Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015
vexen

The Earth's Population: Numbers, Pensions and Cultural War

"The fantastic population explosion that the Earth is experiencing is uneven. The developed world is gradually experiencing a reduction in growth, leading to an actual decline in population. The result is that even as the West grows old, much of the world becomes more and more overpopulated. As a result the increase in the amount of retired people, and the decrease in workers paying into pensions schemes, all pensions schemes are already starting to collapse. Also, most industries rely on young adult immigrants as the local workforces are becoming increasingly scarce. Our economy and future depends on pulling increasingly greater numbers of workers from countries that are not yet entering the post-explosion era.

Developed countries must maintain strong armies to protect themselves from the rumblings of unrest in the overpopulated countries, and to protect such unstable countries from each other, and we must also keep a continual watch over the developing nations in order to aid them past the population-explosion stages in their history. To think that there is no problem or to ignore it is to invite the collapse of civilised Western society under a tide of economic collapses brought on by overpopulation and civil chaos. At the end of the day, if there is no solution to wars and overpopulation, may the most advanced countries survive!"

New page contents:
  1. The Population of the Earth
  2. The Ageing West: The Pensions Crises and Immigration
  3. Cultural War Between Post-Explosion and Population-Explosion Countries
  4. Conclusions

  • 1
Yes, and let us not forget where the most advanced 'countries' were 4000 years ago.

Give us a clue... Egypt? South America?

Well, Egypt for sure. Iraq, and China of course. Always China.

If we requier continued imigration from other countries to keep our economy from colapsing under age inbalance surly it is to our advantage to keep less developed countries unstable making life uncertain encouraging higher birth rates to ensure both a continued bloodline and children to care for pearents in old age.
Not only dose instability increas population but it also makes it unhappy with it's lot where it is and more keen to come here.
Just a shame the practicle line to follow is not the moral one really.
All the same your pre-amble describing the situation seems at odds with the actions you propose in your solution.

1. I think that as our economist are *so* far ahead of those of the developing world, that even with stability immigration will still occur. People still move from the USA to other countries; as with Japan, there are more than purely economic/stability in mind when people migrate... but, I hope it's not true what you say... that it is to our advantage to keep them unstable. I think not actually... economically, the whole world suffers when individual countries' economies suffer... for example when the Russian currency collapsed, Polands collapsed... this domino effect is always in effect. When countries gain stability, the effect is cumulative (as in Scandanivian countries)... I'd like to think that if we can stabilize the economies of struggling countries, it has an overall positive effect on Europe and the developed world. So... I'd still guess that stabilization would be better in general, for our economy and industry, even if it might seem that de-stabilisation would work better in the short-term. Or am I just being optimistic?

2. I don't know how my pre-amble contradicts my "solution" - I don't really know what the "solution" is to the emerging demographic crises in the West (apart from making sure we continue to allow proper immigration). I don't see this contradicts the simultaneous maintaining of good armed defences, just in case, you know, the 'war' scenarious keep on occurring.

The part of your solution I was reffering to was purely the bit about stability in developing countries. I would agree that maintining a millertary is sensible for most counties and if a jobs worth doing it's worth doing well.
I think that Instability in developing counties dose cause an increas in migration in our direction, this dose not exclude emigration in other directions. Prople from the UK often move to less properous counties where thier money goes further or where they preffer the weather or culture. Instability elsewhere mearly unbalabces the over all direction of travel in our favor.
Also the emigration from here appears to be more waited towards the older genoration looking for some place to retier to more suitable to thier tasts and wallets than eastbourne. where as the in coming emegration from less stable areas seems a younger demographic (Not stats to prove this but that seems how it is).
Stability may well binifit the World economy as a whole but may be bad for the coutries currently near the top (The UK included). The effects of Globle stability are hard to predict as that state has never really exsisted. Economicaly however we have insolated ourselves from many economies likely to become unstable. Unfortunatly the need for oil at the moment has lead us to be strongly linked with some unstable economies and indeed stability there would be of short term benifit (Although long term a push away from oil use would be a good thing.

Yeah that's a pretty good analysis I think.

Tourism involves greater numbers of people than immigration; so in that sense along with the economic knock-on effects of stability, stability confers greater people-movement (long and short term, permanent and temporary) than poverty or instability.

Tourisum only really counts as another form of trade. It shouldn't really be compared with the numbers of people migrating as migration is perminent where as tourisum is so tempoary as to not really be here ina living sense at all.

I do not denie we need stable partners to trade with. That we currently have. We also are well served by the instability and the resultant poverty in other regions sending us immigrants. As with most things we are est served by a balanc e of both.

As ever what is best for us is not nessersarily what is good for the reat of the world and we must make a moral choice.

What happens when these countries develop their own WMDs? Do we rely on them to use them against eachother? Or (in the case of the UK for certain) our greater distance making it hard to use them against us?

God knows... WMD are never a simple solution, it seems even simple questions about them are hard to answer.

when I was younger I used to think the Chinese limit on the number of kids someone could have was all fascist & wrong.

However looking at the overpopulation problems were faced with it suddenly doesn't seem such a bad option given that there's gonna be three basic option :-

a) Have civilisation collapse (you can debate for days on the merits & flaws of this one but frankly it's not for me)

b) Regulate how fast the population grows (the above - limit yer kids option)

c) Start culling people when the population gets to high (and call it 'peacekeeping' or whatever).

Suddenly the 'harsh' limit on how many kids you can have doesn't look so bad.

Moraly keeping a limit on population dose sound sensible but the decline in population here coupled with a longer life exspectancy is making the population top heavey with more retiered people than people of working age can support. China it's self is having problems in some areas with this now.
A solution needs to be found however as I would agree that a perminently increasing population is not a sustainable option.

Yup.
Whilst human rights are pretty important, there are limits, such as on demanding the right to have as many kids as you want, when doing so on a mass scale could have(well frankly is) having devastating results.

Makes you think of the tight rope you have to walk. Too few rights & you're a in fascist dictatorship like many of the countries that America likes to invade, err I mean 'keep the peace in'. but have too many and you're in a selfishly decadant state obsessed were people are obsessed with themselves regardless of the detriment to others, pretty much like America with it's God given right to cheap gasoline (regardless of the fact it's a limited resource) and it's refusual to do anything about all it's pollution 'cos their industries loosing money worries them more then the planet going *splutch* (to use a technical).

It's all a bit of pickle really.

I read something very interesting in a magazine a few months back; will have to find that article again and see if they offer it online. It describes how discrepancies in birth rates and overall population in terms of the amount of youth vs. the number of aging/aged can actually prompt societies to become more patriarchal, and thus indirectly more war-prone. Apparently back in the enlightened years of civilizations like Greece, the birth rate declined, and throughout time there have been similar declines in the more "enlightened" cultures. However, these peoples eventually end up getting overrun by other nations simply by means of their strength in numbers (think: Rome).

Now as far as pensions go, I don't know how they handle it in the U.K., but in the U.S. there's Social Security and Medicare--both of which are threatened and a source of eternal tension within politics and workers paying in vs. older recipients benefiting from. The immigration issue is a very hotly contended one right now, especially in California, with the burgeoning influx of illegal immigrants usually coming from Mexico both contributing and yet also stressing the state economy and causing all kinds of social divisiveness. I tend to think that if Mexico got its economic stuff together, it wouldn't be such an issue, and with the ongoing population problem at least here in CA, I think more and more people are eventually going to see the wisdom in helping out Mexico (if the government would stop its corrupted practices, that is!).

I'm confused as to how current Islamic nations would experience an 'enlightenment' of the sort that would lend itself to more stability and prosperity. That would require either changing the religion itself, or completely overhauling the attitudes of some of its practitioners-- or abolishing the practice of it altogether in favor of something less ... narrow.

And one thing we should remember: sometimes it's not war or economic collapse that evens out or reduces overpopulation. There are diseases and viruses that do the job just as well, and in overly populated areas, with something contagious--even moreso!

overpopulation mythology

the aging population theory isn't necessarily going to happen as text books since the '60s have prophesied. aside from which it could be the wrong thing to obsess about. the real future is enfolded inextricably within an earthly ecosystem. pensions/taxpayers/economy ect, are not the priorities of the real ecosystem. it is not all about the human species. an economic system needs to develop around the concept of reduced populations as these are probably going to be essential if the future includes global warming, bio/chemical warfare, limited(best case scenario) nuclear warfare & other nightmares humanity hasn't even dreamed of yet.

Re: overpopulation mythology

I agree that society will need to be reformed around the idea of shrinking populations, because of some the hazards you list.

  • 1
?

Log in