Quote: (10-04-2015 01:45 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2015 01:21 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:
Keep the BAD immigrants out, and gladly welcome the GOOD ones.
Why? Why should even the "good" ones be welcomed? What if the "good" ones come and their kids displace the natives' kids from Harvard or medical school, are they still "good" then? And what if the good immigrants become a critical mass at certain institutions that the natives created and begin to engage in nepotism, only hiring their co-ethnics at the expense of the natives? I'm using the word "if" but actually these scenarios are far from hypothetical. It's exactly what has happened with Asian immigration to N.A. and Australia.
And what has been the upside? The population is bigger, woo fucking whoo. Seriously. Unless the immigrant in question is a bona fide superstar of the caliber of a Fermi or an Einstein, there is almost no upside. And those superstars are exceedingly rare. I'm happy with importing all 20 of them a year. But 2 million? Give me a break. Your "good" immigrants for the most part end up displacing natives from lucrative fields (see: medicine, dentistry) or simply making fields less lucrative (IT) by increasing the supply of labor. And of course the more of them come, housing prices increase (making it more expensive for the natives to have kids, since we're on the topic), the traffic gets worse, the public spaces are more crowded. The country becomes less livable. Forget it.
I also agree with you on all points with some additions:
+ No one needs population growth in terms of required labor force. As you have correctly put it - currently work is being shifted via free trade to Asia, but sooner or later that will stop as well since technological unemployment will make most current work obsolete. We will simply need even less people to upkeep civilization.
+ Growth is only required for one simple reason: USURY - when 99% of all money is created as debt AT INTEREST and the interest is not created as well, then it must be generated somehow. That means that all growth is necessitated via usury. No country on earth would have to borrow anything and no human on earth should borrow at interest for the self-used property he requires for living. So long as we have this money system, then we MUST FORCE growth because debt and interest needs to be repaid. Of course since it is even with massive population growth impossible to repay the debt, then periodically currencies have to be devalued, reset via war, economic collapses etc.
+ As Fast Eddie put it so eloquently - no one needs any worker - not high or low-skilled. The couple dozen real geniuses and sports superstars we can let in gladly - they are as he correctly put exceedingly rare. For any other there is useless wage pressure and displacement of locals.
+ However one of the reasons why the global money elite keeps on pushing with fertile immigrants from the South for the US, Canada, Australia and the EU is because even if those workers don't create any work, even if they don't work at all as in the case of the EU - then they are pumping up the GDP via transfer payments from the budget - effectively rising debt. All that immigration currently does is expand the government debt faster making the next economic collapse a reality sooner. But it kicks the can further down the line and the system of usury and fractional reserve banking in place.
+ As for Earth maximum carrying capacity - yes - we could have more people on Earth. In fact you can settle the entire human population of the Earth in Texas - giving each 4 individuals 400m2 of land. The rest of Earth would be free of humans. Currently the distribution is just off and the cities are crappy. Also the technologies are still very primitive. Still - I am no fan of 100 billion , 10 trillion people on earth. For civilization we don't even need 500 million. So I wouldn't promote any further growth just so that the 0,0001% can rule via their stupid usury system which has an inbuilt periodic bankruptcy and transfer scam in it.
Declining birthrates are good, though a lot of it is created by the very same usury top who poison us through toxic food, medicine, feminism, poverty etc. However even in an ideal system I would limit the number of children to 2 - more if you have only girls. It's always good to have more women than men - vice versa is not so good. Women behave much better when there is less of us than them and for procreation some will gladly wife up 2 if they absolutely have to. The other system of polyamory is just crap. One woman getting pregnant by two dudes is just stupid while one daddy having two mommas is much better.
Happy man, happy women:
Everyone unhappy: