Why we need immigrants

Go figure, even if you freeze eggs and sperm, deciding that it’s a good time to get pregnant at 40+ then figuring on finding a significant other at that point isn’t successful?

As it stands China is already loosing population, most of the US would be as well except for immigration.

Gen Z is expected to have a shorter lifespan and the new predictions move global population loss to 2050 (from 2090)

we are much further along the curve as family formation drops to the lowest recorded levels.

We have too many people but having a slow steady decline so we can change society and our practices over time is apparently out of the cards.

Net result of the current loss of fertility is directly related to the loneliness epidemic, people especially in the US are very poor (even hostile) at maintaining connections with distant relatives and creating new friendships as they age, net result is a lot of people without anyone or any social network.

 

World's ills rooted in too much greed, not too many babies, pope says | USCCB

"Blind, unbridled consumerism and selfishness -- not the number of people on the planet and having children -- are the root causes of the world's problems, Pope Francis said.

The reasons for pollution and world hunger, for example, are not based on the number of children being born, but on "the choices of those who think only of themselves, the delusion of unbridled, blind and rampant materialism, of a consumerism that, like an evil virus, erodes at the root the existence of people and society," he said.

"Human life is not a problem, it is a gift," he said. "The problem is not how many of us there are in the world, but what kind of world we are building.""

 

Looks like it got done, someone asked mod's? (not me)

 

I didn’t know there was a difference; thought it was the same meaning, just a Brits spelling, or something.

 

Oops.....

See also:
Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling

 

made famous on the tonight show..

 

The disconnect between popular media vs the overall science community on this has been covered several times since I joined these forums. When the popular press was running stories of coming global cooling and imminent new Ice Age, a half-ish century ago, only a minority of 'science' was agreeing. There was much more technical discussion of global warming, but it just wasn't then gaining its share of popular coverage.

 

Speaking of selective sourcing, I guess the same goes for the population bomb, eh?

My problem isn't with Paul, BTW.
He was a sincere and gifted scientist, educator and advocator.
His work was used by the outrage industrial complex to scare the crap out of an entire generation into thinking that humans are significant enough to change the planet by having too many kids.
I remember this "world ending problem" even made it's way into a Star Trek episode in the late 60's


If anything, the CHICOMS ought to be a cautionary tale about 'quick and efficient' government action to fix systemic problems that SHOULD be ameliorated by CRITICAL PEER REVIEW - not the current crowd-sourced and industrially funded method.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-2nd-year-raises-long-term-growth-concerns-2024-01-17/

The REAL question goes all the way back to ancient Rome.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(WHO watches the watchers?)

In a month or two my intentions are to compare a couple of Paul's works.....
I have to wait until the above book is available in my library and I'm currently studying for an FCC exam that's due by the end of the month.

Busy busy busy.

Keywords: 'Interested in.'

 

Didn't they also have a significant rate of excess deaths from 'other causes' during the Pandemic, back when their official Covid-19 death rate was proudly low?

 

We and they continue to have “excess male deaths” to the point it’s impacting the insurance industry

it slowed but never stopped

 

"Anahuac" is a Nahuatl word. It overlaps with the area that we currently call "Mexico". I don't know if it meant just the capital district or a greater area, as the country we call "Mexico" did not exist at that time. I'd ask a Nahuatl speaker but they don't live around here. That I know of, it was the Aztec and the Toltec people who spoke/speak it. The Toltecs have been around since forever and I would not hesitate to call them natives. The Aztecca peoples, not so much. They came down to Mexico (the capital area) from the north and were themselves immigrants. If you talk to the locals, they still remember when the Aztecs showed up and they were a hated and despised people. The Aztecs were however a bunch of badasses and moved in because they felt like it and no one could stop them.

Out in my corner of the world ( The Iroquois Confederacy ) they were short on Uto-Azteccan speakers and were much more likely to call this continent "Turtle Island", which is also easier for English speakers to say and remember.

 

I have family from the San Gabrielano Tongva Nation who are the rightful owners of the greater area known as Los Angeles.

All Aztec DNA from Jalisco

From the West coast to the East coast of "america" was Anahuac

 

My two cents:

When a man feels it is safer to gather his wife and kids and leave his home to walk/hitchhike/train hop through notoriously dangerous countries like Nicaragua and Mexico to come to the USA to live and work; that speaks volumes and deserves a fair chance. At the very least a day in court and to be fairly judged in a dignified and formal, civilised manner.

Thanks

 

I've always advocated going one better.....
If a person (or a family) appears at a border crossing with a verifiable ID and some kind of provable background then they should immediately be given permanent residency (a green card.)
I would take one simple rule change to eliminate quotas.
We could spend the balance of our time vetting the people who break into our country with no ID and no verifiable history....

Of course THEN they wouldn't have the need to work in the grey market for cash under the table....