aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Over-populated? Under-populated? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Over-populated? Under-populated?" Watch "Over-populated? Under-populated?" New topic
Author

Over-populated? Under-populated?

Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624
There is confusion...

The Australian government has repeatedly over the decades told its people that the socially responsible thing to do is raise a big family. Australia, (we are told) suffers from a population which is too small and would greatly benefit from population growth... The over-simplified message is "Populate or perish". To encourage an increase in the birth rate, there are now all sorts of cash incentives to any new parents.... (However the birth rate in Australia continues to drop)....

On the flip-side, globally there is clearly no under-population problem and it seems that by any analysis ever done the planet is due to be struggling under the demands of an excess of humanity and its all consuming ways.. Perhaps the Chinese should be commended for their "1 child" policy as a measure that may help reduce the dramatic speed of population explosion!!

For various politcal reasons (that shoudlnt be discussed any further or the thread will vanish) - The Australian people seem unable to see that a simple increase in immigration could address any population concerns they have - This xenophobia astounds me.. but I'd better shut up..

Anyway... I have 1 child and my wife and I plan 1 more.. Are we being selfish in not helping to increase Australias population? Or are we being selfish in not helping to curb global population growth?
[ December 13, 2004: Message edited by: Adrian Wallace ]
Nick George
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 04, 2004
Posts: 815
My initial reaction is that you are doing a 'wrong' or... perhaps... 'bad,' thing when you base how many kids you and your wife want to have on what the government of Australia wants you to have. If you and your wife want another kid, you should have one. If you and your wife want 30 more kids, you should have 30 more kids. The world will be alright.


I've heard it takes forever to grow a woman from the ground
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
I am with Nick. As an American who cherishes his selfishness and holds it as a virtue, I would say, to paraphrase one of our presidents, "Ask not what you can do for Australia, ask what you can do for your own happiness".

This doesn't mean that the government of Australia should not make some social policies. What it does mean is that you are a free being to make choices. Your government is there to serve you, not the other way around.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Australia is a democracy, right? That should mean you have some influence on your government's immigration policy. Is it worth the time to invest in writing a letter?
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
There is confusion...

The Australian government has repeatedly over the decades told its people that the socially responsible thing to do is raise a big family. Australia, (we are told) suffers from a population which is too small and would greatly benefit from population growth... The over-simplified message is "Populate or perish". To encourage an increase in the birth rate, there are now all sorts of cash incentives to any new parents.... (However the birth rate in Australia continues to drop)....

On the flip-side, globally there is clearly no under-population problem and it seems that by any analysis ever done the planet is due to be struggling under the demands of an excess of humanity and its all consuming ways.. Perhaps the Chinese should be commended for their "1 child" policy as a measure that may help reduce the dramatic speed of population explosion!!

For various politcal reasons (that shoudlnt be discussed any further or the thread will vanish) - The Australian people seem unable to see that a simple increase in immigration could address any population concerns they have - This xenophobia astounds me.. but I'd better shut up..

Anyway... I have 1 child and my wife and I plan 1 more.. Are we being selfish in not helping to increase Australias population? Or are we being selfish in not helping to curb global population growth?


Many Western European countries seem to be having an issue with their lax immigration policies recently... At some point, immigration, without real integration (cultural and otherwise), will destroy the traditional national character of a nation. This is simple common sense. The tipping point may have already been reached in some countries. Today in France there are more more mosques than churches. The birth rate of immigrants is also higher. There is also a lack of integration of certain groups in France and other host countries in Europe. Project the trend forward in time say 70-100 years and countries such as France will no longer be "French" in almost any conceivable definition of that term...

Perhaps Australia is wise to try to avoid such a fate...
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624
Originally posted by Nick George:
My initial reaction is that you are doing a 'wrong' or... perhaps... 'bad,' thing when you base how many kids you and your wife want to have on what the government of Australia wants you to have. If you and your wife want another kid, you should have one. If you and your wife want 30 more kids, you should have 30 more kids. The world will be alright.


Of course I'm not going to allow them to dictate my family size... but I'm sure if we had 30 more kids the world (at least MY world) would be FAR from alright!!


Originally posted by John Smith:
I am with Nick. As an American who cherishes his selfishness and holds it as a virtue, I would say, to paraphrase one of our presidents, "Ask not what you can do for Australia, ask what you can do for your own happiness".

hmmm... I've never been a beliver in the "Selfish" philosphy thing - growing up in Thatcherite Britain was enough to give me a social conscience and leaves a really nasty taste in the mouth when I see the "Me Me Me!!!" people.

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Australia is a democracy, right? That should mean you have some influence on your government's immigration policy. Is it worth the time to invest in writing a letter?


Australia is a democracy - However, I am disenfranchised , so any letter I write to a politician is likely to have even less effect than if a legitamate voter were to voice concerns...



Originally posted by herb slocomb:


Many Western European countries seem to be having an issue with their lax immigration policies recently... At some point, immigration, without real integration (cultural and otherwise), will destroy the traditional national character of a nation. This is simple common sense. The tipping point may have already been reached in some countries. Today in France there are more more mosques than churches. The birth rate of immigrants is also higher. There is also a lack of integration of certain groups in France and other host countries in Europe. Project the trend forward in time say 70-100 years and countries such as France will no longer be "French" in almost any conceivable definition of that term...

Perhaps Australia is wise to try to avoid such a fate...


..and this is a bad thing.. why??? Differing brith rates are a magical thing!!

< MARXIST LEANINGS >
The lower rungs of society do most of the breeding and the educated, wealthy classes dont. This is ESSENTIAL for society so that we can keep the dream of "upward social mobility" alive. If all the wealth educated people were to breed effectively woudlnt that mean that the status quo would be perpetuated and the lower classes become aware of their inescapable exploited position in society more prone to revolutionary revolt?

By giving some of the lower classes a chance to achieve wealth and status through mobility, hope can be maintained and disenchantment reduced.
</MARXIST LEANING >

Anyway - If France (or Australia, or UK etc etc) should have more Mosques than churches isnt that just a reflection of the changing face of an increasingly global multi-cultural society?
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
herb slocomb:

Many Western European countries seem to be having an issue with their lax immigration policies recently... At some point, immigration, without real integration (cultural and otherwise), will destroy the traditional national character of a nation.

I would agree with that. I'd say that the historical average in the U.S. is perhaps the maximum sustainable rate without serious social upheaval. I think we're coming off an above average period, and probably going into a below average period.

Australia, though, is clinically paranoid about immigration. Heck, they even discourage tourists! They could sustain many times their current immigration rates with invisible effects on their society.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Adrian Wallace:

The lower rungs of society do most of the breeding and the educated, wealthy classes dont. This is ESSENTIAL for society so that we can keep the dream of "upward social mobility" alive.

Well, the cynical view is that it could be balanced by downward social mobility. Certainly it seems to me that a large majority of second and third generation heirs and heiresses would be better off learning what it's like to work for a living.

If all the wealth educated people were to breed effectively woudlnt that mean that the status quo would be perpetuated and the lower classes become aware of their inescapable exploited position in society more prone to revolutionary revolt?

The traditional way to fix this was interbreeding between the classes. Though actually, historical evidence is that if the lower classes think their position is inescapable, that makes revolution less likely, not more likely. People talk about peasant revolts, but historically, they are quite rare (or at least successful ones are).
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8829
    
    5
Back to the original question...

Some forms of consumption are more local than others...

Using more of Aussie-stralia's fresh water is mostly a local issue.

Using more petrol is a world issue.

Don't know how much Aussie-stralians import food, or how they're doing when it comes to preserving their topsoil?


Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


Many Western European countries seem to be having an issue with their lax immigration policies recently... At some point, immigration, without real integration (cultural and otherwise), will destroy the traditional national character of a nation. This is simple common sense. The tipping point may have already been reached in some countries. Today in France there are more more mosques than churches. The birth rate of immigrants is also higher. There is also a lack of integration of certain groups in France and other host countries in Europe. Project the trend forward in time say 70-100 years and countries such as France will no longer be "French" in almost any conceivable definition of that term...

Perhaps Australia is wise to try to avoid such a fate...


Quite correct.
Natives in many European countries have a very low birthrate, while immigrants breed like rats (no, that's not meant to convey I think of them as rats, it's an accepted figure of speech to indicate a high birthrate)...

Those same immigrants are also not integrating, they're denying the culture and social values of the country they're living and the lax policies of European nations (in fear of being seen as racist or oppressive in a severe and belated overreaction to colonial past and Nazi oppression of minorities) doesn't give them any incentive.
When Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim fundamentalist in broad daylight in a busy shopping district in Amsterdam there was no widespread condemnation from politicians (let alone from the Muslim society).
Instead the consensus is that he had it coming for creating a movie that exposes practices in Muslim families (women being beaten and effectively treated as slaves for example) which are unacceptable (and illegal) for anyone else.
When others who supported van Gogh were threatened with murder (even on public television) no action was taken against the people ushering those threats. Instead public statements were made that there was no risk to these people (who had had to arrange for private bodyguards in lue of police protection for weeks, several of them are in hiding still including prominent politicians who cannot go near parliament meetings in fear of their lives).
Instead of authorities taking action against Muslim fundamentalists they're telling people to not be critical of Muslim fundamentalists so as to not become a target for them...

When a window is smashed in a mosque quick arrests are made, anyone with short hair and wearing black clothes will do (them clearly being neo-Nazis why else do they look like that?).
When churches or synagogues are firebombed it gets a short mention on the evening news and that's it.

That's the end result of 50 years of not forcing immigrants to integrate.


42
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Warren Dew:

Certainly it seems to me that a large majority of second and third generation heirs and heiresses would be better off learning what it's like to work for a living.


Absolutely. When I'm in charge I'll make a law that forces everyone to spend a year or two (before their 21st birthday) doing some kind of community service - work in their local community. They'd receive a small wage (no less then what they'd get on income support) and do things like work in local libraries, clean streets, help admin staff in local emergency services, maintain public gardens etc. If everyone not only had a taste of real life, but also worked in their local community, then we'd end up with a lot more people with common sense and some community respect. It'd be a bit like the compulsory military service that some countries like Switzerland have, except that it'd be local community work instead of arms training.... and give young adults a chance to earn money and experience before going to uni.

Wouldn't you just love to see Dominic P. Snob Jnr III working in a local public garden, or Bobby Thug cleaning graffiti off walls?
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
That's the end result of 50 years of not forcing immigrants to integrate.


I might be misreading, but it seems that the problem is from one particular community than immigrants of one particular country or region.

AW any news of France, where, in public school they prohibited to wear any religious clothes/symbol.


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

When Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim fundamentalist in broad daylight in a busy shopping district in Amsterdam there was no widespread condemnation from politicians (let alone from the Muslim society).
Instead the consensus is that he had it coming for creating a movie that exposes practices in Muslim families (women being beaten and effectively treated as slaves for example) which are unacceptable (and illegal) for anyone else.


There was condemnation from a Muslim woman Dutch politician of Sudanese origin. But the papers don't report that much. There are several Muslim women who argue against particular injustices in Muslim law.

Some correctly, others like the Bahraini princess who ran off with a US marine and claims that she'd be killed or incarcerated, claims that feed anti-Muslim feelings, but the bohemian life-style she leads doesn't make one think she is an authority on Islam. She sent back her family a gift of a Britney Spears doll as a peace offering.


Le Cafe Mouse - Helen's musings on the web - Java Skills and Thrills
"God who creates and is nature is very difficult to understand, but he is not arbitrary or malicious." OR "God does not play dice." - Einstein
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
Anyway - If France (or Australia, or UK etc etc) should have more Mosques than churches isnt that just a reflection of the changing face of an increasingly global multi-cultural society?
That's right -- it's a reflection of France becoming a 3rd-world country. Or do you imagine that there is something magical about the soil of France that transforms people into westerners?


Warren Dew: "Australia, though, is clinically paranoid about immigration. Heck, they even discourage tourists! They could sustain many times their current immigration rates with invisible effects on their society."
That must be new. Even during the time of Labor's "White Australia" policy Australia was begging for immigrants. And I have seen an ad advocating vacation in Australia not too long ago.

I've also heard Australians say that the heavy immigration of the last few decades has already had a destructive effect on Australia's culture and values -- the softening of their once rugged ethic of courage and self-reliance (witness the recent campaign for victim disarmament and how it has become taboo for men to act like men when confronted by burglars and muggers).
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Helen Thomas:


There was condemnation from a Muslim woman Dutch politician of Sudanese origin. But the papers don't report that much. There are several Muslim women who argue against particular injustices in Muslim law.


I know, she had worked together with van Gogh to make that movie...
She is one of those currently in hiding to avoid the hitsquads...
She's not reported on much because she's a member of a moderate rightwing party, not the political left.
Deaththreads to the leftwind mayor of Amsterdam were reported in detail.

P.S. It's not Muslim law, it's interpretation of that law by radical leaders.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by R K Singh:


I might be misreading, but it seems that the problem is from one particular community than immigrants of one particular country or region.

AW any news of France, where, in public school they prohibited to wear any religious clothes/symbol.


It just happens to be the largest group of immigrants.
Chinese also aren't integrating well, they're largely grouping together and living their own lifes. But at least they don't go around killing those who don't agree with them (at least not outside their own group).

In France the system seems to be working somewhat.
They may need to take it further though and prohibit the use of languages other than French in official publications (with a translation provided if it's meant for communication with foreigners).
In fact, the provision of all our official forms and documents in many languages to immigrants removed a major incentive for them to learn our language.
If you can't file for unemployment money because noone at the unemployment office speaks your language you have a good reason to learn the local lingo
Amber Basham
Greenhorn

Joined: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

It just happens to be the largest group of immigrants.

Why does Dutch goverment tolerate drug addicts?
What does Dutch right say about that?
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Amber Basham:

Why does Dutch goverment tolerate drug addicts?
What does Dutch right say about that?


Good question
We don't like the policy of tollerating drug addicts. If it were up to me we'd return to forced rehab programs including shock treatment (not electric shock probably) to clean them off the addiction.
Druggies are a major problem, almost all of them are violent criminals and homeless, draining society in more than one way.
Yet the hippie policies introduced in the 1970s and 1980s leave them virtually untouchable.
Amber Basham
Greenhorn

Joined: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Good question

I visited Amsterdam some years ago and I love it.
I must say that what I did not like was the junkies (most of them tourists) that where hanging around the coffee shops. :-(
Why do not they smoke their stuff in their own countries?

Well...
We both know the answer :-(
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
@Ravish.

I think one has to be very careful with generalizations about people. There are enough examples of turkish people in my country who are more successfull or happy than I am.

But there are also some problems. Here are some.

Imagine:
In Bangalore there is a shortage of people who want to make dirty, monotonous and poorly paid work.
There are skilled immigrants from the north who work in export industry. The locals also work in export
industry, get some good paid work in the local administration or start some business in crafts, trade or housing industries.

Now the politicians of Bangalore look for people who live under such bad conditions at home that they are ready to immigrate to do the dirty, low paid work.
People from Bihar come. They think they are going to work 20 years in Southern India and go back home to start some own business. Also they hope for better
education for their kids than they received themselves.

The Biharis locate themselves in houses with low rents. They live different from locals or skilled immigrants. Cramped housing conditions, different customs, different language.
They don't participate fully in the development which is taking place around them.
Some from the skilled group who live near Bihari-houses move to other location.
When the kids of the Biharis enter school, they don't know english or southern indian language, because at home they only talk bihari language (don't know if it exists).
Because the kids don't even know the language of their environment, the level of the school degrade.
At this point even pro-Bihari-skilled move to other location.

Kids get older, the parents have great hopes about their education, but they can't messure quality, because they haven't received modern school education themselves.
On holliday they go to Bihar and the locals think they are well off, because they have things they don't have.
A clever salesman realizes that among Biharis there is huge demand and just enough money to buy satelite receiver, so that they can watch tv in biharian language.
Now they live in a kind of Bihar in the south of India.
Around them they sell biharian food, biharian newspaper, etc, because locals have moved out.

The kids turn adults. In the tough labour market they realize that with their poor education they can't get well-paid job.
Ok. Some of course have somehow managed to get good education. But the mayority are going to start in the same low paying jobs as their parents.
As they have no chance in southern indian environment, they build some unrealistic positive image about the special virtues of Bihar.
Poor but less decadent and more traditional hindu values.
But local newspapers report that behind the pintoresq facade of neo-traditional biharism there is a lot more violence against women in the family,
radical anti-democratic ideas and even sypathy for terrorism.
Among young biharis the scarf as visible sign of neo-traditional biharism gets more and more popular.

A young bihari women starts to see contradiction between the "non-decadent" biharian neo-traditionalism and the violence inside family and an environment where
a lot of people doesn't archieve much and is doing the stupid jobs nobody wants in 2nd or even 3rd generation.
She enters a conservative party and makes a movie about the contradictions of her people with a film maker who is even more stubborn than Jeroen and Jason toghether.

Among the neo-traditional Biharis they call her a traitor of her people. They want to kill her, but can't reach her, because she is shielded by police.
So one of them kills the film maker with a knife.

So french are trying to ban scarf not as a religious symbol but for a symbol for some kind of gettoist life-style.

Axel
[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
I think you should have kids when you can provide for your kids. You should be financially and emotionally ready to support your kids. If you are able to feed, clothe and educate your kids well, then, most probably, they will become productive members of society when they grow up.

I think the problem of over-population is more related to the fact that there is unequality of resources between differrent countries. If human population were spread evenly across the globe, our world could easily support a population of 12-15 billion. The problems of population arise when population in countries like India and China cannot be supported by the resources in that country.

I really dont want to comment on the xenophobic attitudes that France and Australia seem to have. Yes, it's true that heavy immigration can change the "face" of the nation. OTH, people have been immigrating to US for 2 centuries now. Yes, people who have freshly immigrated tend to bring their cultural influences into the country. But, atleast in US, descendants of immigrants tend to get more americanised than the other way round. As an example, look at second-generation/third-generation Indians in US. It's very hard to distinguish them as Indians. The backlash against immigration in France and Australia could be because they have recently allowed a large number of people in the country. So, I think the answer is controlled immigration. A country should allow immigrants that can contribute to the society, and the should have enough resources to educate the kids properly. The "ghetto" problem that Axel describes arises only when a state opens it's borders to immigrants but fails to provide proper education to the children of the immigrants. In the US, for example, children of immigrants get the same good education as children of citizens.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Controlled immigration is a very good thing for a Western country. That said, it is probably not the best way to maintain population growth, as I believe Canada is finding out.

The impetus of any nation is to survive while retaining its identity, it's "national character" if you will. Controlled immigration can certainly help with this, but it is not the only answer. In order to maintain national identity it is imperative that there be a continued birthrate of citizens reflecting this identity. "Identity" it should be noted does not mean race, rather it means culture and shared values.

If you look at this national identity as a variable, national identity will become diluted when the increase in population of people not reflecting (or willing to adopt) the national culture and values exceeds the increase in population of people who do reflect the culture and values. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the former group as immigrants and the latter group as natives.

The problem is exacerbated when the mortality rate of a population approaches that of the birth rate, which would result in zero population growth (ZPG). This is the situation many Western nations, particularly in Europe, are finding themselves in. Italy's 2002 birth rate of 1.2 is dangerously close to ZPG, for example.

If immigrant population growth exceeds that of native population growth for a period of time, particularly where there is evidence of non-assimilation culturally, it is reasonable to expect a loss of national identity. Apparently the government of Australia has reached a similar conclusion and is trying its best to encourage further native population growth.

If all cultures are valued equally, than we would have to agree that all cultures should be protected. This includes the cultures of Western nations. When cultural assimulation is not occuring the effects of multi-culturalism are far from the harmonious ideal that some would envision. What is left is a struggle for cultural domination where a "foreign" culture seeks to supplant a native one. Again, if all cultures are valued equally, I can't think of any scenarios in which this is a good thing.

This brings us back around to the solution, which is to encourage sustainable native population growth (that is a native population growth which uses local resources at a sustainable rate), along with a policy of controlled immigration and cultural assimilation. Of course if we don't accept that all cultures are of equal value, then this argue wouldn't hold much weight.
[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
2 issues:
1. the indian immigration to US as far as I know consists mostly of people who allready archieved a high education level in India. European immigrants come mostly from not that developed rural regions. Very different groups of people.
2. it is very difficult to provide education to people who don't even speak the language of the host country.

Again I don't want to generalize and I've met great people whose families came from eastern parts of Turkey (for example).

Just want to show some issues about the current situation in Europe which in my view show that there are a lot of motives in the new discussion about integration/immigration which are not xenofobic by nature.
[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
I think cultural assimilation is closely tied with tolerance of other cultures. How will immigrants adopt the native culture, if the natives see the immigrants as evil?
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
2 issues:
1. the indian immigration to US as far as I know consists mostly of people who allready archieved a high education level in India.

[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]


That is exactly what I mean by controlled immigration. To be acurrate, US used to allow un-educated people to immigrate until the 1900s, when there was a demand for uneducated labor in the US. Immigration policies became much more stricter in the early 1900s. After World War 2, when demand for skilled and educated labor started increasing, immigration policies were changed to reflect the demands of the economy.
Marcus Green
arch rival
Rancher

Joined: Sep 14, 1999
Posts: 2813
Jeroen said

"Natives in many European countries have a very low birthrate, while immigrants breed like rats (no, that's not meant to convey I think of them as rats, it's an accepted figure of speech to indicate a high birthrate)."

Marcus replied

Where and by whom is that an accepted figure of speech to indicate high birthrate? In my experience rats are associated with a population of something unwanted and problematic, sometimes called vermin.


SCWCD: Online Course, 50,000+ words and 200+ questions
http://www.examulator.com/moodle/course/view.php?id=5&topic=all
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
JW: "Natives in many European countries have a very low birthrate, while immigrants breed like rats (no, that's not meant to convey I think of them as rats, it's an accepted figure of speech to indicate a high birthrate)."

I believe a more politically correct phrase (and more common in my experience) is "breed like rabbits". However I understand the point you're trying to make, particularly since you were so blatant in caveating it, so I see no reason to project any ill-meanings. In the future though, I might suggest you use "rabbits". If you want to further shield yourself from any indignation, "high birth rate" may be even better.
[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 13, 2004
Posts: 1759
Yes, Jeroen, I was struggling to accept that phrasing. Rats have a hard time breeding as it is.

And Axel putting down the French ban on scarves as anti-ghettoisation is quite unbelievable. Though most of the post was very impressive.
[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 08, 2001
Posts: 2164
Originally posted by Jayesh Lalwani:
How will immigrants adopt the native culture, if the natives see the immigrants as evil?


Neither immigrants nor natives are a homogenous group but individuums. So there is nothing like the one see the other as evil.
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 624
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
... That must be new. Even during the time of Labor's "White Australia" policy Australia was begging for immigrants. ...


Yes it is - 5 years ago I was able to migrate to Austalia from the UK with ease. Now friends of mine (from UK, educated, professional, with money etc etc) are unable to settle in Australia becasue the rules for migration have been tightened so much.

Even potential "white-Australians" are being turned away (and to be honest if the rules were different for white or non-white I would be HORRIFIED and appalled!)

...and for the record Australia argues that there is a "flood" of refugee seekers attacking their borders. I remember reading somewhere that last year (or was it year before?) the number of refugees let into the country was under 3000!!! You cannot tell me that such a tiny number of people is going to produce a massive cultural shift in a country with population of > 20Million
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:

Yes (the Australian opposition to immigration) is new - 5 years ago I was able to migrate to Austalia from the UK with ease. Now friends of mine (from UK, educated, professional, with money etc etc) are unable to settle in Australia becasue the rules for migration have been tightened so much.

Even potential "white-Australians" are being turned away (and to be honest if the rules were different for white or non-white I would be HORRIFIED and appalled!)

...and for the record Australia argues that there is a "flood" of refugee seekers attacking their borders. I remember reading somewhere that last year (or was it year before?) the number of refugees let into the country was under 3000!!! You cannot tell me that such a tiny number of people is going to produce a massive cultural shift in a country with population of > 20Million
Well, that explains it. If people would be horrified to have different rules for Englishmen than for Indonesians, and they aren't willing to accept more than one in three thousand Indonesian applicants, then they mustn't accept more than one in three thousand English applicants, either, and must be satisfied with the ones they have already.

As for the flood of refugees, perhaps the number they let into the country is but a small percentage of refugee seekers, who might indeed have been a flood. Right, 3000 a year is not going to produce a massive cultural shift in a population greather than 20Million -- that's probably why they chose to keep it at that number.
[ December 14, 2004: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
Marcus Green
arch rival
Rancher

Joined: Sep 14, 1999
Posts: 2813
It's probably worth doing a search engine query on the terms "breed like rats" and "immigration" to see what company those terms keep.
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I believe a more politically correct phrase (and more common in my experience) is "breed like rabbits".


"breed like rabbits" is definitely more appropriate when Australia is the locale.
Marcus Green
arch rival
Rancher

Joined: Sep 14, 1999
Posts: 2813
Lets try fitting in the term "breed like rats" with some specific immigrant groups.

The Indian immigrants in the US breed like rats
The mexican immigrants in he US breed like rats
The hispanic immigrants in the US breed like rats
The Pakistani immigrants to the UK breed like rats

Does it read like a simple objective observation or abuse? Out of the three words "breed like rats" to my mind the only one that is not pejorative/abusive is the word "like". The term "breed" is commonly reserved mainly for "non human" reproduction and rats are generally considered an unwanted problematic vermin. Substituting the word rabbit simply replaces one unwanted vermin with a what is perhaps a slightly less offensive problem animal.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jayesh Lalwani:
You should be financially and emotionally ready to support your kids.

How much money do you think is enough to plan for child ??

You are depriving 70-80% of the world from right of having child

The "ghetto" problem that Axel describes arises only when a state opens it's borders to immigrants but fails to provide proper education to the children of the immigrants.
I still have to find an immigrant family whose second generation is not localized. :roll:

Very true, immigration affects the local culture also, if I take the example of Bombay(Mumbai) becasue of high rate of immigrants, it has its own culture and language(Neither Marathi nor Gujrati nor Tamil nor Bhojpuri nor Hindi nor Urdu).
Though some fanatic parties like Shiv Sena tried to become "culture police" but they were soon thrown out of "political" power.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
It just happens to be the largest group of immigrants.


As for as I know, immigration is talk with reference to country not religion.
AW everyone may have its own interpretation.

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
So french are trying to ban scarf not as a religious symbol but for a symbol for some kind of gettoist life-style.

Actually I was 101% with French govt.
But when I heard that some Sikh's are also protesting in France because they are not allowed to wear their turban(Sikh's are not Muslims) then I thought what could be solution for keeping religion and education system seperate .
The only solution I found that let them practice whatever religion they follow but education(books/lecturer etc) should be independent of religion.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
This brings us back around to the solution, which is to encourage sustainable native population growth (that is a native population growth which uses local resources at a sustainable rate), along with a policy of controlled immigration and cultural assimilation.


I think most of the people always forget that culture can not be static. It has to change, either because of technology or immigrants or business or politics or money or <whatever_you_feel_right>.

BTW, I dont understand how an immigrant will not use local resources at a substantial rate?
If I consider myself immigrant to Bangalore, then I dont understand which resource local Kanadigas are using and I am not.
[though Bangalore is in same country but culture/language/food/festival etc everything is different from where I am. Sometimes I feel that I am stranger in my own country and I enjoy every bit of it ]
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
Originally posted by R K Singh:

How much money do you think is enough to plan for child ??

You are depriving 70-80% of the world from right of having child

How much money depends on your lifestyle and the cost of living. There's no easy answer to that question.



The "ghetto" problem that Axel describes arises only when a state opens it's borders to immigrants but fails to provide proper education to the children of the immigrants.
I still have to find an immigrant family whose second generation is not localized. :roll:

Very true, immigration affects the local culture also, if I take the example of Bombay(Mumbai) becasue of high rate of immigrants, it has its own culture and language(Neither Marathi nor Gujrati nor Tamil nor Bhojpuri nor Hindi nor Urdu).


I'm talking about the "ghetto" problem, not localization of immigrants. Those are 2 seperate things. Bombay is probably the best example you could have given to illustrate my point. Taking the example of Bombay, Bombay is littered with slums, where people dont even have proper sanitation facilities. This is because there are too many people moving into Bombay. Bombay's ghettoes are growing everyday because of a) the number of people moving into Bombay and b) the failing education system in Bombay that fails to provide education where it's most required.
Bhau Mhatre
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 199
Jayesh Lalwani:
Bombay's ghettoes are growing everyday because of
a) the number of people moving into Bombay and
b) the failing education system in Bombay that fails to provide education where it's most required.


You think it's possible for the local government to match their speed of building educational institutes at the same rate at which the immigrants arrive? It's not like Biharis, Bangloreans, or Bengolis have to wait for years to get a green card before entering Bombay. They come, they see, they settle.

So to be consistent with your own theory of controlled immigration/education, I think you should say:
Bombay's ghettoes are growing everyday because of
a) the number of people moving into Bombay and
b) uncontrolled immigration into Bombay from other parts of the country (and it has nothing do with the education system itself)


-Mumbai cha Bhau
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
Originally posted by Bhau Mhatre:
Jayesh Lalwani:
Bombay's ghettoes are growing everyday because of
a) the number of people moving into Bombay and
b) the failing education system in Bombay that fails to provide education where it's most required.


You think it's possible for the local government to match their speed of building educational institutes at the same rate at which the immigrants arrive? It's not like Biharis, Bangloreans, or Bengolis have to wait for years to get a green card before entering Bombay. They come, they see, they settle.




Yes it's possible if they make an effort. Ahh!! I forgot. They are busy renaming streets and stations. Sorry.

Bombay is not the only city that has an influx of people. Look at NY, LA and DC. They are handling the problem quite well
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Over-populated? Under-populated?