Stupidity Without Borders

[theraven]

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/07/stupidity-without-borders-alliance-of.html

The 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries have witnessed the most spectacular population growth in human history, most of it in Third World countries. The world’s population, estimated at 6.4 billion in 2006, grows by more than 70 million people per year. In sixty years, Brazil’s population has increased by 318 per cent; Ethiopia’s by 503 per cent. There are now 73 million people in Ethiopia — more than the population of Britain or France.

At the same time, many of the most economically successful countries, both in the East and in the West, have problems with ageing or declining populations. At its peak around 1910, one-quarter of the world’s population lived in Europe or North America. Today the percentage has probably declined to about one-eighth. South Korea’s birthrate has dropped to the point where the average Korean woman is expected to have only one child throughout her life. The U.S. still has a birthrate of more than two, while the U.K. saw births inch up from 1.63 to 1.74 and Germany from 1.34 to 1.37 in the same period. The low birthrate problem in Asia is rooted in women’s rising social and economic standing. Japan’s birthrate was 1.28, comparable to Taiwan’s 1.22, and Hong Kong’s 0.94.
Birth rates in Europe

“Europe and Japan are now facing a population problem that is unprecedented in human history,” said Bill Butz, president of the Population Reference Bureau. Countries have lost people because of wars, disease and natural disasters but never because women stopped having enough children. Japan announced that its population had shrunk in 2005 for the first time, and that it was now the world’s most elderly nation. Italy was second. On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, accounting for infant mortality and other factors. Only one country in Europe – Muslim Albania – has a fertility rate above 2. Russia’s fertility rate is 1.28.

Writer Spengler in the Asia Times Online commented that demography is destiny: “Never in recorded history have prosperous and peaceful nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is what the Europeans have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black Death.” “The plague reduced the estimated European population by about a third. In the next 50 years, Europe’s population will relive — in slow motion — that plague demography, losing about a fifth of its population by 2050.”

read it all

[Janus]

What's your point?

Third world countries may have a much greater birth rate but the people also have a much smaller ecological footprint.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:44 PM
What's your point?

Third world countries may have a much greater birth rate but the people also have a much smaller ecological footprint.
that has zero relavane to the article. nice try, play some other time.

[Janus]

The portion you quoted is significant and I discussed that part.

If it's the same reactionary crap that you posted in the thread about Arabs, then I'm glad that I didn't read the whole thing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 17 2006, 07:47 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 17 2006, 07:47 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 07:44 PM
What's your point?

Third world countries may have a much greater birth rate but the people also have a much smaller ecological footprint.
that has zero relavane to the article. nice try, play some other time. [/b]
So what is the point? All it's saying is that populations have risen in the third world and fallen in the first - that's not a point that's a statement of fact.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:50 PM
The portion you quoted is significant and I discussed that part.

If it's the same reactionary crap that you posted in the thread about Arabs, then I'm glad that I didn't read the whole thing.
i quoted the beggining, it is very long. read it alll if you wan to disucss it...

[Comrade-Z]

Do you think this is a problem--that Europe's population may decline by a fifth by 2050? Isn't the world kind of burdened with human population as it is?

In fact, this is even more incentive to have more immigration. Europe keeps its population up, overburdened countries like Bangladesh lose some of their population, immigrants improve their standard of living. Everybody wins.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 17 2006, 08:41 PM
Do you think this is a problem--that Europe's population may decline by a fifth by 2050? Isn't the world kind of burdened with human population as it is?

In fact, this is even more incentive to have more immigration. Europe keeps its population up, overburdened countries like Bangladesh lose some of their population, immigrants improve their standard of living. Everybody wins.
wow somebody really needs to read the article

[LSD]

Typical European romantic nationalist crap. Protect the borders! Secure the race! and all that tired old nonsense.

Muslim immigration is the "biggest danger since the barbarian invasions"? Wow there's nothing at all hyperbolic about that.... :rolleyes:

Capitalists are always so eager to remove barriers on capital movment, but the moment that people try to follow, suddenly there's an global catastrophe. The fact is, far from muslim immigrants "destroying democracy", they are generally doing what all immigrants do, settling down and trying to make a living.

There's no grand "conspiracy of the caliphate" because there's no power structure to support it.

What's hurting workers in the first world is the bourgeoisie's ability to "outsource" their job to the third world. Capital flight is the single biggest problem in the "west", not "unsecured borders".

The "south's" main problem is economic imperialism and all the devastation that that carries with it.

You really want to stop muslims from entering your country? Well here's an idea, stop oppressing their's. Maybe then less of them will be so deseperate to flee. ;)

[VermontLeft]

shit, im not reading that whole fucking piece. although the pretty pictures were nice. :rolleyes:

you dont need fifteen fucking pages to get that old "immigrants are destroying us all" racist shit. weve all heard it before, usually more succintly though.

so a lot of immigrants are fundie muslims now? so what, most of the US immigrants were fundie Christians. doesnt seem to have made our sky fall down, so what the fucks the problem.

seriously yall have got to get over this "brown people are invading" paranoia... <_<

[theraven]

shit, im not reading that whole fucking piece. although the pretty pictures were nice. rolleyes.gif

you dont need fifteen fucking pages to get that old "immigrants are destroying us all" racist shit. weve all heard it before, usually more succintly though.

so a lot of immigrants are fundie muslims now? so what, most of the US immigrants were fundie Christians. doesnt seem to have made our sky fall down, so what the fucks the problem.

seriously yall have got to get over this "brown people are invading" paranoia... dry.gif

some of the early settlers were fundie chrsitns (pilgrims), however most fell into the "leave us alone so we can whorship god" caterogry rather then the "you must submit to our god or else" catergory. sadly fundie muslims fall into the former...

[RevSouth]

Not everyone in Africa and South America are fundie muslims. And as it turns out they immigrate too. Anyway, if the world is run over with fundamentalist (by the way, throw me some statistics on all these people being fundamentalist) muslim, why do you care? Isn&#39;t capitalism only about caring for yourself, in the here and now? Or now do you want to "preserve the bloodline"?

[theraven]

Not everyone in Africa and South America are fundie muslims. And as it turns out they immigrate too.

the parts of africa most of the poel who emmigrate to eurep are from are muslim. soiuth ameriacns go mostly o the US and for the most part aren&#39;t an issue, excep or the illegeals.


Anyway, if the world is run over with fundamentalist (by the way, throw me some statistics on all these people being fundamentalist) muslim, why do you care? Isn&#39;t capitalism only about caring for yourself, in the here and now? Or now do you want to "preserve the bloodline"?

no i just care about western civilizaion

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:16 PM
the parts of africa most of the poel who emmigrate to eurep are from are muslim. soiuth ameriacns go mostly o the US and for the most part aren&#39;t an issue, excep or the illegeals.
What is the problem with these "illegals"? And to some degree they are preserving Western culture, as most are Christian and to some degree retain Iberian traditions.


no i just care about western civilizaion
Why? Are you a cultural supremecist?

[red team]

western civilizaion

I think that would be a good idea when it happens. The civilization part I mean.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 17 2006, 10:29 PM

western civilizaion

I think that would be a good idea when it happens. The civilization part I mean.
:rolleyes: Nice try, but Ghandi beat you to the punch (as I suspect you know) and besides, the West is certainly a civilization.

[Zero]

Civilization is just a long concealing word for prison.

Give me a house out in the middle of nowhere, and let me farm my own food. Thats the kind of life I&#39;d like to live.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:09 AM
Civilization is just a long concealing word for prison.

Give me a house out in the middle of nowhere, and let me farm my own food. Thats the kind of life I&#39;d like to live.
What if your crops fail or what if you have a bad harvest? Then you&#39;d be screwed.

[Zero]

Yeah, I suppose so.

I&#39;m only a closet primitivist I suppose. =P

[theraven]

Why? Are you a cultural supremecist?

Does one have to be a cultural supremiect to want an ancient culture that has contributed a lot to not be destroyed?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:02 PM

Why? Are you a cultural supremecist?

Does one have to be a cultural supremiect to want an ancient culture that has contributed a lot to not be destroyed?
Yes. Cultures get destroyed and crumble away. Only a backward reactionary fuckwit would stand in the way of human progress in the name of &#39;preserving western civilisation&#39;.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 18 2006, 12:52 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 18 2006, 12:52 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 12:02 PM

Why? Are you a cultural supremecist?

Does one have to be a cultural supremiect to want an ancient culture that has contributed a lot to not be destroyed?
Yes. Cultures get destroyed and crumble away. Only a backward reactionary fuckwit would stand in the way of human progress in the name of &#39;preserving western civilisation&#39;. [/b]
1) how is allowing the most progresive civilizaoitn standing in the way of human progress?

2) yes some culutres dissappeear, but that doesn&#39;t mean we should encourage them.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 18 2006, 02:56 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 18 2006, 02:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:52 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 12:02 PM

Why? Are you a cultural supremecist?

Does one have to be a cultural supremiect to want an ancient culture that has contributed a lot to not be destroyed?
Yes. Cultures get destroyed and crumble away. Only a backward reactionary fuckwit would stand in the way of human progress in the name of &#39;preserving western civilisation&#39;.
1) how is allowing the most progresive civilizaoitn standing in the way of human progress?

2) yes some culutres dissappeear, but that doesn&#39;t mean we should encourage them. [/b]
1) Which culture are you refering to? Western culture is still backwards in many ways, this is what marxism seeks to change.

2) We shouldn&#39;t try to astop them dissapearing either.

[theraven]

1) Which culture are you refering to? Western culture is still backwards in many ways, this is what marxism seeks to change.

western culture is very progressive compared to the others, and it also has gvien birth to most of the progressive movmemnts (hey marx was german wasn&#39;t he).




2) We shouldn&#39;t try to astop them dissapearing either.

why not? doesn&#39;t that make the world a better place, more culutres. especialy one thats given the world so much.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:19 PM


1) Which culture are you refering to? Western culture is still backwards in many ways, this is what marxism seeks to change.

western culture is very progressive compared to the others, and it also has gvien birth to most of the progressive movmemnts (hey marx was german wasn&#39;t he).
This doesn&#39;t stop the inevitable march of progress trampling over the culture, a truly progressive culture would move with the times.







2) We shouldn&#39;t try to astop them dissapearing either.

why not? doesn&#39;t that make the world a better place, more culutres. especialy one thats given the world so much. I think cultures that are artificially propped up shouldn&#39;t exist at all - they simply have outstayed their welcome.

The fact is that this culture won&#39;t be gone for a long time yet, no matter what some hyberbolic internet article says. The only way to destroy this culture is through communism, same goes for the eastern culture,