Xoidanor posted:

"You know now when we finally got here I realize that Sweden is simply too temperate, hospitable and charitable for my taste. I say we go to Finland instead" - Said no one ever

Xoidanor posted:

Because population growth creates demand which in itself drives growth and innovation

Ligur posted:

So you basically decided not to believe with the Finnish police says in their official reports?

That's ok, bro, but when you take the position that nothing you don't like is true, then you don't have to believe in anything (kinda like Zodium, who doesn't believe in anything). You can make reality what you will. Then anyone you argue/discuss with can take exactly the same position. "Hah, but you can't prove these people do that, so I don't have to listen to you! You can't prove the Battle of Hastings happened! I won!"

Ligur posted:

Why on hell then aren't the population explosion countries in Africa doing better and better all the time if that was true? They aren't. Betweem the 60s and the 00s the whole contintent was doing worse all the time. People are escaping from there.

I mean right now things are looking up, but if just population means = success it seems like it doesn't in the real world.

Zodium posted:

Xoidanor posted:

population

Ligur posted:

jebus.

Xoidanor posted:

They are doing better if you use GDP as the measurement, that is a fact.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/publica...rica-analysis#2

Population doesn't guarantee success but to deny it is an important factor as part of achieving success on an international stage is silly.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You sure this isn't putting the cart before the horse? Like, the whole thing with the demographic transitions into an industrial society is that birth rate are slow to change from the very high pre-industrial level, which offset high death rates, after a country enters a period of rapidly dropping death rates due to improved health care as a result of economic growth. Eventually birth rates level out to match death rates, and you're left with a stable population once more. At least that was the way it happened in Europe and Asia.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

In Sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand, the fact that birth rates remain staggeringly high in many countries is actually seen as a threat to their economies, as they're going to have a hard time providing adequate education to the vast numbers of children entering school age each year, which is going to be a problem if they want to diversify the economy away from resource exports. I mean, despite Nigeria being like 90 times larger than Qatar in population its exports are equally dominated by oil exports. That is not the foundation of a healthy economy.

Biomute posted:

Being banned is generally a sign that this might not be the community for you.

Xoidanor posted:

You mean the parts of Europe and Asia that have been struggling with achieving substantial non-speculative economic growth for the last decade?

Xoidanor posted:

Well of course they are, you need vast amounts of capital to sustain rapid economic growth. while keeping things like water supply and education up to par, and since few trust the IMF anymore that has become difficult to find. We're probably going to see more succesful overlapping cooperation in Africa in the future like we've seen in Asia with the forums like the ASEAN+3 and institutions like the soon-to-be Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Even if the larger African nations enacted a one-child policy today they would still be reaping for benefits of their population growth for next three decades.

Xoidanor posted:

As for the resource based economies, they're not necessarily doomed to collapse when their commodities fall in price. It's all about government policy, it's why Norway and Saudi Arabia have been able to start adapting in their own ways while Canada and Russia are standing at the brink of economic collapse while pretending that everything is fine. Of course that still leaves Nigeria screwed in the short-term but that doesn't mean the continent is. The oil price has been putting pressure on governments all over the world regardless of the perceived wealth of their economies. I feel like this is a strange reason to discount that we're seeing numbers moving the right direction in terms of GDP and HDI which of course includes Education.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Imagine the benefits we could have reaped in Europe if we had kept out birth rate at the level it was in 1800 all the way to now. Sweden would be much richer and more powerful if it had a population of 95 million. Plus just imagine how many millions you could add on top of that from immigration, since the 95 million would be native Swedes. Sweden could have absorbed the entire population of Syria all by itself!

Xoidanor posted:

Don't stop there, if we had the birthrates of today in the 1800's we could have all lived in Stockholm! I think we learned something today.

Seriously though, is your train of thought here that 9.7 million is the maximum that Sweden can sustain or what?

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Western lifestyles are maintained by sucking up value from the rest of the world, in a fashion that is already not sustainable. Are we to assume this population explosion would have solved itself through technological progress making up for the far greater demand associated with such a large population demanding western life styles?

A Buttery Pastry posted:

...Western lifestyles are maintained by sucking up value from the rest of the world, in a fashion that is already not sustainable. ...

jonnypeh posted:

How exactly? I can see that majority of the world lives in poverty, but isn't that due to corruption, nepotism and poor education where they live?

Or do you mean brain drain towards richer countries?

computer parts posted:

Before 1960 (or thereabouts) large parts of the world were colonial subjects that directly transferred wealth to their mother countries.

After 1960 we did not redistribute that wealth back.

Xoidanor posted:

The framing device for this entire loving discussion was that Sweden is growing by migration and that this is good for Sweden, say it after me, MIGRATION.

Xoidanor posted:

I don't understand the argument, so you're probably advocating something bad.

computer parts posted:

Before 1960 (or thereabouts) large parts of the world were colonial subjects that directly transferred wealth to their mother countries.

After 1960 we did not redistribute that wealth back.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You presented a growing population as an unqualified good, which it absolutely is not. And without that, your argument for immigration being necessary because Sweden's population has to grow weakens considerably.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Just because I have a different understanding of how societies become wealthy does not mean I want to force poverty on people. Like, I could turn it right back on you and claim that you're the one advocating keeping people in poverty while you yourself become richer. (All the while putting increasing strain on the globe which will hit places like Africa far harder than Sweden.)

jonnypeh posted:

How exactly? I can see that majority of the world lives in poverty, but isn't that due to corruption, nepotism and poor education where they live?

Or do you mean brain drain towards richer countries?

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

...get your copy of Capital and read away. ...

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Oh my gosh how did you ever get into D&D you sweet summer child, get your copy of Capital and read away.

Xoidanor posted:

No it does not because you are arguing from an environmental position and a weak one at that.

Xoidanor posted:

So you want to stop the periphery from having babies then I take it? If not, then your argument is a farce. The periphery is going to keep growing until it won't just like the west did before and anything short of fascism is not going to put a dent in that as China has proven abundantly. Us taking in migrants is not going to impact that in any significant way, nor is it going to stop us from shifting our economies to better alternatives. You can dislike that the world economy is dependent on growth all you want but that is not helpful if you don't have an alternative in mind.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

No Nordic nation is actively looting developing countries as far as I'm aware., but the simple inequality of our world is why we have migrants. "Them Third Worlders being dumb and illiterate" is a symptom of that basic inequality.

computer parts posted:

Before 1960 (or thereabouts) large parts of the world were colonial subjects that directly transferred wealth to their mother countries.

After 1960 we did not redistribute that wealth back.

Ligur posted:

This is untrue on so many levels, Good Lord.

computer parts posted:

Do tell.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

And you're arguing from the position that since our current economic model demands perpetual growth, we have to simply accept this and continue doing what we're doing.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

No one is talking about stopping the periphery from having babies, just helping them not have quite as many. Like, access to contraceptives might do more than help against the spread of HIV, and many African women are actually pretty happy about not having to have as many babies as their mothers did from what I've read/heard. Strengthening trends which emphasize smaller families where the mother has more time to work and take care of her individual children would still allow significant population growth while giving the children that are born a better chance in life, and help grow the economy by giving families an extra income earner.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

From what I gather, the reduction in fertility rates in Sub-Saharan Africa since 70's hasn't been anywhere as strong as it was in the West or Asia at a similar point in their development, to the point of being non-existent in some cases. I'm not sure that's really ideal when you combine it with climate change being poised to gently caress over these regions in terms of agricultural productivity in the near future.

Ligur posted:

Do you realize you're turning into me?

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

For one example, a goon has already alluded to the "colonial pact" between France and its former colonies. In essence, France controls the finances and economic development of 14 ex-colonial Francophone nations.

Cardiac posted:

Yeah, that part is very interesting. One of my coworkers is from that part of Afrika and apparently their treasury is in France.

Speaking of Afrika, I came across this blog.
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/africa-is-getting-richer-so-expect-more-migrants/
The richer Afrika gets, the more migrants they will send, since the poor can't afford and the rich gain nothing.

Also, holy poo poo, if this is the kind of charts you use in social sciences, no wonder it is a loving mess.
If I tried sending in an article with something like this in a natural sciences paper I would get so rejected.

Xoidanor posted:

Change doesn't happen over a week, there's this thing called momentum in politics. When your argument against a policy is that you think the world order should be changed eventually do you see how this impacts my ability to take your argument seriously when building support and enacting such change would take decades? Meanwhile, you have still failed to address how any of this ties into why Sweden should not see migration as an opportunity to grow in the immediate future.

Blame the church, both the catholic and later also the evangelical church has done enormous amounts of harm to Africa in these matters with their propaganda and decrees. As for the food production, I think our consumption of luxury goods and the EU's offloading of surplus food has already done more harm than any environmental effects will have in the next 30 years.

Xoidanor posted:

Well great so you want what is already happening, not seeing why you think I would disagree with any this. It is still decades down the line for it to progress to our stage but of course it is happening. As more of sub-saharan Africa urbanises and becomes commodified this development will accelerate.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

I'm happy to drop this conversation though, since we're not really getting anywhere.

Xoidanor posted:

, read the actual paper.

Atal Vataman posted:

http://www.nrk.no/valg2015/valgomat

lets go!

Alhazred posted:

n other news: In a move that can only be described as cartoonishly evil the government refuses to subsidize public mushroom control and it now has to close down.

Grimson posted:

Landbruks- og matminister Sylvi Listhaug(Frp)sier til avisen at det er opp til den enkelte å skaffe seg nødvendig kunnskap til soppturer, eller sørge for at soppen blir kontrollert av frivillige nyttevekstorganisasjoner.

Atal Vataman posted:

http://www.nrk.no/valg2015/valgomat

lets go!