Replacement migration to prevent the decline of population of working age (annual average)
Germany: 490 000 (net)
Canada: 165 000 (number of immigrants)
United States: 360 000 (net)
Europe: 3 230 000 (net)
Japan 650 000 (net)
Quebec: 70 000 (number of immigrants)
Russia: 715 000 (net)
Slovenia: 240 000 (additional immigrants relative to the reference)
The population explosion feared in the seventies did not happen. We have a population disaster all over the developed world. Europe and the USA are trying to solve the problem by population replacement, but the natives are restless. The Asian developed countries (Taiwan, South Korea, Singapur, Japan) are doing nothing, having apparently accepted a declining future.
Something has to be done.
The chimp in the pic has just replaced an European. His work ethics seem to be different from the natives.
But we may have the solution. The world will hate us more than ever.
15 comments:
Really these figures should be given as % of the population - if the US needs 360,000 people annually out of a population of 300 million, such an increase can be absorbed with barely a ripple (especially if those people are Catholic Hispanics who integrate relatively easily into US culture - the US has always had a large Catholic minority). If Slovenia, population 2 Million needs 240,000 immigrants / year (and especially if those immigrants are traditional Muslims) then their culture is utterly doomed. They are between the devil and the deep blue sea - either they will have to accept a reduction in working age population (which makes a modern welfare state even more unsustainable than it is already) or accept that their country will still exist but that their grandchildren will be strangers in their own land.
K
Possibly we in Israel have found a solution.
Bar Rafeli is solution to lack of reproduction?
No, MadIvan, religion is the solution.
The religion of the West is Narcissism.
Anon.
Yes, but who will have the children? Can you make intelligent women prostrate to mythology and become more child bearing? Likely not. Better to focus on science allowing women to have children later in life. Also, encouraging artificial insemination.
Quality vs. Quantity.
Quality vs. Quantity
Up until now, all old age pension and health care schemes have depended on a growing workforce. If you have several working people supporting each retired person, such schemes are more or less viable. If you have several retired people being supported by 1 working person, they are not. Even if we have fewer but smarter children, there won't be enough of them to pay for our retirement in many countries. Maybe once all the baby boomers are dead it will be beneficial in the long run to have a smaller population (keep in mind one that is still large by historic (pre-20th century) standards) - less competition for resources, smaller environmental footprint, less traffic and crowds, etc. But how do you make the transition?
K
AI has been available for decades. It did nothing to increase population.
Less crowds and less traffic does not work. America is empty, as is Russia.
It depends what you mean by "works"... For example, from 1900 to 1950 the population of France was more or less stable at 40 million - was their civilization any worse than it is now with 60 million? If they went back to 40 million (and made it past the transition somehow) would France no longer "work"? I grew up in a US with 200 million people and it was a more functional (and livable) society then than it is now with 300 million.
K
J. has correctly labeled his post, 'War.' Low birthrates are a form of unilateral disarmament.
It does not matter if the US once ran smoothly with 200 million people, or France with 40 million. The British Navy once ruled the seas with wooden ships. When it comes to population, both absolute and relative numbers are important.
There is a sea of difference between a stable population and an aging, declining population. France's births are less than a hundred and fifty years ago. A dying population has a distinctively pessimistic outlook, because they know that their end is near.
The only way to fix this is with the tax system, and somewhat coercively, which will require a re-thinking of our attitude to individual liberty.
What is happening is that too many people are free-riding in all sorts of ways; and this has to brought to a halt.
Heavy-handed incentives, both the carrot and the stick, are required; and financial enablement even by re-distribution if necessary, or massive tax relief to those who have kids. And then stopping handouts to those who don't reciprocate by breeding.
Sounds rather ominous and Orwellian, but I cannot see another solution. I don't think we can get out of this hole by paying other people to have our kids for us, in some science-fiction type scenario, but this might be worth exploring as a part-solution; and mass immigration is just suicide by another means.
Religion will not represent a solution in the Western world.
Anon.
Anon, Coercion does work. The Muslims shut their women in harems and put eunuchs to guard them. It works for them.
I don't know whether this is a confusion of tenses (past vs. present) or whether you meant to say that this is still being done? It's my understanding that eunuchs had pretty much died out, although Arab women are guarded in other ways.
K
Let's just cal it incentivisation, then.
Anon.
Saudi Arabia has living eunuchs. Harems are guarded as always had been. Morality police is active as always. The King of Saudi Arabia is over 85 - you cant teach new tricks to an old dog.
Post a Comment