Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know quite what to make of this. The bizarre article in the OP by Joseph Chamie seems to be from a legitimate academic source and not satire. But here is an article from the same author taking the exact opposite point of view:
Quote:
In addition to measures to increase fertility levels, Ponzi demography also
turns to immigration for additional population growth in order to boost
companies' profits. The standard slogan in this instance is “the country
urgently needs increased immigration,” even when immigration may already be at
record levels and unemployment rates are high.
Among other things, increased immigration, it is declared, is a matter of
national security, long-term prosperity and international competitiveness.
Without this needed immigration, Ponzi demography warns that the country’s
future is at serious risk.
Another basic tactic of Ponzi demography is a pervasive and unrelenting
public relations campaign promoting the advantages and necessity of an
increasing population for continued economic growth. Every effort is made to
equate population growth with economic prosperity and national progress.
"Economic growth requires population growth" is the basic message that Ponzi
demography wants the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional
profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.
Attempts to question or even discuss Ponzi demography are denigrated and
defamed to such an extent that concerns about population growth become
radioactive. Politicians, journalists and environmentalists, for example,
choose by and large to sidestep the entire issue.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Honestly at this point, that land has much better societal value as a park than it does in its current capacity. Has the UN truly been beneficial to the US in the twenty years? They've used us as the world police. They've tried to dictate laws to us that have gone against our Constitution. They've given legitimacy and a platform to rogue nations that are a blight on this planet. I do believe an argument could be made that the UN is a failed exercise and should be, at the very least, removed from US soil.
While it may have made some worthwhile humanitarian efforts it seems the most the UN generally accomplishes is giving a large group of diplomats and hangers-on the opportunity to live lavish lifestyles at the expense of their respective governments and do their Christmas shopping in New York City.
Instead of this absurd proposal I suggest we heavily restrict immigration along with encouraging a below replacement birth rate until the population decreases to around 200 million. This lower population would all have sufficient work to maintain the economy as well as living much more satisfying lives free of over crowding and poverty.
Quality Over Quantity. Now there's a concept!
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
There are several problems with your theory. First, the land and resources are limited. Once a population reaches a critical mass, those resources become too scarce and widespread issues with poverty and resulting crime become prevalent. Also, there is a huge assumption on your part that taking in the myriad of immigrants (beyond the normal means of making sure they are a benefit to our society) would result in increased innovation and power. However, do poor immigrants with little to no education truly have the capacity to do so? In history, immigrants could go west and help colonize and settle previously unsettled locations. This required simply a strong work ethic and strong back.
However, we as a nation no longer have the same issues and same construct as that previous time period. The land has been conquered, for a lack of better word, and what we need now are immigrants that have a positive and quantified benefit to our society. The time for taking in any and all comers has passed. We are no longer a brand new nation struggling to find our place in the world. Thus, we must, dare I say, progress past this point and consider this poem for what it is - a poem.
Another strong contribution!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
I don't know quite what to make of this. The bizarre article in the OP by Joseph Chamie seems to be from a legitimate academic source and not satire. But here is an article from the same author taking the exact opposite point of view:
It is simply a prediction. People may live well into their mid 100s by 2100 which would cause huge demographic shifts. America has always been a country of immigrants, it is probably a good idea to factor that notion into this prediction. Not sure why so many people getting their panties in a wad over this... unless you hate immigrants.
Yet it was put in NYC..... where most of the immigrants were coming into... in plain view of said immigrants coming into this country.
It makes sense to me. This is what you're getting! In theory, anyway.
And in fact, liberty is what many achieved, particularly compared with what they had before.
It still remains the Statue of Liberty not the Statue of Immigration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
