Population growth and religion

by **orathaic** » Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:04 am

StevenC. wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:36 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:14 am
@Mitchel, I reject the concept of borders as a legitimate and moral system. They exist, but their legitimacy has no solid philisophically or moral grounding. You have yet to offer any arguments to base such a system on.

And there it is.

OK, let us look at this from another perspective, either you are the inheritors of your ancestors, or you are not. Either you are responsible for the genocide, rape, displacement, broken treaties, exploitation (see: slavery) and oppression (see:poverty) which made the land you currently live in what it is today, or you are not entitled to claim that 6 generations of your family living in it is an excuse to stop other less fortunate families from laying claim to similar rights.

It is fairly simple, I do not believe in holding the current generation responsible for the sins of their ancestors, likewise I donvt believe they have any special status just because they descended from a particularly successful bunch of murderers.

by **orathaic** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:26 am

https://www.unhcr.org/en-ie/figures-at-a-glance.html

by **orathaic** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:12 am

Let's get some facts straight here - Western countries take in a very tiny minority of the total refugee population

And it is worth noting the Western powers are sometimes directly responsible for refugee crises.

Syria being used as a pawn in a post-cold War game (between Russia/Iran and US/Saudi Arabia), is perhaps the best example. Libya might be another, though I suspect there are more Syrian refugees than Libyan; I haven't looked up the numbers.

And sure Iran and Saudi Arabia could very well have played their own game without non-regional powers selling them weapons, sending in troops, and generally making a mess (rather than using the UN and peacekeeping forces to stabilise the situation). But as it stands Turkey and Iraq host many many more Syrian refugees than the US or western Europe.

by **flash2015** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:01 pm

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:07 pm
@flash. Did you not read my post properly ? Parts like.. "Here's a conundrum I struggle with" ? There's also the conflating of the general with the specific that I suggest you might be doing.

With only the sparse details you have provided of the specific case of your wife, consistent with what I have earlier posted my position regarding her specific case is: she tried to change the circumstances within her own country and suffered for that, so she has done what I indicated I would prefer citizens of disfunctional States to do, make an attempt to improve a disfunctional State.( As opposed to doing nothing, fleeing to a country of sanctuary and demanding refuge from that country of transit to a third more attractive destination ) . As a genuine refugee facing real threats to her life she deserves sanctuary & should she make an application for residence in the country in which I live, in my opinion it should be granted. That is consistent with the principle that any nation state has the right to decide who they allow to emigrate to their nation state and under what circumstances they allow people to emigrate to their nation state.

I went back to your post just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding...and it is as objectionable and callous after multiple readings as it was the first time. You are just covering it with what I would call "weasel words" to try to make your opinion sound more palatable than it really is.

Let's get some facts straight here - Western countries take in a very tiny minority of the total refugee population. Out of the top 10 countries with refugees either as a percentage of the population or total number of refugees there is only one Western country in the top 10 by percentage (Sweden) and one by total refugees (Germany). If you look at the top 20 there is perhaps one or two more Western countries. We can go through the detailed numbers if you like. The idea that refugees 'en masse' are not trying to find refuge in neighbouring countries is a myth and I believe the numbers in the neighbouring countries likely under-reporting the real size of the problem at least from my experience in Thailand (e.g. you proverbially can't "swing a cat" without hitting a Burmese person yet the reported number of refugees is supposedly relatively low there). And many of these countries that do host large numbers of refugees don't really have the resources to handle them so the refugees can live in horrible conditions. It is understandable that some of these refugees may try and find a better life elsewhere. It seems like you are saying "Those uppity refugees. They should be thankful they are alive! How dare they think they can try to create a better life for themselves and their families!".

You say that these people should try and fix conditions back home first before even considering fleeing. What do you expect Syrians **to do**? Or the Rohingya? Or any number of people fleeing conflict (just 5 countries account for 67% of the refugees)? And you suggest that they are being selfish by having children (either by choice or by chance - I don't expect everyone has the same access to birth control as we do). Are you perhaps suggesting that they shouldn't have sex at all? Or should they be having more abortions perhaps?

Many of these countries have problems that are intractable. They haven't had the time to go through and build the institutions that we have (often due to colonialism) so even if the current despotic ruler is deposed he/she is often replaced with another (see Arab Spring). A big part of affecting real change in many of these countries is by bringing knowledge and training back from overseas which is likely helped by a reasonable sized expat community. Many leaders that have affected or attempted to affect change in Asia did just that (e.g. Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, Chiang Kai Shek, Lee Kuan Yew, Aung San Suu Kyi and many more).

My wife was "lucky" for want of a better word to be becoming an adult at a time and place when there was an opportunity for real change in her country. Unfortunately they didn't succeed and that window of opportunity closed and the country reverted back to a military dictatorship where everyone was in fear of even a suggestion of criticizing the government. The people after her didn't have "the opportunities" she and her compatriots did. I don't understand what you are expecting the average person to actually do in this situation.

I am quite willing to help people, if they ask for assistance, or if I see a person I think might need it and I offer it and they then make the request which lets them decide whether to accept my assistance (I don't insist that people accept my assistance, they have a choice).
I dislike being dictated to, being told I must render assistance.

If a person wishes to dictate what I must, or must not do, they had best first make a matrimonial contract with me, and that position has already been occupied. Or have made some other contract with me that gives them specific powers to instruct me, and the instructions that they issue be within the powers I have granted them within the contract.

What refugees have the power to dictate to YOU? Note that many refugees, especially in poorer countries, may spend years or even decades in camps...with little hope of a better life. The only real power they have is through the activists which advocate on their behalf.

The whole thing about Calais - I thought the UK must be being overrun with refugees as they avoid going to France. In fact, France host three times as many refugees as the UK (~360K to ~120K). If we go down the list there are at least ten European countries that have a bigger refugee burden as a percentage of the population than the UK. If anything

Again, I am not arguing that countries don't have the right to choose how many refugees they accept or not. I am only arguing that trying to demonize refugees just for having the audacity to want a better life is horribly callous and wrong...which is what I believe you are doing here.

by **orathaic** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:23 pm

Side note : https://youtu.be/sEGUrcseJo8

If it strikes you that the government and UN refugee agency is not the most efficient of organisation. Then you can look at 'illegal' immigrants as entrepreneurs, using the free market (smugglers) to side step the state.

Is this not a valued attribute among Americans?

by **StevenC.** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:15 pm

Randomizer wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:36 pm
Middle class people with jobs and not needing to leave for economic reasons are now fleeing or preparing to leave a country where the current government has them scared of increasing violence. Even though they aren't in the targeted minority groups they are getting out.

The country they are fleeing from is the US.

https://news.yahoo.com/frightened-by-sh ... 46924.html

This article is one giant exaggeration. There are millions of Americans living abroad for various reason and frankly I'm not convinced that there's a huge movement of Americans out of the country because of "muh orange man bad" or even because of mass shootings.

by **Randomizer** » Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:36 pm

Middle class people with jobs and not needing to leave for economic reasons are now fleeing or preparing to leave a country where the current government has them scared of increasing violence. Even though they aren't in the targeted minority groups they are getting out.

The country they are fleeing from is the US.

https://news.yahoo.com/frightened-by-sh ... 46924.html

by **MajorMitchell** » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:54 pm

So, returning to our hypothetical person who has fled from the county in which they faced genuine danger to another country and is now in comparative safety (the Gulags of Calais, a camp in West Germany).. if that person makes a request in the appropriate way to emigrate to the country in which I live, then that request should be dealt with promptly and with compassion.
However if I see that hypothetical person taking part in an angry mob & yelling that I and my fellow citizens MUST provide refuge for them NOW, and particularly if they bring a God into it..eg God commands that I and my fellow citizens MUST provide refuge for them NOW.. then my reaction is to have a distinct preference to refuse to comply. And I make no distinctions between Gods.

by **MajorMitchell** » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:36 pm

.. continuing on.. so I hope I made it clear, if someone doesn't have an existing authority to dictate what I must or must not do, eg my Adorable Beautiful Fire Breathing MemSahib, an employer, the authorities of Government eg the police, and the command to me is a lawful command... Then ask.. don't issue commands to me if you don't have an existing authority to command me.
I'm often in the position of having authority to issue commands, directions to persons, but hard won experience has taught me that it is much easier to get compliance by showing respect and making a polite request, and giving a brief explanation of why the request is being made.

For example.. Rather than yelling a brusque command like: "Get out of here now !!! You, the bloody clown in the red shirt & your dumbass mates, get the f*** out of here now !!!"..
What I know gets better compliance is:. "Please move calmly to this (indicated by extended arm) exit, go outside and gather in the carpark, there is a minor fire in the auditorium which is being extinguished. Thank you for your cooperation Ladies & Gentlemen."

by **MajorMitchell** » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:07 pm

@flash. Did you not read my post properly ? Parts like.. "Here's a conundrum I struggle with" ? There's also the conflating of the general with the specific that I suggest you might be doing.

With only the sparse details you have provided of the specific case of your wife, consistent with what I have earlier posted my position regarding her specific case is: she tried to change the circumstances within her own country and suffered for that, so she has done what I indicated I would prefer citizens of disfunctional States to do, make an attempt to improve a disfunctional State.( As opposed to doing nothing, fleeing to a country of sanctuary and demanding refuge from that country of transit to a third more attractive destination ) . As a genuine refugee facing real threats to her life she deserves sanctuary & should she make an application for residence in the country in which I live, in my opinion it should be granted. That is consistent with the principle that any nation state has the right to decide who they allow to emigrate to their nation state and under what circumstances they allow people to emigrate to their nation state.

I am quite willing to help people, if they ask for assistance, or if I see a person I think might need it and I offer it and they then make the request which lets them decide whether to accept my assistance (I don't insist that people accept my assistance, they have a choice).
I dislike being dictated to, being told I must render assistance.

If a person wishes to dictate what I must, or must not do, they had best first make a matrimonial contract with me, and that position has already been occupied. Or have made some other contract with me that gives them specific powers to instruct me, and the instructions that they issue be within the powers I have granted them within the contract.

by **orathaic** » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:07 am

Water poverty will get worse: https://www.sciencealert.com/17-countri ... HQMTAtrQqk

by **orathaic** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:17 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:20 pm
Population growth is slowing significantly, and will cease to be a major issue by the latter half of this century.

I am not so optimistic. I suspect poverty will increase and high birth rates along with high death rates will return. We will see migration crises driven by climate change, and massive wealth inequality. But if development were to continue as it has for the past 60 years, that is entirely the trend we should expect.

by **flash2015** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:43 pm

Carl Tuckerson wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:59 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:48 am
Both sides of the US debate should be wary of their contribution to atmosphere that encourages this nonsense. The recent Trumpian demonisation of those south of the border, and the stream of arguments the left keep sprouting about demographic change heralding in a new Democrat led future. I imagine it's very easy to believe in replacement when both sides of the debate are talking about it.
Do you realize one of these is in reaction to the other? When the political strategy of one half of the country is gleefully cheering on the shrinking share of white people in the country and openly importing a new voting base to invalidate the people already here, it is entirely natural and healthy to resist an invasion of your home by electing candidates who promise to be tough on border security.

Political pundits for at least the last two decades have been predicting the inevitable Democratic takeover drawing straight line predictions from historical demographic voting information. They were wrong in the past and they will likely continue to be wrong. It is kind of insulting to all involved to think that voting is done purely on racial lines. Hell, the junior republican senator from Texas himself is hispanic. Of course, if Trump continues his "whites vs. the rest" rhetoric he may bring on the voting based on racial lines which you seem most concerned about.

I don't think demonizing the people fleeing to the US is correct, but that's just a failure of those who are upset to recognize the cause of their problems, not an indication the problems don't exist. You have a right to be angry that you were knocked over even if the person that did so were shoved by someone else, and yet the political left in the US likes to pretend otherwise.

The demonizing of foreigners and non-whites is just an easy scapegoat for far more complex problems. The correct analogy - You have a right to be angry if you are being disenfranchised...but that doesn't give you the right to go around abusing random people.

orathaic, I have no idea how you can call the idea of demographic displacement a "racist conspiracy theory" when leftist political junkies crow and celebrate every single election that "demographics are destiny and they're on our side" and cheer on the likes of Texas turning Democratic because of an influx of pro-Democrat immigrant voters who are predominantly a different race from the (formerly) majority race in Texas. It is literally exactly what is happening, and many leftists and certainly almost all left-wing political strategists openly and cheerfully admit to it.
Nor do I see how you get off thinking that you have some kind of right or privilege to tell people that they have to accept displacement in their home. Even if you're willing to accept it for your own home, that doesn't mean you can force other people who have real concerns to shove it and accept what you want them to do.

Demographics are slowly changing and some pundits believe that democrats may get some permanent political advantage from it. They are probably wrong...but I don't see anything wrong with them making a theory about it.

What sort of bollocks is this? Who is getting displaced??? What white people being kicked out of their homes by latinos? Demographics have been changing for centuries and they will continue to change. What is the big deal? Concerned that they think "futbol" does not mean American football? Most of them are Americans just like you. The world is not going to end.

It's amazing that anyone can even wonder why people become violent and lash out against innocents with horrific mass shootings. What the fuck do you expect a cornered animal to do? Probably lay down and die. Bet you'd like that.

You are kidding me, right? You are seriously suggesting that white people are a poor oppressed minority? And on top of that, after the last two decades being told that terrorism is evil in **any scenario**, when "white people" use terrorism to fight against their non-existent oppression it is now an understandable reaction?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:49 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:28 am

On this issue there is actually very good data, and the results are pretty clear: https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78

For those who don't have 13 minutes, the conclusion is that religion is not the deciding factor in family size, wealth and child mortality (as well as access to family planning) are the main contributing factors.

Before I clicked on this, I had a very strong feeling it would lead me to a video of Hans Rosling. He was a brilliant and articulate scholar and his recent death was a great loss to the world. Happily he left a great legacy of work. I commend his final book, "Factfulness" to anyone with an independent mind who wishes to better understand the world we live in.

And he is right. Education, the elimination of extreme poverty, equality for women, and infant mortality all have far more impact on family size than does religion. This is not a mere theory, it is very strongly supported by the data, as demonstrated by Hans Rosling in that wonderful lecture. I commend everyone to give it 13 minutes and watch it. It is a worthwhile investment of your time.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:20 pm

Population growth is slowing significantly, and will cease to be a major issue by the latter half of this century.

by **flash2015** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:00 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:48 am
@ Major

Or indeed the argument that you must provide them asylum from a barbarous and tyrannical regime when they're currently living in Calais. Some may note that I'm not the biggest fan of France, but even so it's more or less tolerable.

Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with refugees and economic migrants (the distinction is much fuzzier than the strict legal definition) trying to make the best possible opportunities for themselves or their families.

Of course it is the UK's right to not allow them to immigrate.

by **flash2015** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:41 pm

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:12 am
The nation of which I am a native born citizen is built on immigration. However I will suggest that whilst immigration has delivered many benefits, immigration is not an "all wonderful panacea", one example of the damage caused by immigration was the dispossession & discrimination inflicted on our First Nation peoples, our Aboriginal people. A simple division of immigrants can be made based on the factors that influence their decision to emigrate between refugees and immigrants. So I would describe it this way .. Refugees are persons fleeing for reasons like the need to be able to live safely & immigrants are moving for reasons other than simply the need to live in safety.
So in this construct, refugees are those fleeing disfunctional States, immigrants can come from a wider variety of States.
What I'm trying to work towards is the proposition that the "more desirable, destination countries" cannot provide the only solution for all time and that the "exodus countries" must be fixed, so that the opportunities their people seek in destination countries become available "at home".
Here's a conundrum I struggle with. The "you must give us safety for my family" argument used by many refugees and immigrants to the citizens of destination countries. Is it totally callous to ask in response ? .. You two parents knew that your country was unsafe, disfunctional before you had children, you knew that you didn't have the resources to safely raise children and you could have chosen to not have children in those extremely unfavourable circumstances and instead worked towards solving the problems of your disfunctional country, even if it cost you your lives. Yet you chose to breed, have children and you now use their needs to justify your demands that the citizens of another country provide sanctuary, better economic opportunities. Is it unreasonable for me in a destination country to suggest that I would prefer the supplicants made their first priority fixing the problems within their own country ? ( With assistance from my nation) So for example, I'm more prepared to see a portion of our taxes provide educational opportunities that give supplicants the tools to help solve the problems in the exodus countries. For example, come here and get medical professional training, not so you can become a wealthy professional living in a desirable suburb in this country, but so you can return to your country and work to improve conditions there.
I look forward to being castigated in scathing replies.

I may be biased as my wife is a political activist who escaped from a horribly messed up country. Many of her political friends either got killed...or were tortured and spent many years in gaol (and the ones I have met that survived have been horribly messed up from the ordeal). So what you are trying to say is, after failing to affect political change in her country - how dare she decide to actually have a life? Not to be rude, but what kind of callous a**hole are you?

And going on to the children thing. At first glance, you are borderline making a eugenics argument. So what you are essentially saying is that how dare poor people have kids and how dare they take opportunities, however slim, to try and make a better life for themselves and their families? This is essentially the ideal about the "American Dream", it is the same drive which causes people to work hard and create businesses. So that is wrong now?

Again, I understand every country has to have limits on how many people they let in...but let's not demonize refugees and economic immigrants for not all willing to be martyrs to the cause.

by **StevenC.** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:36 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:14 am
@Mitchel, I reject the concept of borders as a legitimate and moral system. They exist, but their legitimacy has no solid philisophically or moral grounding. You have yet to offer any arguments to base such a system on.

And there it is.

by **orathaic** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:14 am

Amazing, if you don't want people to be economically displaced in their homes then you implicitly support slavery. There's no way...<snip>

Way to misrepresent what I said. You can intend one thing and it have consequences you don't support. Many Germans probsbly supported the Nazi party in the early 30sbecause they promised to put Germans first and stop paying the crippling reparations of the treaty of Versailles. That doesn't mean they supported the holocaust, but it still happened.

Likewise, you can support sensible migration policies... The consequences continue to exist despite your protest of not supporting slavery.

And I admire your solidarity with your fellow American worker, and the plight of migrsnt workers undercutting their wages. The capitalist system of exploiting workers for their labour is the problem though, not the migration in itself. I would rather you felt solidarity with the migrants, and insisted that they also be paid a decent minimum wage, granted a conditional right to work (possibly time limited based on seasonal work, and on condition that they not commit any crimes) and thus prevent them from under cutting American wages. A decent federal minimum wage (of ~$15 per hour) capable of paying a living wage would be a great start, but 8 see no reason to exclude low skilled migrant workers from this.

And even worse policies which make slave labour more attractive.

@Mitchel, I reject the concept of borders as a legitimate and moral system. They exist, but their legitimacy has no solid philisophically or moral grounding. You have yet to offer any arguments to base such a system on.

by **MajorMitchell** » Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:32 am

So, Orathaic, I support not only the citizenship rights of, but also the land (& sea) use rights of our First Nations people (Aboriginal) based in generations of occupation and use and a cultural connection to their tribal lands... Yet I am supposed to have according to your convoluted logic absolutely no basic right to citizenship based on similar grounds, being born "on country" from a family with albeit significantly less generations, but still a family with strong connection to the country and contributions to community. According to your notions, persons with absolutely no connection to country or community (being totally foreign, never having been on country) should have the same rights to citizenship as those who are born on country in families with connection to country & community. ???? I will run that by a few of my colleagues who are First Nations people.. according to Orathaic, none of us born on country have any greater rights to citizenship than foreigners

Population growth and religion

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion

Re: Population growth and religion