• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Italy's Birth Rate is Apocalyptically Low

Except that is not borne out by evidence. The evidence shows Muslim immigrants to Europe do not assimilate but form isolated Muslim communities, often radicalized.
What, all of them? Bullshit.
The Paris and Brussels terrorists were largely 2nd generation Muslims.
So is the Mayor of London.

Oddly enough, there are some European Muslims who are well educated pillars of the community, some who are thieves, and some who are fanatics. In this respect, they are indistinguishable from the European Christians.
 
There won't be enough struggling taxpayers to support the aging population.

It's just the other side of the baby boomer peak...someone had to feed all the post war babies while they grew and became productive. Now they need care again during their retirement. Presumably may have superannuation or may still contribute to society as carers or volunteers. But I don't think that's the point of the OP, which is that there probably won't be a point where our fearless leaders are going to be satisfied with stabilized population numbers. As it stands, they see this as stagnation. Growth is always good to their way of thinking. So when population peaks, they'll look at ways to stimulate growth. That is the mantra after all.
 
I have always been critical of growth mantra. Growth is good and relatively easy for countries which start with crappy economy or something (China, India, etc)
Developed countries like US can have good economic "growth" only after something like Hurricane, eathtquake or WW3.
 
Yes. Growth is good up to an optimum point, after which it entails an ever increasing cost of some sort, ecosystems, etc, after which it just becomes bloating.
 
What, all of them? Bullshit.
No, not all of them. But if you have mass influx of millions of unvetted Muslim migrants many will be radicals. Just look at photos from Idomeni. Virtually all women are hijabed - where are Syrian Christians (who have more of a reason to flee ISIS than their fellow Muslims), where are secular or less religious Muslims? They seem to be MIA in Idomeni at least.

I am not Trump. I do not think immigration by Muslims should be cut off categorically. But I think mass immigration is a bad idea, be it from Latin America or from the Middle East or Africa. Immigration should be limited in number to ensure proper vetting and numbers that the host country can assimilate properly. Radical Muslims should not be allowed in categorically though, and those who exhibit radical tendencies should be deported, especially radical clerics that only serve to radicalize more Muslims.

So is the Mayor of London.
How is that an argument for mass migration of millions of Muslims into Europe? And there are problems with the mayor too and his previous work with Islamists.

In this respect, they are indistinguishable from the European Christians.
Hardly indistinguishable. European Christians do not commit terrorists attacks like Muslims do (even Northern Ireland Troubles were orders of magnitude less deadly) or commit honor killings etc.
Europe Grapples with "Honor Killings"
Saying that there is no difference is sticking your head in the sand.
 
No, not all of them. But if you have mass influx of millions of unvetted Muslim migrants many will be radicals. Just look at photos from Idomeni. Virtually all women are hijabed - where are Syrian Christians (who have more of a reason to flee ISIS than their fellow Muslims), where are secular or less religious Muslims? They seem to be MIA in Idomeni at least.
OMG, hijabed women!!!!!!!

How is that an argument for mass migration of millions of Muslims into Europe? And there are problems with the mayor too and his previous work with Islamists.
Apparently, only people who feel like you - he won very handily.
 
according to the Health Minister.



Why do some people want more and more and more people? Don't we have enough around the world already?

Italy set to double child benefit to combat low birth rate

Future tax payers have to be born to support the old taxpayers who can no longer work but earned benefits that have to be paid.


Although that financial problem may not be best averted by paying poor people to have more kids, who are likely to wind on public assistance and not contribute much to the coffer.
 
Yes. Growth is good up to an optimum point, after which it entails an ever increasing cost of some sort, ecosystems, etc, after which it just becomes bloating.

Working out how to achieve the same end result but using fewer resources is growth, and it comes at no cost.
 
Yes. Growth is good up to an optimum point, after which it entails an ever increasing cost of some sort, ecosystems, etc, after which it just becomes bloating.

Working out how to achieve the same end result but using fewer resources is growth, and it comes at no cost.
That's not "growth" that's "natural growth". Growth politicians always talk about is not related to underlying technological progress. It's related to spending, bubbles, and electorate employment through decrease of productivity.
 
Yes. Growth is good up to an optimum point, after which it entails an ever increasing cost of some sort, ecosystems, etc, after which it just becomes bloating.

Working out how to achieve the same end result but using fewer resources is growth, and it comes at no cost.

Not sure what you mean... if population growth is stimulated whenever it happens to peak and show signs of stabilizing because the powers that be don't like 'stagnation' while they chant their mantra of growth, these are more mouths to feed, shelter, clothe and entertain, which in turn uses more space and resources, while encroaching upon natural ecosystems.
 
Back
Top Bottom