Subj : Great Replacement Theory
To   : Arelor
From : Boraxman
Date : Sun May 29 2022 17:01:00

-=> Arelor wrote to Kaelon <=-

 Ar> @MSGID: <6291F88A.6902.dove-debate@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
 Ar> @REPLY: <6290FCF0.59781.dove-deb@vert.synchro.net>
 Ar>   Re: Great Replacement Theory
 Ar>   By: Kaelon to boraxman on
 Ar> Fri May 27 2022 09:31 am

 > non-whites in your country (again, a racist perspective) - then you need to
 > confront the demographic failures of your country.  It starts with birth rat
 > (and this is controversial) but until your country generates 2,100 births fo
 > every 1,000 women, it in effect cannot replace its population to stay
 > population neutral.  Most Western Countries have abysmal birth rates (born,

 Ar> The problem I have with that argument is that the Western countries
 Ar> taking immigrants from poor countries in a massive way and which have
 Ar> internal demographic crisis usually have a demographic crisis because
 Ar> they cannot cope with more population.

 Ar> Sure, in Spain we could keep on multiplying like rabbits. However, we
 Ar> could not maintain our offspring in an environment considered
 Ar> acceptable by current Spanish standards. There is simply no demand for
 Ar> more people to exist.

 Ar> If you try to think of some business to start in Spain you soon realize
 Ar> that every need you could fullfil is already satisfied by an existing
 Ar> infrastructure. The unemployed to vacancies ratio is not favorable
 Ar> either. This translates in lots of mini-phenomena which occur in
 Ar> society and makes people not have more children, because Spaniards
 Ar> don't want to have children which will end up living in poverty.

The "dropping birthrates is a problem" is only a problem because of our current
economic system.  We could address this by economic means, more optimal
distribution of wealth, better allocation of resource and labour.  All these
solutions are preferable to the vasty most disruptive and problem-ridden
solution of mass migration.  In short, these problems exist to maintain
particular economic arrangements for a few.

In Australia, we dramatically ramped up immigration in the early 2000s.  It was
a significant increase, but there was no corresponding 'boom'.  Infrastricture
became stretched, we started running out of space, hospital beds, etc.  House
prices started to rise (though for other reasons too).  Wages have been
stagnant, the cost of living increasing relative to them.  Companies became
lazy with hiring because there was always a steady stream of brown people to
man the factory floor.

The 'low birthrate' scare was just that, demographers extrapolating figures in
the 80s and 90s and predicting doom, as experts always do.

Australia shut off immigration during the pandemic, and despite the cries of
doom and gloom should we lower it from pundits, we kept on going.  We now know
that this argument that we need to maintain 200K+ people coming in a year to
survive is bluff.
 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
 þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

.