Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

No babies = we need more African migrants


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's disgusting how thick they think the populace is. They've swung from 'global warming everyone will die stop using energy' to 'population collapse is bad, import lots of new people'  for

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521 Headline story today. The agenda becomes clear.  Read through all the puff and the jist of it is: Everywhere on the planet will have shrinking

They can't fucking help themselves... "Global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many cou

Posted Images

1 hour ago, wherebee said:

It's disgusting how thick they think the populace is.

They've swung from 'global warming everyone will die stop using energy' to 'population collapse is bad, import lots of new people' 

for fucks sake.  The greenest thing for the planet is population decline in all advanced economies and a complete wall around africa so they have a crash when the overpopulation kicks in.

 

To be fair the article deals with the impact to the environment in quite some detail:

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bingobob said:

To be fair the article deals with the impact to the environment in quite some detail:

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the political agenda I have" says Prof Murray. "Whilst old people use less resources, and need less energy, and travel less, we can't tell the truth or I'll lose my funding."

 

FTFY

Edited by wherebee
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bingobob said:

To be fair the article deals with the impact to the environment in quite some detail:

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

 

He seems to have a limited grasp on current world events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

Thank heavens Africa continues to fuck while the rest of the world appears to not be in the mood tonight or only sees you as a friend.

Mainly because they have no welfare state.

If you want to be looked after in your old age and aren't rich enough to pay for it, which is unlikely in Africa, then you absolutely need to have children.

It's not about having sex it's because they see children as essential rather than a lifestyle choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ccc said:

I've always thought this Kalegi plan thing sounded a wee bit too tin foil hat.

Quote

n 2012, the British Medical Journal published a case report of a 16-year-old girl who received a cervical cancer vaccine towards the end of 2008. Following that, her menstrual periods became irregular and scant, and by 2011, her menstrual cycle had ceased altogether.

Upon further inspection, it was discovered that all of her remaining eggs were dead – she was totally and irreversibly infertile, at just 16 years of age [1].

Other cases of premature ovarian failure in young women following vaccination for cervical cancer have since come before the courts [2].

A recent study (2018) analysed information representing 8 million 25-to-29-year-old US women between 2007 and 2014.

Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of women who were exposed to the vaccine had conceived.

Research also shows increased risk of miscarriage after influenza vaccination during pregnancy

 

Of course, much of that has been by choice, through women’s rights movements, access to contraceptives, changing religious beliefs, along with increased living standards and higher education (not to mention a very aggressive ‘family planning’ push through WHO, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others – more on that in a later post), but clearly not all of the plummeting fertility rate has been by choice…

An international team of scientists analysed data from nearly 43,000 men in dozens of industrialized countries and found that sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades [7].

Peter Schlegal, professor and chairman of urology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and vice president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, says “Since this is the best study that’s ever been done, it is concerning that it suggests such a progressive and dramatic decrease in sperm counts over time.”

“Since we don’t know what could be causing it, it’s worrisome” 

So lower physical fertility in men and women plus anti-family feminist programming and pushing of homosexuality.

Sounds like a plan.

Thank fuck for Africa!

Graph of population sizes

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bingobob said:

To be fair the article deals with the impact to the environment in quite some detail:

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

 

Which is what exaclty?

Go back to 1900 and life expectancy was ~50.

My nans mum, who I have dim memories was born in 1890s FFS.

So, less people to care for the fragile dementia OAPs. So what? Rather than being put in a home for a few years the OAPs get knocked on the head or left out for the bears. It rally does not change the outcome.

This should encourage OAP to stop being cunts.

Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

OAP use their savings n assets to pay for their care. Why should young people? OAPS have expect the young to support themselves. OAPS can do it too.

I think his worry is - Who will *PAY* the DRs to look after OAPS for a load of pointless interventions that do fuck all for anyone but the highly paid medical staff.

http://www.healthdata.org/about/christopher-jl-murray

These are economic, financial and social issues. The guy is just a dumb medical DR, worried about his next paycheck.

The answer to most of his questions is knocking OAPS on the head.

Young healthy people dont need a lot of costly healthcare.

Healthcare systems have created monsters that need n more money for doing, frankly, more n moer pointless shit.

 

 

 

Edited by spygirl
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bingobob said:

To be fair the article deals with the impact to the environment in quite some detail:

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

 

An inverted age age structure is bad for capitalism which essentially is built on  the idea that there will be more people consuming more things. That does not necessarily mean it is bad for human society as a whole. The Black Death had both positive and negative consequences. Incidentally the idea that migration will make up the shortfall is a delusion. The evidence suggests that as societies industrialise the birth rate declines regardless of culture. No reason to expect that Africa will avoid that trend. Indeed it is already present in the areas north of the Sahara.

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

The evidence suggests that as societies industrialise the birth rate declines regardless of culture. No reason to expect that Africa will avoid that trend. Indeed it is already present in the areas north of the Sahara.

That makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially modern capitalism runs a population ponzi scheme which operates hand in hand with its ponzi credit model. Consumption is driven by debt financing which requires all household members to work in order to service the repayments. As children are a physical and financial burden it is not surprising couples are having fewer given both now need to work just to survive. The consequence is the population growth rate starts to turn negative. At this point the system needs more people just to keep operating so it starts shipping them in from outside. That only works so long as there is a guaranteed supply but signs are now appearing that the model will chew them up as well. When  that supply dries up the whole thing collapses.

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

Essentially modern capitalism runs a population ponzi scheme which operates hand in hand with its ponzi credit model. Consumption is driven by debt financing which requires all household members to work in order to service the repayments. As children are a physical and financial burden it is not surprising couples are having fewer given both now need to work just to survive. The consequence is the population growth rate starts to turn negative. At this point the system needs more people just to keep operating so it starts shipping them in from outside. That only works so long as there is a guaranteed supply but signs are now appearing that the model will chew them up as well. When  that supply dries up the whole thing collapses.

Also the productivity goes down because of the lower average IQ of black Africans.

Of course you get some extremely clever black Africans; and they would all fully understand what the word "average" means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bingobob said:

To be fair the article deals with the impact to the environment in quite some detail:

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

"That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure," says Prof Murray.

That's dumb.

You can't have an inverted age structure in a closed ecosystem, on average and over a long enough timescale:

  • All older individuals were once young.
  • Not all young individuals will become old.

So you can't , on average and over the long term, have more elderly than young people within a given age bracket (ie, an inverted age structure).  

The problem of 'inverted age structures' only comes about because of four effects:

  • A short term boom in babies being born (eg, the post-war baby boomers working their way through the system).  The important thing to remember about this is that it is always a temporary effect working its way through the system.
  • A longer term, drawn out, reduction in numbers being born.  Note that this will eventually just reach a new steady state, so it is also a temporary effect. 
  • Migration of a limited age range into a country, and then waiting for that cohort to become old.
  • A deadly disease that preferentially targets younger folk.  You have to hope we don't have one of those, but, again, it would be a short term effect that would eventually make its way through the system.

Each of those potential situations is temporary, and the right thing to do is to allow the demographic bump to work its way through the system -- eventually the age structure reaches a new steady state without inverted age demographics.

The absolutely worst thing to do is to try to 'solve' a demographic 'problem' by encouraging childbirth or via migration -- the end result of this will be a new demographic problem (like inverted age structure) down the line. 

Arguably, we're currently suffering from an inverted age structure because of an encouragement of migrant labour to the UK during the 70's-80's.  The current lot of migrant labour (since 2000) will cause the inverted age-structure in a few year's time, and the response to that (thanks, Prof Murray) seems to be to have new migrant labour that would then cause another demographic problem down the line.

[Of course, 'migration' does work as a solution if the migrant workforce leaves before they get old.  The problem for the UK is that we're (currently) a wealthy country, so the most likely effect will be for the rich migrants (who could fund their old-age) to leave, while the poor migrants (who can't fund their old-age) stay.    Even worse, the UK seems to have a policy of making it easier for poorer migrants to gain permanent residency -- this is rather weird]

The solution? 

  • The country should have an aim for 'children born' that would keep a stable population.  Encourage this (eg tax breaks) during recessions/wars to stop these demographic bumps coming along and making things difficult in future years.
  • Migration is okay but only so long as the migrants don't stay when they're old (specifically wrt the 'demographic issues' problem).  So, if a migrant labourer could come to the UK for 5 years max (say) so long as they had a (real) job, and then absolutely leave (without argument), including any children they've created while here -- then there's no actual long-term impact on UK demographics and we get the benefit of their labour while they're here.

To me the above two points are an obvious response to the demographic bump coming through.  It is certainly far more sensible than the current 'solution' of feral baby-makers ('born into poverty'), discouraging the middle class from procreation (DINK, house prices, 'profession more important than family') and permanent residency for large numbers of migrants.

Edited by dgul
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...