So we don't need all these superfluous people coming here (not that we ever did, but there's no sane labor economics argument for it either).Originally Posted by xerxe
So we don't need all these superfluous people coming here (not that we ever did, but there's no sane labor economics argument for it either).
we should colonize the sun.
i can't stop trying to picture the guy narrating
https://youtu.be/hTKedyQQkZQ?t=38
actually....
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
People should realize that the more people, the better.
Countries that don't accept any immigrants will probably decline due to declining population.
You bring up Edo period Japan. Well Japan still doesn't accept any immigrants, and now with its aging population, there aren't enough young people to support the older generation. And they're still unwilling to accept immigrants to solve the problem. It can only slowly decline and collapse later on.
If there's free land out there and you claim only the small portion you need to subsist and start farming it, you're no longer competing for housing. There's no rush to pay rent to the point where you must skip meals to make ends meet, you just need to make enough food to feed yourself, and some surplus to sell to keep you stable.
Populate all the land in an area and suddenly you NEED a wad of money before you can even have your own home. And half the time, you have to rent, and you can't even live there on your own terms, and the next thing you know, the conditions of your employer AND your landlord AND the local ordinances to keep the town quiet make you a virtual slave. You cannot simply count on gradual anti-capitalist reform to negate these ills as soon as they happen, because it took lifetimes of blood and tears to get us the rights we have today as it is.
No one wants to live in more densely crowded cities or deal with the consequences of more pollution-producers living on this planet. No one wants the government to keep resorting to imperialistic expansion, because all the land is used up and populated, and there's no other way to expand the markets except eroding away foreign cultures most of your people never heard of.
No one wants to have a sleeping cell smaller than your typical Western shower as their living space. No one would settle for having to share a crowded subway with two hundred other riders if they could choose for there to be only thirty.
The problem IS expansion. The problem is that people are goldfish, and if you give them a house for two, they'll people it with six. Expand that house to hold seven, and they'll fill it with thirty.
Dieoff is a blessing and fuck yourself with a rake for wanting to prevent it. No one deserves to live in this dystopian hellhole where everyone is herded like cattle through limited space.
The only "freedom" that matters is freedom from other people.
Until everyone's living in sardine can apartments and you can't walk outside without getting clobbered by the stench of crowded streets? Until there's no nature left because we've 'developed' it all just to keep more bodies breathing?
Fuck that shit. Depopulation, please.
Japan's going to be just fine. It's normal for population sizes to go up and down—a situation of limitless population growth is not normal. But you live in a context without historical perspective where you don't know any better.Countries that don't accept any immigrants will probably decline due to declining population.
You bring up Edo period Japan. Well Japan still doesn't accept any immigrants, and now with its aging population, there aren't enough young people to support the older generation. And they're still unwilling to accept immigrants to solve the problem. It can only slowly decline and collapse later on.
Hey look, they're giving away free houses so young people can more easily start families: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/asia/...mes/index.html
Sounds nice, doesn't it? Can't do that here because there's too many people (and banks would complain that it'd "ruin" the overpriced housing market).
@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.
Then it's clear where their priorities really are. And it's not with the environment.
No more invalid than when people complain of colonization ruining their culture & way of life. Or when people make the same complaint about gentrification.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.
Right. The novelty of living with a bunch of contemptuous ethnics. Sounds great.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
* 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..?
* 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.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.
* 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].
Last edited by xerx; 07-05-2019 at 01:26 AM.
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.* 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..?
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.
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!)
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.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
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.
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.
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 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.
Last edited by Singu; 07-04-2019 at 12:28 PM.
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.
It's more that nobody cares because uranium is cheaply plentiful enough.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.
20% of the US electricity comes from just 98 nuclear plants, ergo we'd only need 500 for a full nuclear grid. Not bad.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.
Either you're stupid or a liar: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.
Won't happen because it's easier to get rich on the renewables scam.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.
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.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.''
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.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
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.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Well, this is pretty much how it is roughly:
Nothing wrong with that I guess, but people like to live with people of similar ethnicity to them in the suburbs.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The racism is strong in this thread.
It should have ended with @Singu here: "Do you honestly think that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants and beyond feel any different from the natives? Do you really think that the reason why you feel "Canadian" is because of your race? I really don't see why race and ethnicity should matter at all, unless there are certain ideologies that make them keep certain identities, such as religion."
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
I fail to see how there is racism in this thread. It is just a debate of very different ideas on immigration. Trying to win the debate by attempting to take the moral high ground of claiming racism where there is none is not the way to do it.
Anyways, me and @xerxe have very similar ideas on how immigration should be handled in Canada, US, Australia and NZ via cultural assimilation from all ethnicities and controlled immigration. Where we differ almost completely is on how immigration should be handled in Europe.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
The only way to handle it is to stop messing with global south politics, stop exploiting people, and acting as if this is happening in a vacuum. The same governments that profit off conflicts such as the one in Syria in a myriad of ways are the ones turning against the refugees they themselves have created. Europe has created the West African countries that send immigrants today. There is no moral ground for not taking in people fleeing from these countries, not on a humanitarian level, and not on a historical level. Western countries need to step up to the plate, quit whining, and take a serious look at how complicit they are.
Europe profited from colonialism that in the long run created migration movements. Former settler colonies like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and NZ stole land, murdered indigenous people, and brought people in. So no citizen in Europe and the former settler colonies gets to cry about immigrants and ethnic diversity. It's laughable and pathetic.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Pretty much everyone that washed up here from the turn of the last century onwards. Including Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans…
Most aren't racist. They maintain a civic superstition that there's something magical about the 'rule of law' which makes people upright American citizens, regardless of origin. It's all hopelessly naive.
You mean a handful of well-to-do oligarchs profited from colonialism, while undercutting the development of their own nations in the process by outsourcing industries overseas for cheaper labor.
Whereas nowadays the cheap labor is merely imported directly to the same ends.
The average European was hardly complicit in any of this, but their descendants must somehow be punished for it nonetheless.
So really this is about revenge for you.Former settler colonies like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and NZ stole land, murdered indigenous people, and brought people in. So no citizen in Europe and the former settler colonies gets to cry about immigrants and ethnic diversity. It's laughable and pathetic.
No, that's not true. Being a white immigrant is a VERY different experience than being an immigrant of color. I get away with shit, they don't. I also don't get told not to speak in my language or go back where I came from and all the rest of it. It's absolutely about race and ethnicity.
We are all complicit in this. We reap the benefits of historical oppression and we continue to exploit by the way we consume, by supporting wars, refusing, refugees, etc. You really think that the conflicts in Syria and Yemen do not tie back to U.S. capitalism and its profits? The West exploits with abandon, you just don't give a shit about it because you don't care about social justice.You mean a handful of well-to-do oligarchs profited from colonialism, while undercutting the development of their own nations in the process by outsourcing industries overseas for cheaper labor.
Whereas nowadays the cheap labor is merely imported directly to the same ends.
The average European was hardly complicit in any of this, but their descendants must somehow be punished for it nonetheless.
Europeans are not "punished" for anything. Europeans (and others) have a responsibility to not help fuck up regions, exploiting them, and then shutting their doors for the sake of some mythical notion of "culture."
No, it's about justice and accountability.So really this is about revenge for you.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Please do not use my country as a dumping ground for social experiments of this nature, send them to Australia instead. Nomads and sand people should be well-suited to a life in the desert
Fair enough. New Zealand is already multi-ethnic at 74%, but that is largely due to to the high native Maori population. Moreso than Australia that is 86% European. My mindset was keeping Europe to ethnostates and former European colonies can become multi-ethnic. However, the boat has sailed for that so if certain countries choose to become multi-ethnic and others choose to become ethnostates then so be it.Please do not use my country as a dumping ground for social experiments of this nature, send them to Australia instead. Nomads and sand people should be well-suited to a life in the desert
Personally, I don't really mind if my country of Canada becomes multi-ethnic, but I would like it to remain monocultural at the very least. Which can only be achieved with slow controlled immigration or near zero immigration at some point in the future. Due to second generation immigrants having a high rate of integration/assimilation and first generation immigrants having a low rate of integration/assimilation IMO.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
What is American/Canadian culture supposed to be?
PS: My sincerest apologies for coming to this country and standing with the "ethnics." I also took a job from an American citizen.
I only tell people I am an immigrant, not where I am from. It really bothers them because they suspect I am Latina because of my first name and looks. I have had it happen too many times that people were visible relieved when they heard I am German to do them the favor. Anti-immigration is always racist. I could walk into a Trump rally and say I am undocumented, but I am also German. They would bear hug me and tell me Mr. Trump will fix the immigration system so I can be legal because they love adding white people.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
For the most part, 2nd/3rd generation immigrants would have completely assimilated to the host culture, and they're virtually indistinguishable from the natives.
For instance, there are white people who grew up in China, and they grow up feeling that they're completely "Chinese" and not "white" or "European", until that is, they're treated differently by everyone around them, and are sometimes discriminated against. They grow up and spend most of their lives thinking that they're Chinese and not anything else, because they've never even lived outside of the country and don't know anything else. Some of them may not even speak any European languages.
In the West, individuality and individual freedom are typically more afforded and encouraged, so people are encouraged to express their racial and ethnic heritage and identities more.
It is ironic that some people who claim to be the bastion of Western culture are looking down on this ideal of individual freedom and expression of the self.
Are you guys losing your shit over the little mermaid live action remake?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
