oughterard people - see OP for Mod warning 29/09/19

beejee

Arghus wrote: »

The system - if we're still talking about the example of Japan here - isn't failing because there's too many people. It's failing because there isn't enough.

There's a burden on the financial capability of the state because an aging population doesn't work as much, requires more heathcare and the demographics are out of whack, so the younger, fitter population whose taxes etc, etc would traditionally be used to provide the means to look after the older share of the population aren't there in enough numbers to make that model sustainable in the long term.

If it is failing, then it's failing because of their demographic inequality... In other words, too many people to look after.

Too many people. Same thing.

They're going to have to deal with their own problem themselves. That's a shocking thing to say nowadays, to infer ownership and responsibility of your own making!

Shipping in poor people to wipe your incontinent hole isn't going to solve anything. It's actually a reprehensible idea when you put an ounce of thought into it.

Arghus

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

It certainly will be dramatic when it all kicks off, early to mid-2030's will see millions (of even moderately skilled) thrown on the scrapheap.

Make no mistake when a (24/7) robot makes fiscal sense on a corp's P&L account or EOY Balance Sheet, that's it game over for Joe & Jane within that corp when the make the investment decision.

No one takes their horse out to plough a field anymore, and even Amazon warehouses today have robots moving about and able to avoid humans that 'get in the way' of their non-stop work ethic.

The only way it can all be paid for (UBI) is wealth distribution, but ask the average billionaire to pay more tax, and they'll head off around the Med in a Superyacht on the back of their staff's pension fund instead.

It's interesting that you use the example of a horse. Now, horses didn't have much of a say about their increased obsolescence, but plenty of Joe and Janes will - particularly if it happens quickly. I think there's a lot of utopian thinking out there about the potential unplanned societal ramifications of the automated future and it mightn't be as much of a slam dunk as people think.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

The system - if we're still talking about the example of Japan here - isn't failing because there's too many people. It's failing because there isn't enough.

There's a burden on the financial capability of the state because an aging population doesn't work as much, requires more heathcare and the demographics are out of whack, so the younger, fitter population whose taxes etc, etc would traditionally be used to provide the means to look after the older share of the population aren't there in enough numbers to make that model sustainable in the long term.

Everyone makes this argument, but I've rarely seen it properly cited.

If we were so caught for money, we could always raise corporate taxes, for example.

Arghus

beejee wrote: »

If it is failing, then it's failing because of their demographic inequality... In other words, too many people to look after.

Too many people. Same thing.

They're going to have to deal with their own problem themselves. That's a shocking thing to say nowadays, to infer ownership and responsibility of your own making!

Shipping in poor people to wipe your incontinent hole isn't going to solve anything. It's actually a reprehensible idea when you put an ounce of thought into it.

I don't agree with you.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everyone makes this argument, but I've rarely seen it properly cited.

If we were so caught for money, we could always raise corporate taxes, for example.

It's not an argument that's usually applied to Ireland, because we're still demographically fairly balanced, but it's a pattern that has emerged in other countries will lower birth rates and older populations.

We could raise corporate tax, I suppose, if only we weren't always in mortal fear of losing their patronage.

beejee

Arghus wrote: »

I don't agree with you.

One side of an argument may be based on science, responsibility, ethics, reason and logic.

And then there's people who don't agree with the likes of gravity. Argue about gravity all you like, see what difference it makes.

Shipping vast, vast amounts of people, quite literally population replacement levels, into a country in order to justify the temporary sustenance of a failed system is barking mad. And it won't ever be NOT Barking mad

Arghus

beejee wrote: »

One side of an argument may be based on science, responsibility, ethics, reason and logic.

And then there's people who don't agree with the likes of gravity. Argue about gravity all you like, see what difference it makes.

Shipping vast, vast amounts of people, quite literally population replacement levels, into a country in order to justify the temporary sustenance of a failed system is barking mad. And it won't ever be NOT Barking mad

I don't really know what side of the argument you see yourself on there to be honest.

4068ac1elhodqr

Arghus wrote: »

It's interesting that you use the example of a horse. Now, horses didn't have much of a say about their increased obsolescence, but plenty of Joe and Janes will - particularly if it happens quickly. I think there's a lot of utopian thinking out there about the potential unplanned societal ramifications of the automated future and it mightn't be as much of a slam dunk as people think.

Nevermind the horse, ask the people that used to work in warehousing, retail, fast-food, cleaning, admin, insurance and other low-grade work, that are getting replaced day after day. You can't argue with a notice to lay-off.

'Some' new jobs will be created, but these will be 'very high skilled' jobs.

Abu 25 from Timbuktu who's school was a mudhut and has a wife that's 'not allowed' to work (by him), only has a basic grasp of English.

He might like the sound of the average wages of being an AI Machine Learning Engineer, Framework Systems Analyst or Digital Product Owner. His ability and aptitude to train for such, and thus his end-reality, might be different indeed.

cameramonkey

What ever about the rights and wrongs of asylum seekers who really thinks that it is a good idea to put a large amount of them in a small town in the west of Ireland. I doubt the asylum seekers want to go there and the locals obviously don't want them

beejee

Arghus wrote: »

I don't really know what side of the argument you see yourself on there to be honest.

I wouldn't expect anything more!

Arghus

Wibbs wrote: »

Yup, that would nail a lot of it for me. Now lord knows the Japanese culture has give rise to utter utter scumbags and cultural scumbaggery in the past when it came to the "other". Evil inhuman bastards at times frankly. However one leaf the west might take from their book - and one we wrote and read ourselves not too long ago - was a deep pride in our cultures and deeply hard fought cultures with it. And we have much to be proud of. Well, how many Europeans are climbing on boats to cross to the Middle East or Africa? None. We are the promised land and that is something to be proud of and something to defend.

Much to be proud of, I agree, and I am grateful I live in a relatively prosperous and stable part of the world.

But this talk about defending the promised land is a bit problematic.

Danzy

Arghus wrote: »

Much to be proud of, I agree, and I am grateful I live in a relatively prosperous and stable part of the world.

But this talk about defending the promised land is a bit problematic.

May be people are coming at this from a different class perspective.

Lawson Ambitious Condo

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Nevermind the horse, ask the people that used to work in warehousing, retail, fast-food, cleaning, admin, insurance and other low-grade work, that are getting replaced day after day. You can't argue with a notice to lay-off.

'Some' new jobs will be created, but these will be 'very high skilled' jobs.

True, it's already happening on a massive scale. Read this and weep.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amysterling/2019/06/15/automated-future/#56cb0afc779d

Arghus

beejee wrote: »

I wouldn't expect anything more!

I don't think I've said anything to outlandish in our back and forth too be honest. I'm not arguing in favour of mass unchecked immigration, which I think is crazy. I think that immigration, when used judiciously and depending on circumstances, can have advantages. Which, I'm sure even some the people thanking your posts would broadly agree with.

Arghus

Danzy wrote: »

May be people are coming at this from a different class perspective.

Another zinger. You got me there, almost made me drop my well thumbed copy of Das Kapital.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Much to be proud of, I agree, and I am grateful I live in a relatively prosperous and stable part of the world.

But this talk about defending the promised land is a bit problematic.

It is problematic, absolutely, but it's still necessary to discuss it. 40% of jobs in Ireland are under threat of automation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/two-out-of-five-jobs-in-republic-at-risk-of-being-lost-to-automation-1.3801703

Let's say only half that comes to pass, and the unemployment figures jump by the equivalent of 20% mentioned above, how do you think our current system would cope? Paradoxically, the workers we want to be attracted to here, won't want to stay here because of our high taxes, high cost of living and poor services.

The future of work is skilled workers being very mobile, and others never working much at all.

Danzy

Arghus wrote: »

Another zinger. You got me there, almost made me drop my well thumbed copy of Das Kapital.

Lol.

The biggest fans of this radical free market experiment tend to be rich, call it solidarity or internationalism or free market.

The class element is the prime.

beejee

Arghus wrote: »

I don't think I've said anything to outlandish in our back and forth too be honest. I'm not arguing in favour of mass unchecked immigration, which I think is crazy. I think that immigration, when used judiciously and depending on circumstances, can have advantages. Which, I'm sure even some the people thanking your posts would broadly agree with.

You haven't said anything outlandish. But outlandish as in "false wisdom"? I've heard it a thousand times over. Like anti-vaccination people, only more of them. They wouldn't find anything outlandish between themselves either. Doesn't make their claims impervious to any sort of scrutiny though!

And when it comes to "judicious" amounts of immigration, you are quite literally talking about replacing an entire segment of population. Thats not "judicious" to me, that's crazy.

What's worse is the further implication.

Assuming that certain nations have constrained their populations to fit purpose... Then the ultimate, and quick, conclusion is that the indigenous population is quite literally gone within a couple generations.

Replace the massive shortfall of people in a country to take care of the elderly. Meanwhile, the conditions that led to a decreased indigenous population are not allowed change, so they continue to need replacement.

BUT!

There is also the "new population" as well, and seeing as they exist to maintain the initial problem, ie too many people, then they TOO will need massive immigration.

The end result is that the entire indigenous population is quite literally gone, and to boot, even the replacement population will need to be rapidly "replenished" .

It's a dystopian nightmare. Nothing gets solved, and an entire indigenous people disappear.

It's simple to follow. But then vaccination is supposed to be a simple concept too!

But worry not, that crazy stuff won't last in the face of reality. This is all an embarrassing blip in history as people wake up to the reality at hand. It'll be "fought" all the way of course

beejee

beejee wrote: »

You haven't said anything outlandish. But outlandish as in "false wisdom"? I've heard it a thousand times over. Like anti-vaccination people, only more of them. They wouldn't find anything outlandish between themselves either. Doesn't make their claims impervious to any sort of scrutiny though!

And when it comes to "judicious" amounts of immigration, you are quite literally talking about replacing an entire segment of population. Thats not "judicious" to me, that's crazy.

What's worse is the further implication.

Assuming that certain nations have constrained their populations to fit purpose... Then the ultimate, and quick, conclusion is that the indigenous population is quite literally gone within a couple generations.

Replace the massive shortfall of people in a country to take care of the elderly. Meanwhile, the conditions that led to a decreased indigenous population are not allowed change, so they continue to need replacement.

BUT!

There is also the "new population" as well, and seeing as they exist to maintain the initial problem, ie too many people, then they TOO will need massive immigration.

The end result is that the entire indigenous population is quite literally gone, and to boot, even the replacement population will need to be rapidly "replenished" .

It's a dystopian nightmare. Nothing gets solved, and an entire indigenous people disappear.

It's simple to follow. But then vaccination is supposed to be a simple concept too!

But worry not, that crazy stuff won't last in the face of reality. This is all an embarrassing blip in history as people wake up to the reality at hand. It'll be "fought" all the way of course

Here's a simple way to imagine the problem.

A bucket of blue water. The "luxury" of the bucket is to drink from the brim of it.

But imagine a hole halfway up the side of the bucket. The blue water leaks out until it reaches a sustainable level, ie level with the hole.

But people want that luxury! They insist on refilling the bucket with red water, just so as it reaches the top to drink.

But it's never ending. More and more red water must be continually added to overcome the hole (natural equilibrium)

Eventually, and quickly, there is no blue water left at all.

The hole hasn't been fixed and won't be fixed.
Why fix something when you can keep filling and filling and filling? No incentive.

Just a dreadfully inadequate plan, in about every respect!

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

The end result is that the entire indigenous population is quite literally gone, and to boot, even the replacement population will need to be rapidly "replenished" .

It's a dystopian nightmare. Nothing gets solved, and an entire indigenous people disappear.

This happened in the Americas. Not quite literally, but as near as dammit. But looking at the make up of the crowd in Croke Park, and in Derry at the League Cup Final, I think the Irish race is safe from extinction.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This happened in the Americas. Not quite literally, but as near as dammit. But looking at the make up of the crowd in Croke Park, and in Derry at the League Cup Final, I think the Irish race is safe from extinction.

"there's a precedent, but I don't see it right now, therefore it's not a problem"

This, in the face of some arguing for a system that will inevitably replicate the precedent.

What am I supposed to say to that?

Like telling a junkie that his plan to continue being a junkie will destroy him. And then he replies "but I'm still alive right now"

Are you supposed to build a time machine, take pictures of the funeral, zip back in time and show the junkie? You'd probably still get the slurred "but I'm alive right now"

PMBC

dxhound2005 wrote: »

They had some good policies to reduce the population.

Do you think the Nazi policy of reducing the Jewish population using genocide and death camps was a good policy?

PMBC

Commenting on a previous post I think its simpler than that - DoJ are sourcing the cheapest place not the best place

ThunbergsAreGo

cameramonkey wrote: »

What ever about the rights and wrongs of asylum seekers who really thinks that it is a good idea to put a large amount of them in a small town in the west of Ireland. I doubt the asylum seekers want to go there and the locals obviously don't want them

Genuine Asylum Seekers would be, you would imagine. Given they are escaping from war and genuinely feared for their life. Somewhere safe where they are fed is so important for them. They won't care where it is.

Who cares what illegal or fake migrants want, they shouldn't be a priority and should be weeded out and deported..

Ash.J.Williams

PMBC wrote: »

Do you think the Nazi policy of reducing the Jewish population using genocide and death camps was a good policy?

Effective

Zorya

Am I getting this right - are there at least 2 posters in this thread - one of whom at least seems to be a left wing progressive type - expressing some sneaking admiration for Hitlers policies regarding populations?
Maybe it's a new kind of irony with the young folk....

Ash.J.Williams

Zorya wrote: »

Am I getting this right - are there at least 2 posters in this thread - one of whom at least seems to be a left wing progressive type - expressing some sneaking admiration for Hitlers policies regarding populations?
Maybe it's a new kind of irony with the young folk....

All the kids are into Hitler these days

Zorya

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

All the kids are into Hitler these days

Ohhhh Kaaaayyyy. I guess we must always encourage the young

http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2006/01/09/encouraging-the-young-by-margaret-atwood/

Zorya

Some people on the thread have mentioned the EU influence on this subject of migration.

For this clip I purposely chose a Twitter account that cannot be written off as a right wing whatever your having yourself etc...

This is Guy Verofstadt I think yesterday speaking to the Lib Dems in Bournemouth. Guy Verofstadt is a Belgian who has served in the EU since 2009. He is slated to be a future President of the European Parliament. Frankly I find him bizarre and scary. Empire??

https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1173157909947133953

jackboy

Zorya wrote: »

Some people on the thread have mentioned the EU influence on this subject of migration.

For this clip I purposely chose a Twitter account that cannot be written off as a right wing whatever your having yourself etc...

This is Guy Verofstadt I think yesterday speaking to the Lib Dems in Bournemouth. Guy Verofstadt is a Belgian who has served in the EU since 2009. He is slated to be a future President of the European Parliament. Frankly I find him bizarre and scary. Empire??

https://twitter.com/TomKibasi/status/1173157909947133953

What kind of utter idiots in the audience where cheering and clapping this openly anti democratic nonsense.