Immigration by the numbers

[Racoon]

When our children have grown to be as old as you and I are now, we'll see which one of us was approaching this issue from the proper perspective.

 

 

Back to life... Back to reality... :evil:

 

What is the "proper" perspective to have??

 

Could you at least Enlighten the rest of us??

 

 

Maybe Becuz' the Average American doesn't see the situation as clearly as you obviously do.. :cup:

[InfiniteNow]

What is the "proper" perspective to have??

 

Could you at least Enlighten the rest of us??

 

 

Maybe Becuz' the Average American doesn't see the situation as clearly as you obviously do..

 

It's the same position you've been attacking throughout this, and other, threads Rac. So you don't have to read everything in this thread over, I'll provide a synopsis.

 

The issue of immigration is short-term and misframed. The deeper issue is global population and supporting infrastructure. To focus such energy on local/regional/national immigration solutions is a waste of effort considering the larger problems we all face as a planet.

 

Basically, try to stop thinking as "just an American" (by which I suppose you mean citizen of the United States).

[C1ay]

The issue of immigration is short-term and misframed....To focus such energy on local/regional/national immigration solutions is a waste of effort considering the larger problems we all face as a planet.

 

I disagree. If immigration is allowed to run unchecked, overrunning the nation's resources, the nation will not have the resources to work on the population problem the rest of the planet faces....

[HarmonyAlexandria]

Please stop moving the goal posts after I've kicked the football. I'm starting to feel like Charlie Brown.

 

My bigger point is that it's not so much the immigration causing strains on some local infrastructure, but population growth causing strains on the globe as a whole.

 

I think that's the problem most people miss. Some people even believe that by curtailing immigration, we can keep more resources for ourselves.

 

Not true, the core problem is that the global population is at least twice as high as what is sustainable, all immigration does is move large numbers of surplus people, people who do not have "slots" in their native countries, to wealthier nations that have more carrying capacity.

 

If anything it makes the core problem worse as the first thing uneducated people do when they obtain even an inkling of prosperity is breed, 'poor' immigrants have ALWAYS had a high birth rate than the native population, regardless of nation-state.

 

Overpopulation was the LAST generations problem to solve (circa 1960s - 1970s) they choose to push the problem into the future, we do not have the luxury of passing the buck to the next generation as if we do not fix the problem soon, those future generations are in serious risk.

 

Most of the world's major problems can be traced to over population - global warming, habitat lose, energy crisis, political instability, etc.

 

By limiting people's ability to migrate, both legally and illegally, the problem of over population is contained, by allowing immigration, the problem threatens the entire globe.

 

It's unfortunate that previous generations did not take the problem of overpopulation seriously, as now we are stuck with only two alternatives - bad and worse.

[CraigD]

… the core problem is that the global population is at least twice as high as what is sustainable …

HarmonyAlexandria, Can you summarize the data and analysis by which you arrive at this conclusion?

 

It doesn’t agree with my own, such as the simplistic analysis I present in ”An upper limit calculation” in the 3/2006 thread ”Earth’s Population”.

 

Although precisely calculating the maximum sustainable human population, and detailing a program to support an increasing population are dauntingly complicated tasks, I’m aware of no information that would lead to the conclusion that it is within an order of magnitude of one half the current world population.

It's unfortunate that previous generations did not take the problem of overpopulation seriously, as now we are stuck with only two alternatives - bad and worse.

I find this statement philosophically interesting, as, had previous generations chosen to take the problem seriously and limit reproduction to replacement rate (zero population growth), we would almost certainly not be having this conversation, as most of us would not exist. To take an example, assume that, following the publication and wide reading of Malthus’s “ An Essay on the Principle of Population”, the whole of humankind had acted decisively to fix the human population at the ca. 1800 level of about 1 billion. Using the simplifying assumption that we are mostly of the “born before 1987” generation, population about 5 billion, then the probability that you and I would both exist is about .2 * .2, or 4%. Put another way, about 80% of the world would not be stuck with any alternatives, other than the single option of continuing to not exist.

 

Practically, I’m at a loss to describe how the human race as a whole, past or present generations, can limit its rate of reproduction. Well-educated people can, and with significant frequency do, chose not to reproduce, but to impose such a choice on majority of human being involves policies of a decidedly dark and sinister character, involving mandatory sterilization, infanticide, and artificially increased morbidity and mortality, to name a few. Less draconian measures, such as increasing the global standard of living, which has been observed to result in a decrease in the rate of reproduction, can run counter to the goals of population control, as these increased standards are also observed to increase per-person use of resources (our “ecological footprint”).

 

In a more light-hearted vein, a policy whereby only people who chose to limit their reproduction makes futures such as those jokingly depicted in films such as “Idiocracy” appear plausible.

 

Before focusing on the size of the human population as the dominant factor in problems ranging from anthropic climate change to illegal immigration, I think it’s important to be sure that this factor is, in the best analysis, dominant. IMHO, it is not.

[C1ay]

This video http://spikedhumor.com/articles/105587/The_Eyes_of_Nye_07.html by Bill Nye claims that the world can comfortably support about 2,000,000,000. Much more if the standard of living is reduced proportionately.

[CraigD]

This video by Bill Nye claims that the world can comfortably support about 2,000,000,000. Much more if the standard of living is reduced proportionately.

As much as I enjoy Bill Nye’s presentations, the “Population” episode of Eyes of Nye seems a bit heavy on interviews and light on fundamentals. Let’s see if we hypographers can do better :)

 

 

Given current agricultural technology, it requires on average about 1/3 of an acre and 1 day to produce food with a nutritional value of 2000 kcal (about 2 kcal/m²), about what one human requires each day. There’re about 21 billion acres (8.5 x 10¹³ m²) of productive land on Earth (sources: http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/foodcalories/foodcalories.pdf; The Population Press) - about 57% of its land area. So, roughly, with current agriculture and perfect management and distribution, no surpluses, and no bad luck, Earth can sustain a population of about 63 billion humans – a bit less than 10 times the current population.

 

 

Although improvements in agriculture - via such means as genetic engineering of food plants, improved plant mediums and medium management (soil, hydroponics, etc.), and increased productive “land” (including “greenhouse” coverings and aquaculture) – promises to increase the Earth’s population-bearing capacity by perhaps another factor of 10, improvements beyond that are likely to require order-of-magnitude increases in human energy consumption – the advancement of our civilization to type I or better on the Kardashev scale.

 

 

In short, although supporting an increasing human population, and assuring a quality of life one could consider “worthwhile”, is technically challenging, I’m skeptical that 2 billion, 6.6 billion, 10 billion, or even more is either the maximum possible or most desirable terrestrial human population.

[C1ay]

Earth can sustain a population of about 63 billion humans – a bit less than 10 times the current population.

 

Bill's number at the end of the presentation was 48,000,000,000 I believe, with all of the world surviving on a diet of rice alone. He called it a minimum standard of living.

 

I haven't seen anyone's analysis include the cycle of water. How much fresh water does a population need and how fast can nature recycle water? How much fresh water is needed to irrigate the food to feed a population? I don't know the answers to these questions but I suspect it is a key element to determining how many people this planet can support.

[HarmonyAlexandria]

HarmonyAlexandria, Can you summarize the data and analysis by which you arrive at this conclusion?

 

There are a few groups that all have mathematical models that show population vs. XXX, where they have defined XXX as the determining variable. The "Peak oil" faction has sustainable down to a few hundred million, based on how dependent we have become on petroleum products.

 

the problem with all these models is that in order to make the models understandable by people who do not have weeks to analyze the model and data, they limit the number of variables and the dependencies between them.

 

Other groups define the driving variable as portable water, ecological-footprint, the delta between how fast resources are being used vs. how quickly nature can replenish them, etc.

 

The "magic number" that comes up again and again is an optimal global population of between 2-3 billion, just like this group advocates for.

 

 

 

 

It doesn’t agree with my own, such as the simplistic analysis I present in ”An upper limit calculation” in the 3/2006 thread 5753.

That's an upper limit,, not optimal, and it's very unrealistic to believe that people would agree to the terms that not only your model but similar models pose. Not going to happen.

 

Although precisely calculating the maximum sustainable human population, and detailing a program to support an increasing population are dauntingly complicated tasks, I’m aware of no information that would lead to the conclusion that it is within an order of magnitude of one half the current world population.

Oh they are out there, the "die off" group is yet another faction that defines optimal lower than 1/2 the current population.

 

 

I find this statement philosophically interesting, as, had previous generations chosen to take the problem seriously and limit reproduction to replacement rate (zero population growth), we would almost certainly not be having this conversation, as most of us would not exist. To take an example, assume that, following the publication and wide reading of Malthus’s “ An Essay on the Principle of Population”, the whole of humankind had acted decisively to fix the human population at the ca. 1800 level of about 1 billion. Using the simplifying assumption that we are mostly of the “born before 1987” generation, population about 5 billion, then the probability that you and I would both exist is about .2 * .2, or 4%. Put another way, about 80% of the world would not be stuck with any alternatives, other than the single option of continuing to not exist.

Yes:)

 

Now as for particular *individuals* existing or not, referring to your comment about us not having this conversation, that is indeed a thought experiment.

 

Zero population growth does not imply NO future generations, just that the population does not grow, meaning 2 children per couple, or as my own parents decided, one child per couple (they are practicing negative population growth).

 

IF Homo Spaiens were rational creatures, which they are not, those least able to support children would not be having them, the ironic truth of the matter is that those who are incapable of sustaining children at developed world standards are the ones who are having the most children.

 

 

Practically, I’m at a loss to describe how the human race as a whole, past or present generations, can limit its rate of reproduction. Well-educated people can, and with significant frequency do, chose not to reproduce, but to impose such a choice on majority of human being involves policies of a decidedly dark and sinister character, involving mandatory sterilization, infanticide, and artificially increased morbidity and mortality, to name a few.

Like I said, our options are limited to bad, like some of the things you mentioned, or worse - the ecosystem collapse and takes Homo Sapien out along with it.

 

Mandatory sterilization? Yes - we could add that as a condition to receiving public assistance, or in cases of accepting refugees with legitimate claims of persecution. We, the more enlightened, prosperous societies, will allow you to live out your life in peace and comfort, BUT it comes at a price - you give up your right to breed...it's fair! Everyone gives up something, everyone, especially the immigrants and those on the dole, get something.

 

Less draconian measures, such as increasing the global standard of living, which has been observed to result in a decrease in the rate of reproduction, can run counter to the goals of population control, as these increased standards are also observed to increase per-person use of resources (our “ecological footprint”).

improving the standard of living is just not an option as while it is true that higher standards of living result in lower birth rates...in the long term, in the short term they increase the birth rate, and prolong lifespans...longer life spans = more of a chance to breed = making a bad situation even worse.

 

In a more light-hearted vein, a policy whereby only people who chose to limit their reproduction makes futures such as those jokingly depicted in films such as appear plausible.

I am my parent's protest vote to that scenario, dad has been with the population reduction movement since it's inception in the late 60s, and he noticed that while educated, financially well off people were drastically cutting back on their breeding, and having their children latter in life, those who put the most strain on the system were not.

 

Those children are not going to become future scientists or leaders of industry or anything else, they are going to be "small town/village" people who exist only to eat and breed, which is what even the US government referred to them as in the 1950s-1960s "eater/breeders", a giant red mark on the planet's balance sheet.

 

Before focusing on the size of the human population as the dominant factor in problems ranging from anthropic climate change to illegal immigration, I think it’s important to be sure that this factor is, in the best analysis, dominant. IMHO, it is not.

There are many, many examples that could be used to prove your assertion wrong, I'll just use one.

 

When Jacques-Yves Cousteau began his television documentaries about the Mediterranean Sea, it was teeming with life, now it's a watery desert.

 

Sure our technology has improved, making fishing yields much larger, but that sea has been providing sustenance for mankind for over 8,000 years that we can prove via historical accounts.

 

How is it that something that has been providing Substance for Millenia suddenly become barren in a generation? Because even though we have become more efficient fisher people, we are trying to carry a bloated global population, and this is just one way that the enviorment is telling us that it's just not going to happen.

[HarmonyAlexandria]

Note to board: As I can not post links, I can not site my sources, not only that, but I have to remove any links in previous posts in order for my replies to take...sorries.

[Turtle]

When our children have grown to be as old as you and I are now, we'll see which one of us was approaching this issue from the proper perspective.

 

 

Back to life... Back to reality... :phones:

 

well, the reality is no matter the amount of time passed, once a course of action is taken then one cannot know how events would have unfolded had a different course of action been taken. while somewhat conciliatory, your sentiment is a logical fallacy. :cup:

 

meanwhile, i have a story out of UK which bears on the issue of the detrimental affects of too many immigrants too fast. clumping in communities of their own rather than dispersing in the population, and not assimilating the culture of their new country is at this cross.

ITV News - Action urged over 'honour killings'

[InfiniteNow]

well, the reality is no matter the amount of time passed, once a course of action is taken then one cannot know how events would have unfolded had a different course of action been taken. while somewhat conciliatory, your sentiment is a logical fallacy. :phones:

I agree with your point about courses of actions, and the inability to know how things may have unfolded differently. However, my point is that the concept of national borders itself will soon become extinct.

 

Despite what short term immigration policy decisions are made, global population increase will soon ecclipse it as an issue. My suggestion is that placing focus on immigration issues is short-sighted. I propose that we should focus our attention on finding solutions to this much deeper global problem, which itself feeds the national challenges discussed in context of immigration.

 

 

Sorry, we have a mandate to gather more engineers with 160 IQs, and you're just a painter. Your family cannot cross. Please go home and starve to death.

 

:cup:

[Turtle]

Sorry, we have a mandate to gather more engineers with 160 IQs, and you're just a painter. Your family cannot cross. Please go home and starve to death.

 

:cup:

 

now that sentiment is precisely the kind of rigorous logic the real world operates on. i wonder just how much it cost said family to get 'here'? mmmm...do i buy food or risk everything somewhere else on an uncertain venture?

 

However, my point is that the concept of national borders itself will soon become extinct.

 

quite the strong affirmation for mere speculation. insubstantial as a premise.

 

My suggestion is that placing focus on immigration issues is short-sighted. I propose that we should focus our attention on finding solutions to this much deeper global problem, which itself feeds the national challenges discussed in context of immigration.

 

if we can't get a grip on it here first, the "most powerful nation", we stand statistically less chance of solving it for the world. as my earlier article attests, many European nations have a bad scene going on vis-à-vis high immigrant numbers and attendent problems as well as the US.

 

bunch of damn nonsense to have everybody rushing around (spending treasure & resources to do so i might add) like a game of musical chairs. better people stay sitting where they are and have the few standing bring round what they need. :) :phones: :(

[InfiniteNow]

<quote from iNow being silly removed>

now that sentiment is precisely the kind of rigorous logic the real world operates on. i wonder just how much it cost said family to get 'here'? mmmm...do i buy food or risk everything somewhere else on an uncertain venture?

 

<quote from iNow trying to be more forward thinking removed>

quite the strong affirmation for mere speculation. insubstantial as a premise.

 

<quuote from iNow expressing the need to think big picture removed>

if we can't get a grip on it here first, the "most powerful nation", we stand statistically less chance of solving it for the world. as my earlier article attests, many European nations have a bad scene going on vis-à-vis high immigrant numbers and attendent problems as well as the US.

 

bunch of damn nonsense to have everybody rushing around (spending treasure & resources to do so i might add) like a game of musical chairs. better people stay sitting where they are and have the few standing bring round what they need. :) :cup: :evil:

 

No worries, bro.

 

 

There are only two things about which I'm never wrong. Those are religion and politics. :phones:

 

:):cup::(