4 ms·
1. North America has less of a "problem" than nearly everywhere else, since (overall) it has traditionally tolerated extremely high immigration rates, and poten
by tuatoru 5y ago
1. North America has less of a "problem" than nearly everywhere else, since (overall) it has traditionally tolerated extremely high immigration rates, and potential migrants see it as a desirable destination.
Politicians reflect their voters' views. In most countries immigration rates are at least an order of magnitude too low to compensate for low fertility and will stay that way.
2. Most of the projected increase in global population is due to an expected increase in lifespan, meaning a greater number of old people. They don't have kids.
The big reservoirs of working-age people are in sub-Saharan Africa and rural India. Not many of them have the skills and funds to enable intercontinental migration. Yet.
Not sure why declining birth rate is a problem, though. Maybe we'll get around to automating some of the things.
- spfzero 5y agoAlso not sure why declining population is a problem. The sheer number of human beings on the planet, however, is the root cause of many problems, climate change, habitat loss, water shortages, on and on. When I imagine less traffic, less air pollution, more clean drinking water, grazing and farmland, per person; I see a better world, not a worse one.
- holonomically 5y agoGood points. I'll elaborate what I meant by sensible immigration policies. Sensible immigration policies includes a better social safety net and education programs to allow people to immigrate even if at the moment they don't have the right skills or funds.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tomatofarmer 5y agoThat is sensible only to you. I love how policies are designated as 'common sense' to try to promote acceptance. Let me decide what is common sense.
- holonomically 5y agoWhat exactly in what I said is not sensible?
- tomatofarmer 5y agoThere is substantial untapped and underutilized potential already within the country. Using tax money to support immigration of those that possess neither skills nor funds, is frankly a slap in the face to all tax payers, and a signal to Americans that we are giving up on them. But of course one powerful group needs cheap labor, and the other powerful group needs more voters. Thus, with collaboration of the media apparatus, what you suggest will continue to be branded as sensible.
- holonomically 5y agoI really don't get how you inferred all that from what I said. A social safety net and better education programs are better for everyone, including the people in whatever country happens to be implementing those programs and policies. The issue with media bias is another matter entirely and is unrelated to what I was saying but I recommend you stop viewing everything with a conspiratorial lens. It is not helpful for having a productive discussion.
- mikem170 5y agoPerhaps people who think like you, and that would include me, should pool our time and money and sponser immigrants. I wonder if we could. I think doing so would make the world a better place. But I believe it is wrong to force people who disagree to participate via taxes. I believe it's wrong to impose on other people like that.
- holonomically 5y agoDo you suppose we could pool enough money to start a community college? Or do you suppose it would be better to utilize existing public school infrastructure and make it better at addressing the educational needs of potential immigrants?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]