The last thing we want is these aids infected, TB infected, diseased immigrants anywhere near our old people as we have already seen how immigration = spreading diseases in the UK.
The fact is that we must reduce population, not increase it.
We have a moral duty only to our own people - not the entire fucking world.
The primary responsibility is on all those bloody foreigners to stop breeding and spitting out unwanted kids - it aint our responsibility to take care of their brats.
The UK is not a lifeboat, it is an island of finite size, finite resources and finite tolerance.
One day this whole thing will explode.
That day draws nearer with every boatload / planeload of foreign immigrants that enter this country.
Britain set to become most populous country in EU
Soaring population will force millions to flee water shortages in search of refuge - and, according to new figures, Britain will be one of the world's 'lifeboats'. On the eve of a major population conference, Science Editor Robin McKie asks: could the UK cope?
Robin McKie, science editor The Observer, Sunday 22 March 2009 Article
history
Britain will become one of the world's major destinations for immigrants as the world heats up and populations continue to soar. Statistics from the United Nations show that, on average, every year more than 174,000 people will be added to the numbers in the UK and that this trend will continue for the next four decades.
By then, only the United States and Canada will be receiving more overseas settlers, says the UN. This increase in British numbers is likely to put considerable strain on the country's transport, energy and housing, experts warned last week.
"The US and Canada will be taking in more people than us every year by 2050 but they are huge countries," said demographer Professor Tom Dyson of the London School of Economics. "Britain, by contrast, is a small nation. We will feel the impact of all these people. There will be no getting out of it. Simply controlling our carbon dioxide emissions will become harder and harder as more and more people arrive on our shores. In addition, housing, water supplies and transport will be strained and will need greatly increased investment."
However, other experts say such increases could also produce benefits for the nation, bringing in immigrants who could provide a vital supply of young workers. These demographers point out that, by 2050, more than a third of the UK population will be aged 60 or over. By then there will be a desperate need for bus drivers, care-workers and others to keep the country running and immigrants could fill this gap.
In addition, there is the issue of humanitarian responsibility. Britain is likely to be one of the few nations to survive the worst effects of climate change while other nations, particularly those in the developing world, have their farmland and fishing grounds destroyed. It could be argued that the UK has a moral duty to provide shelter for as many refugees as our shores can support.
But deciding what numbers the country might support is a highly controversial issue and will be the focus of a conference on sustainable populations which will be held this week in London. Organised by the Optimum Population Trust, the meeting will hear that the United Nation expects that by 2050 the world will be inhabited by around 9.2 billion people, compared to its current level of 6.8 billion. Every day, the equivalent of the population of a large city is added to the numbers of humans, a rise that is now straining the planet's resources to breaking point.
At the same time, Britain's population will rise from its current level of 61 million to 72 million by 2050. The nation will then be the most populous in the European Union, outstripping Germany, whose population will slump from 82 million to 71 million people as its immigration figures plummet.
The idea that Britain could one day support such numbers has been questioned by Aubrey Manning, emeritus professor of natural history at Edinburgh University. "There are far too many people living in Britain already," he said. "Once our population passed the 20 million level around 1850, it became too numerous. That is the figure at which we could no longer sustain our population from our own resources. We are now three times over the limit and heading for more. We have long passed the line of sustainability. As for the planet, its maximum sustainable population is no more than 3 billion, I would say."
The rise in population indicates that the country is set for some considerable overcrowding. Britain's land area is only two-thirds that of Germany, yet it will soon support the same number of citizens. "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people."
But these points were disputed by Tim Finch, head of immigration for the Institute of Public Policy Research. "A healthy economy sucks in young, educated people and that is what has happened to this country over the past couple of decades. These young immigrants have helped keep the country running as our population has started to get older and they will become more important as the decades go past and that ageing intensifies. The immigration system picks out the best and the brightest of immigrants and they will be of great service to Britain. That is just a fact."
The problem is that discussions of population numbers in the past have been associated with talk of eugenics and with attempts at controlling ethnic populations. As a result, there is little discussion today of the subject or its impact on the environment, a point stressed by James Lovelock, the distinguished environmental scientist. "The subject has become a taboo, a matter of political correctness," he said last week. "And that is dangerous, for the numbers of humans on Earth are going to be crucial to our survival."
Manning added: "We have stopped worrying about population because other issues - acid rain, climate change and others - have occupied our attention and because past fears of global food shortages were proved unfounded. But the subject will not go away. Our planet is now dangerously overpopulated."
Another conference speaker, Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, in London, agreed. "We desperately need to bring down our emissions of greenhouse gases but the truth is we will never get the contribution of each individual down to zero. Only the lack of the individual can bring it to zero, and that is an issue for population control which we need to talk about openly and urgently."
Rapley will tell delegates that the Earth's population is now rising at a rate of around 80 million a year. "That is roughly the same as the number of unwanted pregnancies across the world," he said. "If we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, we can halt this spiral in our numbers."
To do that, contraception will have to become universally available - and political and religious opposition to birth control removed. If that happened, the world's population could be stabilised to around 8 billion by 2050, added Rapley.
But many climatologists believe that by then life on the planet will already have become dangerously unpleasant. Temperature rises will have started to have devastating impacts on farmland, water supplies and sea levels. Humans - increasing both in numbers and dependence on food from devastated landscapes - will then come under increased pressure. The end result will be apocalyptic, said Lovelock. By the end of the century, the world's population will suffer calamitous declines until numbers are reduced to around 1 billion or less. "By 2100, pestilence, war and famine will have dealt with the majority of humans," he said.
One of the few places to survive the worst impacts will be Britain. "Our climate will be one of the least affected by global warming," added Lovelock. "As a result, everyone will want to live here. We will become one of the world's lifeboats. The trouble, of course, will be that, even if we wanted to, we will not be able to pick up everyone. There will be some hard decisions to make."
Many experts predict that disaster will strike long before 2050. Last week, the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, said the planet faced "a perfect storm" of food, energy and water shortages which could strike in less than 20 years. In a speech to the Sustainable Development Commission conference in London, Beddington said that one in three people were already facing water shortages and that by 2030 world water demand would increase by more than 30%; energy demands would increase by 50%. "There are dramatic problems out there, particularly with water and food, but energy also, and they are all intimately connected."
In the long run, however, humanity should benefit, said Lovelock. "If you look at our species over the past million years, there have been a number of major climatic events, some devastating. Between the Ice Ages, sea levels rose by 120 metres and tracts of land were flooded. Yet that period covers the time that early humans emerged and evolved into Homo sapiens
"Often our numbers were brought to catastrophically low levels by climate change and numbers were reduced to only a couple of thousand on a couple of occasions. Every time things got bad, our numbers plummeted and we improved as a species. That is certainly going to happen again over the next 100 years."
The world by numbers
1 million Britain's population in Roman times
6 million Britain's population around the time of the English civil war
47 million Britain's population in 1945
52,000 The number of tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere every minute
267 The average number of births every minute worldwide; the average number of deaths per minute is 118
78 million The planet's annual population increase, a number roughly equivalent to the population of Germany
1 million The number of chimpanzees in Africa in 1900. Today, thanks to habitat loss and hunting, numbers have dropped to around 15,000
38.4 The median age in the UK rose from 34.1 years in 1971 to 38.4 in 2003 and is projected to reach 43.3 in 2031. (The median is the age that separates the oldest half of the population from the youngest.)
10 billion The number of chickens eaten by man worldwide every year
500 million The number of ducks eaten every year
1.3 billion The population of China
1.2 billion India's population
500 million The population of the EU
74 million The number of barrels of oil pumped daily across the planet; 15 million tonnes of coal are dug every day
9 Between 2010 and 2050, nine countries will account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo, China, Bangladesh, Tanzania
• Sources: World Clock; Poodwaddle; UN Population Division
13 comments:
Statistics from the United Nations show that, on average, every year more than 174,000 people will be added to the numbers in the UK and that this trend will continue for the next four decades.
How do they know this?
Because the UN are planning our intake that's how.
You don't think it's random do you?
"The fact is that we must reduce population, not increase it.
We have a moral duty only to our own people - not the entire fucking world."
Brilliant Lee, you've nailed it. Not AGW, not climate change, over-population is the problem and mass immigration is making it far worse. And if the planet keeps cooling and mass immigration continues we are going to need more CO2 - oh the irony.
We are flying in the face of Mother nature and there will only be one winner.
Cheers
Chris.
Moral duty?
Do these people know what they are saying?
Population increase will devastate this land and its people.
These delusional people ought to be put on trial for Genocide.
The rise in population indicates that the country is set for some considerable overcrowding. Britain's land area is only two-thirds that of Germany, yet it will soon support the same number of citizens. "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people."
I think that if people give more sensible reasons to end mass immigration like the above, people will listen. In fact, this entire article causes readers to really think about the dangers of mass immigration. BUT, that does not mean that borders should be closed completely. It means that nations have to carefully select who can enter and who can't. And even then, how many.
But, the other side makes a great case. If a population is not reproducing itself, they may need immigrants to work and take care of the elderly. So in a sense, limiting immigration may create more problems than it would solve.
BME and EE immigrants as a whole have never materially been a net benefit to the UK.
The only exceptions are foreign medics or other academics/professionals, who came here for training or higher salaries or both. They did not contribute anything that indigenous Brits could not have done.
Apart from that, all that overseas non-WASP incomers have done is undercut the lower-paid and seasonal jobs that should have been done by (white British) students, less qualified and seasonal workers.
As well as substantially upping the serious crime rate - the only actual 'enrichment' to arise from immigration and m'c'ism - and increasing the tax burden for ordinary Brits still in work having to pay benefits to foreign dole scroungers in adition to our own home-grown wasters of space.
Immigration should not be limited, it should be arrested and reversed, also drilling down into 'established' BME enclaves to expel paedophile, drug and people-trafficking gangs. Vigorous efforts should also be made to encourage white British ex-pats, who leave this country at the rate of 100,000 p.a., to return from overseas where they emigrated for work because they lost their jobs e.g. in the NHS* to foreign imported cheap labour.
*For which successive 5th column governments were quite happy to let 3rd world patients die for lack of care by poaching (on the cheap) such medical personnel as they did have.
There is an ideology governing immigration into the West.
Thou shalt not discriminate.
This, coupled with, we must show infinite tolerance to the other is our death knell.
Little is said about any of this.
Of course, it could be just another stick to beat us with like, global warming, the race card, political correctness, multiculturalism, affirmative action, catch all anti terror laws.
It looks like somebody wants to get rid of us.
Lormarie says;
....If a population is not reproducing itself, they may need immigrants to work and take care of the elderly. So in a sense, limiting immigration may create more problems than it would solve.
This logic is over-simplified, like a school child's!! You assume 3 things here. First is that you make the asumption that 'elderly' ALL need looking after? There is a cause in reason, by you, to suppose that 'elderly' all become so when they reach a certain age - 60, 69, 84, 99...what is it Lormarie? And when they reach such age, you suppose they all become infirm, senile and incontinent, therefore needing those friendly immigrant arse wipers and spoon feeders if there were no helpful family members to do such tasks.
Secondly, and this is the biggest flaw in what you suggested, you take out the equation completely how PRODUCTIVE our so-called 'working' population is. Simply put if not so many people worked for useless concepts and institutions that by-and-large produce NOTHING and CONSUME all, i.e. the State, civil servants, local council workers etc (other than essentials such as refuse/recycling, maintanence of infrastructure etc, and lesser so some education and some social care) and put into PRODUCTIVE activity such as farming, productive industry, community projects of a certain kind...etc, and even arse wipe/spoon feeding outreach workers!
Equally this could be applied to private sector E.G. such as the ludicrous situation of having 5 coffee shops within 50 metres of each other, or so many top-heavy don't doers in advertising, media, marketing and so on.
Thirdly, you assume, Lormarie, that those immigrants that benignly and gregariously come to us do not get old themselves!
Ross
First is that you make the asumption that 'elderly' ALL need looking after?--Ross
Honestly, I'm not sure why the point above was made. There is a career path in Social Work that is totally dedicated to the elderly. So I'd think that there are many seniors who require special services. Can you explain how an aging population will not benefit from a younger pool of immigrants as described below:
However, other experts say such increases could also produce benefits for the nation, bringing in immigrants who could provide a vital supply of young workers. These demographers point out that, by 2050, more than a third of the UK population will be aged 60 or over. By then there will be a desperate need for bus drivers, care-workers and others to keep the country running and immigrants could fill this gap.
Again, if a population is not replacing itself, who will fill the much needed jobs that the elderly generally aren't suited for?
As for immigrants aging...they tend to have more children so the younger generations will pretty much pick up where they left off.
Sometimes I wonder, have those with strong anti-immigrant sentiments really counted the costs of banning immigration?
Lormarie
........and a career in social care etc. Yes, of course there is! Yes, some elderly may need more attentive care etc. I am not disputing that. You should remember however that most elderly people DO NOT go into care homes, but tend to remain in their homes until grim reaper knocks on door! This fact is often overlooked by those who use the 'elderly' debate as cause for opening the borders to all. The next one would be that immigrants bring better weather such is the logic of liberals. By the way, such thinking that old people are a burden is very much the outlook of social engineers and their brave, young, new world crap.
I don't dispute that immigrants are generally young. That's not the point - the point is - if you read my posting with some understanding is that I referred to PRODUCTIVITY - I hope you realise what that means, as you have not commented on that fundamental idea? I.E making better use of our population to the requirements of society. I'll not repeat it, just read what I wrote seeing as you asked the question: Who will fill the jobs...etc?
It is not so much about 'replacement' (sounds very much like we are a pond of toads this one, replace what, and why?) The current, supposedly, high ratio of elderly, is entirely due to baby booms. Further, I will make the point once more is that you suppose that ALL elderly need care of the type you allude to with 'Social Care'.
You say immigrants tend to have more children (who like Peter Pan, don't get old themselves). At what point would you think this country is crowded? Can I have a ball park figure here? When those immigrants get old like us in stale old Britain will they become as slovenly as us in old age! Hey, then we can bring more immigrants in to help out again - great system. Do you not think, Lormarie, that there is a limit on numbers on this island or would you a) wish to build over all land, incl. Agricultural, National parks, countryside etc. Or b)you would have us all living in boxes in 100 storey towers (Bladerunner is attractive yes?)
PRODUCTIVITY Lormarie, PRODUCTIVITY I refer you once again - try to understand it! Or go forth and multiply.
Ross
Re: Sometimes I wonder, have those with strong anti-immigrant sentiments really counted the costs of banning immigration?
As I recall, according to Migrationwatch, the financial benefits of immigration to this country amount to about £500,000,000 p.a. which is peanuts (about 0.5% of GDP).
Annual savings from dismantling multi-culti-ism, expelling all immigrants and BME members and restoring the UK to its former near-100% WASP population would save this country about £55,000,000,000 p.a. Withdrawing from the EU, which would enable the UK to secure its borders, would save an even greater amount, £295,000,000,000 p.a. when all aspects of EU membership wastage are considered.
I can supply a rough breakdown of both the above sets of savings if Lee is OK with this.
The figures are a bit dated and are also pre-recession values but I believe the essential picture won't have changed.
Re: immigrants and jobs. Many young white Brits willing to work are prevented from taking a variety of jobs because profiteering employers use foreigners as cheap labour. Moreover, the notion of skilled foreign workers, sometimes propaganda-ised by avaricious employers and 5th column politicians is also largely myth. Otherwise, the economies of the incomers' home nations, e.g. Poland, would be booming. They aren't and never have been.
you read my posting with some understanding is that I referred to PRODUCTIVITY - I hope you realise what that means, as you have not commented on that fundamental idea? I.E making better use of our population to the requirements of society.--Ross
First, there's more to caring for the elderly than placing them in a nursing home. Many of them receive homecare.
The original article posted suggests that there aren't enough workers to fill the void left by the aging population. Thus, there is a need for immigration. How can your population be "put to better use" if the numbers do not match the need?
"Do you not think, Lormarie, that there is a limit on numbers on this island or would you a) wish to build over all land, incl. Agricultural, National parks, countryside etc. Or b)you would have us all living in boxes in 100 storey towers (Bladerunner is attractive yes?)"
In my first post that you read, I agreed that mass immigration can be a danger to any nation. So it should be obvious that I believe in limits. HOWEVER, I will admit that the other side makes a good case.
Alan O'Reilly:
I haven't been responding to your posts but I'll reply to this. I looked up migrationwatch.com and it doesn't appear that they support a full ban on immigration like you suggest. I didn't explore the entire site, but it appears that they want to keep it to a reasonable level (which might be small).
Lormarie, re: Alan O'Reilly:
I haven't been responding to your posts but I'll reply to this. I looked up migrationwatch.com and it doesn't appear that they support a full ban on immigration like you suggest.
I didn't suggest a full ban. I simply pointed out an estimated financial benefit to this country if its population balance was restored to that of, say, the early to mid-20th century, along with its sovereignty.
MW has drawn its own conclusions on the matter, as I have mine. They do not have to coincide with those of MW simply because I cited some of their material
Lormarie
No you still don't get it. And there is no point re-dressing the things I have said in your own costume - I mentioned that most elderly live in their homes and not care homes!!!!
Productivity - how one uses one's people to be efficient for the things one NEEDS. Address welfarism, address the fact that many people are in useless fat state sector jobs - like the ubiquitous and mocked ethnic or transgender outreach workers, human resources, council exectutives and managerships in virtually ALL public bodies.
That the service sector (private) is so oft and over repeated ad nauseam (ala' coffee shops, fast food outlets, pink plastic tat shops etc). These things are surplus, mostly useless - what I mean by productivity is that to remedy any lack of social care for elderly - or that we are all getting old (if we continue to use this example) address the imbalance of the above by focusing more on proper, rewarding (I guess), and socially important work. How you ask? How does one encourage that focus - increase pay - How you ask? How does one increase pay? By reducing the ridiculous enterprises that are Human resources (for example -look above for others!!) or 300k a year jobs that executives or managers get now....etc etc
The old chestnut that is 'we need immigrants to fill the jobs we don't do or have no people to do them' has been twisted and changed to inform and convince the public that it is good (the real agenda is a mix of pure social engineering, guilt about empire and how beastly us whitey has been to poor innocent Africans and her mates, and some hubris about fascism that to counter that we all need to be one world with no identity whatsoever)
In the 50s, 60s, 70s for example immigration was encouraged - we had NO shortage of people, youngsters, nor concerned about the ageing population as IT WAS NOT an issue then. Explain to me that - why did we have immigration then if not for the reason to fill jobs and so on. Infact don't bother, it's wearisome. Though you could say how with a mass immigration policy that you propose how one counters expanding cities and concrete jungles. You youself made the point that immigrants have lots of children - where do they live? Bladerunner or no countryside?
Ross
Post a Comment