The “greying” of the population in Western countries is a well-known phenomenon. The current demographic trend that sees Western women having an average of about 1.5 children each means that that the birthrate stays well below replacement level. With substantial improvements in medical care for the elderly, Western societies have become top-heavy with older people — geezers like me.
This situation is obviously one of the driving reasons for importing so many young and fecund foreigners from the Third World. It’s clear to long-term policy planners that the current welfare state cannot be sustained if the cohort of working-age people keeps shrinking while the geriatric cohort keeps ballooning. The importation of young foreigners is the only way to keep the system from crashing — or so the reasoning goes.
Nationalists who desire to preserve their country’s culture and genetic makeup routinely discuss the need to increase the birthrate, to make motherhood more socially fashionable — I can’t think of a better word — and less of a financial burden to families. In countries where nationalist parties control the government, such as Russia and Hungary, programs have been put in place to encourage and support childbearing, with an eye towards raising the fertility rate to the magic number of 2.1.
Even the most optimistic promoters of birth-encouragement, however, admit that achieving success will be a long and difficult process. And even if they enjoy such success right now — which doesn’t seem to be happening — the benefits won’t kick in for a full generation. Whereas the liabilities of a rapidly-aging population are kicking in right now.
Nevertheless, there is another, obvious way in which the demographic makeup of the population could be shifted. But no one really wants to talk about it — and with good reason.
The demographics of a population are controlled by two factors: the birth rate and the death rate. When either changes, the demographic balance shifts. Nudging the birthrate upwards is, as policy-makers have discovered, quite difficult. But nudging the death rate upwards would be quite easy, especially in a welfare state with a fully socialized medical system.
Do you think the policy wonks that manage socialized medical care haven’t noticed this alternative? I don’t — anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of statistics would be aware of it. But it’s not something that a clinician or social scientist would want to write about, nor would any medical journal want to publish about it.
Up until now the planners have preferred a less draconian solution to the problem of the greying of the population. The plan has been to import new workers from among the teeming hordes in the “developing countries” to replace the aging whites whose taxes have hitherto propped up the system. “New skin for the old ceremony,” as Leonard Cohen said.
But it’s not working out the way it was supposed to. Even Angela Merkel must have realized by now that the “New Germans” aren’t going to provide a sufficient economic base to replace the native German one. Not anytime soon, and maybe not ever, based on the way the second and third generations of culture-enrichers stubbornly cling to their low-skill welfare-parasite habits.
No, the system will eventually collapse if present trends continue. Even when London becomes the Dhaka of the West and Berlin morphs into Istanbul, the problem will remain: there won’t be enough working young people to pay for the old people.
And that’s when the policy planners will start looking at the other side of the ineluctable demographic equation. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that they’re already looking at it — quietly and discreetly, behind closed doors. How could they not be looking at it?
I’ll have more to say about the geriatric “final solution” to the demographic problem, but first let’s take a look at the statistics.
I recently ran across an excellent website called World Life Expectancy, which features well-designed graphical representations of demographic data for all the countries of the world, beginning in 1950 and projecting all the way up to 2050.
The site uses a graphing script to create a “population pyramid”, which shows the statistical breakdown of a population by age. Youngsters are at the bottom, geezers at the top; females on the
left right, males on the right left.
The traditional form of the pyramid is represented by the 2015 graph for Senegal:
Lots and lots of youngsters, very few old people, and a smoothly decreasing graph from the bottom to the top.
This is the sort of population that can, at least in theory, support socialized care for the elderly. Not many old people and lots of young ones: a modest tax on the youthful will suffice to support the senescent.
But for various reasons — among them the fact that the welfare state disincentivizes childbearing for all but the underclass — the population pyramid isn’t a pyramid at all for mature Western social democracies. Take a look at the USA in 2015:
You can see the Boomer Bulge up there at the top (that’s where I am). Down below is a second bulge for the children of the Boomers. And then below that it gets narrower.
Obviously, the American taxpayer is going to have to endure a much higher tax rate than the Senegalese do to support the geezers in their dotage.
But the USA is close to a best-case example of the fully-developed Western democracies. For something closer to worst-case, we need to look at Greece. Here it is in 1950:
This is not bad for supporting a full welfare state. It’s not quite a pyramid, but at least it’s similar to one.
Move ahead sixty-five years to 2015, however, and it looks completely different:
This isn’t a population pyramid, it’s a population minaret, minus the little crescent on the pointy top.
You don’t have to be an accredited statistician to deduce that a population shaped like this one can’t support a mature welfare state, with adequate pensions, housing, and medical care for the elderly. It just can’t. That’s why Greece is deep in debt to the European Central Bank, and getting deeper all the time. It would have to raise its retirement age to about 80 to right the ship of state, but it has great difficulty pushing the age past 60 — a lot of the riots in recent years have been about raising the retirement age or cutting pensions.
And every election just puts another batch of hard-core socialists in charge. So the system can’t be changed; it just becomes more and more sclerotic — fewer workers, higher unemployment, higher taxes, a degraded infrastructure, and total dependence on subsidies from Brussels.
Political change is all but impossible, so the system can’t do anything but collapse. Which it will unavoidably do, sooner or later.
Other Southern European states are in similar straits. The North will follow them later, with Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, being the last one to follow them over the cliff.
Keeping the Senegal pyramid in mind, look at this map showing the fertility rates of various countries around the globe:
That orange-red-magenta band across the middle of Africa is where the huge population surplus is being constantly generated. That’s what the long-time planners are importing into Europe in a vain attempt to save the sclerotic system.
Those countries are euphemistically said to be part of the “developing world”. The term came into fashion back when I was a kid. It was designed to make you think that all those teeming tropical backwaters were just late to the development game, but were now getting into the swing of it. Give them another few decades and they’d be just like us — factories and highways and skyscrapers and a thriving industrial economy that can support a modern welfare system like ours.
Well. It didn’t quite work out that way, did it?
Sixty years later they’re still teeming poverty-stricken tropical backwaters, only with millions upon millions more children to feed. The umpteen bazillion dollars the West has poured into Africa has just served to line the pockets of and build the mansions for the corrupt oligarchy that “govern” the place. Meanwhile well-meaning aid agencies supply food and medical care to keep all those poor babies alive. The local economy can’t afford them, but the incentives are there for parents to keep making them, so they do.
Senegal isn’t a “developing country”, it’s a baby-making factory. And if European policy-planners have their way, a large portion of those babies will eventually make their way to Europe to replace all those native Europeans who are dying off.
There’s only one problem with the whole scenario: when those babies turn into young adults and arrive in Europe, they don’t become productive workers, they go on the welfare rolls. Large numbers of them, a majority in some Western and Northern European countries.
The plan isn’t working. It can’t work. We have several decades of hard data now that demonstrate that it can’t work. But the leaders of the European Union don’t have a Plan B, so they just keep doubling down: more immigration, more “integration”, more welfare benefits. Because there isn’t any other option.
Almost ten years I wrote about these trends and their all but inevitable endgame in an essay called “Contemplating Geronticide”. In the decade since conditions have only worsened — an even older population, persistently low birthrates, and no sign that the “New Europeans” will ever supply the productive capital necessary to keep the system stable.
No political leader currently in power wants to implement radical change, because the unpredictable outcome of such a change might force him out of power. So nobody is willing to plan for anything but more of the same, more taxes, more welfare, more state control, on and on until the bus goes over the cliff.
We’ve moved beyond contemplating geronticide to managing it. Right now the management is quiet and unobtrusive, but it will eventually become more overt.
Here are two items from the possibilities I looked at back in 2008:
4. A gradual reduction in the quality of medical care for the elderly
State-financed health care, plagued as it is by chronic shortages, is already rationed in one form or another within the welfare states of Europe.
It would take just a small bureaucratic shift to push the rationed care away from old people, thereby hastening their demise and easing the burden on a highly stressed welfare system.
This is already happening. A de-facto triage of the elderly is in force in Britain’s National Health Service. The very old, especially those without children to make noise on their behalf, are being warehoused in appalling conditions and are dying in larger and larger numbers.
The policy of death-by-triage has recently become more overt, as the NHS proposes to deny surgery and other medical treatment to smokers and the obese, due to their lifestyle decisions.
Similar conditions have recently emerged in Sweden.
My next point:
5. The widespread increase of officially-sanctioned euthanasia.
The Dutch lead the world in euthanasia policy. They have already moved beyond voluntary to involuntary euthanasia, in which doctors and the children of elderly patients make the decision to put the old folks down.
It’s all ostensibly for the good of the patients and their families, of course. Quality of life and so on.
But it’s really for the good of the state, which needs old people to die off more rapidly so that the system can be maintained.
The politicians want to stay in power, so the system must be held together. Since the state is responsible for the general welfare, the state decides who must die. For the greater good, mind you.
The old and infirm have to be cleared out to make room for all those “youths” from Senegal.
I don’t have to tell you that this isn’t going to end well.
The system will obviously break down at some point. It can’t sustain itself indefinitely. It’s been very resilient so far, and the technocrats have managed it very shrewdly. A little more baling wire and duct tape, and they just might be able to keep the wheezing old junker running for another decade or two.
Most of the Boomers will probably manage to shuffle off this mortal coil while still drawing a generous pension. The brunt of the geronticide will probably be borne by subsequent generations. Even when the retirement age gets pushed past 70, medical advances will be able keep those retired geezers alive for a much longer time.
Those who have been triaged in, that is. The lucky ones.
The obese, the smokers, those who eat the wrong things — they may not be so lucky. Later it will have to become a simple lottery…
If I were a member of Generation X, I’d be seriously considering an alternative means of support for my old age.
And I would be doing my best to stay out of the government-run “health care” system.
Outlaw abortion, problem solved.
That’s almost comical as a solution. Remember that African-Americans are represented in the abortion numbers out of all proportion to their actual percentage of the population. Are we really to believe that the millions upon millions who instead of being aborted will, under this plan, live to become citizens will not end up as clients of the federal government?
A similar, but much less extreme version of this is simply to raise the retirement age.
I wouldn’t raise it for physical labour jobs. But for most jobs, it’s the obvious solution.
One might not really have to raise it all that much. Say it goes from 65 to 66. There are actually TWO years gained in there: one year of not collecting retirement benefits AND one year of still paying into the system.
Consider also how much youth unemployment there is in places like Greece.
Automation is also a part of the solution.
And of course, immigration *can* be a part of the solution. Not idiotic mass migration of fake refugees, but carefully selected immigration of those that bring economic benefit. The average points-selected migrant, for example, will likely turn into a net benefit. Maybe not right away, but in the long-term.
I think that if one can keep the birthrate from being catastrophically low, managing a long-term 0.1-0.2% population decrease per year should be just fine, so long as one doesn’t have an internal demographic problem, and a large population isn’t needed to respond to an external threat.
I think that the Japanese are thinking in this way. “Western” countries, almost to a fault, have gone the immigration route. To me, there’s more to it than just the naive hope that it would solve the problem.
Greece shows how difficult it is to raise the retirement age. It causes RIOTS, and then a new government gets elected by promising not to raise it.
It’s very difficult politically to make even minimal changes in the right direction.
I agree that it’s difficult. The Harper administration did it, only to have it reversed by the new government of Boy Wonder.
But if people can be sold on “Diversity is our Strength” and the idea that African and Islamic immigrants are the solution to the problem, *surely* there can be a way to con them into this one, as well.
Here’s how I’d do it, if I were in charge: I’d figure that a 65 year old will probably collect – say – 20 years’ of benefits. I’d offer a 5% boost (or whatever works actuarially) for those delaying their pension to age 66, but I’d be quiet about the fact that they’d still be paying *in* during that time, so there would be “profit” to the system… not forgetting that in the end, it’s not really about the money flow, but about the work flow.
Then I’d let inflation slowly chip away at the base. at about 0.5%/year. Not a huge noticeable effect on those already getting benefits, but an encouragement to delay retirement a little to the newly eligible.
I think that this could solve a part of the problem.
There are other methods, too.
1) Rampant obesity in Western societies is increasing medical costs, but also will lower life expectancies, and may be an unknown factor.
2) Smoking. Smoking tends to make people get sick more-or-less as they’re hitting retirement age. The cost of a smoking-related death, while statistically earlier than a “natural” death, can’t be much higher, even if sooner. So in the end, the result of smoking is that it lowers demands on pensions, it seems to me. I’d lay off the anti-smoking campaigns. Not actually *encourage* smoking, but just lay off. That might solve a bit of the problem, too, in a “voluntary” way.
3) The *big* one, to me, is to “solve” the problem by finding ways to increase the involvement of the elderly into eldercare. It sounds obvious, and it happens a lot naturally, but – at the risk of engaging in social engineering – there might be ways to make it even more of a “thing”. Here’s the thing: if pension incomes are insufficient, it becomes an obvious way to seek extra cash. So perhaps government old-age pensions shouldn’t be straight-up pensions, but have a disability component, as well, meaning that (after inflation chips away at things) than the full pension only goes to those unable to do additional work? It’s hard to measure and I haven’t full thought it through, but this might be an angle as well.
What I’m really getting at is that we tend to have too sharp of a distinction between “working” and “retired”. Perhaps the norm for healthy late 60s and 70s should be “semi-retired”, instead of flat-out “retired”. I see this in my own family, with my father being in this situation, and it works quite well for everyone involved, quite obviously including his employer.
I am very grateful you are not in control.
You are speaking about people not computers here.
You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this, but you’re barking at the wrong tree. I make this statement confidently.
The real problem is not shifting around dollars and workers. The real problem is the genetic deterioration of the population. Women are not simply “choosing” to not have babies. Their inherited desire and ability to have children is no longer in their biological makeup. The birthrate and general level of intelligence would be going down even if the government stopped collecting taxes from all families with children and cut off all immigration.
I’ll go more into it in a later post, but I wanted to state here that your accounting solution to the problem is simply not going to work. No reflection on you, but facts are facts.
Re-reading my own post, I find myself to be largely in agreement with “myfreeeurope” and “RonaldB”.
Let me clarify a bit. I don’t actually advocate for encouraging people to smoke. It was more along the continuum of proposing something less extreme than what was being envisaged in the original post, i.e., restricting care. Failing to discourage people from hurting themselves is a lot more acceptable to me than making a decision to actively “hurt” them. Though I’d like to think that there are solutions which can avoid both.
As for RonaldB, I fully agree that the problem isn’t an accounting one. The accounting merely represents what is happening. Raising the retirement age means that people are productive longer. That’s the main story. How that represents in accounting-speak is the secondary one.
I’ll toss out another idea from watching this whole discussion: a lower “state pension” age for those having 3 or more children. Or perhaps a lower income tax rate on pension income. I wonder if it would have any effect? Probably not.
I generally dislike social engineering approaches. But we may have a case where cultural survival depends on it.
I would go even further and posit that large swathes of the European peoples have lost their will to live and thus their will to procreate future Europeans.
Sadly, I have no idea what it will take to recover European mojo. The vacuousness of modern life appears to be a one-way downward spiral.
Just on Mike’s “smoking” suggestion. A former Australian Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, observed that smokers are cheap for the state’s health and welfare systems. Firstly, in very large proportion, they get fatally ill quite young (late 50’s, early 60’s) and don’t spend long in hospital before they die due to the rapidity of their diseases. Secondly, they don’t spend very long on old-age pensions (if they make it that far). Thirdly, they generally work and pay income tax up until they die young. Fourthly, in Oz at least, about 86 cents in the dollar for each pack of cigarettes goes to the government in taxes.
As a nicotine-addict since 9 years old who has battled with it for almost half a century and has relied on Nicotine gum since 1992 (with a smoking period between 2007 and 2012), I loathe the smell of cigarette smoke and am highly sensitive to it – I can smell a smoker at 20 paces. Yet I’m with Mike: the government should “lay off”.
There is also this eugenics factor: I have noted over the past two decades that smoking is most prevalent amongst those that can least afford it financially. The upper-middle class and middle class, the tertiary educated, do not smoke. Go out to the working class/welfare class areas and there are smokers everywhere. In short, let society’s dumber half kill itself off young by smoking in their exercise of human agency.
Just a note: I seem to recall discussion of a Rand Corp report that was generated during Reagan’s first term.
It concluded that, without the vast numbers of premature deaths from tobacco, the US health care system would be overwhelmed in short order.
This report was making the rounds in the early 90s. It was also decried as being of the same ilk as the conclusions found in The Iron Mountain Report.
The UK has already raised the retirment age to 66. With plans for future age of 67. And, my guess is when that becomes the norm, a further hike will come along. There have been some grumbles, but no one has taken to the streets, or even voted on the basis of it. We must make it socially acceptable to have more than 2 children. Of course it can be done, if the will to impliment social engineering is there! After all, the obverse was achieved!
Yes, it can be done, in the sense that it is theoretically possible. But it isn’t being done, and there’s no sign yet that it will be.
In the ten years that I’ve been monitoring such matters, birth rates have not risen significantly in the West. In some countries they have decreased further. Russia and Hungary have had modest success in encouraging childbirth, but only at the margin. They are not close to the replacement rate yet.
My conclusion is that the state’s ability to increase the birth rate by encouragement is limited. The decision on whether or not to have children must be influenced primarily by other factors — social and economic ones.
The state is affecting the birth rate by its socialist policies, however: the general rule is the more socialism there is, the fewer children are conceived. But other factors obviously come into play: universally available contraception, the necessity for both husband and wife to be employed, the decline in religious belief, propaganda in the media promoting the glam single life and denigrating parents (especially fathers), etc.
None of this has improved in ten years. All of it is either the same or worse than it was in 2008. That leads me to conclude that there will be no significant change in the direction of life-affirming sanity until some sort of catastrophic situation arises and forces change upon us.
And catastrophe does lie ahead — all the trend lines point to it; it can’t be avoided. Mitigated, perhaps, but not avoided. I can’t say how long it will take, but the system as presently constituted must collapse eventually. It cannot be sustained.
Unless, of course, automation consumes us and the robots inherit the earth.
I’ll state this here as well. The problem of the declining birthrate is biological in origin. It cannot be solved by government manipulation or religious faith. At least, not any religious practice with which we are familiar. More at a later post.
“And of course, immigration *can* be a part of the solution. Not idiotic mass migration of fake refugees, but carefully selected immigration of those that bring economic benefit.”
And will that lead to a “war” for the right/correct immigrants…those who will work to advance the society they are invited to join? Will we see–as we have in other business environments–rewards given to those who bring the right skill sets with them? For example, will we offer a $20,000 “immigration signing bonus” to those who come to this country bringing skill sets we might need such as plumbers, electricians or robot technicians? Don’t laugh! If we haven’t started this thought process we certainly should before we end up behind the immigration 8-ball. Dr. Bill
I would disagree with you regarding automation; in my opinion, automation is a major part of the problem and it will only get worse when white collar workers are laid off in droves due to a robot taking their jobs. Robots don’t pay taxes or have families to provide for. The benefits go almost exclusively to the owners of the means of production, and no amount of cheaper goods will ever make up for the many jobs destroyed by each new machine.
The first round of automation targeted mostly blue collar jobs, leaving those who could not be retrained for anything more demanding than manual labor dependent on the taxpayer. For decades now, employers have succeeded at privatizing the profits while shifting the societal costs of automation to charities and taxpayers…
Automation is NOT a problem.
Robots are very limited in terms of what they can do.
Only people that work on robotics academically or that never worked with a robot think robots will replace humans in the next 100 years.
A few weeks ago I was reading a 15 year old book on robotics in which the author described a programming method as archaic and getting out of use. 15 years later it’s still used everyday in every factory around the world.
don’t be fooled by academics. They couldn’t find their toes even if they had their noses glued to their feet.
I strongly disagree.
For example, self driving cars are a reality and have only not yet become the norm on the roads due to legislation and social customs not yet having caught up to the reality. When they do though, the consequences for employment will be nothing short of catastrophic. Commercial driving/transportation/delivery is one of the largest types of employment in the USA. How will all those people in what is essentially a low skill job be retrained when the driving robot takes their job away? Can many of them even be retrained? Or how about when higher skilled occupations such as surgeon, airline pilot, teacher, lawyer, etc become taken over in large part by software? There is inherently no reason why the job of teacher or law professional cannot be done by computer programs. And probably done better in most cases. In the meantime, the need to take care of the physical needs of millions of formerly employed/employable adults and their families will still remain. What happens when robots do become intelligent enough (or indistinguishable from humans in their appearance of intelligence) to do creative jobs?
When technology will allow a given job to be done cheaper than a real human, then the job will be done by a robot or a line of code, and someone who was formerly employed will be unemployed. This will continue until one day the whole world resembles Africa, with hordes of teeming savages who are unemployable in any modern economy and lack the skills and aptitude for anything other than the crudest manual labor, but retain their capacity and inclination to breed like rats.
Self-driving vehicles are in their infancy. And a lot of the infrastructure will have to be changed to handle them, given the density of vehicular traffic. We’re at least 15 years away from widespread use of these cars. In the meantime, we make adjustments, just as the buggy whip manufacturers had to do.
There are way, way too many variables on the average road for self-driving cars to ever enjoy widespread adoption.
Agree that we are headed for a planet of mudhuts.
Dystopian [material that I deprecate], unconnected to reality.
Cars only cut the number of jobs for horsecrap shovelers, but the number of jobs from that tech upgrade increased for everything but horses, to the present day, for everything from car washers to road builders and street sweepers to oil drillers and refiners. In fact, there are now far more cars, trucks, and tractors than there ever were horses, by orders of magnitude. That’s what technology does.
Computers and software magnify jobs, they don’t decrease them, mainly because of GIGO problems.
Call me when software becomes flawless.
“Robots” may take away jobs from burger flippers, but only by increasing the jobs for those who load them with frozen patties and ketchup, service them, program them, repair them when they break, and design and rebuild their inevitable upgrades.
You’re not going to replace people in most jobs, ever. You may change the nature of some jobs, but the idea that you’re going to see whole swaths of the labor force displaced is rampant [material that I deprecate] from watching too much Star Trek as if it were reality gospel, and doing too little actual work, let alone running an actual business.
And anyone who thinks AI will take over driving or airline piloting is ignoring the inevitable Hindenburg/Titanic moments that will get that nonsense cancelled in about a minute.
Those who disagree can show me their ticket stubs from the White Star Line or Greater Reich Graf Zeppelin Corp. for their last transatlantic crossing.
So tell me: did jetliners create less jobs than ocean crossings, or more? And the reason you need so many drivers now is because shipping went from odd pieces to truck-borne cargo containers.
The future of technology inevitably looks more like The Jetsons (“Jane, stop this crazy thing!”)than it does or ever willStar Trek.
African countries have a pyramid, because there is no social security (except kids who will hopefully help support you in your dotage), coupled to a continent that whacks people with every natural and man-made population cull known to 10th century man, which is what most of that under-developed continent lives under to this day.
Dirt roads, mud huts, barbaric sanitation and lifestyle practices, and scads of helpful wildlife like lions and hippos, let alone malaria and Ebola, cull people even more ferociously than combining distilled alcohol with motor vehicles does hereabouts. Hence their demographic graphs.
The simple fix to the demographic “problem” is the obvious one: what government cannot sustain (Social Security/Medicare) will implode and collapse. Once you don’t have to worry about the nanny state’s “safety net”/noose, demographics is irrelevant. Population at that point, like it has for time immemorial, will devolve to a question of how many kids, and thus mouths, you can support, and the life choices involved.
Anything else is a race to Zimbabwe, including the inevitable round-up and execution of the bureaucrats and dictator involved, and unless you re-introduce grizzly bears and wolves to NYFC’s Central Park and the DC metro area, you can’t get there and sustain it.
Importing the Third World to the West is merely a way to bootstrap draconian bloodbath wars between the current civilized populations, and the non-native invasive species.
All the present is, is a warm-up for that bloodbath.
Trying to extrapolate a future trend, without including the inevitable response to the current machinations, is a failure of reactive physics and sociology on a global scale, akin to suggesting that one could increase the zebra population of the veldt without the lions, leopards, and cheetahs paying the newcomers any mind or taking any action.
One thing a lot of people are overlooking is the demand on natural resources that an ever expanding population requires. Can we even continue to support an ever expanding population just to have a workforce to take care of elderly patients and support a social safety network? Something tells me we are close to carrying capacity as it is. Something has to give. The current situation in most western countries is a utopia which is not sustainable.
“The benefits go almost exclusively to the owners of the means of production, and no amount of cheaper goods will ever make up for the many jobs destroyed by each new machine. ”
Too right, TMHM!
AI (i.e., Artificial Intelligence) will prove to be a principal factor in the “Triple Bottleneck” that modern civilization currently is entering into.
The three major components of this socioeconomic constriction are:
This triumvirate of apocalyptic influences will create a finely meshed filter that will mean DEATH for a huge percentage of this world’s population.
A recent study by Oxford researchers predicted that 45 percent of America’s occupations will be automated within the next 20 years.
Anyone familiar with GINI coefficients knows that intra-urban wage disparity is a principal driver of violent crime. As it is, far too many American metropolitan areas experience severe wage disparity.
In the most brutal terms, many of these cities consist of minimum-wage “burger flippers” and +$100K professionals. Whatever mid-tier Middle Class workers that there may be largely consist of public service employees like paramedics, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and civil servants.
All of whom (typically) are tax consumers, NOT tax producers.
Ergo, when the bottom drops out of these minimum-wage job markets, the crime rates will skyrocket. As in, ensure that people have “nothing to lose” and they will operate on that principal.
Few people are fully aware of just how expensive it is to operate large-scale penitentiaries. Mass-confinement easily can run between $20K to $40K per year, per inmate. Supermax prisons often run up the bill to +$100K per prisoner.
Simply put; where will all the money come from? Once the low-end manual labor jobs disappear, what “safety net” will there be for this (largely under-educated) portion of the population?
Consider this, how about all of those (typically Hispanic) “mow & blow” gardeners? Does anyone think they will be difficult to replace? Try the, “Landroid robotic lawnmower.
Much like the popular “Roomba” household robotic vacuum cleaners, these yard maintenance mowers will self-dock (to recharge) and provide short-interval mowing schedules that create clippings which readily mulch themselves and do not require raking or other gathering effort.
So, let’s look at the list … “gardeners”, burger flippers, order takers (McDonald’s already is installing touch-screen customer interface panels at test locations), and a host of other jobs that are on the cusp of automation.
Barring the delusional concept of “guaranteed minimum income” (GMI), there is a looming “brick wall” that threatens the lives of countless MILLIONS of people in the West.
Now, try to imagine what happens when this automation trend drills down into the Second and Third World.
For [redacted], go ahead and plug in Islam’s staggering (multi-trillion dollar per year) drain on world resources that are needed to combat its constant and violent assault on all non-Muslim cultures. Then, pick (your choice), “climate change”, overpopulation—which frequently involves many of these same intensely vulnerable low-skill workers—or just simple water poverty (i.e., food insecurity) that will, soon-enough, confront a massive portion of this planet’s poorest demographics.
This is the “Triple Bottleneck™” (you saw it here first!), and it will be a primary driver of conflicts that’ll make WWII look like a proverbial walk-in-the-park.
For anyone who scoffs at these grim predictions, merely add in North Korea and Iran becoming fully nuclearized powers.
Welcome to hell.
Epilogue: This is but one of many reasons why crushing North Korea and Iran remains such a high priority for the West. Just their potential disruption of world affairs could gyrate the impact of AI, and whatever third Triple Bottleneck™ option you select, into levers that have irreversible and all too comprehensive global impacts.
Raising the retirement age is impossible in most countries. Here in Czechia it used to be that women retired earlier if they had children (the exact number of years was based on the number of children, I remember my grandpa and grandma retired in the same year, due to him being older and them having two children), which was abolished soon after the revolution ( think). A while back they put a system in order that made your retirement age dependent on the year you were born. Certain years were all set to 65 (I think, I don’t remember the exact year up to which this was in place either) and everyone else depended on when you were born. For example in my case it would’ve been 68, for someone just a few years younger it would be 70. I believe they still had an upper limit of 75 or so. Soon after they dropped the system again, because experts said it’s nearly impossible for someone to keep working full-time at such a high age, due to pretty much everyone having some kind of health problem.
Let’s not forget populations move in waves, some generations having more children than others. What seems to be working for Western Societies is getting tax benefits and similar for more children. Hungary is a good example of that.
That said though, I don’t think it’s neccessary to make Western societies bigger. Due to modern technologies, less employees will be needed and it feels kind of natural that less children are born in times of overpopulation.
It’s important to remember Germany was just as successful with 20 millions less Germans than it has now. This whole hysteria about having less citizen and needing to import them from the outside is ridiculous. Just take a look at Japan, the money wasted on social support of migrants should be put into care for the elderly and improving processes to brace for potential growth in the elderly. Though personally I believe by the time the people that are currently in their 20’s will be ripe for retirement, there will be once again an influx of young people, because that’s how it works. And it doesn’t matter all that much if that will be caused by natural population growth or by a populational plunge because of war.
The problem is not fewer people. The problem is a population with a large proportion of old people, whose care must financed by the state. That is what will break the system.
If Germany has 20 million people, and 15 million of them are over 70 years old, and their care must be paid for out of the taxes paid by the remaining 5 million, the system will break. There isn’t any other outcome.
Unless almost ALL tasks previously performed by humans are automated. Agriculture, manufacturing, transport, education, medical treatment — all done by robots. Then it might hold together.
But will total automation arrive before the system breaks down? Who knows?
Not really, as those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
As I explained, birthrates usually go up and down with every generation. Hence if you look at Japan, their birthrate went down over the past two or three decades, but now it’s comming back up. Extremely slowly, but it is.
So I doubt any country would actually get below a sustainable point.
And what Germany is wasting on immigration, Japan is putting into automation. The technology is already there and they’re refining it by the day.
The thing is, by the time that automation will really be needed (roughly 20-30 years), birthrates will have raised again. There will be maybe a decade where the old people make up enough percentage of society to have an impact, after which more and more people will be joining the workflow again (hence more people to care for the elderly or more taxes comming in).
Getting young people into rural areas is, of course, another problem. But here, too, is slowly a rise, with people getting less interested in a city’s hassle.
Now, given the political situation, will the group in question even live to be pensioners in countries like Germany, Sweden or France, that is the real question.
“Outlaw abortion, problem solved.”
What a great idea!!!
All of the criminal and low IQ classes would have no alternative but to reproduce like rabbits.
Even as the hoity-toity, anti-overpopulation Intellectuals refused to breed.
What could possibly go wrong?!?
[… Please keep comments civil]
A truly nasty supervirus that thrives in areas of gross overpopulation, filthy hygiene, and repugnant burial traditions like eating pieces of the dead or exhuming them for festivals would make quick work of reducing the population of most of Africa. I am sure that has been quietly discussed and planned for. Probably for most of the First World as well, when the riots and uprisings post-financial collapse become a little too close for comfort for the ruling elites.
I believe that whatever interest the ruling elites have in managing the population curve or maintaining generational transfer payments has less to do with benevolence, and more to do with keeping the firing squads and guillotines away from their soft hides.
What is needed is new frontiers for those who don’t want to be forced to mingle with […]humans from the armpits of Africa and the ME. Because the forces of evil own the commanding heights of government and finance, and the vast majority of people accept the current situation as long as they have some measure of security at someone else’s expense. I am pessimist enough to believe the fundamental problem cannot be solved, but only fled from. However, this time there is nowhere yet to emigrate to since the frontiers of space are still beyond our reach.
“Because the forces of evil own the commanding heights of government and finance ….”
Of course, a bullet through the skull of family tends to discourage ownership.
It may well have to come to that if the disastrous path upon which ‘They’ have set ‘The Civilised’ down is to be reversed.
I think it will be an erosion, not wide civil disorder. Look at Rome, or Britain for that matter. Or Germany…
The kinds of things you’re envisioning only come when people are ruled by despots.
Can you honestly claim that Merkel is NOT a despot?
The whole thing is caused by the sexual attack against the family unit, for it was too white and too Christian and so on. Hippies and their free love turned western music from lovesongs of the sixties into sorrow songs of the 2000’s – listen to Adele or some other contemporary music. There are a lot of broken hearts these days.
On top of that, family has been made evil through fictional stories: Harry Potter, for example, was raised by an evil uncle, but later on he runs away from home, and he becomes free and powerful. The same story can be found in Starwars – the evil father and so on.
Interestingly, Mohammed the prophet has had some trouble with fathers too, as he often warns against the evil ways of the fathers… So what is Islam Solution? Harems and enslavement of women… That works too, just not as smoothly as the traditional family unit model.
In my ancient village, every farm has two houses. One is big for the young, the other one is small for the grandparents. The grandparents could thus take the easy works and watch over children, while the young worked the fields… It was much better system than building big blocks of buildings as prisons for the elderly.
In my ancient village, every farm has two houses. One is big for the young, the other one is small for the grandparents.
A wonderful idea. Children should be exposed to all the stages of life. One of the problems Americans face is being expected to go where the jobs are. Segregation by age is the norm.
The media has done a terrific job of selling the idea that American youth must move away from home for college and work as a mandatory step on the road to being a successful adult.
This idea has been one of the most successful in breaking up the extended, and then the nuclear family.
As “universities” become more expensive, corrupt, and useless, kids are turning to alternate kinds of education, including community colleges where they live at home and online certified classes.
High schools are teaming up with local community colleges to provide courses, particularly for those interested in technical jobs – e.g., HVAC workers.
Colleges will revert to havens for the elite, as they always were.
Bravo to those intelligent kids who are going into the trades and other professions that cannot be outsourced.
There are many tradesmen that do very well for themselves, their families, and their communities. A smart, disciplined young person who goes into auto repair can have a couple shops and a dozen people working for him by the age of 35.
I agree that it is a wonderful idea, and I would also love to keep my grandparents close, but since they are divorced and live in different places it is almost impossible to get them to it. That is why I stress the family idea, that the links have been broken in so many cases, that the people in my area are no longer willing to work on such a system, where the young are exposed to the old. They all see ‘big blocks of buildings as prisons for the elderly’ as the only sensible solution.
I found an interesting thing though: The word for the ‘small house for the grandparents’ in Czech is ‘Vejminek’. I was looking for an equivalent word in English, but according to wikipedia, it seems that it is our local thing of north-eastern Europe. For judging by the available languages, it is known in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Deutschland, Poland, and Czech Republic – all of which makes a nice circle.
“I found an interesting thing though: The word for the ‘small house for the grandparents’ in Czech is ‘Vejminek’. I was looking for an equivalent word in English, but according to wikipedia, it seems that it is our local thing of north-eastern Europe.”
In American parlance, such accommodations usually are called an “in-law apartment”, which often is attached to the larger residential unit. Further back, carriage houses or other outbuildings were converted for this purpose.
Lamentably, familial cohesion (as in multi-generational households) have become the exception for most Caucasian clans, instead of the historical rule that they once were.
This emergent, disruptive trend is just one of many factors that continues to render Western Civilization increasingly vulnerable to demographic displacement.
Between the ascendance of supposedly “Alpha Male” (read ridiculously malignant “bad-boy” Machismo) mentality and “Feminist” behavior that is either man-hating, or in perpetual search of destructive partner “upgrades”, both Western males and females largely have subscribed to utterly dysfunctional lifestyles which continue to poison both their personalities and overarching population replacement statistics.
Perhaps most tragic of all is that (within the First World) stable, healthy, monogamous relationships seem to be the most unattractive option out of the lunatic spectrum of LGBTQ…XYZ conjugations that have become so popular.
There will be hell to pay…
The problem isn’t demographics, it is State socialism. It doesn’t matter what your demographic profile looks like if you don’t have the unsustainable mirage of the welfare state.
Science has improved our quality of life. It is the denial of reality inherent in socialism that is making it worse.
Ditch socialism. You receive in benefits what you save over your lifetime. Of course unmarried women, scroungers and control freaks don’t like this system – they want to use State force to rob the innovative and industrious.
“Science has improved our quality of life.”
Unfortunately, this is the root of the decline in the birth rate. More later.
Socialism actually promoted child birth across Central and Eastern Europe. Can’t speak for other countries, but over here young couples received a flat from the government, women got motherly leave while staying home with children, so the family easily got by with just the man working, kindergarden was free and most jobs went from 7AM to 3PM, so even with bigger kids, parents were home by the time they got back from school (actually for smaller kids school usually didn’t go later than 1:30PM, but they would provide sort of a daycare until 3 or 4 PM so parents could pick their kids up). Even jobs that go around the clock (like big factories) considered parents and generally put them only on the morning shifts (or shifting between morning and evening, but no night work).
It’s really not hard to see why it sounds appealing to young people.
Especially lazy feminazis and social justice warriors in America. The thing is, here in Europe people are used to get some form of social back-up from their governments (at least in case they get into a tight spot, like lose their jobs). In a place like America, where there’s no historical back-up for this, of course, it can’t be just put into practice suddenly and it’s no wonder it gets mangled.
I’m not a supporter of socialism, btw, but it’s important to understand this difference between Europe and America. What works over here won’t work at your place and vice versa. Similarly, Sweden’s level is obviously too much as well, because then people don’t get the drive to work to be better off than without a job.
Have you completely banned me? Had important things to say about longevity, as a PhD in chemistry that I am.
You are welcome to comment here. Note the rules for comments: that they be civil and courteous toward other commenters and toward admin. There are others, to be found in our guidelines.
Automation is the ONLY answer.
Low birthrates in Developed countries are an adaptation to the fact that we no longer need millions of human robots in factories. Those jobs are being done by autonomous robots.
We don’t actually need more people, just more robots.
Hate to say it but WAR? When it comes to killing machines the world has developed the most effective means of mass killing. Why bother killing 100 million when you can kill off a billion. A disgusting thought but one that should not be discounted
“Why bother killing 100 million when you can kill off a billion. A disgusting thought but one that should not be discounted”
Too bad that Islam has yet to twig with respect to this basic concept.
Muslims continue to poke at the nuclear-armed Western dragon with their pointed wooden sticks. Perish the thought that they will discover what happens next.
Britain has already gone down the route of raising the retirement age. It used to be 65 for men and 60 for women. It is now 67 for all, or soon will be. More increases will surely come. The state pension alone is hardly enough to live; many old people live in poverty.
And fat greasy Sheikhs live with one of their wives while the other three collect welfare and benefits for all his hell-spawn.
A word in defence of Britain’s smokers: they pay more than enough in extra taxes to cover their treatment by the NHS. Also to be consistent, if they were to be denied treatment, so should anyone taking unnecessary risks, eg mountain climbers, players of contact sports, or people who drive or cycle dangerously.
In the U.S. the anti-smoking info has worked so well that smokers actually think they are MORE likely to get lung cancer or heart disease than they actually are. There is a point reached where you are no longer ‘informing’ people but manipulating them with terror ‘for their own good’. B.T.W. I am NOT a smoker.
I offer another solution:
Every woman who committed a crime should be instead be sentenced to childbirth. For every 5 years of prison (or part of) she has to give birth to 2 children. Her own or as a surrogate mother. And raise the punishments for women. That should reverse the trend quite fast.
Spend billions on the research regarding iron wombs (Yes, this is the term used in the game Battletech). Then we can (excuse the expression) produce as many people as we need.
Meanwhile, the Feminist hags can say that they don’t reproduce, remove their wombs in their fight against patriarchy etc – let them die out.
Alex, [I am aghast at what I perceive to be an irrational proposal]
If you want to reproduce woman in prisons… their corrupt genetic material will be transmitted to their offspring.
Then, during the 9 month of fetal development the fetus absorbs EVERYTHING that the mom does: energy,food, thoughts,activities.
The intra utero is essential to a normal brain development.
Out of utero the child that is not cared for properly becomes another retard and weight for society.
Man, I [hold what you wrote in low regard].
You’re absolutely on the right track. The genetic composition of the population is key to future quality and reproduction. My thoughts were the same as yours: even if the scheme of getting women in prison to produce more babies worked, you’d simply increase the population of criminals and low-intelligent people. Imprisoned criminals are strongly low-IQ, low skilled.
Many prisoners are intelligent enough. The problem is their psychopathy.
A psychiatrist I know ran a self-help group in two prisons during part of his payback for education costs. He said the rate of child abuse history they reported was almost total. They only knew how to manipulate (or attempt to) and how to use others. He also thought the experience of prison itself had a huge impact on their ability to function. We could begin to reduce the prison population by releasing the non-violent…but in our low-jobs economy, they would quickly join the homeless.Besides, the non-viiolent quickly become violent in order to survive.
There are many low-skilled homeless who could work were they not mentally ill.
I sure hope you wrote that as a joke, because forcing someone into pregnancy would certainly be aplauded by a certain religion and you would literally tip your hat towards the feminazis claiming “rape culture” exists in America.
I guess thanks to you I now have a better understanding of how Hitler’s lackeys worked. Because you don’t seem to be bothered by human rights too much, nor do you seem to care about the possible consequences of having many offspring of murderers and other heavy criminals running around.
Btw most feminists grow out of the movement when their biological clock starts ticking and the rest of them don’t [enjoy the amorous attention of the opposite sex] anyway. A child of a sjw is pretty rare, as far as I know. Like that one case in Canada (I believe), where they’re raising their boy and neither gender. I’m waiting for the news where the child completely snaps once it starts hitting puberty and realizes it doesn’t know where it belongs.
I follow the lead of Martin van Creveld: In 2005 he told the german federal secretary of interior affairs of how to fight insurgency: its either the british way or the syrian way.
There was much uproar in the press because how could an israeli put the syrian way forward.
van Creveld responded that the historian just described what was used and how effective it was. Morality does not come into play (anybody remember “My country, right or wrong” or “a state has no friends, just temprary allies”???).
It is the duty of the politicians to think of morality.
So, to make you understand me: I do not limit my ways of thinking. In Germany we have the expression of legal, illegal, screw it.
All of you who think I am crazy limit themselves to a small part of legal. But I think of all ways.
And its funny that nobody reacted to my second offer: iron wombs.
There you can take the genetics of the best people (and who decides which standard is used? Anybody remember the antifa: We say who is racist and who is not!) and in an iron womb there can be no contamination by criminal genes of a criminal surrogate mother.
And besides, what you all forgot: In prison you do not find only career criminals. What about the person, who misjudged the ice on the streets, is responsible for an accident with deathly results but till that day lived a life of total fidelity to the law.
And to the offspring of murderers: I once found an article in a paper that took science and tried to explain it in small letters. According to this paper we have always a certain number of psychopath living among us.
Nature found out that sooner or later there is battle and a human needs 16 years to grow up, so if a society is endangered then the cold blooded warriors / killers are needed NOW and not in 16 years. So nature decided that there is always a certain percentage of WARRIORS among us.
So we should accept them and give them a place of their own, where they can live their lives and protect us, as in the saying:
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
Yes, our ancestors were wise and we should remember them.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, anybody?
PS: While I do relish personal freedom, I want my people to survive and then its clear that personal freedom has to take a step back.
“Every woman who committed a crime should be instead be sentenced to childbirth.”
With all due sincerity, please seek immediate, professional, clinical help.
At the most basic level, what good could there come from having criminally inclined women giving birth to scads of unwanted children? Have you the least familiarity with the fate of infants that are denied maternal contact? Even monkeys that are allowed to nurse from a terrycloth and chicken-wire construct exhibit substantially enhanced interactive abilities as opposed to those which have no intimate contact.
Exactly WHAT do you expect from thousands of infants, separated at birth from their (forced) mothers who, more than likely, could not give a ripe spit about these intensely vulnerable infants? Do you see where this is leading?!?
Furthermore, many of these incarcerated females would be of substantially lower IQ whose offspring, therefore, would reflect this impoverished intellectual legacy.
As some sort of unexpected redemption, you mention “iron wombs”.
In reality, a major solution to rampant abortion amongst First World populations would be the advent of “artificial wombs”. This would permit (previously non-eligible) prospective “fathers” to have a well-deserved say regarding the survival of their unborn progeny.
None of which redeems your ill-thought-out concept of forcing female prisoners to bear unwanted children in circumstances that are guaranteed to produce low IQ spawn.
If you have any valid counter-arguments, I’d find them sort-of amusing.
Your comment about getting professional help is the only argument I hear (its getting old, sorry). Is this not an ad hominem attack?
So: YAWN, been there, done that.
And you did not read the following part of my last comment:
“In prison, you do not find only career criminals. What about the person who misjudged the ice on the streets, is responsible for an accident with deathly results but till that day lived a life of total fidelity to the law.”
And the second point you have overlooked:
You say that we have, if my offer is implemented, a lot of people not able to live in a civilized society. I would like you to remind you of two things:
First: Our civilization is moving backwards. In the 1970s when we fought in the schoolyard it was a fight with honor. If one went to ground the fight ended. But today with our “guests” then the fight just gets started. For them blood has to flow, knives must be used, etc.
Second: (I really hate not having an eidetic memory. While I remember reading something I can not quote it and name the source.) We have no youth bulge. But our “guests” have. If we lose ten men in Afghanistan and the muslims lose 5.000 they still win. They have this reservoir of bodies.
Both points together lead to the following conclusion:
Considering our future we need every help we can get. The biological Germans will be a minority in their own country by 2035. So said Dr Martin Gillo of Mama Merkel’s party in 2012. He was the political representative of foreigners (Ausländerbeauftragter) in Saxonia and in the newsletter 6/2012 he wrote exactly this.
As our “guests” are raised with the expectation of using violence to prove their worth to their families and clans (Nicolai Sennels anybody?) we have to counter them. And if you allow me to be sarcastic: If someone attacks you with a knife do you sit down and say: “Oh, violence is not good for your blood pressure. Do you want a nice tea that we can discuss this and I can maybe convince you?”.
No, you defend yourself.
(Maybe you should read “Violence is golden” or if you want it more SF-like, read STARSHIP TROOPERS, the scene in school where Dizzy says, “My mom says, that violence never solved anything.” You may ask Jonny K, the vietnamese boy from Berlin or Daniel Seifert. Both thought the same. Both murdered by muslims. They lie six feet down while their murderers live.)
So, we need them. And I never said anything about doing it for all eternity. Once we’ve won and have done away with the self-destructing teachings we won’t be needing such measures.
Yes, I know, we should be the knights in shining armor. But pardon the expression: You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, or If you clean your toilet you don’t stand 10 feet away and yell: “Get clean!”. You have to take the implements and get close to the toilet. So, accept that you get dirty.
And to remind you of WW II (yes, I know, Godwin’s Law…When the Allies fought against Hitler, did they invite him and his goon squads to a nice cup of tea and a cake or did the get their hands bloody?
So, would you please respond to these parts? Thanks.
I dare to think what nobody dares to think. If many people do it it is called brainstorming.
We are all set in our ways and can not imagine that something could be done differently or better.
Just remember Einstein: If you do 1.000 times the same thing then you are crazy to think that when you do it the 1.001st time that the result is different.
And I think a U.S. intelligence officer in Pearl Harbour is quoted as saying something like:
The Japanese look at something from their point of view and then they step outside the box to look at it from another angle.
Example: In the 1930 German scientists were at the top of the world. They did not think that a nuclear bomb was possible.
But the scientists at Los Alamos, having heard what the Germans said, decided to throw the German opinion into the wastebasket. “Lets try this” or “Lets try that” they said and in 1945 it made BOOM.
When the German scientists in captivity heard about BOOM they were astonished. How could those American, British, etc peasants DARE to ignore the best scientists in the entire world?
You see, that’s how mankind is brought forward.
You dare what nobody else dares to do.
Another example: The church and the state decided that nobody was allowed to cut up a dead body. But people did even though it meant capital punishment (Burke and Hare murders, 1827 anybody?). This brought science forward.
And I want to bring us forward. When I read all comments you all stay in a political correct corridor. And we repeat us again and again. So we do not move forward but instead walk on the same piece of ground again and again.
And your last sentence is not very democratic. To say it nicely.
To Norse Radish:
This kind of sentence, With all due sincerity, please seek immediate, professional, clinical help , while cloaked in politesse, violates the spirit and the law of our commenting rules.
Gratuitous. Unnecessary to your points. Undermines your argument. Please desist. Thank you.
typo: “females on the left, males on the right”
No, it’s the opposite. The female symbol (on the right) has a + at the bottom of a circle; the male symbol (on the right) has an arrow at the upper right of a circle, kind of like the Volvo logo
(Incidentally, the Volvo logo suggests a math problem: compare the area of the arrowhead isosceles triangle at the upper right with the area of the circle.)
typo: “Almost ten years [ago] I wrote about these trends”
According to the UN’s “world’s most important graph”, the population of sub-Saharan Africa will octuple between 1990 and 2100. Here it is:
Correction: the male symbol (on the left)
The American Digest has moved along if he’s willing to quote Steve Sailer. Good to see.
Whoops, I got it backwards. I guess I must have dysgraphia!
I believe sometime in the next few centuries, a combination of environmental degradation, war, and disease will severely reduce the human population. These factors will, of course, be interrelated. Moreover, those deaths will be much more unpleasant than euthanasia. However, Baron’s analysis probably applies to the shorter term future.
The end is creeping slowly upon us, silently like a spider web.
I have the same feeling … it’s a pity because I believe (in a strange way) that life as a natural phenomenon is – priceless. Why? – We have not found a vestige of life anywhere else – try as we may. Corollary: we might as well be the only life there is, hence we are literally priceless – our very existence might be a joke of nature, anomaly, extraordinary happenstance that occurred just once in the life of Universe.
Liatris, the population implosion is due ~ 2050. China knows this and is making plans. Thus, they got rid of the one-child-per-family-law. Not that it did any good.
I’ve been dropping tidbits through the comments, so here is where I make my case.
My claim is, the genetic quality of the Western population is deteriorating, and would be deteriorating even in the absence of taxes and immigration. One of the features of a healthy genetic composition is the ability and desire to reproduce. Genetically-damaged humans (or animals) lose their ability and desire to reproduce. It has little to do with incentives or even religious beliefs.
Every mammal has genetic reproduction. One of the biological factors of genes is that they have a constant and significant rate of mutation. Most mutations are harmful and interfere with the ability of the animal to survive and reproduce. It doesn’t matter how fit and virile the original parents were: a significant number of the offspring and offspring of the offspring would be significantly less capable of surviving.
Here’s where civilization comes in. In a harsh environment, those individuals born with harmful mutations are significantly less able to survive and generally die before they are able to bear young. Thus, the harmful mutations are filtered out, and the population maintains its quality. Think of deer. Any fawn born with a genetic mutation that makes it run slower will soon be eaten by wolves or other predators. Thus, the deer herds continue to be able to run fast. An impaired deer will be eaten before it contributes the damage to any offspring.
Once civilizations and technology develop, the environment becomes significantly less harsh, and humans with harmful mutations are able to survive and pass the harmful mutations on. This is an explanation for the fact that in every advanced civilization, radical depopulation has occurred. This is not a new problem.
Our easy access to food and shelter, and our breathtaking medical technology make it possible for babies who couldn’t survive on their own even with food and care, to not only survive, but grow up and have children of their own. When we treat a child with cancer, who survives and has children, the genes for childhood cancer are carried on into the general population. This sounds cruel to say, but again, is a biological fact.
The biology of what I’ve said has been established through experimental evidence.
Of Mice and Men: ”Spiteful Mutations” Look Bad For The West
Briefly, a colony of healthy mice was put in a climate-controlled spacious environment and given unlimited food and water. There was no environmental stress on the mice. You would think that the mice would multiply exponentially, but the opposite happened. In spite of food, water, space, and a comfortable climate, the colony of mice had fewer pups, until the colony simply died out. There were no mice left in spite of unlimited resources.
The only solution to the decline in population is to select out damaged genetic material from reproduction. My own solution, unlikely as it is to be implemented, is to extend enough support to damaged or dependent people for them to live comfortable and interesting lives. The condition for the lifetime support would be that they submit to permanent sterilization. In fact, I would advocate that anyone receiving government support be required to undergo permanent sterilization as a condition of the support.
It’s an interesting, if slightly extreme (to me), idea. Instinctively, I can’t say I love it, but I’d consider it if it’s the price of keeping civilisation together. It’s possible that it’s better than many alternatives. Essentially allowing people to “check out” in exchange for not reproducing.
A comment, however, re: old age pensions, this has no effect. No women, and very few men, reproduce past the age of 60-something.
Let me toss another similar, albeit slightly off-topic, taboo into the ring: perhaps universal suffrage isn’t really as good an idea as was thought. Maybe government employees and welfare recipients shouldn’t get to vote? They could get their vote back, say, two years after they stop being either. Here in Canada, it used to be that we *didn’t* have universal suffrage. Judges didn’t get to vote. That seemed fair enough, but the same idea could be extended a bit.
I say: Deny the vote to anyone who is employed by the government or works for a contractor for the government or receives any benefits at all from the government. In the USA, that would cover about 60% – 80% of the population.
When you turn 65, in most cases you have to become a recipient whether you want to or not, either that or go without medical treatment. Very few doctors will have you as a patient unless you go through Medicare.
Disenfranchising the geezers will never fly — they are the most ardent and dedicated of voters — so it’s not going to happen.
“The real problem is the genetic deterioration of the population. Women are not simply ‘choosing’ to not [split infinitive] have babies. Their inherited desire and ability to have children is no longer in their biological makeup.”
This was in one of your earlier comments. I say, “nice try” (to quote you again). Those who write about genetics almost never have much of an understanding of it. Your claim in the first paragraph is probably impossible to test, but it is vanishingly unlikely to be true. Sociobiology does not support such rapid, “wired” behavioral changes. That’s one reason we can make sense of mammalian so intuitively. Mice don’t change that fast either.
Evolutionary processes don’t work rigidly. They work by adapting what exists to new situations. Those who adapt best have the greatest inclusive fitness. By definition, this means that their genes are most effectively transmitted.
The idea that the predisposition to have at least some offspring could be crippled or ended in a few decades is inconceivable. However, this predisposition could be tricked in the short run.
You scoffed at my “accountant-like” approach, but this approach recognizes behavioral tricks for what they are and attempts to reverse their effect. If my perspective is misguided, at least, in theory, it could be implemented.
” Women are not simply ‘choosing’ to not [split infinitive] have babies.”
Hmmm. Are we talking about genetics or grammar here? Well, here’s a clue:
“Those who write about genetics almost never have much of an understanding of it.”
“Your claim in the first paragraph is probably impossible to test, but it is vanishingly unlikely to be true. ”
I think you mean my second paragraph, don’t you?
Well, anyway, have a gander at
The Genius Famine
Shorter version of some of the same themes is:
Of Mice and Men: ”Spiteful Mutations” Look Bad For The West
Ok. Seriously, the question is whether the civilization deterioration we all noted is based on cultural and psychological practices, or is the genetic composition of the population itself changing?
Your thesis is that the civilization we know has been in existence for too short a time to effect genetic change: therefore, the changes which alarm us are based on cultural and philosophical practices rather than genetics.
Somehow, you feel your approach is more grounded in actual science than mine.
Actually, there has been little direct study of the topic. But the references I gave are thoroughly grounded in experimental findings and are quite suggestive of a genetic change. I talked about destructive mutations, which you do not address at all, but which is critical in the concept of rapid genetic change.
There was an article several years ago in American Scientist that indicated that culture has selective effects on genetics and in relatively short time periods. The particular example was lactose intolerance, which correlates with the number of sites in the genome for coding beta-lactase. Lactose intolerant people have only one or two sites an lactose tolerant people have as many as six. The incidence correlated will with the prevalence of dairy products in the overall diet of the culture. The work also indicated that a change in the genetic makeup due to cultural influences can be achieved in just a few generations.
Please rewrite your (intriguing) above comment so as to [redacted].
I’d like nothing more than to have this information available for other essays of mine. Incidentally, some citations and links would be of immense use.
Again, your comment is of great interest but (due to confusing content), is of little use at present.
As 1984 has come to pass, so shall Solyent Green. The euthanasia and biscuit solution!
As an old time follower of Paul Ehrlich I find it quite interesting that my fellow environmentalists suddenly abandoned their concern about rapid population growth as soon as white Europeans and Americans achieved replacement or below replacement growth rates. Destroying western civilization trumps environmental concerns. Now so-called environmentalists fantasize about anthropogenic global warming and ignore the real causes of environmental destruction. The welfare problem in advanced countries can be solved but not by importing a wholly new and, frankly, low IQ population. And once these new groups attain political dominance why would anyone think that they will pay taxes to support aging “honkies”.
This isn’t emphasized, but Islam specifically doesn’t believe in the concept of insurance. The Muslims have their own system of providing for the elderly and indigent. The main thing to know about it, for our purposes, is that Muslims will formally or informally opt out of Western systems of social security and welfare as soon as the flow of benefits to them lessens, and they are powerful enough politically to do so.
“And once these new groups attain political dominance why would anyone think that they [Muslims, et al.] will pay taxes to support aging “honkies”.
Your candid assessment is more than a little refreshing!
I look forward to more of your contributions.
I admire people’s optimism, as in the above described situation will become the future. My mother was told by an oriental import “doctor” at age 85 that she should not go to the hospital so often because she already had a good and full life, so suck it up and do not burden the system. My brother’s wife had a nerve damage in her leg and needed operation. Though she got the knee replacement after two years of suffering, the sentiment from a different “doctor”, also import, was basically the same. She is only 68 but in the opinion of a forigner, she is ready to go so there won’t be undue expense for the hospital. Being a continent away, I have no idea what could have been done in Europe, but here in north america we still have a chance to fight the invasion.
An ex-Soviet citizen told me about lying about her mother’s age, so that she would be seen to properly (by Soviet standards) in hospital.
They weren’t very subtle about it.
It happens here too that people are considered “too old to be worth treating”, though from what I see, not on a massive scale. There’s sometimes a fine line between, say, being of the opinion that a patient won’t benefit from a knee replacement because they don’t have a long time left to live because of an unrelated problem, meaning that it’s not “worth” the recovery time for them compared to how long they’ll enjoy the new knee for, vs thinking that “they” aren’t worth it generally. That line gets crossed.
“My mother was told by an oriental import “doctor” at age 85 that she should not go to the hospital so often because she already had a good and full life, so suck it up and do not burden the system.”
Perhaps that oriental import “doctor” needs to take a boat-ride (shark bites optional) straight back home. Eh? Back on their own turf, they could bathe in the radiant glory of their own country’s (more than predictable) SHORTER LIFE EXPECTANCY. Golly gee, what might be the cause of that?!?
While I am extremely conflicted about how American patients typically run through some 90% of overall medical costs in the last SIX WEEKS of their life, the thought of a non-native “medical care provider” telling an indigenous American—who likely contributed a major portion of the funds paying for that foreigner’s salary—nonetheless makes me bristle (just in case that was not entirely obvious).
Resolving this insane 90% level of medical expenditure during a few months of remaining patient life represents a tremendous challenge for both medical establishment ethics and the individual philosophical ethos of First World (or any other) family members.
All the same, regarding the inviolable sanctity of human life, this level of financial expenditure is UNSUSTAINABLE (by any imaginable measure) and must be addressed through carefully managed hospice care and EXCRUCIATING EXAMINATION OF DETERMINING WHEN VERIFIABLE END-OF-LIFE CONDITIONS ARE MET.
Currently, these principles (i.e., financial burden or end-of-life criteria) have not been addressed with any degree of satisfactory diligence. Until that time, current practices must remain in place before substantial changes are allowed to happen.
Importing people (doctors or otherwise) from regions where human life is held in less-than-high-esteem , means that there might possibly come along with these not-so eternally grateful “immigrants”, attitudes and practices which may well not adequately reflect the true values of America.
“… in the opinion of a foreigner, she is ready to go so there won’t be undue expense for the hospital.”
Welcome to the wonderful world of “Diversity is Our Strength”!
This is one of the BIG LIES that Western people have been fed for over a half-century. Diversity is NOT our strength! America’s spectacular success, and its continuing role as this world’s supreme, enduring Superpower, always has relied upon this nation’s astounding capacity (unlike most other places on earth), TO BE A “MELTING POT”.
No, not a “salad bowl” (all green and mixed up), but a place where most, if not all new arrivals, have had a primary desire to become genuine “Americans”. As an example; during the early twentieth century, more than a few immigrant parents refused to teach their children the “home country” language. This illustrates just how important genuine assimilation was to these honorable participants in the great American Dream™.
Nowadays, too many recent generations of “immigrants” (legal or otherwise) have, instead, subscribed to the popular “Separate-but-Equal” mentality—frequently promulgated by Liberals along with their RINO cohort—that has rent asunder the USA’s core values to great and lasting harm.
Ending such an absurd notion that people can come to America without becoming “Americans” is a foremost task with respect to halting this constant erosion of US stability and unity.
Those who oppose such an idea are subversive (at best).
Fascinating article and discussion. I’m not a believer in demographic arguments in general because they have been so incredibly wrong so often. Someone mentioned Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb, full of ridiculous predictions. On a smaller scale, demographers in Israel had, decades ago, confidently predicted that Israel would be mainly Muslim by now, especially if Judea and Samaria were not cut off from the Israeli state. Oops … Jewish birth rates went up, and not only among the ultra-Orthodox.
That said, full retirement age has already gone up to 67 in the US (for those born in 1960+). Medicare already kills off the elderly by incentivizing hospitals to deny care and by making malpractice suits nearly impossible to bring because lawyers won’t take the cases for the very old, as a finding of harm to survivors is difficult to establish (e.g., what is the harm to survivors for the patient dying at time T instead of time T+30 days?).
In theory, I don’t see why a properly run retirement system shouldn’t be self-funding. The issue is that Social Security is a horrible scam for long-term contributors, as the return rate is terrible–for long-term contributors, that is. Medicare is a similar scam. Medicare Disability fraud and new elderly immigrants who are here because of chain migration are quite a different matter. They suck up resources like crazy, including Medicare, to which they have not paid before.
Addressing this mess isn’t that tough, it seems to me. At least in theory. Virtually all immigration must be ended. Birthright citizenship must be ended. A wall must be built. All illegals should be expelled directly or by manipulating incentives. The level of health care should be tiered based on how long the person has paid into the system, thus encouraging some of the chain migrants to leave. Social Security must be turned into a regulated system of private investment (where general criteria for age-appropriate investment is enforced, but individual decisions are left to investors). A new healthcare approach that would involve self-funding for old age should be implemented (we pay exorbitantly into Medicare now). The Supreme Court’s finding that ERs can’t decline those without coverage has to be reversed by Congress, and if necessary, the matter should be removed from the SC’s jurisdiction. Indeed, the federal court system should have most of its jurisdiction removed, as the Constitution specifically allows, because it will interfere with any sensible solutions.
Most of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be reversed so that private individuals can discriminate as they choose. That will mean a vast increase in areas where it is safe for white people to have families. It will vastly increase economic productivity, which is hampered by the market distortions produced by the diversity racket. As a side benefit, black behavior would improve because otherwise whites will not do business with them, and female behavior would improve because it will not be so easy to manipulate men in the workplace or elsewhere. That would also mean more stay-at-home mothers, and more children. If women are worth less in business, pay them less.
Maybe this is all pie in the sky, but then lots of others here have offered their own pies, so why not me?
You didn’t address the central problem of the general genetic deterioration of a population without selection pressures.
You’re offering a bookkeeping solution that might work if the population itself, even without immigration, essentially stayed the same. The population , in fact, will deteriorate, birth rates will continue to plummet even without ruinous taxation, and the general intelligence will go down, making the population susceptible to stupid, but attractive-sounding schemes. Think, say, Sweden in the 1960s, which met many of your criteria.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
So who did Jesus come to save?
All of us, if possible. From white skin to black and every shade in between. Rich and poor, Rhodes scholars and the mentally handicapped. Olympic athletes and the physically handicapped. Criminals, hookers, IRS workers, crooked politicians and sinners like me. So repent of your sins and follow Jesus. And don’t be a racist. We are all equals in Gods’ eyes.
In the above article, the subject deals with how can a nation afford to take care of its elderly with too few workers to pay into the retirement system. Yes, I agree, if everyone saved for his own retirement it wouldn’t matter if there were a large pool of workers paying in.
No matter how wonderful a culture, society, or nation is, if you don’t have enough babies, you are going to die out. Think of earth as a large hotel. People are checking in and people are checking out. There is no large nation of Shakers. Avoid sex before marriage, get married, buy a good term life insurance policy and start having babies or adopting them.
Margaret Sanger is a name that comes up when discussing abortion and eugenics. Some think she was a racist and wanted to eliminate the black race and people who she felt shouldn’t be reproducing. I have read at least one article that stated she preferred sterilization over abortion. My question has always been; who gets to decide who lives and who dies?
I listened to an economist who stated that if you reward a behavior, you increase it, and if you penalize a behavior you decrease it. So if you want [fewer] people on welfare you have to make it less attractive than going out and getting a job. If you want working people to have more children, there has to be something more in it than messy diapers. I remember when a working family could all pile into the pickup and head to town. Now, every child has to be in a car seat and buckled up. So you need bigger, more expensive vehicles if you want more than one child in a modern society.
I believe life is precious from the moment of conception until natural death. I also believe that if a society strays from that, it is headed down the slippery slope into darkness.
Merry Christmas everyone and have a wonderful New Year!
The whole theory that immigration is necessary to solve the problem of low birth rates is bunk. Worse, it is a lie.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore all have WORSE demographic numbers (crashing birthrate and huge numbers of aged) than western Europe. None of them have turned to mass immigration (Singapore, already multiracial, is closest to wavering). The question has not really arisen, and would be political suicide for any party that pushed it. These peoples still have some self-respect.
I do not know exactly how they have managed it, but people take family responsibilities more seriously and young people do not shy away from care work as they do in the socially irresponsible and individually lazy and selfish west. (Sorry to those who find that remark offensive, but I have lived in both east and west and, with many exceptions, it is basically true–there is a reason why Poles find it so easy to get jobs in Britain and Germany despite not being able to speak the languages well. The European welfare state has destroyed the need and will to work for many people. Bit different in the more dynamic US I know).
Generally, though, there just doesn’t seem to be any pressing need to import people in East Asia, despite the bleating of liberal media. These countries have had this problem for years, and have simply absorbed the impact over time. Yes, there are labour shortages, but nothing critical. and robots are going to further ameliorate that situation.
I await an in-depth EU study into how and why East Asia has avoided mass immigration.
…there is a reason why Poles find it so easy to get jobs in Britain and Germany despite not being able to speak the languages well. The European welfare state has destroyed the need and will to work for many people.
It may have been Mark Steyn, in an essay discussing his visit to the UK some years ago, being shocked by the large numbers of lay-abouts he witnessed in the course of his travels. Money for nothing.
This is all very well but even for white collar workers there are limits. About half of my family members experienced an alarming, catastrophic mental decline from the age of 70, the other half were okay until 80.
And we live in the real world, those family members that were crackers by 70 had also slowed down quite a bit from ages 65 to 70.they certainly weren’t as sharp as they were in their prime.
The human mind just like the human body deteriorates with age.
The only reason any of my family members had a job in their 70’s were that 2 of them jointly owned a company. The one who was still compos mentis allowed the other one to come into work every day to give his wife a break (sort of daycare for his elderly and by no means with it brother)
But employers have no intention of providing daycare for those workers suffering from dementia.
In fact, stats show workers over 50 struggle to get work.those over 65 find it even harder.And plenty have been looking for work since the G.F.C destroyed their retirement plans.
It’s all very well to tell people to keep working, but if they don’t happen to own the company they haven’t a snowball’s chance of surviving in the labor market past the age of 65.
Your point here interests me. Back before there was a generally established concept of retirement, if a man were to work until he dropped, it would generally be at manual labor or something similar. Naturally enough, the body gets physically weaker with advanced age, so the manual labor would be harder on the elderly. In principle, one could ameliorate that effect with tools, machines and so on. Now your point about minds getting weaker with age as well – is there a similar way to mitigate the effects of decreased mental capacity, analogous to tools/machines/etc. in the manual realm? I’m not so sure. Computers, obviously, might be a way, but then we’d be getting into VR and AI realms, which bring their own problems.
As our economies head more in the direction – have headed, I should say – of more mental labor and less physical, it should become interesting to see the social effects if people regularly ‘hit a wall’ mentally at around 70 as you’re proposing. I do mental work, too, so I have to consider this, particularly since I remain somewhat skeptical that retirement at a normal age (i.e. 65-ish) will still be a realistic option by the time I get to that point.
Here in Finland they also raised the retirement age. It is now tied to general life expectancy.
I myself had 15 years to the previous retirement age of 65. But with this new system, the minimum is currently 65 years 4 months.
But currently, in order to get the full pension, I would have to be 67 years 5 months. And I am only hoping that I will reach the retirement age at all hence it slowly but surely is rising.
And needless to say, the life expectancy they use is of both genders combined. Not taking account that Finnish men on average die approximately 7-8 years younger than Finnish women.
But perhaps that is the cost of living with Finnish women that we men have to pay. 😀
Interesting. I learned that in high school, population statistics, that is. I immediately spotted the graphs as you presented here. I asked my teacher: “how are we going to pay for that?” His reply, with a smile: “Don’t worry. That’s not on the test.” I.o.w: he hadn’t any idea… Nor do the politicians. Not then, not now.
Let’s assume for a minute Merkel was right. She imports quality workers to take care of our elderly. (Don’t laugh, I’m serious!). Now, those hardworking African nurses will be reunited very soon with their entire families. And in 20-40 years time, it’s their turn. Who is going to take care of them? Even if Merkel is right – and she isn’t – at best she can postpone the problem for no more than one generation. Then it comes back but much, much worse.
But by then Mutti Merkel will have gone on to green pastures and it’s someone else’s problem. She doesn’t have to worry because “it’s not on the test”…
A large study in Kenya by Yale University showed that if the source of wealth increment was land and rents therefrom, then fertility would actually increase. I.e. the GDP-fertility paradox would not hold and the women would have more children with increasing wealth. If one excludes this source of wealth then, indeed, fertility is diminished with increasing other sources of wealth. [e.g. female education].
Their conclusion was that causes of fertility and infertility were very complex.
It is possible to live longer, healthier, more productive lives. Vitamin K2 cleans all of the cholesterol from blood vessels, even the old one. A laundry list of degenerative diseases are in fact nothing else but poor blood circulation in some area. There are two types of vitamin K2: MK-4 and MK-7. Take them both, they accomplish slightly different functions.
Eat a lot of small fish. Small because the larger fish are up the food chain and bioaccumulate methylmercury. Fish also increases IQ for children, and helps postpone health degeneracy for older people. There are oils obtained from sea plants, like DHA, EPA (not the EPA that you think). They are good to God for health. You never hear about these things from your doctor. In fact, he wants you to hang for your life at him. I know these things because I have a PhD in chemistry. I am pro-abortion now, since some time. Also, it is a scientific fact that more intelligent people live longer. This is obvious: more intelligent people take better care of themselves. I am very interested against gerontocide. Doing my bit.
We must be reading from the same page. I also take Vitamin B-6 in the form of P-5-P. Regular B-6 has been established to be a risk factor in dementia.
Bone broths (the organic kind one makes at home) are good for preventing osteoporosis. Gentle exercise is good for preventing its precursor, osteopenia.
Diet is important but specialists aren’t interested. I have been “advised” to endure by-pass surgery, something I have no intention of doing. And their stents are always going bad…so no thanks to that, either.
One factor in adult-onset immune diseases (diabetes, obesity, cardiac problems, arthritis, etc.) is childhood adverse experiences. Permanente, the largest HMO in the U.S., has teamed up with the CDC (Center for Disease Control) to devise some approaches to these diseases that are not simply treat-the-condition. See ACEs Too High:
A brief quiz (that needs expanding) will give your childhood score. There are also factors for Resilience considered separately, which is a necessary part of the equation. I used to argue this with a doctor whose book I edited – i.e., that what keeps some people sane and resilient despite horrific childhoods is the presence of someone or something that gives daily life depth and meaning.
I am not reading on any page. I know what happens on a molecular level. This is how confident I am about this topic. Doctors don’t talk about these things for the most obvious reasons.
Niacin, B3 works better in the presence of K2. MK-4 passes the brain blood barrier and cleans the brain blood vessels. MK-7 takes care of the worst cholesterol.
“AFTER” some time of using K2, another nice supplement is calcium. Please don’t immediately take calcium because it increases the risk of heart attack.
You might wanna read up on insuline. It does much worse things to our arteries than cholesterol (which is mostly produced by our own bodies anyway) ever could.
The things is though, as long as the governments don’t control the addition of sugar into literally everything, people will be getting sick at an earlier and earlier age.
There is only one solution : FORBID ABORTION in Europe!
“FORBID ABORTION in Europe!”
What a grand idea! Let’s please ensure that every last, newly arrived, “immigrant” and “refugee” must pop out whatever incidentally spawned sprog they might have inadvertently conceived.
How better to flood The Continent with an EXTRA tidal wave of less-than-likely-to-assimilate offspring just because you believe that your Master Plan beats all?
Well, looks like another factor will come into play sooner than we think: robots. All those jobs the Enrichers love to do – Uber drivers, kebab makers etc – will be the first to go, and others will follow soon. Hence unemployment will eventually reach 3rd world levels – around 80%… What then is the purpose of importing additional burdens on the Welfare State, in addition to the old people discussed here? Not even young Europeans will all have jobs… although special programs to entice Chinese and Indian programmers imo would make sense.
Your comment reminds me of a story a friend once told me: it was in his first class, learning the German language. In his grammar book there was an old-fashioned drawing of two men early in the 20th century; they were watching an automobile chugging down the road, going past them. One man says, “oh look. An auto. Soon we can kill all the horses.”
Change is always happening; it is the only thing we can depend on. But human beings are resilient and societies will find new ways to cope. I can see it in the young people I know – none of them are unemployed but many are self-employed. Who repairs your major plumbing problems? Your heating and air-conditioning? How about the roof over your head? In our county there are young people in the lumber business – and yes, fast growing trees are “farmed”, though on a slower, larger basis.
Humans are endlessly adaptable, but there are always the “glass-half-full” vs. the “glass-half-empty” people. Just for today, because it’s the Christmas season, try to perceive the glass half-full. It isn’t easy, but it *is* possible. What is so very difficult is to live through a time of transition. And here we are, stuck in the middle of global changes with many more to come. Carve out your own little niche, your comfort zone. The past is gone, the future is unknowable despite your guessing about the blackness descending. All you have is the present. Enjoy.
Hi Dymphna. Yes, humans are resilient however could many of them also become the new horses, surplus to requirements? The video below explains this quite well:
However you’re right – we can never be absolutely sure as to the type of change which will happen. All we know is that it’s a changing world, so perhaps it’s best to just make the most of the present, and not worry too much about things we can’t change… Merry Christmas!
we can never be absolutely sure as to the type of change which will happen…
We can’t be sure at all, with no absolutes to qualify our uncertainty.
” special programs to entice Chinese and Indian programmers imo would make sense.”
Here’s the paradox.
From a strictly economic, ie, lowest unit-cost, it makes sense to import good from the cheapest producers and labor from the cheapest wage countries. The big problem with this is that it devastates the local culture and the local producers. You had the situation in imperial Rome that that landowners bought all the land, either through purchase or through foreclosing on loans. Bringing in cheap goods from the other provinces of the pacified Roman empire drove down the prices local farmers and tradesmen could get. The displaced farmers moved to the cities, where they lived on handouts and mass entertainment. In any case, the countryside was depopulated. Invaders didn’t have to fight. They could just walk in.
There are plenty of US citizens who are competent in technology and looking for jobs. Read Michelle Malkin’s book “Sold Out”.
In my opinion, there should be no guest workers unless they are paid at a rate three times the market salary. That would take care of the claim they were “essential”. If the company couldn’t function without them, it should pay them 3 times to the rate, since it would have to close otherwise.
The conclusion is, Americans should be willing to pay some higher prices to maintain the quality of their life and culture.
Yes that worries me too.Robots will take many jobs .the jobs that are left will require skills the migrants but also many of our own people don’t have.
There is a diagnostic computer program that can correctly diagnose a patient on the basis of symptoms 75% of the time. Experienced doctors can perform this same function only 70% of the time.
This program is designed to help the computer “learn on the job” as it were.If it gets the diagnosis wrong then it is feed the new diagnosis ,which it files away so that it does not make the same mistake next time
Once the computer program starts performing correctly 95% of the time
fewer doctors will be needed.
Law would be amenable to a similar program as law is based on precedent.
Then there are the self driving cars and trucks ,which engineers re predicting will be around on the roads in 5 to 10 years -thus eliminating many driving jobs.
Here in Ozz we already have self driving trucks working on the mines,taking jobs from people.
And look at Amazon ,they are considering fully automating their warehouses so that they will only need 1 human per warehouse ,to keep an eye on things.
Japan has largely automated the car industry ,which means less assembly line jobs.
It makes no sense to employ a group of hostile people who wish us harm cannot speak our language have no skills and will compete with our own unemployed for scare jobs and welfare.
Studies show 80% of Middle Eastern and African migrants to Ozz are unemployed after 5 years.
I am optimistic however.
I am optimistic that people will wake up demand closed borders ,mass internment ,mass deportations and the shooting of Islamic terrorists on sight,banning of Islam ,the mosque and the Koran.
Happy Christmas to those who are behind us on the timeline.
3rd paragraph 2nd sentence should read
“If it gets the diagnosis wrong then it is fed the new diagnosis ,which it files away so that it does not make the same mistake next time.”
Oh bother there are so many mistakes and typos .Please just delete the post.Always a mistake to attempt to write anything before my third cup of coffee.
Everyone’s freaking out about less childbirth, but if you look at the countries closely, even someone like Japan has now more positive expectations, with childbirth going up ever so slowly and it’s estimated it’s gonna be roughly 2 children per couple around 2040.
In my country, there’s a steady influx every 30 years (used to be 20, after the revolution in ’89 the age of having children was shoved from roughly 20 to 30, so there was a gap, but roughly five years ago it went up again).
In Hungary they started giving out a one-time support after a third child a few years back, as well as other benefits in taxes and government loans for young families. I believe something similar is in place in Sweden and France, though they give it after each child and we all know who receives most of the money because of that. In Russia they’ve been doing the same for roughly ten years now and it’s improven child birth greatly. They even came up with policies that gave this benefit to anyone once (because muslim regions with high birthrates would use it), but in regions with regions with low birthrates generally they made local policies that allow families to get it twice of even more times and it did improve the rate. It was successful enough for them to prolong the policy from 2013 originally, to 2018. Maybe they will prolong it even further.
I assume in the West they will need to teach women to be mothers first though, because third wave feminism has robbed them of their feminity.
For sure, the welfare states penalize responsible child raising and reward irresponsibility.
The lowering birth rate is, at the end, a biological rather than economic phenomenon.
Interesting data, with Spain and Greece boasting 25% (!!) youth unemploiment, UK 19% etc. What are those 15-25 yr-olds unemployed – the Antifa thughs crushing cars and Conservatives’ teeth, or majors on “The lyrics of Beyonce in counterpoint to Tupak Shakurs patriarchy”? Or both? Time to reboot the “academia” (this might include some geronticide as well)?
WOW! is this being over-thought. LOOK AT THE MAP (atlas). The poorest places in the World have the highest reproductive rates. PERIOD (look at Hispaniola). It’s not demographics, race, politics, religion, morals, crime, or education. Poverty creates children. There are factors that can force results including food, politics, religion, race, and intelligence (look at Korea), but the basic cause is right there in plain view.
Even Muslim societies seem to have a decreasing birthrate when wealth increases, though it’s not as marked as in other cases and seems to happen more in the “source” countries than in Europe.
Ultra-orthodox Jews seem to be the only ones that can keep up the birthrate despite improved economic circumstances.
Actually, modern Orthodox have greater than replacement levels of fertility.
I’d say inteligence is a major player, considering the regions of lowest IQ align with the poorest countries and highest birthrates.
If it was just about poverty, parts of Asia or South America would be red in the global map too, but you don’t see any of that. Similarily Egypt is rather high up there, despite doing pretty well economically for an African country.
And in the meantime, they sending the planes to bring this African illegal savages from Lybia to Italy , how idiotic is that , never change , Europe is totally done ..
The dumbest thing about the “importing third worlders because our own wont breed” is first of all, they are largely importing poor dependant people who don’t want to work anyways who are being put right on lifetime SSI (in the USA) and similar – they are “disabled” and entitled to tens of thousands of dollars a year of endless freebies when they come in at age 20 and will remain so right until they end up 60 or 80 or 100.
The argument of “we need these people” has to be seen for the bait and switch that ruthless sinister leftists have always used – take a genuine need and plug it with a poison pill meant to bring in chaos followed by ever greater government control to manage that chaos.
The second part is that if those in power were concerned about things like birthrates in the west, or declining sperm counts in males, or anything else – they would actually make a big public deal out of it/call it a crisis. If a farmer’s herd suddenly started dying faster than it was growing are you going to tell me he wouldn’t be freaking out, doing everything he could to find what is causing it? Making a big public noise? You can know that these things are INTENTIONAL because there is not any big public concern. Yet that is a long topic all in itself.
The reason is that they want the culture and genetics of those who are intelligent and compassionate enough to truly love freedom and Western values to die out because those people are very hard to manage for our controllers on top. Socialists and control freaks want populations driven by very base needs or responding in very predictable ways. Like an invasive species that takes over everything but then itself is easier to manage after it has done so. A bunch of intelligent individuals who don’t want to be slaves creates lots of management problems for the self claimed rulers.
Bringing in the third world foreigners serves multiple purposes in the globalist plan right now. It keeps us distracted worrying about our ‘new neighbor’ instead of corruption in the government, makes us need the government to control the chaos they imported, and thus buys them more time for the robot revolution which instead of freeing us is simply going to replace us.
The ‘greying’ of the world doesn’t concern me theoretically – automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics could readily take care of all the increased needs of such a population to a great degree. It’s just the elites don’t want it to go that way. What they want instead is to use the third worlders to temporarily replace us, and then they will use the robots to replace them once they are no longer needed. They just need us so busy worried about daily survival by turning every city into an immigrant warzone that we don’t see this process happening until those of us that survive catch on too late.