Received: from netlink.com.au (merlin.netlink.com.au [203.16.172.196]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id IAA02121 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:38:06 -0700 (MST) Received: from netlink.com.au (h048.mel.netlink.com.au [203.62.225.48]) by netlink.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA27454 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:43:07 +1100 Message-ID: <364C5219.6E75189E@netlink.com.au> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:36:57 +1100 From: rc&am Reply-To: rcollins@netlink.com.au MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK Subject: [Fwd: The Poor and The Rich] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B29F3F0257800ADE16E72EEF" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B29F3F0257800ADE16E72EEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------B29F3F0257800ADE16E72EEF Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="nsmailEE.TMP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="nsmailEE.TMP" Message-ID: <364AEEAF.BF530BE8@netlink.com.au> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 01:20:31 +1100 From: rc&am Reply-To: rcollins@netlink.com.au MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ttoal@jps.net Subject: Re: The Poor and The Rich References: <364A4811.F5135DB@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit is this the entirety of george alter's post? Ted Toal wrote: > I don't think it has to be that way at all, at least if you are talking > financial burden. I believe the developed countries should be shouldering a > good deal, if not most, of the financial burden of fertility reduction. how helpful. so, let me get this right: you want richer countries to finance the depopulation of the poorer countries do they won't emigrate to those countries? > Now if > you are saying that the poor countries are the ones that have the burden of > lowering their fertility rate, yes, of course I'd have to agree with that, but > surely you can't be saying that they should not have to be subject to such a > burden! in a prior post, you argued that the impact of population figures in poorer countries is less than that of richer countries. so, why should the 'burden of lowering fertility rates' fall on poorer countries? is there not a determined contradiction in your argument here? also, is it not the case that there are a number of quite wealthy countries wherein the ratio of person per land is higher than most poorer countries? so: once again, your claim that there is a problem of overpopulation is contradicted by your solutions. to repeat: these 'solutions' are in fact your aims, and the flag of overpopulation is simply a convenient way of hiding this fact. > <<< Fertility in the rich countries is already below replacement > level. Although we are still growing because of echoes of the baby boom of > the 1950s, in the next century Europe, North America, and Japan will go > below ZPG to negative population growth.>>> > > This will not happen unless we reduce immigration, which at this point seems > unlikely. and here was i thinking that you were advancing a problem of global parameters. your point of departure it turns out is a nationalist one. > In the U.S., fertility is not yet below replacement level, and in > California it is about 2.5 because of larger families of Hispanic immigrants. how irrational of them. > It is my hope that the strong downward trend in fertility in the developing > countries will continue, and a below-replacement rate will be reached in a > decade or so, leading to NPG sometime towards the middle or end of the 21st > century. since this is already happening, and loks likely to continue, remind me again why you want to campaign agaisnt 'overpopulation'? i don't think you beleive overpopulation is the problem any more than i do, it just gives your racism an edge of respectability amongst those looking for a respectable racism. > <<< Furthermore, any further decline > in the birth rate will only exacerbate the problem of funding future old > age pensions, which still depend upon transfers from the young to the old.>>> > > This may be true, it is true. > but its just another problem that has to be solved somehow > other than by continuing to overpopulate the planet. didn't you just note trends towards a decline in birth rates? what exactly would you consider to be the optimal range of population numbers for this planet, and how have you come to this decision? tell me, i'd really like to know the science behind this. > I have to admit that this > is one problem I've paid little attention to. Realize that there will be both > negative and positive benefits of NPG, but I believe the positive ones will far > outway the negative ones. what precisely are the positive and negative effects that you foresee? > So you ARE saying what I thought you couldn't possibly be saying! This makes > no sense. You are saying, "The world may be overpopulated, but because it is > the poor countries for the most part (excluding U.S.) do you exclude the US for personal reasons, or is this a necessary piece in your repetoire? > that need to reduce their > fertility rates, that is too big a burden for them, so we'll just have to > continue growing the population." changes in birth rates will occur and are occuring in countries which develop systems of welfare, develop and grow. this is exactly the process that took place in most 'developed' countries. if you did not have a hidden racist agenda in tow, you would be campaigning for third world development; instead, you make a pretence to wanting to 'share the pain' so that you can ultimately justify a program of eugenics. > <<< There is one alternative that could smooth the transition. If the rich > countries would allow more immigration from the poor countries, the taxes > paid by the immigrants would help to fund old age pensions in rich > countries and also ease population pressures in the poor countries. Since > the fertility of immigrant populations is lower than fertility in sending > regions, this would reduce birth rates globally as well. >>> > > I think you are dead wrong here. Let me give my reasoning. First, this would > have several negative effects: (1) immigrants take on the consumption rate of > the receiving region, so they are basically moving from a low-consumption > region to a high-consumption one. The net effect is to increase impacts on the > environment. aside from the dubious implication that immigrants from poore countries take on rates of consumption anywhere near those of the rich living in richer countries, this is a strict attempt to refuse others the comforts that many of us in wealthier countries take for granted. how does one convert this into a virtuos proposition? easy: by making it seem as if it's really all in the interests of the planet. > (2) Though their fertility might be lower than the sending > region, it is generally HIGHER than the receiving region, leading to an > increase in fertility in the receiving region, which, having a higher > consumption level, further increases environmental impacts. but - are the birth rates of immigrants in, let's say Australia, anywhere near the birht rates of the country of emigration? no. immigration generally entails a significant decline in birth rates. your position is an anti-immigrant one rather than one of concern for global levels of population. > (3) Such > immigration is usually of unskilled laborers, and so it lowers the availability > of unskilled jobs in the receiving country, which are already in short supply. immigration has had either a net positive or no effect on the employment rates of non-immigrant populations. this is substantiated by every peice of research i have seen. unemployment, even unemployment amongst 'unskilled' workers, is not increased by immigration. the reverse is true. technological displacement is responsible for the unemployment created in certain occupational categories, not immigrants. > This further hurts the welfare of the poor in the receiving country. again, not true. > The second problem with your suggestion is that it simply wouldn't help the > sending country. Even a large increase in immigration rates would not put more > than a slight dent in the population of the sending countries. And > furthermore, most of those leaving are the ones who are a bit more well-off, a > bit more educated than the average. Immigration acts as a brain drain on the > sending countries. so, it's fortress amerika time it seems. and all for the good of the planet... > Another thing to consider is that immigration is pretty disruptive to > families. People don't immigrate to a totally different culture out of > choice. That can't be an easy thing to do. I don't think we should be > encouraging it, although agribusiness and certain other businesses that depend > on low wage labor would certainly like it. The solution is to improve > conditions in the sending country, not try to use immigration as a relief valve > for them. and, what exactly in anything you have posted has suggested ways of improving the conditions in poorer countries? all you've demanded is the need to 'stop the poor breeding' and stop the poor emigrating to where you live. > <<< Anti-immigrant rhetoric is fueling the rise of neo-fascist parties in > Europe, and most political parties (e.g. the U.S.) are afraid of the issue.>>> anti-immigrant rhetoric is neo-fascism, not just something that fuels it. > Immigration is certainly a tough issue to deal with. The accusations of racism > fly like crazy, often totally unjustified, yet at the same time fully > understandable given humanity's past history of racism. The neo-fascists just > add fuel to the fire. We need to keep talking about it and try to understand > one another. well, those people running around waving swastikas saying pretty much the same things that ted here is certainly make it hard for him. and, isn't it unfortunate that the nazis gave eugenics such a bad name..... angela --------------B29F3F0257800ADE16E72EEF--