Myers on Africa...

ei.sdraob

PaulieD wrote: »

No, no I am not.

Once again, Myers makes some interesting point about Africa. Predictably enough, the lefties all condemn him for being racist. The only racism in Africa today, is being directed at caucasians. In South Africa thousands of whites have been murdered for being white. In South Africa 33% of all men admit to being a rapist. In less than 9 months, a world cup will be held in this hell hole.:mad:

im being called a "leftie"

:D:D:D:D:D

P. Breathnach

PaulieD wrote: »

... The only racism in Africa today, is being directed at caucasians...

That's rubbish. There are myriad ethnic/racist conflicts in Africa.

dresden8

taconnol wrote: »

Congratulations Myers, for totally ignoring the European hand in making Africa what it is today.

Another story today: Shell says would fight Chinese grab in Nigeria

So the rest of the world seems happy to get involved in Africa when it suits them. I don't see any Myers articles about these neo-colonial scrambles.

That's Shell that your party is happy to support in Rossport?

ei.sdraob

anyways to continue on the discussion about falling fertility rates

theres an excellent article in economist

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164483

seems rates do fall as a country develops but up to a point, after which it grows again

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I think it is very immoral to suggest we can solve our problems by importing humans from poorer countries.

Well, if they’re being imported as slaves, yeah. Otherwise, they get a job and money, we get an additional consumer and an increase in tax revenue. Win win.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

As others have mentioned already, Japan is investing heavily in robotic technology to combat the ageing problem.

It ain’t going to work, unless they pull the proverbial rabbit from a hat. Japan has been investing heavily in technology for decades, but they still need a workforce.

jimmi08 wrote: »

European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers.

That would have to be one hell of an incentive – raising a kid isn’t exactly easy (or cheap).

PaulieD wrote: »

In South Africa 33% of all men admit to being a rapist.

Ah, a graduate of the Kevin Myers School of Journalism.

Nodin

PaulieD wrote: »

A case of evil whitey keeping the black man down, huh?:rolleyes:

The only racism in Africa, is aimed at the white population. .

Ahh, comedy gold for a sunday morn.....That, red bull, fizzy water, AC/DC, and pain killers could make this most relaxing.

PaulieD wrote: »

Yet the MSM fail to report this fact, I wonder why..

...because its not a fact, at all, at all.

Sesshoumaru

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, if they’re being imported as slaves, yeah. Otherwise, they get a job and money, we get an additional consumer and an increase in tax revenue. Win win.

There is a cost associated with integrating someone from a different culture. That cost goes up as you import more people. There is also cost to the breeder country. Normally it is the most enterprising that get up and leave the breeder country for their new home. Reducing whole countries into people factories for Europe is hardly good idea is it? Frankly I think it is morally repugnant.

Assuming that the brain drain from these breeder countries doesn't completely decimate them, eventually their birth rates will go down as the develop. Where does that leave us then? Do we find another country to pillage young people from?

djpbarry wrote:

It ain’t going to work, unless they pull the proverbial rabbit from a hat. Japan has been investing heavily in technology for decades, but they still need a workforce.

They are already doing more with less people. Their population at 127 million is well below the EU or US. But is still the worlds second largest economy. As technology develops we will need less and less factory workers and floor sweepers. Allowing our population to naturally decline like in Japan can only be an advantage in the future. The children left will be brought up and educated to a higher standard than ever before.

Macha

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

There is a cost associated with integrating someone from a different culture. That cost goes up as you import more people. There is also cost to the breeder country. Normally it is the most enterprising that get up and leave the breeder country for their new home. Reducing whole countries into people factories for Europe is hardly good idea is it? Frankly I think it is morally repugnant.

"Breeder country"? That phrase is pretty repugnant.

Actually educated immigrants are much cheaper to the destination country because you get educated humans, ready to work without years of investment in education, health etc. Not that I agree with the idea of ruining other countries for the benefit of ours.

Sesshoumaru

taconnol wrote: »

"Breeder country"? That phrase is pretty repugnant.

Actually educated immigrants are much cheaper to the destination country because you get educated humans, ready to work without years of investment in education, health etc. Not that I agree with the idea of ruining other countries for the benefit of ours.

I really shouldn't have to explain this, it was fairly self evident. But of course I don't actually think of any country as a human factory or "breeder country". I used that phrase "breeder country" to show up that this pillage of young people from poor countries is not some noble endeavor!

I also agree highly educated immigrants are a lower cost to the destination country. But isn't that simply a wealth transfer from the poor country to the rich country? The poor country invests 20+ years educating someone and then that person is imported into a rich country who gain the benefit of that investment. Am I the only one who can see something wrong with this?

potlatch

Reading the amazing 'Open Veins of Latin America' by Edouardo Galeano today, I was reminded that the same rubbish arguments were made by the Spaniards and Portuguese in the 1500s. 'The problem of Latin America's development,' influential dead white men would say centuries later, 'is a teeming population with not enough food or money to go around' [I'm paraphrasing here]. Over the course of 500 years of Latin American colonialism, the population actually plummeted due to exploitation, disease and poverty. By the 1970s, Latin America was less densely populated than any West European state, but still people said it was population which was 'the biggest development problem' for Latin America.

You hear the same thing about sub-Saharan Africa. As in Africa, development loans would be conditioned on things such as birth/population control. The Conquistadors exercised population control in their own way. But I can't understand how it's necessary in the most sparsely populated places on earth while we Europeans mouth off hypocrisy when bemoaning our apparently deplorable demographics in the 'developed world'. I fail to see how population control emerges at different times as the core 'solution' to the 'development problem'. The problem is inequality and exploitation.

I'm currently living in a developing country, one of the most unequal on earth, where the population is actually falling. But still this rubbish does the rounds.

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

There is a cost associated with integrating someone from a different culture. That cost goes up as you import more people.

Does this cost outweigh the benefits?

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Normally it is the most enterprising that get up and leave the breeder country for their new home.

Often it is, yes. That was certainly the case in Ireland not too long ago. But what’s better for everyone; a person sitting on the dole in their home country, or the same person heading abroad to work?

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Reducing whole countries into people factories for Europe is hardly good idea is it?

Nope. But of course, that is not what I proposed.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Assuming that the brain drain from these breeder countries doesn't completely decimate them, eventually their birth rates will go down as the develop. Where does that leave us then?

I don’t know, but I would welcome such problems if they are associated with global equality.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

They are already doing more with less people. Their population at 127 million is well below the EU or US. But is still the worlds second largest economy. As technology develops we will need less and less factory workers and floor sweepers. Allowing our population to naturally decline like in Japan can only be an advantage in the future.

So Japan’s economic outlook is rosy?

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I used that phrase "breeder country" to show up that this pillage of young people from poor countries is not some noble endeavor!

I think you’ll find that in most cases, the people in question actually want to emigrate to better themselves.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

But isn't that simply a wealth transfer from the poor country to the rich country?

Assuming that the individual in question emigrates and never speaks to their family again, then yes, maybe. But in reality, there is a strong possibility that the emigrant will support family members in their home country with remittances, or will return home at some point, or both. Again, Ireland is a pretty good example of this sort of behaviour.

What’s the alternative? Would the world be a better place if we all just remained in our places of birth?

Sesshoumaru

djpbarry wrote:

Does this cost outweigh the benefits?

At low to medium levels of immigration (high quality immigrants I'm talking about here) the benefit outweighs the cost, at higher levels the cost cannot be calculated in economic terms only. You have to keep in mind the loss of indigenous culture. No one would say it's a good thing if Europeans started emigrating to South America in large numbers and causing the local culture there to decline.

djpbarry wrote:

Often it is, yes. That was certainly the case in Ireland not too long ago. But what’s better for everyone; a person sitting on the dole in their home country, or the same person heading abroad to work?

That person staying at home and using some entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs. I think Ireland is a classic example of this. We always take the easy way out, bring in multinationals to creates jobs instead of creating our own. Always vote for FF cause they put a few bob extra in our back pockets and just emigrate when the going gets tough!

djpbarry wrote:

Nope. But of course, that is not what I proposed.

Well what are you proposing then? It sounded to me like you wanted to import millions of people from their home countries and bring them to Europe?

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t know, but I would welcome such problems if they are associated with global equality.

Well that's good forward planning there! Put that problem on hold, shure my grandkids can deal with it!

djpbarry wrote:

So Japan’s economic outlook is rosy?

Yes their long term prognosis is very good. High technology economy with well educated people, who won't be encumbered by an unnecessarily large population. Not everyone can be a computer programmer or a theoretical physicist. Some people end up as bus drivers or collect rubbish. Nothing wrong with doing that work either, I'm not looking down on people. But how can you provide employment for all these people when in 30 years time buses don't need drivers and rubbish collection is automated?

djpbarry wrote:

I think you’ll find that in most cases, the people in question actually want to emigrate to better themselves.

I'm not against immigration, it is only natural that people move from country to country in this day and age. I just don't view natural population decline as a problem that needs to be solved by importing millions of people from poor countries.

djpbarry wrote:

Assuming that the individual in question emigrates and never speaks to their family again, then yes, maybe. But in reality, there is a strong possibility that the emigrant will support family members in their home country with remittances, or will return home at some point, or both. Again, Ireland is a pretty good example of this sort of behaviour.

What’s the alternative? Would the world be a better place if we all just remained in our places of birth?

I'm happy to see people move around, just not at the astronomical levels you are suggesting. All to solve an imaginary problem that doesn't exist. Population decline is natural and will prepare us for a future world where jobs will be more knowledge based.... and there will be less jobs in general!

bill_ashmount

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

You have to keep in mind the loss of indigenous culture. No one would say it's a good thing if Europeans started emigrating to South America in large numbers and causing the local culture there to decline.

Too late, South America is now home to hundreds of millions of people of European descent. Indigenous South Americans have suffered massive hardship because of this.

djpbarry

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

At low to medium levels of immigration (high quality immigrants I'm talking about here) the benefit outweighs the cost, at higher levels the cost cannot be calculated in economic terms only. You have to keep in mind the loss of indigenous culture.

How does one define ‘indigenous culture’? Is a loss of ‘indigenous culture’ always a bad thing? More to the point, should we endeavour to ‘freeze’ our culture, as it were, to prevent it from changing in the future? After all, a changing culture inevitably means a loss of certain elements of a culture.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

That person staying at home and using some entrepreneurial spirit to create jobs.

Fair enough, but not everybody can be an entrepreneur. Furthermore, having industry experience is a big advantage if you’re planning on starting your own business.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Well what are you proposing then? It sounded to me like you wanted to import millions of people from their home countries and bring them to Europe?

Maybe we should stop thinking of these people as commodities and start thinking of them as free-thinking individuals? If somebody wants to come to Europe to work that generally benefits us and it also benefits them. Furthermore, if they send money home to their family, the benefit is spread. Further benefit is obtained if the individual decides to return home at some point and (for example) sets up their own business in their home country.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Well that's good forward planning there! Put that problem on hold, shure my grandkids can deal with it!

My point is that should a situation arise in which a developing world no longer exists, I think most people would gladly accept any associated problems in exchange for today’s difficulties. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to be faced with such a dilemma any time soon (and I don’t think our grandkids will be either).

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Yes their long term prognosis is very good.

Prove it. Anything I’ve read has suggested that Japan’s workforce is shrinking rapidly (far faster than anything technology can keep pace with) and their economy is going to shrink with it. It’s fantastical to expect the necessary technology to replace all these workers to be rolled out in a matter of years. For all the advances that have been made in robotics and automation, robots are still pretty stupid (and are certainly no replacement for a human).

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I'm happy to see people move around, just not at the astronomical levels you are suggesting.

But I haven’t suggested any levels? All I’m suggesting is we let people do what they want? Speaking very generally, if somebody wants to come to Europe from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) to work and there is a job available for them, let them (and vice versa).

PaulieD

djpbarry wrote: »

All I’m suggesting is we let people do what they want? Speaking very generally, if somebody wants to come to Europe from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) to work and there is a job available for them, let them (and vice versa).

Does europe have an infinite capacity to absorb immigrants from the third world?

Nodin

PaulieD wrote: »

Does europe have an infinite capacity to absorb immigrants from the third world?

I don't believe anyone suggested such a scenario.

PaulieD

Nodin wrote: »

I don't believe anyone suggested such a scenario.

You believe wrong.

djpbarry wrote: »

All I’m suggesting is we let people do what they want? Speaking very generally, if somebody wants to come to Europe from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) to work and there is a job available for them, let them (and vice versa).

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

Prove it. Anything I’ve read has suggested that Japan’s workforce is shrinking rapidly (far faster than anything technology can keep pace with) and their economy is going to shrink with it. It’s fantastical to expect the necessary technology to replace all these workers to be rolled out in a matter of years. For all the advances that have been made in robotics and automation, robots are still pretty stupid (and are certainly no replacement for a human).

Read the book "The next 100 years" by the American political scientist George Friedman. He predicts that the Japanese will learn to deal with their demographic problems and that they will emerge as one of the great economic and military powers of the 21st century. He even believes that they'll be strong enough to go to war against America some time in the second half of the century.

I would gladly swap Europe's approach to dealing with their demographic problems for Japan's approach. The Japanese population might be alot smaller in 2100 than it is today but at least Japan will still be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now.

Manic Moran

PaulieD wrote: »

You believe wrong.

[/I]

In fairness, there is the caveat "If there is a job available".

Now, you can make the argument that if there's unemployment in a country, then there are no jobs available, but that's a slightly different kettle of fish.

NTM

Sesshoumaru

djpbarry wrote:

How does one define ‘indigenous culture’? Is a loss of ‘indigenous culture’ always a bad thing? More to the point, should we endeavour to ‘freeze’ our culture, as it were, to prevent it from changing in the future? After all, a changing culture inevitably means a loss of certain elements of a culture.

Well without consulting Google, I'd simply think of it as local language, customs, traditions & social norms etc.

No I don't think we should freeze our culture either. At certain levels of immigration you have a blending of cultures with the local culture normally taking precedence simply due to the volume of practitioners. However once immigration reaches drastically high levels the local culture no longer merges with that of the newcomers, it is simply replaced. Just look what happened in America when Europeans started emigrating there. Did the indigenous culture of the Native Americans merge/change with that of the immigrant Europeans? or was it simply wiped out?

djpbarry wrote:

Fair enough, but not everybody can be an entrepreneur. Furthermore, having industry experience is a big advantage if you’re planning on starting your own business.

And not everyone is useful to our society. Some immigrants are and some aren't.

djpbarry wrote:

Maybe we should stop thinking of these people as commodities and start thinking of them as free-thinking individuals? If somebody wants to come to Europe to work that generally benefits us and it also benefits them. Furthermore, if they send money home to their family, the benefit is spread. Further benefit is obtained if the individual decides to return home at some point and (for example) sets up their own business in their home country.

I don't have a problem with this. If we have millions unemployed but we need a brain surgeon, I'm not expecting we wait 10 years while we train up some unemployed native European. Of course letting in someone like this benefits us and benefits the immigrant. I'm all for filling shortages in different sectors with immigrants if it's unreasonable to expect to be able to get unemployed locals to fill that position within a reasonable time frame. We have to act fast after all to maintain our global competitive advantage in business.

djpbarry wrote:

My point is that should a situation arise in which a developing world no longer exists, I think most people would gladly accept any associated problems in exchange for today’s difficulties. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to be faced with such a dilemma any time soon (and I don’t think our grandkids will be either).

That's not an excuse to ignore the potential consequences of our actions today. Would you accept massive increases on todays CO2 levels if that helped developing countries build their economies to developed world levels?

djpbarry wrote:

Prove it. Anything I’ve read has suggested that Japan’s workforce is shrinking rapidly (far faster than anything technology can keep pace with) and their economy is going to shrink with it. It’s fantastical to expect the necessary technology to replace all these workers to be rolled out in a matter of years. For all the advances that have been made in robotics and automation, robots are still pretty stupid (and are certainly no replacement for a human).

You're asking the impossible. Unless you've got a time machine? I'm simply offering my opinion that the rate at which technology is progressing is exponentially increasing. This is simply illustrated by measuring how long each technology age lasts before we progress to the next. Stone Age -> Copper -> Bronze -> Iron -> Steam -> Fossil -> Nuclear -> Electronics -> Bio Tech Just take a look at the time lines!

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/timeline1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_inventions

Just even examine how exponentially fast the internet has grown!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/interactive/2009/oct/23/internet-arpanet

It's very clear that the rate of change is accelerating, the next 30 years won't have the same rate of change as the last 30. It will be greater by several factors.

You're simply not factoring in the acceleration in rate of change.

djpbarry wrote:

But I haven’t suggested any levels? All I’m suggesting is we let people do what they want? Speaking very generally, if somebody wants to come to Europe from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) to work and there is a job available for them, let them (and vice versa).

If there is a job available for them that no local person can fill within a reasonable time frame. I don't see the Africans acting all happy with the Chinese importing thousands upon thousands of Han Chinese to African countries to fill jobs with Chinese companies in those regions that locals would be more than happy to do! Why should we be happy to do it to ourselves?

ei.sdraob

O'Morris wrote: »

Read the book "The next 100 years" by the American political scientist George Friedman. He predicts that the Japanese will learn to deal with their demographic problems and that they will emerge as one of the great economic and military powers of the 21st century. He even believes that they'll be strong enough to go to war against America some time in the second half of the century.

I would gladly swap Europe's approach to dealing with their demographic problems for Japan's approach. The Japanese population might be alot smaller in 2100 than it is today but at least Japan will still be a Japanese country in a hundred years from now.

you are actually excited of a prospect of WW3?

nationalism does it ever not end in war

Sesshoumaru

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you are actually excited of a prospect of WW3?

nationalism does it ever not end in war

I didn't interpret anything he wrote as being excited about war. Just as I've been saying, Japan will be ideally placed to benefit in the future when having large numbers of people is a disability.

ei.sdraob

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I didn't interpret anything he wrote as being excited about war. Just as I've been saying, Japan will be ideally placed to benefit in the future when having large numbers of people is a disability.

You should read his past posts or threads

the guy revels in nationalism/racism/conflict


anyways as i said thruout this thread, i dont see why falling populations are a problem, if anything its a good thing, and technology is the answer to alot of problems, you know what they say when theres a will theres a way


i also posted an article to the economist, birth rates in all countries will fall below 2.0 as they develop, its already happening

DublinWriter

mike65 wrote: »

The difference is that here (as in all Europe) todays sprogs are tomorrows pension payment creators.

Not all Mike, not all.

O'Morris

I've noticed that bad writers also tend to be bad readers.

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i also posted an article to the economist, birth rates in all countries will fall below 2.0 as they develop, its already happening

This usually happens. Africas problem is there population has gone from 200 million in the last century to 970 million today. In 40 years time they will have added another 1,000 million people. It boggles the mind what is going to happen over there and subsequently over here.

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

This usually happens. Africas problem is there population has gone from 200 million in the last century to 970 million today. In 40 years time they will have added another 1,000 million people. It boggles the mind what is going to happen over there and subsequently over here.

probably conventional warfare or more genocide while rest of the world stands back as usual

but populations will stabilize

the best way to help africa as i said is investment (As the Chinese are doing) not aid

the west can more than afford a Marshall Plan 2.0 and it will pay itself back several times over

Sesshoumaru

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the best way to help africa as i said is investment (As the Chinese are doing) not aid

I wouldn't hold the Chinese up as an example of benign investment in Africa. Racism is both extreme and common among the Han Chinese. They frequently look down on anybody who isn't a successful as they are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/01/lou-jing-chinese-talent-show
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100015435/are-the-chinese-racist/

bill_ashmount

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the best way to help africa as i said is investment (As the Chinese are doing) not aid

Hmm, I don't think Africa will come out best in this relationship.

ei.sdraob

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Hmm, I don't think Africa will come out best in this relationship.

why not?

the US invested in Europe and Ireland thru'out 20th century

now we have better living standards than them