Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

Obviously some have taken the saying of a previous Australian politician " populate or perish" too seriously!

 

[angelo]

Interesting reading by open minded non delusional idealists.
https://westernrifleshooters.wordpr...-tet-take-two-islams-2016-european-offensive/

 

[Warpoet]

Now he's linking to gun nut sites with confederate flags all over the place and he's too fucking dumb to even realize what it means.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting reading by open minded non delusional idealists.
https://westernrifleshooters.wordpr...-tet-take-two-islams-2016-european-offensive/

My only concern is we don't have enough houses.

- - - Updated - - -

Now he's linking to gun nut sites with confederate flags all over the place and he's too fucking dumb to even realize what it means.

At least you can say it was non-Islamist

 

[angelo]

Now he's linking to gun nut sites with confederate flags all over the place and he's too fucking dumb to even realize what it means.

There are none so blind as those who can see!

 

[ZiprHead]

Now he's linking to gun nut sites with confederate flags all over the place and he's too fucking dumb to even realize what it means.

There are none so blind as those who can see!

It's "will not see.", doofus. And it fits you to a T.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps the West should start providing condoms to countries breeding themselves into poverty resulting in social chaos, lack of democracy and into dictatorships, wars and mass migration.

No country is breeding itself into poverty; Nor has one ever done so. Your fundamental assumptions and beliefs are wrong, and this is leading you to a number of wrong, and very dangerous, conclusions about reality.

Plenty of countries have bred themselves into poverty. That's a big part of the problem in much of Africa--too many people, too little land.

In 1985, Ethiopia was one of the poorest countries on Earth. The population was 40.7 million; Life expectancy was 44.63 years; per capita GDP was just US$232.51 - less than $1 per day. Bob Geldof organized the worldwide 'Live Aid' appeal to get food, water, and shelter to the huge number of Ethiopians who, due to drought and civil war, were dying in their thousands from starvation. The TV news was full of pictures of starving Ethiopian children, and the usual suspects were telling us that the problem was overpopulation - Ethiopia simply couldn't support 40 million mouths to feed.

Today, Ethiopia has a GDP per capita of US$619.14 - nearly three times what it was in 1985. Life expectancy is 64.04 years. Clearly, if poor nations can 'breed themselves into poverty', we must expect that Ethiopia has far fewer than 40 million mouths to feed today. And yet the population is 99.39 million - two and a half times the population in 1985.

The claim was people can breed themselves into poverty, not that breeding must lead to increased poverty.

 

[TSwizzle]

The Italians are about ready to surrender, no surprise there;



DailyMail

So basically, the islamic invaders are about to breach one of the defensive walls.

Good. EU should help Italy and either start sending the boats back where they came from, or take the refugees themselves. There is no shame in Italy blackmailing rest of the EU to do something they should be doing anyway.

Since none of these boats have refugees, Italy (and other EU countries) should send the boats back.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Good. EU should help Italy and either start sending the boats back where they came from, or take the refugees themselves. There is no shame in Italy blackmailing rest of the EU to do something they should be doing anyway.

Since none of these boats have refugees, Italy (and other EU countries) should send the boats back.

Some people believe there is no distinction. 2 million houses short in the UK and rising as more people pack in.

Asylum seekers will get a place to live which is no problem. They get £35.39 per week per person in each household. It's not much but enough to scrape by on basics.

British citizens who are homeless have to wait. It can take years to get affordable housing when queuing for council property. Escalating house prices and rents mean even those on quite good incomes are also waiting for council housing.

British citizens returning from abroad and are unemployed can be refused any type of help for up to 3 months unless they prove they wish to reside in the UK. Government warnings encourage Britons not to return.

It's a bit lopsided but own citizens should not be regarded as persona non grata bearing in mind that Norman Tebbit (Tory government) did say that if there are no jobs locally people should get on their bikes to find work. Some went abroad. A few who returned found it even difficult to get a bank account.
Refugees don't get paid much but they get housed in priority over others.

 

[bilby]

No country is breeding itself into poverty; Nor has one ever done so. Your fundamental assumptions and beliefs are wrong, and this is leading you to a number of wrong, and very dangerous, conclusions about reality.

Plenty of countries have bred themselves into poverty. That's a big part of the problem in much of Africa--too many people, too little land.

In 1985, Ethiopia was one of the poorest countries on Earth. The population was 40.7 million; Life expectancy was 44.63 years; per capita GDP was just US$232.51 - less than $1 per day. Bob Geldof organized the worldwide 'Live Aid' appeal to get food, water, and shelter to the huge number of Ethiopians who, due to drought and civil war, were dying in their thousands from starvation. The TV news was full of pictures of starving Ethiopian children, and the usual suspects were telling us that the problem was overpopulation - Ethiopia simply couldn't support 40 million mouths to feed.

Today, Ethiopia has a GDP per capita of US$619.14 - nearly three times what it was in 1985. Life expectancy is 64.04 years. Clearly, if poor nations can 'breed themselves into poverty', we must expect that Ethiopia has far fewer than 40 million mouths to feed today. And yet the population is 99.39 million - two and a half times the population in 1985.

The claim was people can breed themselves into poverty, not that breeding must lead to increased poverty.

The claim, in 1985, was that the Ethiopians HAD bred themselves into poverty.

That 1985 Ethiopia was the ultimate fate of all of Africa, due to high fertility rates.

That Ethiopia, with 40 million people, was a clear case of too many people, not enough land.

We can now see that that claim was utter crap. But you want me to believe that it's not crap this time. Sorry, but no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of countries have bred themselves into poverty. That's a big part of the problem in much of Africa--too many people, too little land.

In 1985, Ethiopia was one of the poorest countries on Earth. The population was 40.7 million; Life expectancy was 44.63 years; per capita GDP was just US$232.51 - less than $1 per day. Bob Geldof organized the worldwide 'Live Aid' appeal to get food, water, and shelter to the huge number of Ethiopians who, due to drought and civil war, were dying in their thousands from starvation. The TV news was full of pictures of starving Ethiopian children, and the usual suspects were telling us that the problem was overpopulation - Ethiopia simply couldn't support 40 million mouths to feed.

Today, Ethiopia has a GDP per capita of US$619.14 - nearly three times what it was in 1985. Life expectancy is 64.04 years. Clearly, if poor nations can 'breed themselves into poverty', we must expect that Ethiopia has far fewer than 40 million mouths to feed today. And yet the population is 99.39 million - two and a half times the population in 1985.

The claim was people can breed themselves into poverty, not that breeding must lead to increased poverty.

The claim, in 1985, was that the Ethiopians HAD bred themselves into poverty.

That 1985 Ethiopia was the ultimate fate of all of Africa, due to high fertility rates.

That Ethiopia, with 40 million people, was a clear case of too many people, not enough land.

We can now see that that claim was utter crap. But you want me to believe that it's not crap this time. Sorry, but no.

The acceptable ratio of land to people can change with technology.

For an example of a place breeding itself into poverty, Rwanda.

 

[LordKiran]

Plenty of countries have bred themselves into poverty. That's a big part of the problem in much of Africa--too many people, too little land.

In 1985, Ethiopia was one of the poorest countries on Earth. The population was 40.7 million; Life expectancy was 44.63 years; per capita GDP was just US$232.51 - less than $1 per day. Bob Geldof organized the worldwide 'Live Aid' appeal to get food, water, and shelter to the huge number of Ethiopians who, due to drought and civil war, were dying in their thousands from starvation. The TV news was full of pictures of starving Ethiopian children, and the usual suspects were telling us that the problem was overpopulation - Ethiopia simply couldn't support 40 million mouths to feed.

Today, Ethiopia has a GDP per capita of US$619.14 - nearly three times what it was in 1985. Life expectancy is 64.04 years. Clearly, if poor nations can 'breed themselves into poverty', we must expect that Ethiopia has far fewer than 40 million mouths to feed today. And yet the population is 99.39 million - two and a half times the population in 1985.

The claim was people can breed themselves into poverty, not that breeding must lead to increased poverty.

The claim, in 1985, was that the Ethiopians HAD bred themselves into poverty.

That 1985 Ethiopia was the ultimate fate of all of Africa, due to high fertility rates.

That Ethiopia, with 40 million people, was a clear case of too many people, not enough land.

We can now see that that claim was utter crap. But you want me to believe that it's not crap this time. Sorry, but no.

The acceptable ratio of land to people can change with technology.

For an example of a place breeding itself into poverty, Rwanda.

Why would you assume that Rwanda's troubles have anything to do with population count as opposed to demographics or the political climate of the nation? You need to back up your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Rwanda#After_the_civil_war_and_genocide

Here's the bare minimum amount of effort you can put into researching any subject, it makes mentions of overpopulation, however this is also qualified by pointing out that:

A: Rwanda is practically a micro-nation with useable land being acutely scarce

B: Almost the entire population is dependant on subsistance farming

This is important because it means that Rwandan agricultural techniques are incredibly inefficient in terms of production per acre. So really, the problem isn't even their population but the limited amount of airable land and farming techniques that are inefficient.

Conclusion: Your assertion that Rwanda is "Breeding itself into poverty" comes off as a skin-deep understanding of the nation's circumstances and doesn't take into account the whole picture. I feel like you found some wiki article in some desperate attempt to justify your assertion with at least one (if only one) example, but in your haste to confirm your preconceptions, you read even less of it than I read mine.

 

[angelo]

There are none so blind as those who can see!

It's "will not see.", doofus. And it fits you to a T.

No! In this case it's how it stands! One can see the problem but refuses to acknowledge it!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would you assume that Rwanda's troubles have anything to do with population count as opposed to demographics or the political climate of the nation? You need to back up your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Rwanda#After_the_civil_war_and_genocide

Here's the bare minimum amount of effort you can put into researching any subject, it makes mentions of overpopulation, however this is also qualified by pointing out that:

A: Rwanda is practically a micro-nation with useable land being acutely scarce

B: Almost the entire population is dependant on subsistance farming

This is important because it means that Rwandan agricultural techniques are incredibly inefficient in terms of production per acre. So really, the problem isn't even their population but the limited amount of airable land and farming techniques that are inefficient.

Conclusion: Your assertion that Rwanda is "Breeding itself into poverty" comes off as a skin-deep understanding of the nation's circumstances and doesn't take into account the whole picture. I feel like you found some wiki article in some desperate attempt to justify your assertion with at least one (if only one) example, but in your haste to confirm your preconceptions, you read even less of it than I read mine.

Ethnic violence started the mess in Rwanda but it wasn't the main cause. I suggest reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

1) While it's subsistence farming that doesn't change the tiny plot sizes people are left with after division after division of the farmland.

2) Ever been there? Note how mountainous it is--not exactly a practical place for mechanized farming. Fields are crammed in wherever they can be, often on some pretty steep hillsides.

 

[bilby]

Why would you assume that Rwanda's troubles have anything to do with population count as opposed to demographics or the political climate of the nation? You need to back up your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Rwanda#After_the_civil_war_and_genocide

Here's the bare minimum amount of effort you can put into researching any subject, it makes mentions of overpopulation, however this is also qualified by pointing out that:

A: Rwanda is practically a micro-nation with useable land being acutely scarce

B: Almost the entire population is dependant on subsistance farming

This is important because it means that Rwandan agricultural techniques are incredibly inefficient in terms of production per acre. So really, the problem isn't even their population but the limited amount of airable land and farming techniques that are inefficient.

Conclusion: Your assertion that Rwanda is "Breeding itself into poverty" comes off as a skin-deep understanding of the nation's circumstances and doesn't take into account the whole picture. I feel like you found some wiki article in some desperate attempt to justify your assertion with at least one (if only one) example, but in your haste to confirm your preconceptions, you read even less of it than I read mine.

Ethnic violence started the mess in Rwanda but it wasn't the main cause. I suggest reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

1) While it's subsistence farming that doesn't change the tiny plot sizes people are left with after division after division of the farmland.

2) Ever been there? Note how mountainous it is--not exactly a practical place for mechanized farming. Fields are crammed in wherever they can be, often on some pretty steep hillsides.

So the problem isn't population, nor even population density; it's subsistence farming, due to lack of development, due to poverty.

Rwandans are poor because they are mostly farmers, in an environment where farming is not lucrative. Population has fuck all to do with it; the population density of a nation is not linked to its per capita wealth.

 

[LordKiran]

Ethnic violence started the mess in Rwanda but it wasn't the main cause. I suggest reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

1) While it's subsistence farming that doesn't change the tiny plot sizes people are left with after division after division of the farmland.

2) Ever been there? Note how mountainous it is--not exactly a practical place for mechanized farming. Fields are crammed in wherever they can be, often on some pretty steep hillsides.

So the problem isn't population, nor even population density; it's subsistence farming, due to lack of development, due to poverty.

Rwandans are poor because they are mostly farmers, in an environment where farming is not lucrative. Population has fuck all to do with it; the population density of a nation is not linked to its per capita wealth.

Further, the mountains themselves do not deter mechanized farming, it may be harder and require money put into developing specialized equipment, but its hardly undo-able.

Just as a general idea, how about a sort of monorail farming system that can travel up, down, and across terraces, ploughing fields, seeding, watering, tending, and harvesting crops depending upon the armatures used? I cant say if this would be the best way, but there's nothing about that idea that is impossible and it would be a major step up over manual labor with unmodified crops.

In fact, the more mechanically minded of you can perhaps picture what that blueprint might even look like.

 

[bilby]

So the problem isn't population, nor even population density; it's subsistence farming, due to lack of development, due to poverty.

Rwandans are poor because they are mostly farmers, in an environment where farming is not lucrative. Population has fuck all to do with it; the population density of a nation is not linked to its per capita wealth.

Further, the mountains themselves do not deter mechanized farming, it may be harder and require money put into developing specialized equipment, but its hardly undo-able.

Just as a general idea, how about a sort of monorail farming system that can travel up, down, and across terraces, ploughing fields, seeding, watering, tending, and harvesting crops depending upon the armatures used? I cant say if this would be the best way, but there's nothing about that idea that is impossible and it would be a major step up over manual labor with unmodified crops.

In fact, the more mechanically minded of you can perhaps picture what that blueprint might even look like.

There is nothing more useless than to do with great efficiency that which should not be done at all.

Places with high wealth (and often high population density) don't generally include farming as a major contributor to their economies.

More food is grown worldwide than is needed to feed everyone very well indeed - more people suffer ill health due to too much food than too little.

Rwanda is a shit place for farming; they should do something else. Nobody in my family has farmed for generations, and not one of them has starved to death either.

 

[LordKiran]

Further, the mountains themselves do not deter mechanized farming, it may be harder and require money put into developing specialized equipment, but its hardly undo-able.

Just as a general idea, how about a sort of monorail farming system that can travel up, down, and across terraces, ploughing fields, seeding, watering, tending, and harvesting crops depending upon the armatures used? I cant say if this would be the best way, but there's nothing about that idea that is impossible and it would be a major step up over manual labor with unmodified crops.

In fact, the more mechanically minded of you can perhaps picture what that blueprint might even look like.

There is nothing more useless than to do with great efficiency that which should not be done at all.

Places with high wealth (and often high population density) don't generally include farming as a major contributor to their economies.

More food is grown worldwide than is needed to feed everyone very well indeed - more people suffer ill health due to too much food than too little.

Rwanda is a shit place for farming; they should do something else. Nobody in my family has farmed for generations, and not one of them has starved to death either.

Maybe, but then what else can Rwanda contribute? Rwanda is nothing like Singapore and doesn't have the prerequisites to serve as some sort of a commerce hub. If their agricultural methods improve, they can at least assure population growth without starvation, or relying on outside assistance from neo-colonial powers like China, the US, or Iran.

 

[Elixir]

Further, the mountains themselves do not deter mechanized farming, it may be harder and require money put into developing specialized equipment, but its hardly undo-able.

Just as a general idea, how about a sort of monorail farming system that can travel up, down, and across terraces, ploughing fields, seeding, watering, tending, and harvesting crops depending upon the armatures used? I cant say if this would be the best way, but there's nothing about that idea that is impossible and it would be a major step up over manual labor with unmodified crops.

In fact, the more mechanically minded of you can perhaps picture what that blueprint might even look like.

There is nothing more useless than to do with great efficiency that which should not be done at all.

Places with high wealth (and often high population density) don't generally include farming as a major contributor to their economies.

More food is grown worldwide than is needed to feed everyone very well indeed - more people suffer ill health due to too much food than too little.

Rwanda is a shit place for farming; they should do something else. Nobody in my family has farmed for generations, and not one of them has starved to death either.

Right - the monorail would be better applied to food distribution than to food production. I've been waiting for someone (else) to come up with a drone-driven famine-mitigation system.

 

[LordKiran]

There is nothing more useless than to do with great efficiency that which should not be done at all.

Places with high wealth (and often high population density) don't generally include farming as a major contributor to their economies.

More food is grown worldwide than is needed to feed everyone very well indeed - more people suffer ill health due to too much food than too little.

Rwanda is a shit place for farming; they should do something else. Nobody in my family has farmed for generations, and not one of them has starved to death either.

Right - the monorail would be better applied to food distribution than to food production. I've been waiting for someone (else) to come up with a drone-driven famine-mitigation system.

But what's the problem? Lack of food or lack of access to food? (And when I say this I mean purely within the context of within the given country fyi.) I was under the impression that the problem was a food shortage.