RSS
Science writing aristocrat Matt Ridley writes:
Demography does not explain the migration crisis
Published on Sunday, September 06, 2015,
It’s about violence and religious extremism, not population pressure
My Times column on African demography and the migration crisis:
Even the most compassionate of European liberals must wonder at times whether this year’s migration crisis is just the beginning of a 21st- century surge of poor people that will overwhelm the rich countries of our continent. With African populations growing fastest, are we glimpsing a future in which the scenes we saw on the Macedonian border, or on Kos or in the seas around Sicily last week will seem tame?
I don’t think so. The current migration crisis is being driven by war and oppression, not demography. Almost two thirds of the migrants reaching Europe by boat this year are from three small countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea.
Or that’s what they say in order to make a more plausible case for asylum. A whole lot sure seem to have lost their documents. The Libya-Italy route appears to be mostly sub-Saharan Africans, not Syrians, Afghans, and Eritreans.
These are not even densely populated countries: their combined populations come to less than England’s, let alone Britain’s, and none of them is in the top 20 for population growth rates.
Let’s look more closely at Ridley’s chosen list: Syria is having a genuine civil war. Afghanistan isn’t; it’s just being Afghanistany. Eritrea is peaceful under a religiously tolerant ruler who appears to be in the paranoid megalomanic phase of his long rule. (Which is sad because Eritrea is only a marginally sub-Saharan sub-Saharan country, with some potential for modernization.)
Actually, demography is a poor predictor of migration. Nowhere in the world are people leaving countries specifically because of population growth or density.
But when they do decide to leave because of war or famine or disease or higher wages in London or they have an uncle in Rotherham who needs somebody to fill in for him in the family business while he does time, or because Germany has a more lucrative dole than their native land, or their imam tells them to make hegira, or they hear Swedish girls are easy, look how many of them there will be.
Geographically speaking, Africa is an enormous continent. You can fit China, India, the United States, Mexico, Europe and Japan inside it, and still have space left over. When it has a population of 2.4 billion in 2050, it will still have fewer people than the 4 billion who live in those places today. Of the 50 least densely populated countries in the world, 16 are in Africa. The continent is far from overflowing.
As for feeding this multitude, much of Africa can grow fabulous crops several times a year. Without access to synthetic fertilizer, yields have lagged behind Asia, but they are starting to catch up and when they do, Africa will easily be able to feed 2.4 billion people and export a surplus. Already, despite fast-growing populations, famine is gone from Africa, except where mad and bad regimes cause it.
Of course, African has been known to have mad and bad regimes. Maybe in the future they won’t have so many of them.
But if they ever do happen to have suboptimal governments in Africa causing emigrants, then … but look at the number of them.
Anyway, Ridley is right that Africans have the resources to deal with African problems. But they won’t as long as the West is there to take their surplus population off their hands.
… But there are already easily enough Africans to overwhelm Europe’s capacity to cope if they all come here, so there is nothing especially alarming about the idea of a larger future population in Africa.
That’s one way of putting it: in other words, we Westerners are already in massive peril, so why be alarmed about the peril getting four times more massive over the course of this century?
This would be a more convincing argument if Europe was already doing what countries like Australia and Israel were doing to protect themselves, but of course at present Europe is mostly exacerbating the problem through moral grandstanding.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Dammit, you’re giving me hives again.
Someone asked me in the last thread how they would know where to send them back to. Is that idiot serious? Who gives a damn!? Dump them in the desert somewhere. Why does their showing up on a doorstep obligate a country to care where they came from?
I suspect a lot of "Syrian" refugees will suddenly remember they are from somewhere else.Replies: @Randall Parker
Conquer a small strip of land in Africa, bordering on some anarchic hellhole - Somalia will do perfectly. Establish a military post with a high wall and strong defensive fortifications. Build an airstrip, hangars, fuel dump, etc. When you have to deport illegals who have conveniently lost their papers, fly them there, march them through the gate, and slam it shut. If relocation to Somalia were the end result of attempted illegal immigration the problem would end overnight.
Anyway, this is totally off topic, but it's important to note that lazy ass, corrupt, stupid fuckwits in Greece have re-elected a government that has no plans to stop the ongoing immivasion.
Society is stupid.Replies: @Anonymous, @HA
(for some reason I can’t edit my last comment.)
I don’t want to sound as if I hate the migrants, or if I think their origin is the issue. I find it horrifying that the individuals from any country can just overwhelm another, and that everyone’s too….polite. or is it civilized? to do something. At what point does it stop?
He’s partly right.
Some European nations are not having babies but there’s a huge exodus of people to richer nations.
We even hear 5 million Japanese wanna come to US, and Japanese population is falling fast.
So, even if African demographics was stagnant, many would try to reach Europe.
But more blacks means even more will try.
The real reason for crisis is the Advanced World allows migrants to come.
If all of EU acted like Hungary, migrants would get the message and stay.
Also, third world nations seem to have a policy of pushing out their people. Mexican government does this to US. India says it plans to send out 300 million.
But almost no one left Mao’s China even though there was population boom and rising poverty, even mass starvation during GLF. Why not? Mao wouldn’t let anyone leave.
How much of a problem would this still be if the immigrants couldn’t qualify for welfare benefits? That’s what I’d like to know.
Someone asked me in the last thread how they would know where to send them back to. Is that idiot serious? Who gives a damn!? Dump them in the desert somewhere. Why does their showing up on a doorstep obligate a country to care where they came from?Replies: @Name Withheld, @FactsAreImportant, @Wilkey
I totally agree. This modern conceit of nicely sending them back to their countries of origin on a plane is not going to last much longer. It would be interesting to know how that all started btw. Whether they go to India, Russia, Middle East, of Africa is of no interest to me. If we had to send them somewhere, I would recommend North Africa, much land and no navies to stop us.
None of this is good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments
Someone asked me in the last thread how they would know where to send them back to. Is that idiot serious? Who gives a damn!? Dump them in the desert somewhere. Why does their showing up on a doorstep obligate a country to care where they came from?Replies: @Name Withheld, @FactsAreImportant, @Wilkey
Simple. Since they are “Syrian” refugees, send them back to Syria. (If they won’t say where they are from, then make Syria the default.)
I suspect a lot of “Syrian” refugees will suddenly remember they are from somewhere else.
Another possibility: Reestablish colonial rule somewhere. Take over a country. There are plenty of misgoverned countries to choose from. Offer their elites enough on-going payments that they'll roll over and accept a colonial administrator. Then send all refugees to this colony. If diversity is great the place will thive. If diversity isn't great but non-corrupt rule helps then the place will grow.
Since refugees are much cheaper to support in the 3rd world Western governments could send aid rather than spend welfare cash on refugees in their own country.
We need to rehabilitate colonialism and get it in use in countries where the natives aren't likely to take up arms in any effective way. Then make these colonies into refugee communities.Replies: @Veracitor, @Devil's Advocate
Particularly when we’re taking some of their most talented people. Ahmed Mohamed’s college-educated, entrepreneurial father would probably be in the top 1% of intelligence/drive in Sudan. Having him here is a lose-lose proposition for both countries. He doesn’t give us anything we don’t already have, we get to pay for his elderly mother’s healthcare, and his son will take a college spot from a smarter native kid.
I suspect a lot of "Syrian" refugees will suddenly remember they are from somewhere else.Replies: @Randall Parker
I like the idea of sending them back to Syria as the default.
Another possibility: Reestablish colonial rule somewhere. Take over a country. There are plenty of misgoverned countries to choose from. Offer their elites enough on-going payments that they’ll roll over and accept a colonial administrator. Then send all refugees to this colony. If diversity is great the place will thive. If diversity isn’t great but non-corrupt rule helps then the place will grow.
Since refugees are much cheaper to support in the 3rd world Western governments could send aid rather than spend welfare cash on refugees in their own country.
We need to rehabilitate colonialism and get it in use in countries where the natives aren’t likely to take up arms in any effective way. Then make these colonies into refugee communities.
Whatever the motives of EU and USA politicians may be, economizing on the support of refugees isn't one of them. (Taxpayers be damned, they say, we want more migrants!)Replies: @jtgw
1. All people are equal (blank slate assumption)
2. Eritrea got better with massive immigration
3. It was not because of USA rule because colonialism is bad
4. It must be because of immigration, hence:
5. Immigration would also benefit the USA!!!!!!!!
Population is the problem along with Europe’s cradle to grave welfare system that attracts loser cultures like Islam and Africa like honey does to flies.
Africa and Islam have experienced a population boom, there is no doubt. As a result many countries are on the edge of ecological disasters because of it. Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, etc.
They all have masses of people for whom there are no jobs and no possibility of mobility or a better life in their own overpopulated pest holes. None. The mega welfare state of Europe looks really good to them.
I don't want to sound as if I hate the migrants, or if I think their origin is the issue. I find it horrifying that the individuals from any country can just overwhelm another, and that everyone's too....polite. or is it civilized? to do something. At what point does it stop?Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
You’re being too polite and civilized now. Of course you are; you are European Man; your role is to welcome anybody and take care of them.
Your original post was better.
A healthy dose of dislike for outsiders would be, um, healthy right now. That is the essence of what we have lost during this last half-century of self-flagellation.
There used to be a time in American history when a new immigrant had to prove they would not become a ward of the state in order to gain entry. Now it seems they are signed up for bennies as soon as they arrive.
As far as America goes just dump them off into Mexico. The Mexicans like Jorge Ramos have lectured us so much about how immigrants are always a boon for economic growth and how diversity is a strength, it would be easy to make them live up to their creed by sending back their mestizos and a colorful bunch of others like Somalis and MENAs. We could present it as a Christmas gift. Merry Christmas Amigo! Here’s to your economic health and to a more vibrant culture. We’ll see you on the moon!
I think it’s still officially on the books, though never enforced.
“Your original post was better.”
I just wanted to be clear what the gravamen of my charge was. I vaguely worry my identity will be uncovered and then they’ll find my comments at Steve’s site. “Yes, Ed not only believes in IQ, but HATES AFRICANs! and ARABS!”***
But I simply find the whole thing terrifying, regardless of where they’re from.
***that’s a joke. I’m toast if they uncover my identity, full stop.
“I think it’s still officially on the books, though never enforced.”
The Russians and the Chinese are just dumping relatives here, willy nilly.
This video will trigger a lot of isteve readers
http://www.kleinezeitung.at/s/steiermark/suedostsued/4825202/Video_Fluchtlinge-marschierten-zu-Fuss-nach-Bad-Radkersburg
summary:
350 migrants are stopped by 4 police in Austria. Migrants don’t care. They just push past the police and then inexplicably start chanting a soccer chant “olea ole ole ole!”
The scary thing is that this has already happened to most towns in America - it's just that the human tide has come one drop at a time, rather than hundreds of people pushing their way in at a time.
How many millions of people from around the world who will never assimilate have we accepted in the past few decades? 3-4 million? Plus people from South America? 15-20 million?
Drip, drip, drip.
Anyway, Ridley is right that Africans have the resources to deal with African problems.
Is that so!? Heretofore there’s no evidence you are right, and per your nice graphs a lot more “resources” per capita have been available up until now than will be in the future.
The “resources” can reasonably be taken to include the wherewithal — technical and ethical/moral — to make use of anything else one may call a ‘resource’. And there you appear to be indisputably wrong.
Since black rule the economic output of Zimbabwe has dropped 50% — during this time the population has almost doubled — and they started with apparently plenty of “resources”.
It’s the ‘White Man’s Burden’ writ large — on a global scale.
“(Or) they hear Swedish girls are easy…”
Or German girls, Dutch girls, British girls, American girls, etc.
I’ve often wondered if, having consumed significant doses of pr0n, Hollywood trash and western pop culture, lots of otherwise sexless young immigrant men expect to arrive in the United States and Europe and be awash in a sea of pu$$y (preferably blonde). After all, if hot American women regularly get it on with the pool boy and the pizza delivery man, why wouldn’t they throw themselves at the landscapers too!?!
My general sense (which comes from having known lots of young guys from 3rd world countries while growing up around suburban Chicago) is that there’s something to the suspicion I voices in the previous paragraph. That’s not to say that it’s the main thing driving immigration to Europe and the U.S. But it’s somewhere in the mix.
I've over heard it hundreds of times - people talking and saying things like "you just buy them a couple of drinks and they have sex with you" and then they get angry when it doesn't happen.
Another possibility: Reestablish colonial rule somewhere. Take over a country. There are plenty of misgoverned countries to choose from. Offer their elites enough on-going payments that they'll roll over and accept a colonial administrator. Then send all refugees to this colony. If diversity is great the place will thive. If diversity isn't great but non-corrupt rule helps then the place will grow.
Since refugees are much cheaper to support in the 3rd world Western governments could send aid rather than spend welfare cash on refugees in their own country.
We need to rehabilitate colonialism and get it in use in countries where the natives aren't likely to take up arms in any effective way. Then make these colonies into refugee communities.Replies: @Veracitor, @Devil's Advocate
As I pointed out on an earlier thread, the EU (and USA) have specifically decided to cut off food aid to Syrian refugees in countries near Syria in order to propel more of them into Europe. The UK government announced it will use its foreign aid budget to support “refugees” in England, rather than outside the realm.
Whatever the motives of EU and USA politicians may be, economizing on the support of refugees isn’t one of them. (Taxpayers be damned, they say, we want more migrants!)
The Economist is at least on the right track when they recommend letting refugees earn money. Sending financial support to rebels and terrorists and destabilizing foreign countries, then refusing to send aid abroad while opening the borders and then not allowing the immigrants to work but instead force them to rely on public handouts … yeah, sounds like Eurocracy to me.
The real danger – which now is clearly viewable on the horizon – is that in the near future, lefty political parties in western Europe, will rely upon the immigrant vote to keep themselves in permanent political power. As the price of the vote, the immigrants will demand the abolition of immigration controls, so that all of their genetic relatives can be ‘saved’ by Europe.
The lefties will gladly concede as it reinforces their grip.
This development is *inevitable*.
You can already see it in its embryonic form in Britain.
Doubtless, Britain will be at least 30% non by 2030.
Mark my words. From that date onwards it will be a permanently hard-leftist country.
The monarchy will doubtless go sometime this century.
Matt “Northern Rock” Ridley has a difficult relationship with truth, sanity and ethics. Aristocrats and libertarianism are not a happy combination.
Shortly after the slaying of drummer Lee Rigby by Muhammadan savages on the streets of Woolwich, Matt Ridley wrote an opinion piece in the Times called: “Woolwich shows how civilised we’ve become.”
Dear, oh dear.
Even if you generously gave Ridley the benefit of the doubt by supposing that
someone else came up with that title, later in the article Ridley wrote:Ah, the very pathological niceness and altruism that have helped land us in this mess in the first place. Still, Ridley clearly didn't want want a brutal murder on the streets of London to get in the way of the super-bright future that he keeps predicting, did he?Replies: @jtgw
What Ridley doesn’t seem to realise is that every nation needs to discover the ‘immigration habit’ in its own way – it is a ‘cultural thing’ as much as economic thing.
For example, there were save exceedingly few Bangladeshis in England prior to 1939, say. No one, absolutely no one, including the Bangladeshis themselves would have predicted a Bangladeshi population of millions by 2015 in the far far away cultural and climatically alien UK. Yet it happened, and if it was not contained, we would be speaking of tens of millions of Bangladeshis in the UK by now.
The point is, that a small ‘seed population’ always seems to be required. This seed population always but always grows exponentially, but if the seed is not there, the ‘mighty oak’ will never grow.
Well, the Syrian civil war is one thing. Syria is pretty close to the EU. It’s not completely 3rd world. The EU is just now experiencing what happens when it’s been telling everyone about how cool it is to have open borders.
I recall the video of Merkel talking to a Palestinian. The refugee was upset that she wasn’t a full citizen, or something. Merkel was sympathetic but said they can’t take everyone. She was rebuked, but no one contradicted her premise. Just said she was mean.
Seems to me it’s nicer to not let them in in the first place. I’d imagine living in the first world and then having to go back to, well.. Palestine, Pakistan, Senegal, etc, would be terrible. Has there ever been a positive story of that nature?
Limits will be reached. One way or another.
Is War Nerd still out there? He’d have a perspective on all this….
Wise words here…
http://www.politico.eu/article/sel-eu-borders-poland-migration-refugees/
Let’s hope Europe listens.
I often think about that, too. For example, check out figures from MigrationWatch, the Institute for Public Policy, the Equalities Commission and Wikileaks about Muslim unemployment figures in the UK, which make for a pretty eye-catching read. It goes without saying, though, that there are no political parties or figures in Western Europe who are willing to go near this issue, since it’s about as third-rail as you can get.
What about recent political events in Australia? Is the new government going to continue their policy of sending the boats back?
Some European nations are not having babies but there's a huge exodus of people to richer nations.
We even hear 5 million Japanese wanna come to US, and Japanese population is falling fast.
So, even if African demographics was stagnant, many would try to reach Europe.
But more blacks means even more will try.
The real reason for crisis is the Advanced World allows migrants to come.
If all of EU acted like Hungary, migrants would get the message and stay.
Also, third world nations seem to have a policy of pushing out their people. Mexican government does this to US. India says it plans to send out 300 million.
But almost no one left Mao's China even though there was population boom and rising poverty, even mass starvation during GLF. Why not? Mao wouldn't let anyone leave.Replies: @rbbarnet
‘The real reason for crisis is the Advanced World allows migrants to come.’
You have hit the nail right on the head and they will not be stopped until the threat of disorder in the West is overwhelmingly obvious to everyone, even Economist readers.
And that is quite close.
I think polygamy may be a big driver of migration:
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/senegal-polygamy-causes-1-in-5-young-men-to-lack-a-wife/
Or German girls, Dutch girls, British girls, American girls, etc.
I've often wondered if, having consumed significant doses of pr0n, Hollywood trash and western pop culture, lots of otherwise sexless young immigrant men expect to arrive in the United States and Europe and be awash in a sea of pu$$y (preferably blonde). After all, if hot American women regularly get it on with the pool boy and the pizza delivery man, why wouldn't they throw themselves at the landscapers too!?!
My general sense (which comes from having known lots of young guys from 3rd world countries while growing up around suburban Chicago) is that there's something to the suspicion I voices in the previous paragraph. That's not to say that it's the main thing driving immigration to Europe and the U.S. But it's somewhere in the mix.Replies: @rbbarnet, @anon, @John Derbyshire
That is what Raj in The Big Bang theory thought.
Someone asked me in the last thread how they would know where to send them back to. Is that idiot serious? Who gives a damn!? Dump them in the desert somewhere. Why does their showing up on a doorstep obligate a country to care where they came from?Replies: @Name Withheld, @FactsAreImportant, @Wilkey
“Someone asked me in the last thread how they would know where to send them back to. Is that idiot serious? Who gives a damn!?”
Conquer a small strip of land in Africa, bordering on some anarchic hellhole – Somalia will do perfectly. Establish a military post with a high wall and strong defensive fortifications. Build an airstrip, hangars, fuel dump, etc. When you have to deport illegals who have conveniently lost their papers, fly them there, march them through the gate, and slam it shut. If relocation to Somalia were the end result of attempted illegal immigration the problem would end overnight.
Anyway, this is totally off topic, but it’s important to note that lazy ass, corrupt, stupid fuckwits in Greece have re-elected a government that has no plans to stop the ongoing immivasion.
Society is stupid.
Nailed it.
Shortly after the slaying of drummer Lee Rigby by Muhammadan savages on the streets of Woolwich, Matt Ridley wrote an opinion piece in the Times called: “Woolwich shows how civilised we’ve become.”
Dear, oh dear.
Even if you generously gave Ridley the benefit of the doubt by supposing that
someone else came up with that title, later in the article Ridley wrote:
Ah, the very pathological niceness and altruism that have helped land us in this mess in the first place. Still, Ridley clearly didn’t want want a brutal murder on the streets of London to get in the way of the super-bright future that he keeps predicting, did he?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_National_Navy
The left/environmentalist retreat from population issues is the most underappreciated ideological shift of the last 20 years.
Conquer a small strip of land in Africa, bordering on some anarchic hellhole - Somalia will do perfectly. Establish a military post with a high wall and strong defensive fortifications. Build an airstrip, hangars, fuel dump, etc. When you have to deport illegals who have conveniently lost their papers, fly them there, march them through the gate, and slam it shut. If relocation to Somalia were the end result of attempted illegal immigration the problem would end overnight.
Anyway, this is totally off topic, but it's important to note that lazy ass, corrupt, stupid fuckwits in Greece have re-elected a government that has no plans to stop the ongoing immivasion.
Society is stupid.Replies: @Anonymous, @HA
Perhaps they elected Syriza, with its open borders, just to piss off the Germans.
Well, they would go on hunger strike to get them.
One’s a “Frenchman” and the other is in Poland and had a Spanish arrest warrant. Where do these sand monkeys get the money to flit around so easily? Gulf states jihadi-supporting money? Terrorism used to be a tough profession but globalism and Saudi/Emirates’ easy and copious money supply has made it damn near a sinecure.
Has Ridley ever heard of Gunnar Heinsohn?
http://www.trykkefrihed.dk/interview-a-continent-of-losers.htm
Demographic youth bulges are the cause of wars and fanaticism, religious and otherwise. These countries have polygyny which means excess single men. Men selected to be extrovert and sexually driven. Single men have a strong motive to leave rural high-polygyny societies for the cities (or for the West). But there are also many married women whose husbands leave. Ghana: Where’d all the men go
I always said and I shall say it again, these migrants are not in Europe seeking a better life, they all want a prettier wife
http://www.kleinezeitung.at/s/steiermark/suedostsued/4825202/Video_Fluchtlinge-marschierten-zu-Fuss-nach-Bad-Radkersburg
summary:
350 migrants are stopped by 4 police in Austria. Migrants don't care. They just push past the police and then inexplicably start chanting a soccer chant "olea ole ole ole!"Replies: @Anon7
You’re right – it does have that “the tide is coming in” quality.
The scary thing is that this has already happened to most towns in America – it’s just that the human tide has come one drop at a time, rather than hundreds of people pushing their way in at a time.
How many millions of people from around the world who will never assimilate have we accepted in the past few decades? 3-4 million? Plus people from South America? 15-20 million?
Drip, drip, drip.
Whatever the motives of EU and USA politicians may be, economizing on the support of refugees isn't one of them. (Taxpayers be damned, they say, we want more migrants!)Replies: @jtgw
Wow, it sounds like the EU has chosen the worst of all possible combinations. I believe in unrestricted migration for peaceful individuals, but that has to be combined with the rest of the libertarian program, which includes free markets, limited government, and no involuntary wealth redistribution. Foreign aid is another bad idea, but I agree that it’s a heck of a lot better than throwing orders of magnitude more of taxpayers’ wealth at them in the West.
The Economist is at least on the right track when they recommend letting refugees earn money. Sending financial support to rebels and terrorists and destabilizing foreign countries, then refusing to send aid abroad while opening the borders and then not allowing the immigrants to work but instead force them to rely on public handouts … yeah, sounds like Eurocracy to me.
Shortly after the slaying of drummer Lee Rigby by Muhammadan savages on the streets of Woolwich, Matt Ridley wrote an opinion piece in the Times called: “Woolwich shows how civilised we’ve become.”
Dear, oh dear.
Even if you generously gave Ridley the benefit of the doubt by supposing that
someone else came up with that title, later in the article Ridley wrote:Ah, the very pathological niceness and altruism that have helped land us in this mess in the first place. Still, Ridley clearly didn't want want a brutal murder on the streets of London to get in the way of the super-bright future that he keeps predicting, did he?Replies: @jtgw
Do you have a link to the article? It sounds like the argument might be along the lines of “don’t worry about this year’s uptick in violent crime, since the the trend over the last 20 years has been decreasing crime.”
I mostly subscribe to Ridley’s libertarianism and optimism. Where I would concede ground to the Steve-o-sphere pessimists is that, in the short term, a lot of misery can be caused by the wrong policy. In the abstract, I’m all for open borders, but I recognize that, given the current perverse incentives of the welfare state, opening borders to the world’s poor will cause more harm than good in the short term, especially to the host nation’s citizens. Everything has its price: if you want open borders, you have to pay for it by abolishing welfare entitlements. As Steve rightly notes, current Western leaders and their progressive supporters are more concerned with moral posturing than sensible policy, so they somehow think they can open the borders while continuing to offer generous benefits to the poor.
My problem with it, though, was that he could have made the same point without referencing the horrors of Woolwich. That murder had a very visceral effect on many British people, which was, of course, the murderers’ intention. So my first thought
when I saw that “Woolwich shows how civilised we’ve become” headline was:I broadly agree with the rest of your post, btw, but it just seems that a lot of people making the libertarian, open borders argument (Brendan O’Neill is a good example) seem to have this intellectual blind spot (or a lack of common sense), which stops them from, as you say, conceding ground to the Steve-o-sphere.
In a word, it's Darwinian.Replies: @jtgw
That could actually be helpful (do you have a reference?). There is talk about how Trump would be unable to get legislation (or constitutional amendments) passed, but how much could be accomplished by changing the selection of laws which are enforced aggressively?
Well, I just had a look at Ridley’s site, but I’m afraid that I couldn’t find the rest of the article in question, and the Murdoch Times has been hidden behind a paywall for quite a while; nevertheless, your summary of Ridley’s argument is correct: he was indeed just saying that there has been an overall decrease in crime over the years, and so his arguments tied in with the “everything is getting better overall” themes of “The Rational Optimist”.
My problem with it, though, was that he could have made the same point without referencing the horrors of Woolwich. That murder had a very visceral effect on many British people, which was, of course, the murderers’ intention. So my first thought
when I saw that “Woolwich shows how civilised we’ve become” headline was:
I broadly agree with the rest of your post, btw, but it just seems that a lot of people making the libertarian, open borders argument (Brendan O’Neill is a good example) seem to have this intellectual blind spot (or a lack of common sense), which stops them from, as you say, conceding ground to the Steve-o-sphere.
Or German girls, Dutch girls, British girls, American girls, etc.
I've often wondered if, having consumed significant doses of pr0n, Hollywood trash and western pop culture, lots of otherwise sexless young immigrant men expect to arrive in the United States and Europe and be awash in a sea of pu$$y (preferably blonde). After all, if hot American women regularly get it on with the pool boy and the pizza delivery man, why wouldn't they throw themselves at the landscapers too!?!
My general sense (which comes from having known lots of young guys from 3rd world countries while growing up around suburban Chicago) is that there's something to the suspicion I voices in the previous paragraph. That's not to say that it's the main thing driving immigration to Europe and the U.S. But it's somewhere in the mix.Replies: @rbbarnet, @anon, @John Derbyshire
It is.
I’ve over heard it hundreds of times – people talking and saying things like “you just buy them a couple of drinks and they have sex with you” and then they get angry when it doesn’t happen.
Or German girls, Dutch girls, British girls, American girls, etc.
I've often wondered if, having consumed significant doses of pr0n, Hollywood trash and western pop culture, lots of otherwise sexless young immigrant men expect to arrive in the United States and Europe and be awash in a sea of pu$$y (preferably blonde). After all, if hot American women regularly get it on with the pool boy and the pizza delivery man, why wouldn't they throw themselves at the landscapers too!?!
My general sense (which comes from having known lots of young guys from 3rd world countries while growing up around suburban Chicago) is that there's something to the suspicion I voices in the previous paragraph. That's not to say that it's the main thing driving immigration to Europe and the U.S. But it's somewhere in the mix.Replies: @rbbarnet, @anon, @John Derbyshire
There is likely a sex factor in the other direction too — causal arrow pointing from natives to immigrants.
Another possibility: Reestablish colonial rule somewhere. Take over a country. There are plenty of misgoverned countries to choose from. Offer their elites enough on-going payments that they'll roll over and accept a colonial administrator. Then send all refugees to this colony. If diversity is great the place will thive. If diversity isn't great but non-corrupt rule helps then the place will grow.
Since refugees are much cheaper to support in the 3rd world Western governments could send aid rather than spend welfare cash on refugees in their own country.
We need to rehabilitate colonialism and get it in use in countries where the natives aren't likely to take up arms in any effective way. Then make these colonies into refugee communities.Replies: @Veracitor, @Devil's Advocate
Randall, here is the problem with that approach. Suppose the USA commandeers Eritrea, for example. Eritrea is shitty enough that the combination of USA colonial rule and foreign aid might improve the country even with massive immigration of the worst kind. However, that would lead to this thought process on the part of most westerners:
1. All people are equal (blank slate assumption)
2. Eritrea got better with massive immigration
3. It was not because of USA rule because colonialism is bad
4. It must be because of immigration, hence:
5. Immigration would also benefit the USA!!!!!!!!
It’s about something far far deeper than ‘welfare states’ and Libertarian bullshit.
In a word, it’s Darwinian.
I suppose then you might say you don't care if they're thrifty hard workers: they're not one of us! But then you are harming our own stock, since by shielding our own from competition, we allow ourselves to become weaker. So down the line, even if we keep all those hard-working foreigners out, we will lose to them in trade.
Gene-culture co-evolution is important, but that means that we have to get our culture right if we want to evolve in the best direction. A culture that rewards hard work and thrift is better than one that rewards indolence, which is what Trump's protectionist welfare state will do.Replies: @Bad memories
Conquer a small strip of land in Africa, bordering on some anarchic hellhole - Somalia will do perfectly. Establish a military post with a high wall and strong defensive fortifications. Build an airstrip, hangars, fuel dump, etc. When you have to deport illegals who have conveniently lost their papers, fly them there, march them through the gate, and slam it shut. If relocation to Somalia were the end result of attempted illegal immigration the problem would end overnight.
Anyway, this is totally off topic, but it's important to note that lazy ass, corrupt, stupid fuckwits in Greece have re-elected a government that has no plans to stop the ongoing immivasion.
Society is stupid.Replies: @Anonymous, @HA
“Conquer a small strip of land in Africa, bordering on some anarchic hellhole…”
Not that it hasn’t been tried already…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
Be aware that the naysayers will claim this is just a repeat of Hitler’s Madagascar Plan (though in hindsight, it would have been a lot better than what he finally settled on.)
“Geographically speaking, Africa is an enormous continent. You can fit China, India, the United States, Mexico, Europe and Japan inside it, and still have space left over.”
Ridley is actually making the point for restrictionists to come back with “So then, if their populations aren’t so bad and if they have more than enough food in which to feed themselves, then THEY CAN STAY HOME in their own countries.”
Like he’s actually saying: “Aw, there’s not so many of them. And besides, they’re not coming from impoverished famine riddled places.” The reply should be: “Then fine. They can stay home since its not so bad where they are. We’re too crowded because we don’t have the land mass that Africa does. Sorry, we’re all booked up for the coming decades as far as the eye can see.”
Because after all, Africa has had wars and civil wars and it is’t as though these are worse than at any time in its history. Call Ridley’s bluff and say “Well then, they can stay home and they dont have to go to Europe or anyplace else since per your own words, its more than adequate where they are in Africa.”
In a word, it's Darwinian.Replies: @jtgw
You need to think about the parameters. What is being selected for? If we remain a welfare state while opening our borders, we select for all the scroungers and parasites who can come here and get benefits at our expense. If we abolish entitlements, we select for the thrifty hard workers who will pay for themselves and contribute to our economy.
I suppose then you might say you don’t care if they’re thrifty hard workers: they’re not one of us! But then you are harming our own stock, since by shielding our own from competition, we allow ourselves to become weaker. So down the line, even if we keep all those hard-working foreigners out, we will lose to them in trade.
Gene-culture co-evolution is important, but that means that we have to get our culture right if we want to evolve in the best direction. A culture that rewards hard work and thrift is better than one that rewards indolence, which is what Trump’s protectionist welfare state will do.
Indeed, a generation or two of making it easy for the imprudent could be a good way of flushing such genes out of the pool, especially when the good times cease.
Delusional piece by Ridley….who obviously wants to keep his profitable gigs misrepresenting science and especially genetics so the NYT won’t get upset. As iSteve points out, the main lure is better living, free stuff, and western women(and children for the Afghans), and of course most of them are young men who are not “refugees” at all. But eventually, population pressure, already a major factor in Central America, will be the driver.
And contrary to iSteve, subSaharan Africans, average IQ 70, have no chance of ever feeding themselves or providing the basic amenities with populations 50 to 100 times their historic population.
I suppose then you might say you don't care if they're thrifty hard workers: they're not one of us! But then you are harming our own stock, since by shielding our own from competition, we allow ourselves to become weaker. So down the line, even if we keep all those hard-working foreigners out, we will lose to them in trade.
Gene-culture co-evolution is important, but that means that we have to get our culture right if we want to evolve in the best direction. A culture that rewards hard work and thrift is better than one that rewards indolence, which is what Trump's protectionist welfare state will do.Replies: @Bad memories
Selection does not operate over short time frames, like, say 3 generations.
Indeed, a generation or two of making it easy for the imprudent could be a good way of flushing such genes out of the pool, especially when the good times cease.
“You can fit China, India, the United States, Mexico, Europe and Japan inside it, and still have space left over. When it has a population of 2.4 billion in 2050, it will still have fewer people than the 4 billion who live in those places today.”
and in the year 1500 subsaharan Africa had fewer people than any single of those regions or countries
“Eritrea is peaceful under a religiously tolerant ruler”
-Eh, no. Equatorial Guinea is, but Eritrea?
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010/148686.htm
“The government forbids religious practice outside the four recognized faiths, and even recognized faiths are often forbidden from managing their own operations and finances. The government has appointed both the mufti (head) of the Islamic faith in the country and the patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Church, in addition to numerous lower level positions. Those who publically protested such direct government management were branded as radicals and could be subject to indefinite imprisonment in harsh conditions, despite being members of recognized religious faiths.”
-If by “religiously tolerant” you mean “allows more than one religion”, I guess you could say that, but you could also apply it to, say, Indonesia or Egypt.
Eritrea is the North Korea of Africa. I understand those people’s willingness to leave.
-Eh, no. Equatorial Guinea is, but Eritrea?
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010/148686.htm
"The government forbids religious practice outside the four recognized faiths, and even recognized faiths are often forbidden from managing their own operations and finances. The government has appointed both the mufti (head) of the Islamic faith in the country and the patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Church, in addition to numerous lower level positions. Those who publically protested such direct government management were branded as radicals and could be subject to indefinite imprisonment in harsh conditions, despite being members of recognized religious faiths."
-If by "religiously tolerant" you mean "allows more than one religion", I guess you could say that, but you could also apply it to, say, Indonesia or Egypt.
Eritrea is the North Korea of Africa. I understand those people's willingness to leave.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Eritrea is run religiously like an enlightened despotism of the 18th Century, such as the Austrian Empire. The government makes sure none of the multiple religions cause trouble, but doesn’t care which government-approved church you follow as long as it doesn’t cause trouble.
I think that still qualifies as intolerant by any current definition of the word “tolerance”. I’m sure standards have changed much over the centuries.
I was all set to comment, then looked at the link. I’d never seen a picture of Ridley before, and have been permanently put off by the “rationally optimistic” mad glint in his eyes. Clearly, this man is a TED-talker who believes we can “innovate” our way out of increasingly worse progress traps forever, and so on.