Jump to content
Rampage

Rep. Steve King: ‘We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies’

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I read an economic research paper, perhaps 20yrs ago, the subject of which was the projected negative population growth in Europe.  The subject of the research was the sustainability of government programs at their current levels.  Over the next 40yrs or so, demographics were to see a shift of more and more of the European population out of the working, and tax paying, classes and into the retired and senior welfare classes.  There were two options to correct this - more babies or higher immigration.

Third option is to give less support to the retired or make them work longer so they are receiving benefits for a shorter length of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nomascows said:

Third option is to give less support to the retired or make them work longer so they are receiving benefits for a shorter length of time.

Or encourage ex-patriation. Some are already heading to Central and South America. Their dollars go a lot farther down there. I think a lot of countries will be making an industry out of caring for our elderly.

There is no right answer to it, but the reality is we always need workers to keep the economy going. It doesn't really matter what race they are or where they come from as long as they are law abiding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nomascows said:

Does everything have to boil down to race?  Is it eugenics to say that you can't put 10 bears in a square mile area without a bad outcome or 500 trees in an acre of land?  Each living thing needs a certain amount of air/water/space/sunlight; at some point you have overpopulated a place.

Everything doesn't have to be about race. 

Our overpopulation discussions are invariably racially based. Generally the person doing the discussing doesn't realize it.

Listen to the tone of the discussions. It's not us  that are overpopulating the earth. Look at China! Look at Africa!

Despite the fact that our, current, replacement level reproduction means we have a much heavier draw on the earth's resources than China or Africa. Despite the fact that we consume more resources per person by something like a factor of ten. 

If people really cared about "the resources" or overpopulation they'd campaign on throwing javelins at everyone's cock in the US and Europe. They aren't, the discussion is invariably about those poor little brown or yellow or black people half the way around the world who just can't stop making babies. 

When you peel back the layers and look at the reality of who consumes resources the eugenic aspect of the conversation is bared to light.

  • Like 1

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SharkTanked said:

Or encourage ex-patriation. Some are already heading to Central and South America. Their dollars go a lot farther down there. I think a lot of countries will be making an industry out of caring for our elderly.

There is no right answer to it, but the reality is we always need workers to keep the economy going. It doesn't really matter what race they are or where they come from as long as they are law abiding.

I was in Costa Rica 10 years or so ago and a tour guide told me that 50,000 Americans a year were retiring there.  Seemed high to me but who knows.  Are we really going to need more workers?  With outsourcing and robotics, how many new workers will we really need?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nomascows said:

I was in Costa Rica 10 years or so ago and a tour guide told me that 50,000 Americans a year were retiring there.  Seemed high to me but who knows.  Are we really going to need more workers?  With outsourcing and robotics, how many new workers will we really need?

Enough to buy the expensive shit we are making and still provide a profit to stock holders (which, in turn, makes the shit even more expensive).

Costa Rica is a big one. Belieze, Columbia too. There are entire American towns being built in Central and South America. And the vast majority of them are younger retirees. Lots of gov't pension holders down there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

Nature doesn't give a shit about anything; it will change and adapt as it always has. 

So of course it's a quality of life issue.  

Yes, but in the context of bronco's post, he was talking about the "future of our species". What might be best for the perpetuation of our species might suck when viewed thru our "quality of life" lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Everything doesn't have to be about race. 

Our overpopulation discussions are invariably racially based. Generally the person doing the discussing doesn't realize it.

Listen to the tone of the discussions. It's not us  that are overpopulating the earth. Look at China! Look at Africa!

Despite the fact that our, current, replacement level reproduction means we have a much heavier draw on the earth's resources than China or Africa. Despite the fact that we consume more resources per person by something like a factor of ten. 

If people really cared about "the resources" or overpopulation they'd campaign on throwing javelins at everyone's cock in the US and Europe. They aren't, the discussion is invariably about those poor little brown or yellow or black people half the way around the world who just can't stop making babies. 

When you peel back the layers and look at the reality of who consumes resources the eugenic aspect of the conversation is bared to light.

No doubt that we consume more than our share of resources.  I think that the idea of Asia/Asia Minor and Africa "overpopulating the world" is that they already have huge populations who have no reasonable expectation of adequate food/clothing/shelter and they continue to have a lot of babies.  Most Americans, even with our lopsided consumption, have a decent expectation of  adequately feeding/clothing/housing our young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SharkTanked said:

Enough to buy the expensive shit we are making and still provide a profit to stock holders (which, in turn, makes the shit even more expensive).

Costa Rica is a big one. Belieze, Columbia too. There are entire American towns being built in Central and South America. And the vast majority of them are younger retirees. Lots of gov't pension holders down there.

As a side note, the 'scenery' in CR is awesome.  Beats Kalifornia any day of the week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nomascows said:

No doubt that we consume more than our share of resources.  I think that the idea of Asia/Asia Minor and Africa overpopulating the world is that they already have huge populations who have no reasonable expectation of adequate food/clothing/shelter and they continue to have a lot of babies.  Most Americans, even with our lopsided consumption, have a decent expectation of  adequately feeding/clothing/housing our young.

Uh huh. 

So it isn't racially based, but people in Asia and Africa have no reasonable expectation of adequate food while having babies whereas Americans do?

That isn't racial to you?

For that matter, you realize that the population boom we're seeing is more or less a shadow boom, right? That we already had our population boom up to modern level resources when the industrial revolution happened, and when crop rotation was invented up through the Green Revolution? And that now you're seeing other nations' populations growing now that they have access to the kind of improved agriculture and productivity we have had for a long time?

Finally, you realize that Asia and Africa have the capability to produce A LOT more food and resources in general, right? One aspect that is totally overlooked about Africa is that with the relatively low population and economic development they've had, additional population means they can use more of the land they have. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

Uh huh. 

So it isn't racially based, but people in Asia and Africa have no reasonable expectation of adequate food while having babies whereas Americans do?

That isn't racial to you?

For that matter, you realize that the population boom we're seeing is more or less a shadow boom, right? That we already had our population boom up to modern level resources when the industrial revolution happened, and when crop rotation was invented up through the Green Revolution? And that now you're seeing other nations' populations growing now that they have access to the kind of improved agriculture and productivity we have had for a long time?

Finally, you realize that Asia and Africa have the capability to produce A LOT more food and resources in general, right? One aspect that is totally overlooked about Africa is that with the relatively low population and economic development they've had, additional population means they can use more of the land they have. 

It isn't racial to say that Americans, on the whole, can provide more material things to their offspring it is simple economics.  If you haven't noticed, the U.S. is a fairly wealthy country.  Is race tied to wealth to a certain extent, yes.  Few Americans will ever see the level of poverty of an Indian slum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nomascows said:

It isn't racial to say that Americans, on the whole, can provide more material things to their offspring it is simple economics.  If you haven't noticed, the U.S. is a fairly wealthy country.  Is race tied to wealth to a certain extent, yes.  Few Americans will ever see the level of poverty of an Indian slum.

 

 

Uh huh. Saying that people have "  no reasonable expectation of adequate food/clothing/shelter ", despite the fact that they have more food clothing and shelter than this country did 100 years ago, is ignorant or prejudiced.

You have a huge blind spot where your own beliefs are on this one. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tspoke said:

If we want to decrease population growth in other areas, then we need to work on improving their income and quality of life. Children are an inferior good.

Except, you know, to prevent the extinction of our species... Thinking of population control purely in terms of economic impact can lead to some truly bizarre conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Uh huh. Saying that people have "  no reasonable expectation of adequate food/clothing/shelter ", despite the fact that they have more food clothing and shelter than this country did 100 years ago, is ignorant or prejudiced.

You have a huge blind spot where your own beliefs are on this one. 

When I say that they have no reasonable expectation of adequate food, clothing and shelter it doesn't mean that there isn't a moral right to those things it just means that as a practical matter, millions of those kids will never have adequate basics of life.  As human beings do they deserve those things, yes.  As a practical matter, will they get those things?  It is highly unlikely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nomascows said:

When I say that they have no reasonable expectation of adequate food, clothing and shelter it doesn't mean that there isn't a moral right to those things it just means that as a practical matter, millions of those kids will never have adequate basics of life.  As human beings do they deserve those things, yes.  As a practical matter, will they get those things?  It is highly unlikely.  

Lol. Yes. Because all those poor little brown, yellow, and black babies are just disadvantaged! These countries are reproducing like crazy without resources, not because of vastly changing economic circumstances that mean that they can actually afford to have more kids, right?

You don't see how "white man's burden"-y your thinking is? How utterly condescending, without thinking that, hey, these people lived for hundreds of years with fairly steady population growth and now it is exploding, maybe there is a reason why?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, nomascows said:

When I say that they have no reasonable expectation of adequate food, clothing and shelter it doesn't mean that there isn't a moral right to those things it just means that as a practical matter, millions of those kids will never have adequate basics of life.  As human beings do they deserve those things, yes.  As a practical matter, will they get those things?  It is highly unlikely.  

I think you're making a judgement about what you consider "adequate". Those millions of children, most who don't know any different, are generally happy to be alive and will survive. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

Except, you know, to prevent the extinction of our species... Thinking of population control purely in terms of economic impact can lead to some truly bizarre conclusions.

I just mean as an economic term. As income goes up people have less children. I wasn't putting an actual value on children or saying we should or shouldn't be having more or less of them.

An inferior good in economics is something that as your income rises you purchase less of(eg ramen noodles). As peoples incomes rise we see a corresponding decrease in birth rate.

My point(other than getting to call children an inferior good) is that for the people that are worried about "others" immigrating into a country the answer isn't to increase domestic birth rates but instead to work on increasing income for the "others"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tspoke said:

I just mean as an economic term. As income goes up people have less children. I wasn't putting an actual value on children or saying we should or shouldn't be having more or less of them.

An inferior good in economics is something that as your income rises you purchase less of(eg ramen noodles). As peoples incomes rise we see a corresponding decrease in birth rate.

My point(other than getting to call children an inferior good) is that for the people that are worried about "others" immigrating into a country the answer isn't to increase domestic birth rates but instead to work on increasing income for the "others"

Well and frankly population growth is a bit of a bell curve. Extremely destitute and there are few kids. Get a little bit of wealth and the number of kids explodes. Get to at least "newly industrialized" level of wealth and the number of kids takes a drastic plunge. 

We don't think about it because the "little bit of wealth" happened to us in the late 1700s for the colonies and England, in the early 1800s for most of the rest of Europe and getting to "newly industrialized" equivalent happened around the '20s.

  • Like 1

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...