Posted on 04/17/2005 7:54:21 AM PDT by 68skylark
Any country is in trouble if they try to repeal or sidestep the laws of a free marketplace -- that mistake seems to be at the heart of Europe's difficulties. (That, and Muslim immigration. And a malaise that causes a very low birth rate.) I hope that's a lesson that the U.S. will bear in mind.
The link is here: The Belmont Club.
when he said the EU had no contingency plan in the event of a rejection. "We have no plan B..."
Ah, the French. 25% of them employed by the government, 10%unemployed, and 10% on welfare and they have no plan B in case the EU goes south.
Maybe they should all move to Algiers.
The low birth rates are the inevitable consequence of feminism. The US is suffering from the same thought virus. However, on the bright side in the US, the left is low birthrating itself out of existence.
The identical analysis can be made concerning South Africa and Rhodesia; Particularly this part:
"... virtually eliminated malaria, typhus and typhoid and effected a prodigious change in the non-European infant mortality rates.
And...
...they expanded 2000 square miles of cultivated land in 1830 to 27000 by 1954. ... But rising prosperity attracted others ...
Poor Les. I have no idea what noirs are, is that like passing a kidney stone?
Yes there was rapid native growth, but the rebellions were not largely grass-roots driven, but small and very hard-core groups that took power in a sympathetic but largely passive native population.
The shock continues to this day.
And because there is really no dividing line between colonialism and the counter-colonization Western Europe is experiencing today, Johnson's observation applies with at least partial validity to modern South Africa, Israel, France and the Scandinavian countries.Saved by the "at least partial validity"! Saved from the ravages of one maniac straw man, from the cue of geography ripping through the felt, from one fatal presunpt.
The straw madman is "really no dividing line". Colonialism and "counter-colonalism" are sociological species so different they cannot mate and produce killer porpoises or even sterile mules. There sure is a dividing line.
The felt ripping cue of geography is miscued when comparing western Europe with South Africa and with Israel. Israel's Jewish population is largely Sepharidic, not western European Ashkenaz.
And the presumpt taken felos de se is that Israel can ever be lumped in with any other nation or place. It cannot, it is unqiue, whatever happens there is always sui generis.
European unemployment is often cited at 10%, but yesterday I saw another very ominous statistic. GDP in
France and Germany fell 20% over the last ten years. That is one reason our trade balance is out of whack, They don't have the money to buy anything from us.
Not that the author is wrong about birthrates and demographics but - given the finite nature of our world and its resources - it would be much better to impose limits on population growth in the third world by force than to try to match those rates in the industrial world.
Well, I'm not sure how I feel about your first paragraph. I think I see your point, and it's interesting. On the other hand, Europeans have been fighting more or less continuously for a thousand of years, and before the 20th century those wars have never really impaired their ability to be colonists at the same time. So I'm not sure why WWI or WWII would be so different from past European wars.
I'm sure I cannot agree with your second paragraph. I hope I can respectfully disagree without being "disagreeable." The most important resource on this earth is ingenuity, and it's not finite -- it just need liberty so it can flourish. And there's no way we can have any kind of discussion about limiting anyone's reproduction by "force" -- that's never going to happen, nor should it ever happen.
A Horse's a-s if I've ever seen one.
Where the indigenous peoples were primitive and their populations small they were simply overwhelmed and destroyed. Where their numbers were larger they were reduced to serfdom. Where they had strong cultures and huge populations they were conquered and "exploited".
During the long period from 1450 to 1900 it's true that Europeans fought each other but it's not true that "those wars never really impaired their ability to be colonists at the same time". The losers of those wars lost their colonies and their citizens had a more difficult time emigrating.
By 1900 Western technology and ideology had become well-known. The benefits of modern medicine were spreading so that populations were growing everywhere. At the same time weapons were growing far more destructive. World Wars I & II weakened all the European powers, not just the losers. Weakened them very seriously. At the same time anti-colonialist ideologies were spread by the two dominant post-war powers - the United States and the Soviet Union. The British and the French simply did not have the strength to hang on.
The most important resource on this earth is ingenuity, and it's not finite
Of course, its finite. Human beings have never been able to satisfy all their desires...and never will be able to. Unless you believe that war is what humans want most you have to believe that the 20th century was both the most inventive and least inventive century in history - both at the same time.
there's no way we can have any kind of discussion about limiting anyone's reproduction by "force" -- that's never going to happen, nor should it ever happen.
It happens all the time. Just not in an obvious way as is now the case in China.
The four horsemen do their job well and always have. Let the first world close its borders to all immigration from the third world and the birth rate in the latter will plummet radically within 20 years (or the infant mortality rate will climb radically, which is the same thing).
Ahem. Wait just a minute, Lar' - wanna think this one over again? I'd love to hear a plan under which we can force Third Worlders not to fornicate, but that strikes me as just a teensy bit impractical. I'm not sure the motto of the 101st Airborne is likely to be changed to "Helping Poor People Not To Screw Since 2005!" I could, of course, be wrong about that.
There is an inevitability in demographics that is illusory over the long term. I doubt if many would have predicted twenty years ago that the problem with world population would be its decline among certain wealthy nations. I suspect a similar decline may be in store for many of the poor ones as well. No one is really sure where these things originate - it isn't, as predicted, a function of food availability or natural resources such as water or oil running out. It is simply happening.
It happened in Rome during the first four centuries of the last millennium. Fertile migratory peoples simply out-bred, out-marched, and eventually out-fought the enervated Romans and took the place over. The Romans attempted to solve the thing with closed borders and migration policies, freezing of class mobility, and government subsidies for large families. Didn't seem to help a bit.
Close the borders to the First world thus preventing the Third World from exporting its problems. Widely distribute condoms and pills. They'd cry "racism" of course...but we could counter that we're not forcing them to do anything except take responsibility for their own kids. If they don't have the resources to support them then they shouldn't have them.
What would then follow is an attempt by them to prevent export of resources vital to our economy (they would attempt to make us live by our own advice). It could get real ugly...but it could be much worse if we just let things take their course and world population spirals out of control.
Not great or easy choices.
No one is really sure where these things originate...
That's true.
...it isn't, as predicted, a function of food availability or natural resources such as water or oil running out.
But this is only partially true. When natural resources run out population definitely declines...one way or another.
It happened in Rome during the first four centuries of the last millennium.
the Roman parallel is to inexact to be useful. Too many things have changed or are different.
I doubt if many would have predicted twenty years ago that...population would...decline among...wealthy nations
True...and disturbing. What was hoped for was stability. Not decline.
In particular, the demise of the Empire brought about general population decline all over Europe as chaos and continual warfare resulted in outright slaughter, disease, and the breakdown of the food chain. Barbarians did not "simply out-breed, out-march, and eventually out-fight the enervated Romans" as moralists have too often said.
It is important to note that the Eastern Empire survived for another 1000 years...and at first reversed the barbarian successes. They were not really defeated until 975 by the Seljuks at Manzikurt.
That's quite a long run of success for an "enervated" people.
It's also worth looking at the larger picture, at the demise of other empires. In truth, the connection between population size, or growth rate, and military strength is tenuous at best.
ping to read
Sorry for the late reply - that's cheating a bit, you know. The Eastern Roman Empire was Greek, not Italian. The Western Roman Empire benefited from Gothic vigor and fecundity and made quite a comeback in time, but it wasn't Latin anymore when it did so.
I do think it quite possible that if Europe does not see to its immigration policies it is likely to repeat history here. Unfortunately, if they attempt to incorporate countries with expanding, poor populations such as Turkey, whatever they manage to accomplish at the new border will be irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.