Divergence,

I agree with you that, as populations live longer, and healthier age-for-age, people can fairly happily work more years, and the age-pension can be pushed up in step with life expectancy. It may be that, as cures are found for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and arthritis, thanks to human innovation, any worry about younger generations having to support growing numbers of non-working elderly will prove to be a non-issue.

On the other hand, the education of those younger generations may stretch out as the economy and society require people with higher qualifications. Win some, lose some.

But this can be handled equitably and relatively problem-free if the birth-rate is just below replacement rate, 1.9 or so. A birth-rate of 1.5 births per couple would indicate a decline of a quarter of the population of each new generation, and a quarter again, and so on. In the future, around 2100, hypothetically three generations hence, the youngest generation would be far out-numbered by those over seventy or seventy five. And in turn they would have a similar unbalanced ration of old-to-young in their turn.

A program of rapid birth-rate decline would therefore be a program for passing huge burdens onto each young generation of working population. Even so, it would take the best part of a century for the population to stabilise, and then decline.

So of course we do it more slowly, if - from our Olympean heights - we can control the process at all. Perhaps over several centuries ? Or can technological innovation, medical advances, etc., keep pace with that very gradual slowing in population growth in the meantime ?

I agree with Paddy King, that it' not really a major problem. Really, i don't think it's even a minor problem, but there you go. People are a positive. Slower population growth will come about, with women's education, and the costs and length of education generally, and preference for smaller families. It's not something I waste a minute of sleep over. Sorry.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Loudmouth “How do you propose that world population can be reduced - not just stabilised but reduced ?”

Couldn't care less about world population.

My concern is with Australia and other Western countries, which *would* actually be reducing if it weren't for immigration.

What is the point of a low birth rate if immigration overwhelms it?

“passing huge burdens onto each young generation of working population”

Income tax is only half the total taxes and I'd like to see companies/businesses pay more by eliminating all the twists and turns available to minimise tax.

No matter how many “workers” there are, businesses will and must make money.
A business can make millions with a dozen employees.
It is commercial income that should produce the majority of tax revenue, regardless of how much human labour exists.

Pensions should not be available to people with expensive property.
What is the point of “assets” if you don't cash in when you need the dough?
No, you don't have to leave your home. Ever heard of leaseback?

“Or are you proposing something more 'subtractive'?”

Like oooh... DEATH CAMPS!
Only for progressives (a technical label that has nothing to do with real “progress”).
Traitors deserve execution.

The next influenza epidemic will solve any “overpopulation” problem.
Nature knows how to kill. No need for human actions.

Influenza won't stop the stealth genocide of Whites though.
In fact, it would only encourage the multopians to advocate higher-than-ever immigration.

“It's not something I waste a minute of sleep over.”

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on something you consider irrelevant.
And where's that list of “ifs” you accused me of?

Distinct ethnic biological types and their related cultures are *fact*.
Whether they can survive an onslaught of competing genes and memes is the “if”.

3 out of 4 immigrants now come from unrelated genetic/memetic groups.
How do you think we can survive as *our type* with that kind of drastic change?

Hi Shockadelic,

Ah, I get it now, you're not anti-world-population-growth, just against the growth in Australia from immigration, is that right ? And you're against inter-marriage too, have I got that correct ?

I think the horse has well and truly bolted on that last point, but you are free not to marry someone from another group if that is your preference. You're missing out on a wonderful experience, by the way: my wife was Aboriginal, and I was incredibly lucky to have those forty-odd years with her. So I'm not the person to talk to about segregation of groups. Incidentally, inter-marriage tends to produce more beautiful kids so that can't be a bad thing.

As for immigration to Australia, I can appreciate that, since immigrants tend to be young, and to build their families in the country of destination, whether, say, an Iraqi is a migrant or a refugee or someone here on a 457 visa, they will indirectly add to Australia's population while, notionally, reducing the potential population in Iraq.

In those two senses, immigration and family construction, the process increases Australia's population: you're right if you are asserting this. But of course, those relatively younger people contribute to Australia's well-being by working and paying taxes, and by their very presence and contributions, they are helping to maintain a healthy population growth which would otherwise be stagnant and loaded towards the older end of the population spectrum.

In other words, without the efforts of migrants and refugees, Australia is in danger of developing a lop-sided population, one which increasingly needs support from a shrinking population of workers.

So thank goodness for immigration :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, I never said anything about inter-marriage or segregation.
I would oppose those restrictions on the liberty of *citizens*.
This isn't about citizens, but foreigners (who have no "rights" in Australia unless we say so).

Mixing genetic strains can produce beauty.
Or hideous dumb freaks (outbreeding depression).

It will also suppress recessive traits like eye and hair colours, many of which are *non-existent* among Africans and Asians.

"I think the horse has well and truly bolted".

No, it hasn't.
Despite all the immigration in Australia and the West in recent decades, the vast majority of the population in all Western countries is the traditional one.

If non-White immigration stopped, the "ethnic" numbers would reduce to about a third of their current level, due to natural deaths, non-procreation (half are too old to have kids) and emigration (a quarter leave. I wish we knew the ethnicity of emigrating "Australians". Many are probably minorities returning to ancestral homelands).

"my wife was Aboriginal"

And immigration policy has no effect on White-Aboriginal relationships.

"those relatively younger people contribute to Australia's well-being by working and paying taxes"

Do they? Look at the unemployment rates in some communities!

Contribute? So would *any* White people, and they'd do so much quicker and easier.
They're already familiar with a similar people/culture/language, part of the same civilisation, and don't have a big chip on their shoulder about "Whitey".

"a lop-sided population, a shrinking population of workers."

Nonsense. Wealth creation (and therefore taxation) is not determined by a head count.
Creativity, strategy, efficiency and profitability create wealth.
A business with only a dozen staff can produce millions in income.

All arguments favourable to immigration still don't justify an "anything and everything all at once, no matter what" policy.

This policy is *dangerous*.

If one wants it all, at least do it incrementally.
And with democratic consent.

Slowly, and I mean slowly, expanding the range over *centuries*.
We started to do this with the "wogs", but then just took the whole door of the hinges.

But I never hear Multopians promote a democratic/gradualist policy, so I cannot support them.

Hi Shockadelic,

Forgive me, I misunderstood your position, I thought you were opposed to migration and therefore one if its corollaries, inter-marriage.

I don't know that inter-marriage has ever produced 'dumb freaks': perhaps you have evidence of that ?

But yes, the horse HAS bolted on the issue of inter-marriage: just watch kids coming out of a high school, with Asian and African and Indian and Hazara kids mixing freely with Anglos. Inter-marriage can be expected to follow in due course.

And Australia will never stop immigration from non-Anglo coutries. You might just have to get used to that :)

As for contributions, you may notice that non-Anglos are very often at the forefront of new ideas, scientific breakthroughs, brilliant new ideas. After all, immigrants tend to be, almost by definition, get-up-and-go people. That's one of the lessons of history.

No, it's not all sweetness and light, many immigrants, particularly genuine refugees who would perhaps rather be back home, but circumstances preclude that, may find it difficult to adjust, but most give it their best shot, I would suggest.

My point about a shrinking body of workers, in the absence of immigration and the prevalence of a lower 'domestic' birth-rate, a relatively growing older, non-working population has to be supported by relatively fewer workers.

As you say, 'All arguments favourable to immigration still don't justify an "anything and everything all at once, no matter what" policy.' I don't know of anybody who is advocating such a course, whatever it may mean.

And when you suggest that 'If one wants it all, at least do it incrementally. And with democratic consent..... '

one could apply that principle to population reduction generally as well. Or do you have more drastic 'solutions' ?

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Loudmouth "I thought you were opposed to migration and therefore one if its corollaries, inter-marriage."

I'm concerned with the cause, not the symptoms.

It's like banning the burqa, instead of restricting immigrants likely to wear them.

"I don't know that inter-marriage has ever produced 'dumb freaks'"

Outbreeding depression is an accepted concept in biology.
It is the evil twin of hybrid vigor.
The crazy uncle Multopians hide in the basement.

"Lower fitness" can result from interbreeding dissimilar "populations" since there is no precedent for their mixing.
Outcomes can vary wildly.

For thousands of years, Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid populations had almost no interbreeding, except in borderlands between the Caucasoid and the others (There is no borderland between Negroid and Mongoloid).

Sometimes the first hybrid generation benefits from mixing (your "beautiful" people) but deteriorates with subsequent generations (especially hybrids who breed with hybrids).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

"Asian and African and Indian and Hazara kids mixing freely with Anglos."

What I see on the street: Asians with Asians, Middle Eastern with Middle Eastern, White with White.

"And Australia will never stop immigration from non-Anglo coutries."

Never say never.
Once upon a time, they would have said it would "never" start.

Political policies are choices, not inevitabilities.

"often at the forefront... immigrants tend to be get-up-and-go people."

Maybe the *first* generation.
They *chose* to be here.
It's the subsequent generations that often have, and are, the most trouble. They made no such choice.

"relatively fewer workers"

Head counts don't matter. Look at The Beatles.
Just *four* men (five if you include George Martin).
Billions were generated from their creativity.
They even wrote a song about being taxed.

"I don't know of anybody who is advocating such a course"

No need to advocate what we've already got.

A democratic-gradualist approach, no matter how sensible, will never be acceptable to Multopian fanatics, as it would require:
(1) reverting to a very restricted range to begin with, and
(2) democratic approval could mean Australians say "No" to some ethnicities. Shock horror!

That's why "Australia will never stop immigration from non-Anglo countries".
Not until "The Troubles" start.