3 ms·

> Liberals are right to point to immigration as the obvious way to mitigate the economic effects of demographic contraction. And the key is "economic effects"

> Liberals are right to point to immigration as the obvious way to mitigate the economic effects of demographic contraction. And the key is "economic effects" while ignoring all the other effects of high immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric (perhaps that's the aim). Anyway, as the article rightly points out this is not a solution, it just kicks the ball (a wrecking ball in this case) down the road. Ultimately we need to adapt to a decreasing population and aim for a stable population at a significantly lower level than we have now. There's no escaping that but on the plus side it will allow us to have a sutainable presence on this planet while enjoying good living standards and individual freedoms.

beardyw 2y ago
> immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric I may have it wrong, but aren't most Americans there as a result of immigration?
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  This article isn't about the USA... The USA were an empty continent so used immigration to fill it quickly and build the country but on historical terms this was arelatively homogeneous immigration (mostly Northern European, then European at large). The USA also ended up with high communitarism, which is not something known in many/most other countries. But look at Korea (most of the article refers to South Korea) and the situation is very different and more representative of an 'average' country.
- api 2y ago
  This has been true for millennia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas-saw-three-waves-of-ancient-settlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas...
api 2y ago
Saying it's the aim is a ridiculous caricature along the same lines as people on the left who say that MAGA is a Russian-backed fifth column deliberately trying to destroy America. My own position is in the now-forbidden middle. There does seem to be such thing as a socially sustainable rate of immigration, and exceeding it clearly seems to cause problems. That means immigration can help some with declining population, but there's a limit to how much lifting it can do without causing a backlash or other issues. It also probably matters a lot where the immigrants are coming from and why they are coming. People who immigrate because they want to join your country and do productive things are great. Refugees who are just fleeing something are going to be harder to assimilate and probably will impose costs, while immigrants who want to come usually impose a net gain. I'm generally in favor of helping refugees if we are able for humanitarian reasons, but I think governments allowing such people in have to be realistic about what kind of support they need to provide. Just dropping them off on the street en masse doesn't seem to work out well.

beardyw 2y ago

> immigration, that will ultimately destroy a country's cultural and ethnic fabric I may have it wrong, but aren't most Americans there as a result of immigration?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
This article isn't about the USA... The USA were an empty continent so used immigration to fill it quickly and build the country but on historical terms this was arelatively homogeneous immigration (mostly Northern European, then European at large). The USA also ended up with high communitarism, which is not something known in many/most other countries. But look at Korea (most of the article refers to South Korea) and the situation is very different and more representative of an 'average' country.
api 2y ago
This has been true for millennia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas-saw-three-waves-of-ancient-settlers/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528734-400-americas...

api 2y ago

Saying it's the aim is a ridiculous caricature along the same lines as people on the left who say that MAGA is a Russian-backed fifth column deliberately trying to destroy America. My own position is in the now-forbidden middle. There does seem to be such thing as a socially sustainable rate of immigration, and exceeding it clearly seems to cause problems. That means immigration can help some with declining population, but there's a limit to how much lifting it can do without causing a backlash or other issues. It also probably matters a lot where the immigrants are coming from and why they are coming. People who immigrate because they want to join your country and do productive things are great. Refugees who are just fleeing something are going to be harder to assimilate and probably will impose costs, while immigrants who want to come usually impose a net gain. I'm generally in favor of helping refugees if we are able for humanitarian reasons, but I think governments allowing such people in have to be realistic about what kind of support they need to provide. Just dropping them off on the street en masse doesn't seem to work out well.