More People In Europe Are Dying Than Are Being Born (phys.org) 547
jones_supa writes: More people in Europe are dying than are being born, according to a new report co-authored by a Texas A&M University demographer. In contrast, births exceed deaths, by significant margins, in Texas and elsewhere in the United States, with few exceptions. The researchers find that in Europe, deaths exceeded births in most of the counties of Germany, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, as well as in Sweden and the Baltic States. Further south, natural decrease is found occurring in the majority of the counties of Greece, Portugal and Italy. More births than deaths (natural increase) is widespread in Ireland, Cyprus, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg. "Natural decrease is much more common in Europe than in the U.S because its population is older, fertility rates are lower and there are fewer women of child-bearing age," the researchers explain. "Natural decrease is a major policy concern because it drains the demographic resilience from a region diminishing its economic viability and competitiveness."
invite more people in? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
and Germany.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen. If the Muslim populations get high enough, they can vote in the changes to the laws and the old world cultures will fade.
and how long before the next Hitler comes to stop (Score:4, Interesting)
and how long before the next Hitler comes to stop that?
Re: (Score:2)
5 or 10 years. Give or take.
Re:and how long before the next Hitler comes to st (Score:5, Interesting)
There will be no "next Hitler", just like there will be no "next Napoleon". Certainly Hitler was no Napoleon. Napoleon was a military genius but his famous military accomplishments (having lost very few battles despite at times tremendous odds against him) were far shorter lived than his achievement with re-writing and organizing law: the Napoleonic Code lives on today in many guises because it makes sense. Hitler was an appalling strategist, an amateur tactician at best (who got lucky a very few times), a ruthless and reckless politician who however managed to motivate a demotivated people through his obsession with national spirit and national identity - crucial for a broken people who had lost everything through a devastating war, revolt and punitive blockade and reparations.
Of course there can always be someone worse than Hitler in the future. But the times are different and the solution will therefore be different.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I hear the Muslim men are all up for reproducing with the European women too, whether the women want to or not.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen.
Muslims seeking revenge against Europeans for the crusades is like Japanese seeking revenge against the U.S. for their defeat in WWII.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Informative)
One should note that Islam won the Crusades. In the end, all the crusader kingdoms were permanently evicted from the Middle East and its surrounds. In the final act, even Constantinople finally fell (remember that the rescue of the Byzantine Empire was the original motivation for the Crusades--the whole thing was ignited by the Byzantine disaster at Manzikert, after all.)
Crusaders sacked Constantinople (Score:5, Informative)
(remember that the rescue of the Byzantine Empire was the original motivation for the Crusades--the whole thing was ignited by the Byzantine disaster at Manzikert, after all.)
Uh, the crusaders didn't protect Constantinople-- they sacked it.
It was richer, and less well defended, than the Islamic lands that they were nominally aimed at, and they wanted the loot. The crusaders were not the good guys in this portion of history.
If you want to know, why did Constantinople fall to the Moslems? The answer is, it fell because it never really recovered from being sacked by the Fourth crusade.
http://www.historytoday.com/jo... [historytoday.com]
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html
http://www.historynet.com/fourth-crusade-conquest-of-constantinople.htm
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I said it was the original motivation. I didn't say they were good at it. They did sort of lose focus there--particularly the Fourth Crusade, which, as you state, would be the one that sacked Constantinople.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen.
Muslims seeking revenge against Europeans for the crusades is like Japanese seeking revenge against the U.S. for their defeat in WWII.
How about Muslims seeking revenge against Europeans for colonization? I can tell you that is a very sharp thorn at the moment, at least in France.
Re: (Score:3)
It's strange how homes that were built over 150 years ago and were affordable to the young people of the time are no longer affordable to young people of the same age now.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not revenge, just their old pattern (Score:4, Informative)
What? Did you read anything about the conquests of muhammed? 600+ years before any famous Khan was around, Islam was plenty violent already. Even in a brutal time, he would top off most the lot.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think muslims around the world are all part of some grand conspiracy to 'take revenge' for the crusades? No, they're just people who see the much greater opportunities and wealth available in European countries compared to the shitholes they live in, and make the rational decision to move there for personal gain.
As for the 'decline' of Europe, they may be decreasing in number, sure, but they are definitely increasing in wealth (positive economic growth) with the effect that wealth and power is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Raw population size is a poor measure of the well-being of a country, otherwise India and China would be the best places to live.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are different kinds of immigrant Muslims. The well integrated, secular Muslims whose children or grand children might be as Muslim as the current European is Christian: more than half non believer, but happy to join the families to keep the tradition alive.
Many Muslims however don't want to integrate. They want to live in Islamic states within the state, where shariah law overrules the states law. If something happens within their community, shariah law will solve it. Police has nothing to say in those area's. These area's where pretty small in the past, but with their 8 children on average and the fact that 50% of them choose a husband/wife from the ultra conservative homeland, means that for every 'radical' Muslim woman there are on average 12 new radical Muslims.
This causes a lot of problems. Their are too many of them to contain them within their own 'state within the state' and they demand the local people to adjust their habits to their culture. My local school now only serves Halal food, and all local (white) politicians don't have a problem with this. This year the exams are even postponed because Muslim kids are in the middle or the Ramadan. This means that for many families there is no vacation this year. The majority of the middle class people go on summer holiday the week after graduation. This year graduation is postponed with 3 weeks and most workers can't postpone their free days with 3 weeks.
In the local public pool it is no longer available for males 3 days a week. It's woman only. The woman are no longer allowed to where a normal swimming gear (bad suit / bikini), they should wear one that covers the entire body, legs and arms. This is because some imam interpreted this rule somewhere in the koran.
Several examples of how the white people have to adjust to the Muslims. Everyone who criticizes these decisions is either a racist an islamophobe or a xenophobe.
And these aren't people who moved to my country, these are third, fourth and even fifth generations of families who never wanted to integrate. They were all born in this country and always rejected all values that our country stands for.
They also reject our hard fought for values of freedom, freedom of speech and democracy. They want to replace the current laws with Shariah laws, but since they are only with 12% today, they don't have the democratic majority. With the recent mass immigration their numbers will probably double within 10 years. The immigrants are mostly males and still have to bring their wife(s) and children once they get their citizenship. This means that within 20 years or so, their children will have voting power, and the Muslim parties might become the largest party in our country.
When you look at the failure to integrate immigrants that started to come in the late 50's, and the failure to integrate their offspring who always use racism as an excuse, I don't believe that the new immigrant will ever integrate (with a few exceptions of course).
Homophobia and sexism is back alive an kicking, and gay people can no longer walk around the streets like they did 10 years ago. Woman are afraid to walk alone to work or public transport. The police can't control the situation anymore and rich people use private security services to protect themselves. In just a few years political correctness has managed to create the society they feared: a police state, but this time without police but with private security firms on one side and shariah 'police' squads on the other side. The Shariah squad is making patrols in my village. A few weeks ago I was halted by them and they warned me about my running gear. Short pants are not allowed, they are no allowed to come above the knee... Now what can you do against such a squad? They are armed with sticks, police doesn't do anything, so I just stopped doing my daily run... Some people aren't even allowed to let their dogs out because that Shariah squad says Mohamed didn't like dogs, so nobody should let dogs out.
My region is
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
You wrote 11 paragraphs on how islamic culture is being forced upon you yet not even a single mention of where you live... yeah I'm calling bullshit unless you actually provide useful info that backs up your experience
Re: (Score:3)
I want the best people to come to my country. I want doctors and engineers and hard workers. I don't give two shits if they're muslim or christian or buddhist or atheist. If I go to a doctor to get heart surgery, I don't care if the doctor is a muslim, I care if he's a good doctor. And so what if he's muslim anyway. His kids or his grandkids will be atheist, like everyone else's kids.
Yes but you're making the assumption of integration, which is desirable but which is, unfortunately, not happening.
I am not against immigration with integration. I am against the too rapid immigration without integration that is happening in Europe today and that will, if allowed to continue without said integration, impose its culture on my children.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it means, if this trend keeps up, that EU culture, the Germans, the French, etc....will possibly start to disappear, being replaced with the Muslims that are pouring in,
Same Bollocks I've been hearing for ages. They said the same things when the Indians poured into Britain and Australia... Guess what, they've become part of our culture, same with various Asian cultures (Veit and Indo in Australia), Greek culture.
In fact, Australia treated Greeks pretty badly when they first started coming over... But they still integrated and are now part of Australian history and culture.
People like you have no clue. You've spouted the same nonsense for decades and every single time been proved wrong. You're less credible and more annoying that the "THEY TURK UR JERBS" crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Australia didn't have a culture that defined us as clearly as many of the European ones. The differences in European countries is jarring. By comparison traveling from Australia to NZ to west Canada or northern USA doesn't seem very different.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
The West Indians came to the UK. They were mistreated, but they engaged and they assimilated.
The Indians came to the UK. They weren't treated well, they often retained their own culture but over time the barriers have dropped and they largely embraced British culture.
The muslims came to the UK. They demand British culture change. They demand Sharia law. They mutilate their children. They use violence to pursue their archaic superstitious beliefs and try to impose them on others.
Sorry but this is a different scenario. Some muslims are engaging, assimilating, embracing British values, finding a balance between their religion and the culture of their country.
Too many aren't, and are showing no signs of wanting to.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, apart from being British and living here?
Re: (Score:3)
Muslims and other immigrants are just the highly-visible part of a bigger problem.
Smart educated capable people are dying out, while less intelligent, uneducated and criminal classes are outbreeding them.
The same is happening within both Muslim and white european societies, and globally.
Also, the woman in the black hijab with 6 kids under 8 is a lot more visible than the 30yo muslim woman in the business dress who has not started a family yet.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit extreme.
The thing is that all Europeans, Muslim Arab ethnics as well as native European humanists/Christians tend to have far fewer kids then their neighbors.
And while cultural change is inevitable in an immigrant society, you generally don't get wholesale replacement. You get a new assimilated culture that takes most of it's traditions from the original, while gaining some from the new guys (ie: the US is still basically an English, Protestant country, despite the fact nobody admits to being ethnically English and we've borrowed Halloween/Christmas Trees/Italian food etc. from newcomers).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you actually live in Europe? Integration does not work. We have whole suburbs of "insert immigrant nationality" because they don't integrate. Even politicians have to admit that multiculturalism failed. The cultures are just too different and there are far too many at the same time.
Integration (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you actually live in Europe? Integration does not work. We have whole suburbs of "insert immigrant nationality" because they don't integrate. Even politicians have to admit that multiculturalism failed. The cultures are just too different and there are far too many at the same time.
Except when it does. If you have a large, secular society that orients more along the lines of politics than race, culture, or religion, than over time immigrants and more importantly the children of immigrants become part of the larger society. Some people are real jerks to outsiders no matter where they are or what culture they join--the idea is over generations to try to get their kids to be more and more accepting of outsiders, to be part of the larger community.
Integration is not an experiment that succeeds or fails. It's life, and people and even entire populations change across as little as fifty years. That explains everybody's racist uncle.
Re:Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you actually live in Europe? Integration does not work. We have whole suburbs of "insert immigrant nationality" because they don't integrate. Even politicians have to admit that multiculturalism failed. The cultures are just too different and there are far too many at the same time.
Except when it does. If you have a large, secular society that orients more along the lines of politics than race, culture, or religion, than over time immigrants and more importantly the children of immigrants become part of the larger society. Some people are real jerks to outsiders no matter where they are or what culture they join--the idea is over generations to try to get their kids to be more and more accepting of outsiders, to be part of the larger community.
Integration is not an experiment that succeeds or fails. It's life, and people and even entire populations change across as little as fifty years. That explains everybody's racist uncle.
This.
If integration is such a failure, explain why England and Anglo cultures are still around? We've been integrating for literally centuries. When a new group of immigrants comes over, they slowly become part of the fabric of a nation. If they don't it is almost always the fault of the host nation for forcing them into ghettos and disallowing them the chance to participate in a nations culture.
Australia treated the Greeks pretty badly when they first started coming to Oz post-war. They were called "New Australians" and some stores flat out refused to serve New Australians. However the Greeks responded by becoming part of Australian society over time. They stopped being New Australians and just started being Australians. They adopted a lot of Australian traditions but this is a two way street. Some Greek traditions became part of Australian society. This process usually ends up with the best parts of a new culture being integrated in, usually food, celebrations and parts of the langauge as people travelling to a new country tend to only want to keep the parts they liked about a society.
Its the same with Italian Americans who bought pasta, not Fascism to the US or British Indians who bought curry, not bad hygiene to the UK.
The racists always complain that immigrants "dont speak the English" whilst this is ONLY partially true the racists like to ignore the fact that their children will speak English as their primary language if not, their only language. Integration is a process that takes a generation. Claiming it has failed after 5 years is stupidly short sighted.
Having grown up in Australia, I've heard all this bollocks before. First it was the Asians who would take all our jobs and destroy our culture, then it was the Indians, Now its the Muslims. Next decade, it'll be someone else. Same bollocks with a different target and not once have their predictions of doom and gloom come true. When I was 8, the local Racist league told me I'd never get a job because all the Gooks were coming over to take them. Guess what, I've been gainfully employed for the most part since I was 17 (which is over 15 years ago). I bet that same idiot is sitting in the same shitty part of Adelaide spewing the same nonsense... the only thing that has changed is "Gook" is now "Muslim".
Re:Integration (Score:5, Insightful)
"If integration is such a failure, explain why England and Anglo cultures are still around? We've been integrating for literally centuries. When a new group of immigrants comes over, they slowly become part of the fabric of a nation. If they don't it is almost always the fault of the host nation for forcing them into ghettos and disallowing them the chance to participate in a nations culture."
There is a difference between a culture who is willing to integrate and a culture who expects everyone else to adapt to them. When the percentage of the latter in a community is small, the children, at least, will integrate over time. When you get enough of the latter together in a community they then refuse to integrate with the existing community - when the percentage is high enough not only do they refuse to integrate but they expect the integration to be reversed and the community to adopt the immigrant culture.
When you have a great influx of immigrants they tend to stay together in the same areas. This is not 'forcing them into ghettos' but a self-made situation where people who speak the same language, have the same religion, etc. want to live near others of the same.
Here in France there is, and has been for quite awhile, an ongoing effort to keep ghettos from forming. Developers of new housing estates are required to provide some percentage of the new construction as social housing and low income families are then distributed across the country instead of being localized.
So no, I do not agree that the problem we see today is necessarily the fault of host countries, unless the fault is to allow such rapid immigration of a culture that refuses to integrate with the existing culture whenever enough of them are present in an area to put pressure on each other to conform to their religious constraints.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't we need to give it at least a decade or two for that to actually be concluded? After all, Chinese/Japanese immigrants during the gold rush didn't exactly integrate either. Mexican immigrants during the 90's didn't either. Their children and grandchildren, however, did.
Integration isn't something that happens instantaneously; it takes a generation or two.
You do have a point about the issue of overwhelming influx. The Syrians would have to be divided up amongst a lot of countries -- probably all of Europe and North America would have to go in on it together. Countries with larger populations and better economies could obviously absorb more.
But that's an ideal world. The real world has plenty of xenophobic idiots voting for Trump's wall around Mexico.....
Re: invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
But those were economic immigrants and the reason they didn't integrate was lack of education; the current migrants in Europe have an ideological reason for migration and by said ideology are raising their children not to integrate because their ideology states that the natives should integrate their customs and religion. Immigrant muslims in Europe have been around for at least 1 if not 2 generations (first gulf war and before that) and have by and far not integrated at all in European culture; they are migrants in the same fashion Europeans were "economics migrants" to the "New World" in the 1400-1600's.
Re: (Score:3)
the current migrants in Europe have an ideological reason for migration and by said ideology are raising their children not to integrate because their ideology states that the natives should integrate their customs and religion.
What all of them? Not one single immigrant has ever integrated?
I think you are taking the extremist view, since I personally know quite a few 1st and 2nd gen middle eastern immigrants who behave just like the rest of us.
Sure there's some bad eggs, but there are bad eggs in any group you choose to name.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Informative)
We have that here in the US. Heck, I live right near Little Saigon [wikipedia.org].
Guess what? Moving someplace with a weird language and weird customs and weird food can be tough. My roommate's family came over from Vietnam in the 1990s. Their english language skills weren't great and Little Saigon offered them places to go and things to do which were comfortable. While they have assimilated to a degree, they still tend to go to Little Saigon for restaurants (though they'll shop elsewhere for other things).
Their kids, on the other hand? For the most part, they're "assimilated." They speak english, enjoy "American" food, enjoy the culture, and barely speak the native language.
So, yes, these "immigrant" neighborhoods will grow because there are more immigrants coming in who need that support. Those immigrants will meet people, fall in love, have kids, and those kids will have more experience with the native culture than that of their parents. Give it a generation or two.
Re: (Score:3)
What will be the religion of their children ? Have a guess ?
...and this matters...why?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have, although that was more than a decade ago. The whole point of areas like that is NOT to blend but to stay amongst their culture. However I did not feel like I just entered some crime-ridden ghetto as is often the case in Europe.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except most Chinatowns in the U.S. are where non-Chinese people go to eat exotic food, not a separate city-within-a-city where any non-Chinese who enter will be beaten (or worse).
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
They used to be a separate city where non-Chinese would not enter. People used to complain that Chinese, Italians, whoever were not properly integrating. By which they meant abandoning their own culture and embracing the mayonaisse of American "culture". It's only over time that those other cultures became mixed in better, but the US embraced (badly) parts of their culture instead. We even bitched about the Irish and you can't get any whiter than that.
The melting pot concept is stupid, it just doesn't work to expect immigrants to abandon the old and become clones. There was too much effort spent in the past on forced conformity in many places in US and elsewhere; forcing children to go to English speaking schools and punishing them when their native language was used so that it becomes forgotten over time (most native American languages are functionally dead, children who can't communicate with their grandparents, etc).
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
The melting pot concept is stupid
Yeah, except your own post demonstrates that it has worked just fine in the U.S.:
They used to be a separate city where non-Chinese would not enter.
Emphasis mine
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not 100%, but integrated enough that people with Chinese ancestors can cooperate with and trust those with Italian ancestry.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. I feel that by and large the melting pot did work. The thing is that it doesn't happen overnight or without some friction. The one thing is a common language. I feel that having everyone learn English is a big part of it. I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to immigrate to better themselves but I feel they should do so in accordance with US law. To tolerate millions of people flooding in without registering is crazy.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Interesting)
The melt pot is working though. Those areas fall apart. People move, grow old, look for jobs, they rarely stay in one place. Europe was heavily divided by nationalities until recently. The USA has survived multiculturalism because people could move all over in search for jobs.
That ability is less than a decade old in Europe. It will take 20-30 years for the effect to be felt.
Melting pot is alive and well in the USA Is you need proof look up Italian, French,indian, Chinese , Thai , restaurants. In an given city. If you need more proof, look at a grocery store. You can get all sorts of food.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Informative)
The melting pot concept is stupid, it just doesn't work to expect immigrants to...
It works, just over longer time frames than you are expecting.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Interesting)
The U.S. Melting Pot has one big thing that these other countries lack: a lack of history. People in the US are not resistant to their immigrant compatriots adoptiong American culture, and in fact readily share it. Most European countries like Italy, Greece, France, and so on, have a hidden yet obvious nationalistic bias tied to heritage. In France or Italy, you will never become a true Frenchman/Italian as an immigrant even if you adopt their culture, whereas in America, the Indian who Americanizes him/herself is applauded rather than shunned.
In Europe, ethnicity is closely tied to nationalism, and the borders are drawn accordingly. That is not the case in the US because the only native ethnicity available is one that was sadly wiped out.
Re: (Score:3)
Except most Chinatowns in the U.S. are where non-Chinese people go to eat exotic food, not a separate city-within-a-city where any non-Chinese who enter will be beaten (or worse).
Going back a century or more, Chinatowns were ethnic ghettos not that different from other examples. Brought together by the pull of being close together with familiar people with shared backgrounds -- and the push of being excluded from elsewhere.
Of course, what is different is that the Chinese opened businesses, and so they needed to welcome outsiders to come and spend money there. To the point that in some Chinatowns have become business districts where few Chinese actually still live:
https://www.washi [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Got an example of that happening in Europe? Because it seems like every day somebody's freaking out about no-go-zones in Arab areas, and the next day some pretty blond newscaster is sitting in cafe talking to quite friendly people about how she should already be dead.
And in the states we get plenty of Arab neighborhoods. They're quite non-violent because there's less drinking.
Relentlessly, annoyingly commercial, tho. People who actually know Arabs would not think "oh shit a terrorist" when some Arab kid sho
And yet, productivity is rising. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Natural decrease is a major policy concern because it drains the demographic resilience from a region diminishing its economic viability and competitiveness." What a silly argument, given that productivity and and GDP are still rising rapidly in Europe.
Automation is accelerating with AI finally becoming a real thing. Economic output is rising in absolute terms and on a per-person basis. What this should mean is a rising standard of living. But in the US all the benefits of per capita productivity are going to the "owner class". This is the stuff of revolutions.
As long as there are intelligent, healthy people who are unemployed, the birth rate has not fallen enough.
Re:And yet, productivity is rising. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to stop a resurgence of fascism, try addressing the issues the Fascists are addressing. Give people the choice of thugs who appear to be on their side, or open minded decent politicians who are willing to allow hostile thugs to run rampant for the sake of their ideology, people will often pick door #1.
That means you do not open the doors wide to people from incompatible cultures, and then demand that your current residents accomodate their culture. And especially you do not tell everyone complaining about crime committed by those migrants that they're racists and should just shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
When my dad grew up his grandma lived with them. When she wanted to communicate with her daughter in secret they used Swedish. Their hometown (Rockford, IL) had a Swedish paper for years.
Spanish is not disappearing any slower then Swedish did. Italian is actually still around, generally in the pre-unification Southern Italian dialects that are gone from Italy proper, and Irish is probably stronger state-side then it is in Ireland.
If Muslims aren't trying to integrate, why it half the Brits I see on TV are b
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the Irish we got mostly spoke what you would call Gaelic, and everyone else calls Irish. The Irish that managed to stay in their homeland throughout the famine tended to be the English-speakers, which is why today almost everyone there primarily speaks English. During the Civil War both the Irish and Germans tended to be in their own segregated units, because they had trouble communicating in English.
As for the religious differences, the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism was enough t
Re: (Score:3)
They better hurry up. While the thirty years' war was indeed an absolute disaster, they didn't have nuclear weapons back then.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to suggest that Muslims in Europe cannot or will not assimilate, but the Irish and even the Italians had more similarities to the population in the US at the time than the Muslims do with the Europeans now. And there was a great amount of both interest and motivation in assimilating back then because no one cared much whether cultures were being oppressed or not, so you assimilated or you failed to thrive.
Today, there's both larger cultural differences, mixed with more tolerance of other cultures which has the unfortunate side-effect of making it easier to resist assimilation.
While I can't really make a distinction of what culture is "better", I do know that mixing cultures which are resistant to intermixing and assimilation is a recipe for serious civil strife. That's a serious danger for the future of Europe if they can't find some way to cope with the influx peacefully.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
you don't know which culture is "better"? you may be a victim of political correctness. i'm not so let me help you a bit.
the one that doesn't believe in killing and raping the infidels is better.
the one that believes woman are equal to men is better.
the one that believes in not killing homo sexuals is better.
the list goes on, but it always comes back to western culture is better!
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless that culture results in lower birthrates, then the killing, raping, misogynistic homophobic culture is better - in an evolutionary sense.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. We've only had sub-replacement birth rates for a relatively short time, and AFAIK nobody's proposed significant action to make motherhood more attractive. The population shift will also be very slow, and there's plenty of time for cultural assimilation. Western civilization is very resilient.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing that strikes me historically is how many people had no confidence in Western civilization and parts of it. They were almost always wrong.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Interesting)
In general, people who come to the USA are the most liberal members of their own cultures. I saw a study showing that US muslims had a stronger belief in gender equality than christians, they're extremely open to women working outside the home vs. traditional american culture of stay-at-home mothers. General opinion of burqa-wearing women I met at college was that they were a great tool to keep unwanted guys from leering at them and they saw it as a big help, not an unwanted obligation.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have in Europe right now is a diaspora - people from a totally foreign culture forced to live with another. Of course, one can argue that the refugees are in Europe by their own will, but the economic and social hardships in their own countries is so bad, that I would consider this a diaspora.
The political correctness of the hosts will allow the new foreign culture not to assimilate, and the children of these foreigners will end up outsiders in their own country. At least when there was conscription army in Europe, young males were forcefully mingled with other members of the society. Nowadays, young males are left isolated, exploited and desperate in their own ghettos, ripe for extremist brainwashing centered around their foreign culture and ethnicity.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the USA (and Canada) are blessed by a great filter called the Atlantic Ocean, which lets through people who
a) Passed the immigration criteria for work/residence/background check
b) Can afford a transatlantic ticket and can sustain themselves after becoming a resident
It would be natural that the more westernized immigrants would be coming over.
That does not appear to be the case in Europe. Closer proximity and lower risk of making the land and sea voyages does not filter out the "cream of the crop", like it does in the Americas.
I've got lots of folks (Score:4, Interesting)
The "culture" your referring to is mostly a byproduct of America meddling in Middle Eastern politics to prevent the spread of socialism. Iran was a secular nation until we decided we didn't like their democratically elected gov't and helped eject them. There are pictures of girls in skirts from the 50s before we stuck our nose in. Iraq was, for all of Saddam's faults, going the same route and Modernizing.
If you going to say their religion lets them do bad things that's true of Christianity in spades. Whatever horrible thing I might want to do to you today there's a line in the bible that lets me do it. Hell, you don't even need to be an Infidel. Oh, and I'll remind you that Christians are not, in fact, infidels. Atheists and pagans are.
Why do you hate America so much? (Score:5, Informative)
the one that doesn't believe in killing and raping the infidels is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers.
We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
the one that believes in not killing homo sexuals is better.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/... [rightwingwatch.org]
...on Friday's Republican campaign event, showing videos of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee engaging in question-and-answer sessions with extremist pastor Kevin Swanson, who then went on to say that he would smear cow dung over his body to protest a gay couple's wedding and urged the government to execute gays in the future if they don't repent.
the one that believes woman are equal to men is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That last one is a longer read.
But it includes such gems as "legitimate rape", sexual assaults in the military excused as "hormone level created by nature" and last but not least - rape as god's will.
P.S. Dear, right-wing, moderators... we can play this game of you trying to ignore facts while calling pointing out such facts trolling until you run out of mod points or I run out of copy/paste.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you being serious?
The differences between the Italian, Irish, German and Scandinavian immigrants who came to the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s and the prevailing American culture at the time was quite minimal compared to what we're seeing today in Europe.
Those immigrants to the US were mainly all Christians, even if they did have minor differences with their beliefs and how they practiced their faiths. Today we see those entering Europe from the Middle East, North Africa, and other hellish region
Re: (Score:3)
The crusades were a direct response to a particular part of that conflict, namely the conquest of lands that European Xians might care about for religious religions.
Imagine the rest of the Muslim world getting pissed off that America decided to invade Saudi Arabia and have the Marines occupy Mecca.
Re: (Score:2)
Well technically the EU kinda is but there are currently problems with some of it.
Anyway, the US is so easy because English is the standard here and I would imagine that most people that speak more than one language includes English. I will say that EU immigration is somewhat more difficult only because I don't speak the native language in most countries and that will stop me from getting in most places except for the UK. A number of places I glanced at required it so I couldn't apply for those jobs. But I
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the answer is most definitely to increase immigration, and in particular to be less selective about immigration.
But the US really isn't inviting people in. It's almost as bad on immigration policy as Europe is.
Re:invite more people in? (Score:4, Insightful)
The more people you invite, particularly when it's a richer country inviting poorer people, the more funding is needed for social programs just to keep the status quo. The folks who pay into those programs don't care for them (paying more for no improvements), and recipients from those programs don't want to risk the programs being reduced to help compensate for the influx. Jobs rarely if ever increase by as much as 1:1 for every immigrant. The economy can't grow if the immigration program outpaces any gains.
Frankly, the governments these people are fleeing from should be held to a higher standard. Poor people don't move just because they're poor, but because they're oppressed and/or have no opportunity. Oppression is a direct result of bad government. Lack of opportunity is typically a problem of poor economic or social decisions at the government level. (I say this not because I know the right answer, but just to point out that all this "blame" being placed on the country of asylum is really misdirected and should first be placed on the country the refugees are fleeing.)
Re: (Score:3)
This is generally not a concern for most countries. Usually people move to a new country in the hope of finding work. Social programs just help get them into the workforce faster.
Sure, I suppose a sudden, large-scale influx could be a problem. But this usually just doesn't happen. And it would pay for itself many times over if the country would simply borrow the money for getting the new immigrants settled.
Re: (Score:2)
who would make it is hardly relevant. We are already seeing the effects of this.
Legal aids are my favorite example. Its used to be that Laywers would hire an auditorium full of aids just to help with a single high profile case. Any big case had many people working on it. Now? That entire room of people is replaced with a handful of people on computers.
30 years ago you could graduate from college with any old degree and get a job. The majority of those jobs are just gone. Either made so unskilled that no deg
Idiocracy (Score:3)
Well off people don't reproduce as much. But as Idiocracy commented, the idiot crowd can just as well advance the gene pool. Whether we remain civilized or resort to all out tribal warfare, slavery, or feudalism, or leave the world in a choking pulluted, flooded, plague ridden morass with radioactive no-go zones humanity itself will persist. Our aspirations for a egalitarian intellectually absorbed transcendent society are less likely or stable than colonialist domination.
In terms of reproductive habits, it seems like the fast breeders evnetually win unless the elite take a cruel approach.
THat said, I think the progress of mankind has been one of elevation, peace, understanding and freedom. So clearly the cynical view is not supported by societal evolution and birth patterns to date.
On the otherhand there's this years crop of angry republicans that are not very far removed from the president of idiocracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"OW, My Balls" is not intellectually far removed from the current state of 'reality' television.
That's an unfair comparison. At least in Ow, My Balls there was something exciting happening. The latest wave of reality TV shows are just people standing around whining. Also, Ow, My Balls had a certain pathos. With the Kardashians, by contrast, I frankly don't care whose butt it is or why it's fart--I mean, breaking the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean Americas Funniest Home Videos or do you mean [wikipedia.org]jackass?
OR
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+k... [lmgtfy.com]
a lifetimes worth on ball busters
Idiocracy is already here
Re: (Score:2)
I take it that you missed "Jackass". Same material, slightly higher concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the distinction is between aspiration and outcome. Sadly outcomes seem to defeat aspirations in every case. When we build great new inventions they become advantages of war not advantages for peace in most cases. Things like the internet or solar energy are the exceptions not the rule.
Re: (Score:3)
My observation over the past few years is that hell hath no fury like liberal media towards white males.
Then you're bad at observation.
Being an independent I'm rooting for Trump vs Sanders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non corrupt?
BOOOORING!
Bring on the hairpiece! I wanna hear what he has to say. Seriously, the only politician today worthy of a drinking game, I sure hope he will win!
Re: (Score:2)
google barely shows a blip if you search for it, but here's the news on Johnston running in 2016
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04... [dailycaller.com]
The current majority will fade out... (Score:2)
Those that constitute the majority now will surely fade out in a few decades. That's guaranteed.
What makes it worse is that there isn't much that current governments can do about it, though the majority of the population doesn't look forward to being the minority.
This confirms one thing: Times ahead will be interesting.
More in Europe are dying than are being born (Score:3)
Don't worry!
The entire population of Syria are already on their way to help.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, see it from their angle, its probably the first time they've ever seen a woman that doesn't look like a small elephant trapped in a black tent.
Syrians (Score:3)
We don't actually need more people in Europe though. Giving people a decent standard of living is all that matters, it's just the old-world financial system that demands a constant supply of new people to pay for the upkeep of the non-working population. Making sure these people have a decent quality of life is not as labour intensive as making sure they get a massive pension that they can spend on importing cheap electronics from China.
Why is that a problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, you need far less people today to produce more work than were needed 100 years ago. Many people are just plain useless for today's society. Less people is the opportunity to have less useless people, that is less angry dudes that don't have a clue of what to do with their life. Unemployment will eventually back down. Overall happiness will probably increase.
Life Extension (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
Did Netcraft confirm this?
Number of people employed in Germany at 25y max (Score:4, Insightful)
Just for the record, citing from recent news: "With 43 million people employed and fewer than 2 million unemployed, according to new data from the national statistics office, Germany’s active workforce is now more robust than it’s been for decades."
Those who cry for more babies are mostly those who'd like to hire more cheaply.
population (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, it isn't the end of the world. However, two things:
Fewer people limits the amount of available labor. Until there is a lot more automation, the number of people is the productivity of the human race. And that is all sorts of labor: menial and knowledge-based.
Secondly, and less theoretically, fewer people in the younger generations to pay into social programs means that a greater burden is on the younger individuals every generation. This will eventually cause collapse unless there is
Re: (Score:2)
This WOULD BE true if we didn't already have more people looking for work than work available. More idle hands are not going to solve that problem but compound it. We are already at the point where those who still have a job have to carry those that don't. What we certainly do NOT need is more people without any marketable skill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true if the number of people reduces across all age groups. But less children being born means old people becoming a larger and larger portion of the society. And THAT is a major problem.
Re: (Score:2)
This just means that European culture will die out as it's being replaced by immigrants from the middle east and Africa. (Who tend to have a net positive rate so Europe will expand more later on, just not White Europe)
Re: (Score:3)
That means we have to send them some development aid goods. Weapons and ammo, mostly.
Re: (Score:2)
Agent Smith, is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the appeasement politics of leftist parties are actually pissing off lefties like me now.
Seriously. We've arrived at a point where it simply isn't manageable anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is that unless you want mine-fields and are prepared to gun down people en-mass, there is no effective way of stopping this. Just look at what these people are running from.
Re: (Score:2)
How the heck does that make sense? If you have many kids in such a system you're cashing in because if everyone who doesn't have kids is paying for everyone else's brats, would you be paying or receiving if you had many brats?