by ethnicity or race, which is why there are genetic differences within the same ethnicity or race. However, the reason to keep nations homogenuous ethnically within Europe, Asia and Africa is to retain those ethnicities within their original home nations at have been around for thousands of years. Even if countries and borders have changed in the past, the people have not.

Like I said before, this is different than European colonies like the US/Canada that have been around for hundreds of years and were originally Native American for thousands of years. I can understand multiculturalism in some nations that have had immigrants for hundreds of years, but why force it upon nations that have rarely had immigration for thousands of years?

According to your two graphs, there isn't much different between a European and someone from the Middle East.

This is one reason among other reasons on why I am not opposed to tens of thousands of refugees from Syria seeking refuge in Europe and other nations. Syrian refugees will integrate into Europe far easier than other migrants. Another reason is because they are in a life and death situation because of war and desperately need to leave their nation to survive.

However, hundreds of thousands of economic migrants from Africa will find it far more difficult to integrate due to their genetic differences than Syrian refugees. In addition to that, they are not in a life and death situation like the Syrian refugees. Hence why Syrian refugees and African economic migrants are basically apples and oranges yet they are treated the same for some inexplicable reason.