Moderator: Peak Moderation
We have long since established that Biff is all for increased population density just so long as he can remain isolated in his rural idyll.woodburner wrote:This is already the second most densly populated country on earth, I take it you are after first place then.biffvernon wrote:Change the law so they are not illegal.
Well there's two totally unconnected things! Open borders is possible. A globally high standard of living, at least if the 'high' means the sort of fossil fuel use rate that the UK has, is unachievable and undesirable.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:The curious thing is that you often call for open borders immigration but never offer a solution to achieving a globally high standard of living.
I was using high to mean far more mundane things like access to clean water, safe streets, free education/healthcare/pensions etc. but if you wish to define it as us all having access to wide screen TVs then go ahead.biffvernon wrote:Well there's two totally unconnected things! Open borders is possible. A globally high standard of living, at least if the 'high' means the sort of fossil fuel use rate that the UK has, is unachievable and undesirable.JavaScriptDonkey wrote:The curious thing is that you often call for open borders immigration but never offer a solution to achieving a globally high standard of living.
Given the above stated position, how do you, in relation to the last part of the stated position, square it with an inequitous world? That is to say, so long as such inequity exists, then a relatively open immigration policy in a country like the UK will inevitably attract massive economic migration from those countries where there is less liberty and poorer economic circumstance. In turn, leading to a commensurately higher population density in the UK and that this will be an ever more exacerbated phenomenon as times get ever tougher around the globe due to growing resource constraints.biffvernon wrote:....I favour a lower global population and a lower population in the British Isles....
First remember that open border policy should apply to all countries not just the UK, so it's not at all clear what proportion of would be migrants would chose to come to this crowded isle rather than the wide open spaces of pretty much everywhere else.stevecook172001 wrote: a relatively open immigration policy in a country like the UK will inevitably attract massive economic migration from those countries where there is less liberty and poorer economic circumstance. In turn, leading to a commensurately higher population density in the UK
Firstly, remember that open-border policies currently do not apply to all countries nor is there a scintilla of evidence they are going to any time soon. So, it's not at all clear why you should think that there will not be an uneven migration around the globe based on that lack of universal applicability of such a policy.biffvernon wrote:First remember that open border policy should apply to all countries not just the UK, so it's not at all clear what proportion of would be migrants would chose to come to this crowded isle rather than the wide open spaces of pretty much everywhere else.stevecook172001 wrote: a relatively open immigration policy in a country like the UK will inevitably attract massive economic migration from those countries where there is less liberty and poorer economic circumstance. In turn, leading to a commensurately higher population density in the UK
The point is, it is not for people like you to imply racism in others who do not share your views on immigration policy and, in any event, putting aside the underlying philosophical issues, your utilitarian argument is seriously flawed on real-world grounds anyway. All that such policy will do (is doing) is, firstly, not alter one jot the economic or political circumstances of the countries those people are economically fleeing from and, secondly, is extremely likely to drive the population of countries such as ours into the arms of the far right. Indeed, we are already seeing the beginnings of that right now. What the hell do you think the stunt with the vans was if not pandering to that growing political trend? The thing you completely fail to grasp is that it is, frankly, educated idiots like you who are driving that trend. Finally, you seem completely blind to the blindingly obvious use of such unfettered migration as a part of the capitalist system’s means of maintaining profit and growth by driving pay and conditions of the poorest (but numerous) workers down, both of which are politically unsustainable in the coming years (at least if we wish to maintain anything remotely resembling a liberal democracy).But be that as it may, and for then sake of discussion let's for a moment say that the UK would see an increased population, then, if one is concerned for the greatest good to the greatest number one has to weigh up the 'harm' experienced by the UK becoming even more crowded against the 'good' of migrants being able leave 'those countries where there is less liberty and poorer economic circumstance'.
I'm not even going dignify your last comment by taking it seriously enough to give an answer to the "question". You just can't f***ing stop yourself can you? People like you are not just useful idiots, you are dangerous idiots because you are helping to herald a new age of racism and intolerance. The complete opposite, in fact, to that which you claim to want.How do you see that balance tilting, Steve? Obviously as not a racist, you would not wish to bias the balance in favour of us Brits.
Well that's statin' the bleedin' obvious! There's about as much chance of it as of the nations of the world stopping emitting greenhouse gases. That doesn't stop me saying that both would be a good thing.stevecook172001 wrote: Firstly, remember that open-border policies currently do not apply to all countries nor is there a scintilla of evidence they are going to any time soon.
A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks – the thumb drive and the first amendment – had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?
The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.
+1 on the bizarre (and worrying).biffvernon wrote:The story of geeks destroying a laptop in the Guardian's basement is too bizarre to be true - except that it's Alan Rushbriger telling the tale so I have 100% confidence.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -reporters
A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks – the thumb drive and the first amendment – had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?
The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.
