I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: I don't get it
The Telegraph has been running articles like this explaining how a tide of migrants will wash over Europe and we are expected to keep quiet and let it happen.
People in the EU are told everyday that we are an aging population and that someone has to look after us in old age so these migrants will do it.
I don't understand this. These migrants will grow old too and who looks after them? Presumably, these migrants like procreating and will replenish the population whilst we Europeans die off.
Another reason we are given is that the economy needs to bolster the workforce to ensure growth. Why?
Can we not say, "We are happy to see our population contract and the economy contract with it." Surely fewer people means less demand, which is good for conservation.
Most migrants are now economic migrants. It would be far better if we migrated excess jobs and manufacturing, created by our shrinking population and economy, to where it was needed rather than having the youth and skilled workers of these countries deserting their homelands. How can poor countries develop if their best people keep leaving?
Personally, I intend breeding children who respect and look after the elderly. As far as PC middle-class liberals are concerned, I am happy to see you stop breeding. Truly, I am very happy for you and the future of Europe. _________________ The Good Life - http://sustainable-life.co.uk/blog/
Last edited by JayBee on Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get it
JayBee wrote:
Can we not say, "We are happy to see our population contract and the economy contract with it." Surely fewer people means less demand, which is good for conservation.
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get it
tinosorb wrote:
Most evidence points to a sub-saharan origin for humankind. Meaning that we are, almost all of us, migrants, if you only look back far enough.
So would you suggest that we all go back to sub-saharan Africa?
That's not my point. Of course, all our ancestors are migrants.
I should also have added that most migrants are now economic migrants. It would be far better if we migrated excess jobs and manufacturing to countries where it was needed rather than having the youth and skilled workers of these countries deserting their homelands. How can poor countries develop if their best people keep leaving?
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1835 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get it
JayBee wrote:
The Telegraph has been running articles like this explaining how a tide of migrants will wash over Europe and we are expected to keep quiet and let it happen.
I think this sort of thing is just going to happen with massive globalization, like it or not. The only way to stop it is to close your borders and go isolationist, which is an increasingly unworkable solution. But, of course, it may be exactly what winds up happening in many places when globalization starts to tank. "Hands off! Our resources! You go find your own!" But in the meantime... yeah, I think you'd better just let it happen. But I rarely advocate being quiet. This could be a segway into a nice local discussion of resource consumption and preparation in your area... _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 2690 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:57 am Post subject: Re: I don't get it
A contracting economy? Would you invest $100 with a promise of only getting $80 back? This means all investment/lending would stop...the economy would slam into a brick wall & burn to a cinder...not meerly decline.
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:17 am Post subject: Re: I don't get it
RonMN wrote:
A contracting economy? Would you invest $100 with a promise of only getting $80 back? This means all investment/lending would stop...the economy would slam into a brick wall & burn to a cinder...not meerly decline.
Would it work like that?
If there are fewer people then a company just downsizes, produces fewer products but has fewer overheads and makes a similar profit.
Excess capital from the shrinking economy would just find its way to an expanding economy elsewhere.
Ultimately a shrinking global population would be the end for the money men and they can do what they like with their worthless money as we won't need it. _________________ The Good Life - http://sustainable-life.co.uk/blog/
Unfortunately our economic system REQUIRES growth. Part of the switch to a post carbon world will be the tossing of the current system of fractional banking, et al.
The argument that we must always continue to grow our populations/economies is one I find amusing. I always propose the following (using the USA as an example):
Q1: Will the population of the world, and every country in the world, have to stop at some point, or can it grow indefinitely? (10 billion? 100 billion? 100 trillion? 100 quadrillion?)
Q2: Given that the population of the USA will have to stop growing eventually, at which population level will the demographic problems associated with a stagnant or declining population be easiest to deal with?
A) 300 million
B) 500 million
C) 1 billion
D) 2 billion
E) 5 billion
PS: Whenever I propose these 2 questions, NO ONE ever answers them.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1835 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get it
Clouseau2 wrote:
Q1: Will the population of the world, and every country in the world, have to stop at some point, or can it grow indefinitely? (10 billion? 100 billion? 100 trillion? 100 quadrillion?)
Q2: Given that the population of the USA will have to stop growing eventually, at which population level will the demographic problems associated with a stagnant or declining population be easiest to deal with?
Q1: The population of the world cannot grow indefinitely.
Q2: I have no idea. Any biologists or population statisticians in the room? _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get it
JayBee wrote:
I don't understand this. These migrants will grow old too and who looks after them? Presumably, these migrants like procreating and will replenish the population whilst we Europeans die off.
Another reason we are given is that the economy needs to bolster the workforce to ensure growth. Why?
Can we not say, "We are happy to see our population contract and the economy contract with it." Surely fewer people means less demand, which is good for conservation.
Less demand means fewer jobs as well. Under our economic system, a declining population spells death for economic growth. Who will buy the goods produced? How will you service the debt?
Conservation and capitalism are like oil and water; they do not mix.
It is all a ponzi scheme; as long as new people are "getting in", things are fine. When that stops, the house of cards collapses. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:04 am Post subject: Re: I don't get it
European immigration - if there are 20million unemployed in the EU why do we need more people - why cannot the current residents fill the jobs available?
If the UK the unemployment figures are fudged, so many older people are 'incapacity benefit' the real unemployment figure is much higher than the government puts out - so why bring in more people?
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13064 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:37 am Post subject: Re: I don't get it
tinosorb wrote:
The tide is turning, though. Many of those best and brightest are returning to their homelands after their USA university educations for lack of opportunities here.
We need about 100 years of one-child only, worldwide, we of the west need to cut back consumption drastically, and the third world needs a modest boost sufficient to satisfy basic food, health care, and education needs.
It's so simple!
It's not simple to suggest to affluent people that they need to deliberately live at a lower standard of living than what they currently have. Relatively few people will agree to such a thing. Have you? _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: I don't get it
220 kWh is impressive if you are an American. I don't know how some Americans manage to use thousands of kWh per month. I use just 100 kWh per month and lead a normal life, I think.
However, I think I got obsessive with cutting back. I now intend just letting things happen and being prepared for any eventualities. If you are on the grid then it's more expensive going off the grid than staying on it.
No point in living like a hermit when the wastefulness of others will probably drag us all into the gutter. _________________ The Good Life - http://sustainable-life.co.uk/blog/
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: Re: I don't get it
We use 4500 kw and it isnt hard we have grow lights for our greenhouse.
When the lights go out we just wont have a greenhouse.
Going off the grid will just make it harder on us now, and when the grid goes down we will be in the same spot as if we had remained with our greenhouse and the 4500 watts.
I think your attitude makes sense.Use it and then loose it.
I just won't eat any salmon to make up for the ones that died.
But seriously, every human depletes some resource somewhere, Donald Trump just by driving a limo and flying his plane to ONE DESTINATION uses more than I do all year.
That doesn't make it right, but when the grid goes down he will be stuck in his penthouse in NEW YORK !!! and I will be out here in the woods.
Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 920 Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:16 am Post subject: Re: I don't get it
Gil-Galad wrote:
European immigration - if there are 20million unemployed in the EU why do we need more people - why cannot the current residents fill the jobs available?
If the UK the unemployment figures are fudged, so many older people are 'incapacity benefit' the real unemployment figure is much higher than the government puts out - so why bring in more people?
You need them, because immigrants are willing to work jobs that nobody else wants and much cheaper. Without them, end prices of certain products and your international competetivness would fall.
It's that way in almost all countries. I'm from one of new EU, Czech republic, and we are having stable 10% unemployment, yet all immigrants that come here from poorer countries like Ukraine or other FSU find their jobs instantly. They work in construction, factories and in other low paid jobs, that Czechs don't want because their unemployment social security sounds better to them than hard work for little extra money.
In the same way Czechs are trying to get work abroad, workers anywhere west of here, skilled doctors in Austria, Switzerland etc (doctors have comparatively low wages here), IT specialists in UK, Ireland and Germany.
This trend will continue until wages level up in EU. Fortunatelly since EU, they don't have to stay there so their work abroad is usually temporary.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
