If illegal immigration remains unchecked, we will find ourselves in a Hobbesian situation where there are not enough resources to support the illegals. They will cause a decrease in American wealth, increased unemployment, increased crime, and increased social unrest.

The groundswell against illegals that we see happening now is just the start. There is an absolute limit on what we can support, and we need to implement policy now to avoid reaching this limit.

6/12/2006 1:49:17 AM

Let's make it illegal to have more than one kid while we're at it. Also, we'll cut off human lives at retirement age. Goddamn old people, just sucking up our resources without contributing anything.

6/12/2006 1:54:26 AM

No one is arguing the extreme case. Furthermore, you cannot refute the extreme and logically use that as a refutation of the reasonable. There is definitely a limit on what we can support, and by the current unrest, we know that we are approaching it.

Cracking down on illegals is simply a reasonable policy we can implement now to avert disaster. Do you deny that if there is a limit on what we can support? If there is, then we need to implement policy to stop us for reaching this point of too many illegals.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 2:00 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

6/12/2006 1:59:17 AM

To be honest, the American lifestyle consumes much more resources per capita than any other lifestyle on earth. The less people we have living like us, the better.

6/12/2006 2:03:08 AM

Can you provide any actual support for your argument that we're reaching that limit, or would reach it if "illegal immigration remains unchecked?" Because I'm far from convinced that's the case.

6/12/2006 2:11:34 AM

Quote :

"There is definitely a limit on what we can support, and by the current unrest, we know that we are approaching it."

I'm sorry, what unrest is it that you're talking about?

6/12/2006 2:14:13 AM

My understanding is that the "current unrest" (I'm assuming he's referring to the recent pro- and anti-immigration protests) is dealing with whether or not illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty, be given guest-worker visas, or otherwise more easily obtain legal status and protections. It has absolutely nothing to do with any impending lack of resources to support said immigrants.

Further--and I fully realize I'm not giving any more support of this position than I'm asking skokiaan for, but whatever--I would contend that an immediate ejection of any illegal immigrants would strain our economy and quality of life much more quickly than we would hit a shortage of resources if immigration "remains unchecked." Production would drop for lack of workers in multiple industry sectors, and prices for a wide variety of materials and consumer goods would rise both through shortages in production and for increased labor costs brought about by having to pay decent wages in order to entice "legal" workers.

6/12/2006 2:23:44 AM

Illegals cause no economic problems...only law and order and sociological.

If you want I could write 5 paragraphs explaining why, or you could just think a bit.

6/12/2006 2:32:50 AM

Man, taking sociology is always a bad decision.

You're looking at the United States as a fixed pool of resources. It isn't. We create wealth, innovate so that more products can be made with less resources, and adapt to a changing world.

You could have said the same thing about the baby-boom. We were going to run out of food to feed all those new children. We innovated, created wealth, and now we're doing fine. Illegal immigrants come into the country and create wealth. While they start small, their decendants become educated, producing members of society (on average). This is simple.

6/12/2006 6:22:50 AM

Quote :

"There is definitely a limit on what we can support"

I think I found the assumption that is your fundamental flaw.

U.S. population density needs to go up by 20,687% before it matches Hong Kong, a remarkably wealthy island in Asia with no natural resources to speak of.

6/12/2006 9:39:44 AM

Hong Kong is only wealthy because it is a world trade hub.... it has to import nearly everything it consumes. Thats not exactly a good example of how an entire country should model their sustainable development policy.

6/12/2006 10:07:53 AM

^ Actually, it is. The only way to "run out of resources" is to be unable to afford them. By openning your country up to international trade you can take advantage of resources from all over the World so that it no longer matters what resources are in your ground but what resources the World possesses.

You see, whether Hong Kong is over populated doesn't matter because the World is definitely not over populated. The World Price for the world's commodities is not that high and is not likely to become unaffordable anytime soon.

This is the odd future that international trade creates: If both Mexico and the U.S. have no trade barriers, then it doesn't matter to the World Market whether people move from Mexico to the U.S. because they are drawing on the same pool of World resources.

6/12/2006 10:17:32 AM

Well, as population is increasing exponentially and food production is increasing linearly, there becomes a break even point in which the land can simply not produce more food to sustain an increasing population. Given the fact that worldwide, we are converting more and more arable land each day for residential uses and also weather patterns are shifting to create more desertification... the amount of land usable for food production decreases each day.

What you are saying is that if you have enough money there won't be a shortage for you, which is true. That might make sense from an American consumer standpoint, but to say that mass starvation is the solution for anyone who dies not live in a wealthy country is not the answer. We can already see by worldwide mass migration that if we ignore the problems of resource distribution, that those affected will land at our doorstep and ultimately we will have to address the growing problems of poverty within our own borders.

6/12/2006 10:52:56 AM

LoneSnark to the rescue...

6/12/2006 11:09:10 AM

Quote :

"the World is definitely not over populated."

you think so?

6/12/2006 1:20:57 PM

Quote :

""Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." -Senator Patrick Moynihan"

I think that pretty much sums up my thoughts on LoneSnarks arguements

6/12/2006 1:37:34 PM

I gave it my best shot. It's a stupid position.

Quote :

"Well, as population is increasing exponentially and food production is increasing linearly, there becomes a break even point in which the land can simply not produce more food to sustain an increasing population. Given the fact that worldwide, we are converting more and more arable land each day for residential uses and also weather patterns are shifting to create more desertification... the amount of land usable for food production decreases each day. "

So do you have a number for us? The fact of the matter is that technology has always advanced enough to avert any purported population crisis.

Quote :

" What you are saying is that if you have enough money there won't be a shortage for you, which is true. That might make sense from an American consumer standpoint, but to say that mass starvation is the solution for anyone who dies not live in a wealthy country is not the answer. We can already see by worldwide mass migration that if we ignore the problems of resource distribution, that those affected will land at our doorstep and ultimately we will have to address the growing problems of poverty within our own borders."

Actually, the "worldwide migration" is the solution to the resource distribution problem. If given the opportunity, people move from places that cannot support them to places that will. The places they leave behind will become poorer, weaker, and ripe for economic or political takeover by more successful entities.

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 11:53 PM. Reason : dsf]

6/12/2006 11:48:58 PM

Quote :

"The places they leave behind will become poorer, weaker, and ripe for economic or political takeover by more successful entities"

Well, they probably wouldnt be that poor if they had any usuable natural resources, or were on any trade routes that were convenient for world trade.

6/13/2006 12:47:03 AM

OMG: OMG, it is a Malthusian in the flesh! I have not met one in years! So many false statements, absolutely amazing!

Ok, data:

You are right, we are harvesting less area worldwide, but at the same time we are producing more grain than ever:

If you look at the regions experiencing the greatest decrease in hectares cultivated you see they are taking place not because of urbanization or desertification but because of abandonment. The price of food has fallen so low that small farmers cannot continue farming profitably:

If the abandonment was because of urbanization or desertification you would expect the price of food stuffs to rise as farmers engaged in more intensive, and thus expensive, farming techniques. You can also see where the land is going by graphing U.S. forestry data:

That's right. Fields are being abandoned by farmers and reclaimed by forests. The North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences has an entire display on this trend (it is by the forest scene).

Quote :

"but to say that mass starvation is the solution for anyone who dies not live in a wealthy country is not the answer"

Who said they had to be poor countries? Like I said, in a world market it doesn't matter what resources you have, all that matters is your ability to trade to better your lot in life. The price of silica is the same in Mexico as it is in California. However, the Mexicans can barely manage to turn it into glass for $1 a lb., while California manages to turn the same into $1000 worth of microchips. Mexico is resource starved because it is poor; Mexico is poor because it is poorly governed.

If we are all rich then we have options. What resources we have can be mobilized to replace or simply substitute newly-scarce resources. If we cannot grow enough grain on the remaining land area then maybe we should try more rice or corn. If we run out of oil then thank God we are all rich enough to afford expensive renewables.

Regretfully some of us live on $2 a day and will starve to death without cheap oil around. But don't confuse the symptom of being unable to out-bid wealthier people for finite resources, with the real problem of being so desperately poor that losing a bidding war results in death.

BTW, I love google image search, I couldn't have done this post without it

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 2:05 AM. Reason : sp]

6/13/2006 2:04:13 AM

GM food

6/13/2006 2:10:54 AM

Quote :

"The fact of the matter is that technology has always advanced enough to avert any purported population crisis."

i'd like to know what this technology is that we have that has somehow "always" allowed us to avert population crises?

the fact is, just from 1700 to 2000 alone, the world population is modeled by a superexponential growth curve.

at current world 6.5 billion population, such a curve projects a world pop of 20+ billion by 2050, and 300+ billion by 2100.

obviously the world population cannever get that high. The United Nations Population Division describes a world population carrying capacity of 10 billion. ive read other studies that say 15 billion. whatever , we're almost on it now.

a simple logistic curve generally describes the sharp decrease in population growth as we approach our "critical mass".

and this will be the first time this has ever happened. and it will start happening soon. like within 50 years.

so, you better start rolling your technology out, and quick. otherwise, the culling will have to be done by more traditional methods of starvation and disease.

6/13/2006 2:25:18 AM

Quote :

"at current world 6.5 billion population, such a curve projects a world pop of 20+ billion by 2050, and 300+ billion by 2100."

Which demonstrates without a doubt that only an idiot would use such simple curve projections to determine something so complex as population growth. Using the same idiotic curve approximations would put the Gross World Product at zillions of dollars by 2100 (a per capita GWP of billions of 2006 dollars) and the population of Russia (currently falling) close to zero. Get a brain and think about the numbers before you post them.

The U.N. has predicted the World population will level off and begin falling from a high of about 10 billion or so. Not because we are starving or dying in wars but because we just stopped fucking without protection so much.

6/13/2006 2:38:58 AM

I am pretty sure an asteroid would kill us way before overpopulation does.

6/13/2006 2:41:32 AM

^^^All you have proven in that post is that population is growing relatively quickly. That fact alone says nothing about whether it is a crisis or not.

Can the UN suddenly predict the future? Do they know what technologies in the future we will or won't discover to increase our ability to produce food, housing, whatever? If they made a prediction in 1900 what the carrying capacity would be, would they have taken into account freight travel by air? Communications satellites to facilitate efficient, global distribution of resources? Computers? Robotics?

The inability to predict beforehand how technology will allow us to support more people makes any prediction some bureaucrat makes a bunch of nonsense. 50 years is a long, long time. We can produce a hell of a lot more than what we could have 50 years ago.

Actually, I dont know what your point is. Are you trying to argue that we should do something about this?

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 2:46 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

6/13/2006 2:46:09 AM

Quote :

"Which demonstrates without a doubt that only an idiot would use such simple curve projections "

i didnt, dumbass. if you read, you'd see i was pointint out the absurdity of such a projection, and followed with:

"OBVIOUSLY the world's population will never get that high"

and pointed to the well understood fact that we are going to experience a drastic decrease in growth on a LOGISTIC CURVE.

so, how about you fucking read up a little bit on basic population growth models, eh?

or here, i'll spell it out for you: we are at 6 billion and still superexponential. we are going to hit our population's logistic "carrying capacity" of 10 million in less than 50 years.

that is an extremely negative 2nd differential. the math is simple, but the human effects are not.






[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 3:03 AM. Reason : ]

6/13/2006 2:52:13 AM

Quote :

"Can the UN suddenly predict the future? "

have you ever heard of population growth models? in the field of biology, they seem to be quite accurate in "predicting the future" for any population of species.

Quote :

"Are you trying to argue that we should do something about this?"

nah, on second thought, never mind.

certainly some technology will magically appear and allow our populatino to just keep growing without bound.

or maybe we'll just colonize Mars.






[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 2:59 AM. Reason : ]

6/13/2006 2:57:41 AM

I've seen the growth models and they fail to answer why the wealthiest nations on earth have the lowest birth rates, often negative.

"The U.N. has predicted the World population will level off and begin falling from a high of about 10 billion or so. Not because we are starving or dying in wars but because we just stopped fucking without protection so much."

Or is it your suggestion that only European and Asian people know how to use a condom and take a pill?

6/13/2006 3:02:54 AM

holy shit. i dont know which tangent to go off on.

heres a quick one: how about the Christian tools in the US Republican Congress striking down all aid money that supports teaching BIRTH CONTROL in 3rd world nations like Africa?

Quote :

"I've seen the growth models and they fail to answer why the wealthiest nations on earth have the lowest birth rates, often negative."

then maybe you should "read the words" that can be found underneath the pretty pictures.

western countries populations have less, or negative, population growth due to the natural effects of modernity. the increased life expectancy and economic factors allow and encourage people in modern countries to have less children and to have them later in life.

and im sorry if you didnt take any basic math coursework while you were at NC State.



[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 3:25 AM. Reason : ]

6/13/2006 3:20:54 AM

Great, so you now see why you were an idiot to predict a massive die off in the next 50 years.

China is rapidly modernizing, India is only 15 years behind. In a matter of decades the vast majority of humanity will be subject "to the natural effects of modernity." Three cheers for birth control, abortions, and condoms.

You just figured out what the United Nations did when they predicted the world population would level off at 10 billion. We didn't hit a wall, North America alone could feed 10 billion people just using today's technology (read that same U.N. study, it listed the world's carrying capacity with today's technology at around 30 billion).

6/13/2006 3:27:45 AM

i'd like to see where you get a global capacity of 30 billion. the 10 billion number ive got is from 2000.



[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 3:34 AM. Reason : ]

6/13/2006 3:33:52 AM

Sorry, an internet search only turned up 40 billion, not what I remembered.

I suspect now that I read the figure out of this book from amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761536604/

The crux of the argument is, as stated above, a large portion of North American farmland is being abandoned to nature. If we reversed all of that, bringing all the land that has been abandoned since 1910 back into production and brought the rest of the world up to America's level of productivity we could feed a whole mega shit-load of people.

Thankfully, we don't have to, because of "the natural effects of modernity."

6/13/2006 3:49:54 AM

Quote :

"Well, as population is increasing exponentially and food production is increasing linearly"

I was like "BWAHAHAHAHA, a Malthusian!" and started to scroll down to pwn them and then I saw that Loneshark already did.

Fuck, I wish every sociology major was required to get an economics degree too. Then they wouldn't be so stupid.

6/13/2006 6:22:53 AM