Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Kyriakos]

Western Rome did sort of implode due to those foreigners ^^
But not strictly the ones that were assimilated or allied to it - well, the latter also tended to ally with invading barbarian kin.

 

[Gorbles]

I feel pretty confident that your refusal of recognizing that a people replacing itself with another is "national suicide" is entirely due to political stubborness and not the actual definition which actually fits perfectly.
i.e., bad faith. As usual.

I responded perfectly constructively. If you don't want to be called on what "exactly" a word means, please use better language. Semantic strictness is normally something you chide others for (and is indeed one of the things you were trying to nitpick with Lexi - the meaning of "suicide" was integral to the point), and your tired accusations of "bad faith" no longer hold any weight with me.

 

[Moriarte]

Why would we need to have more babies and not simply adapt to a shrinking population ?

To compete with China's and India's labour costs. To hold on to economic leadership. Making yourself irrelevant on the world economic stage will impoverish a nation, relative to other nations. There's moral panic of the western Capital in that two nations with 1.5 billion population each will eventually concentrate all economic activity, because their population levels are too exaggerated and material costs are very low compared to everyone else.

I do not think simply raising population will do the trick. One has to compete with socialist mode of production and the resulting centralisation of resources achieved through this mode of production, which yields superior labour/material costs.

In other words, the only way to defeat the Chinese long terms is not through trying to catch up population wise, but by adjusting the mode of production and by becoming self sufficient in critical industries. Besides, you won't talk the western population into having way more babies. Nor will the citizens en masse agree to have hordes of foreigners immigrate and compete with them.

 

[Samson]

Western Rome did sort of implode due to those foreigners ^^
But not strictly the ones that were assimilated or allied to it - well, the latter also tended to ally with invading barbarian kin.

I did wonder about how that would be interpreted, but my understanding is that the encouragement of immigration was a bigger thing in the earlier years, which is the "good" bit. My classical history is pretty weak to be getting into it here though.

To compete with China's and India's labour costs. To hold on to economic leadership. Making yourself irrelevant on the world economic stage will impoverish a nation, relative to other nations. There's moral panic of the western Capital in that two nations with 1.5 billion population each will eventually concentrate all economic activity, because their population levels are too exaggerated and material costs are very low compared to everyone else.

I do not think simply raising population will do the trick. One has to compete with socialist mode of production and the resulting centralisation of resources achieved through this mode of production, which yields superior labour/material costs.

In other words, the only way to defeat the Chinese long terms is not through trying to catch up population wise, but by adjusting the mode of production and by becoming self sufficient in critical industries. Besides, you won't talk the western population into having way more babies. Nor will the citizens en masse agree to have hordes of foreigners immigrate and compete with them.

This only makes sense from a particular view on the value of a state. Is it bad for Australia to have a low population density, even if it good for Australians?

Are we "defeating" China by being a bigger economy in total, or by being better of individually?

 

[Verbose]

To compete with China's and India's labour costs. To hold on to economic leadership. Making yourself irrelevant on the world economic stage will impoverish a nation, relative to other nations. There's moral panic of the western Capital in that two nations with 1.5 billion population each will eventually concentrate all economic activity, because their population levels are too exaggerated and material costs are very low compared to everyone else.

I do not think simply raising population will do the trick. One has to compete with socialist mode of production and the resulting centralisation of resources achieved through this mode of production, which yields superior labour/material costs.

In other words, the only way to defeat the Chinese long terms is not through trying to catch up population wise, but by adjusting the mode of production and by becoming self sufficient in critical industries. Besides, you won't talk the western population into having way more babies. Nor will the citizens en masse agree to have hordes of foreigners immigrate and compete with them.

China has huge demographic problems of its own...

 

[Snowygerry]

(...)
This only makes sense from a particular view on the value of a state. Is it bad for Australia to have a low population density, even if it good for Australians?

Are we "defeating" China by being a bigger economy in total, or by being better of individually?

The second ofcourse - the only value of the state is in the benefit it brings to the individual citizen.

 

[Akka]

Perhaps you can find some commonly used definition that fits your meaning, but I do not see it outside of the most rabid ethnonationalists.

Trying to frame "preserving the existence of one's people" as "rabid ethnonationalism" kinda says it all.

Encouraging immigrants has been common historically, and has added to the economy of countries, the Romans being an example that springs to mind. Is this an example of national suicide?

No, you're right, the healthy roman nation still existing is kinda of a proof that... wait...

I responded perfectly constructively.

Ignoring the meaning of a word to pretend it has not that meaning is not constructive. But keep playing dumb, that's your specialty after all.

 

[Samson]

Trying to frame "preserving the existence of one's people" as "rabid ethnonationalism" kinda says it all.

We are talking about a situation where "one's people" are not making enough babies and that is causing an economic crisis. The argument seems to me to be that allowing in immigrants to fill the economic roles that would have been filled by those children necessarily causes the death of the nation. This seems to require the nation to be defined by genetics/ethnicity. I think that is the definition of ethnonationalism.

I could be wrong about that, and feel free to point out my mistake if so.

 

[Kyriakos]

No one welcomes massive numbers of foreigners with open arms - massive relative to their own population.
The issue with Europe is that it is in stark decline, including a demographic decline. Most of the rest of the planet is not. Ultimately, of course, those countries that have population booms never had - and never will have - the quality of life of the average european.
But the average european is also unlikely to have that quality of life for long.

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Variety of topics here but not THE topic. Feel free to start other threads for further discussion. Thread closed - lymond