This substack writer obviously knows nothing about the environment. You can't keep increasing the population and expect the environment to function properly. We depend on something called "ecosystem services" which I learned about in 1975, along with global warming, from the professor who would become President Obama's SCience Advisor. Ecosystem services provide clean water, clean air, fertile soil, disease prevention, building materials (lumber), pollination, and so much more. But they depend on healthy, intact ecosystems. A suburb with lawns does not qualify, nor does agricultural land, or land that has been logged. The rise of tick-borne diseases is due to encroachment of human activity into heretofore intact ecosystems.
The reduction of the Chinese birthrate is terrific news for that country and for the world. And the US needs to greatly reduce immigration. ***Too much*** immigration is the thing that has done the most to keep Blacks, and more recently poor whites and recent immigrants down in the US. A new book makes a powerful case for that: Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth. ($9 on Amazon).
During times of low immigration, Blacks have always begun to prosper. High immigration—always abetted by the cheap labor lobbies--has always pushed them back down again.
The current surge became particularly damaging in the early ‘90s, when the annual numbers passed 1 million.
Beck is thorough. The book draws heavily on academic research into economic history, publications run by Black people, statements of black leaders beginning with Frederick Douglass, and the determinations of multiple gov't commissions on immigration, all of which warned that mass immigration would take jobs from low/no-skilled Americans.
Had the US followed the recomendatations of these commissions, I suspect that the US never would have attained among the highest levels of inequality among the western industrialized nations.
David Ownby of ReadingtheChinaDream.com has explained in a recent podcast how intellectuals in China are heavily disillusioned and shocked at the cynicism of their government following the Covid experience. Perhaps that attitude is more common in China and is one factor causing people to have less desire to bring children into such a society.
Interesting. I do agree that simply accepting the stats of other countries is a waste of energy. The scary numbers put forth by those pushing their own agendas have little relation to reality.
Should I put too much faith in those surveys saying that Americans want MORE immigration?
No.
Not unless the survey is asking, "Are YOU an American? Are you a naturalized American? Do you have family in other countries?" If you don't know that information, you will likely miss cases of special pleading - people pushing policy based on THEIR situation.
Besides, too many surveys are shoddily done. Little attempt to limit the survey to actual citizens (the only ones that should have a voice in the matter).
In view of species extinction and climate degradation, we need to curtail endless, mindless human population and "GDP" growth. We need to transition to a sustainable population and economy, not based on consumerism and/or war.
Man, this blog is great but these commenters leave something to be desired. Keep up the good work, James!
This substack writer obviously knows nothing about the environment. You can't keep increasing the population and expect the environment to function properly. We depend on something called "ecosystem services" which I learned about in 1975, along with global warming, from the professor who would become President Obama's SCience Advisor. Ecosystem services provide clean water, clean air, fertile soil, disease prevention, building materials (lumber), pollination, and so much more. But they depend on healthy, intact ecosystems. A suburb with lawns does not qualify, nor does agricultural land, or land that has been logged. The rise of tick-borne diseases is due to encroachment of human activity into heretofore intact ecosystems.
The reduction of the Chinese birthrate is terrific news for that country and for the world. And the US needs to greatly reduce immigration. ***Too much*** immigration is the thing that has done the most to keep Blacks, and more recently poor whites and recent immigrants down in the US. A new book makes a powerful case for that: Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth. ($9 on Amazon).
During times of low immigration, Blacks have always begun to prosper. High immigration—always abetted by the cheap labor lobbies--has always pushed them back down again.
The current surge became particularly damaging in the early ‘90s, when the annual numbers passed 1 million.
Beck is thorough. The book draws heavily on academic research into economic history, publications run by Black people, statements of black leaders beginning with Frederick Douglass, and the determinations of multiple gov't commissions on immigration, all of which warned that mass immigration would take jobs from low/no-skilled Americans.
Had the US followed the recomendatations of these commissions, I suspect that the US never would have attained among the highest levels of inequality among the western industrialized nations.
David Ownby of ReadingtheChinaDream.com has explained in a recent podcast how intellectuals in China are heavily disillusioned and shocked at the cynicism of their government following the Covid experience. Perhaps that attitude is more common in China and is one factor causing people to have less desire to bring children into such a society.
Interesting. I do agree that simply accepting the stats of other countries is a waste of energy. The scary numbers put forth by those pushing their own agendas have little relation to reality.
Should I put too much faith in those surveys saying that Americans want MORE immigration?
No.
Not unless the survey is asking, "Are YOU an American? Are you a naturalized American? Do you have family in other countries?" If you don't know that information, you will likely miss cases of special pleading - people pushing policy based on THEIR situation.
Besides, too many surveys are shoddily done. Little attempt to limit the survey to actual citizens (the only ones that should have a voice in the matter).
In view of species extinction and climate degradation, we need to curtail endless, mindless human population and "GDP" growth. We need to transition to a sustainable population and economy, not based on consumerism and/or war.