Migrant watch (merged topic)

[vtsnowedin]

Biff veron ?
Are you a farmer? If not what do you need land for?
Of that 50 percent of the land owned by those evil rich people how much of it is being actively farmed, how much sustainably managed forest? Whats left is show piece formal gardens, ostentatious lawns and a few golf courses. But what percentage is it? Of the forest and farm land what would you do with it that would be better then it's current use?

No, I'm not a farmer.

The picture with its caption, "Britain isn't full..." illustrates the wrong-headedness of those who say we should stop immigration because Britain is full.

Land-use data for Britain are readily available. What would I do with it? A lot of the moorland currently used for grouse shooting would be better employed as forestry but otherwise we have a pretty good mix. Most of even the high end estimates of immigration and population growth can be accommodated on 'brownfield', ex-industrial sites and higher densities within the already urbanised areas but new developments on greenfield sites could be managed without detrimental impacts on food production or wildlife.

Will what you Brits call moorland support trees? So you can crowd the new emigrants into the cities, but that leaves the question of where you will grow their food? Iowa in the USA? Sorry we are already planted state line to state line. There isn't any more land to plant or water to irrigate with.

[clv101]

Lets just be clear about one thing - I fully believe our current predicament is unsustainable and that there will be a collapse this century - likely reducing population by a few bn with significantly lower quality of life for the remainder. That's a given in my book.

My contribution to this thread is that it doesn't have to be like that for technical/physical reasons. It'll be like that for political/cultural reasons. It's an academic difference, don't get too hung up on it.

So, if you truly do believe that, globally, collapse is completely inevitable and that, by implication, the best any individual nation can hope to achieve is to at least attempt to aim for internal sustainability, why the hell are you not advocating, as matter of urgency, a virtual halt to inward migration to this country? Indeed, why are you positing arguments that either directly or by implication advocate the opposite?

You're adding a lot to what I wrote. I don't get hung up on the nation state as some do. You talk about the nation state aiming for internal sustainability - in the case of the UK that's a pipe dream, we've lost that opportunity by many decades. So where does that leave us?

I take issue with this point specifically:

Do you have some kind of death wish for yourself, your family and your nation? Or are you just too morally cowardly to accept the inevitable logic, having acknowledged that we have exceeded our nation's carrying capacity, that we must start (however belatedly and however difficult it may be to ethically implement) to address this issue with significant population control measures, not least of which is massive cuts, if not a virtual halt except under the most stringent of criteria, to inward migration?

I don't agree with your logic that to address a over population measured in 10s of millions we need to take action on inward migration of 100s thousands. I think a far better approach to our predicament is to work toward continuing the regime where the densely populated UK can trade with the scarcely populated parts of the world.

Towns and cities are only viable through trade with the countryside.
The UK is only viable through trade with the countryside of other countries. A significant chunk of that countryside is in Eastern Europe, France and Spain

The very concept of a self sufficient UK is anachronistic in the 21st Century, it makes about as much sense as talking about a self sufficient Manchester.

We are't going to reduce our population by 10s of millions by fiddling with migration policies so I don't accept that as the 'inevitable logic' you describe it as.

You talk of:

...massive cuts, if not a virtual halt except under the most stringent of criteria, to inward migration?

Which I think is pretty much irrelevant when talking UK carrying capacity. If on the other hand you are proposing emigration policies encouraging 100s thousands, even a million per year to move to countries like Poland, Russia, Ukraine (countries well below their carrying capacity) etc. then I'm all ears. But you're not. You talking about cutting inward migration from 100s thousands to virtually nothing. That isn't any solution to our excess 10s of millions.

If you want to be serious about UK carrying capacity, then inward migration is the wrong area to focus on, you'd need to find a way to reduce the population by 10s million. I think theres a lot more opportunity in trading with regions with surplus carrying capacity. London trades with East Anglia, the UK trades with France etc...

[biffvernon]

Will what you Brits call moorland support trees?

Yes, apart from the very highest mountain-tops, mixed deciduous forest is the natural vegetation. The trees have been gradually cleared, starting in the neolithic.Today the moorland is maintained by sheep grazing and burning the heather to promote a habitat for grouse, the shooting of which provides a large income for the landowners.

So you can crowd the new emigrants into the cities, but that leaves the question of where you will grow their food? Iowa in the USA? Sorry we are already planted state line to state line. There isn't any more land to plant or water to irrigate with.

Your cereal growing lands of Iowa may be profitable given the current prices of land, labour and other inputs, but it's not very productive in terms of human food per unit area.
This is the week during which British gardeners watch a lot of television - it's Chelsea Week, when the world's foremost flowershow happens in London. Last night the programme included a piece about the multi-million pound orchid growing industry and we saw how the nation's love of indoor flowers is met by the high-tech greenhouse production millions of these pot-plants. Don't go thinking we can't produce enough food in a small space if the price is right.

[biffvernon]

I don't get hung up on the nation state as some do.

That seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. My position is that nation states should have no greater status than any other administrative unit - parish, county, continent; everything done at the appropriate level. The concept of nationality is, in human history terms, fairly new and has always been fluid. Now that we have the means of easy communication around the world there is less need than ever for maintaining the status of the nation. When one considers the issues from the point of view of a world citizen rather than from nationalistic perspective much of the debate about migration looks quite wrong-headed. Those wedded to nationalism may find that hard to understand.

[UndercoverElephant]

The very concept of a self sufficient UK is anachronistic in the 21st Century, it makes about as much sense as talking about a self sufficient Manchester.

Well then, given that our main "export" as a country is "financial services", it looks like we're heading for very serious trouble, doesn't it?

Trade is indeed important, but I don't think we should be getting this thread, which is talking about migration in general, with the debate about EU membership. The point is that there are going to have be enforced borders somewhere - either around the UK or around Europe. The debate about whether it should be the UK or/and the EU will largely by moot after June 23rd, because that decision will have been taken. The argument we're having with Biff isn't really about the EU - that is just a side issue. It's actually about the ethical justification of preventing the immigration into Europe (and North America) of large numbers of people from poorer parts of the world where the collapse is already starting. Your point about farmland is parts of Europe that have a lower population density than the UK will cease to be relevant if those parts of Europe are over-run with a tsunami of migrants from north Africa and western and southwestern Asia.

We are't going to reduce our population by 10s of millions by fiddling with migration policies...

By the same logic, we aren't going to reduce greenhouse emissions by me buying an efficient car instead of a 4x4, so I might as well buy a 4x4.

If you want to be serious about UK carrying capacity, then inward migration is the wrong area to focus on, you'd need to find a way to reduce the population by 10s million.

This is wrong, Chris.

In both North America and Europe - the two destinations most desired by migrants from poorer parts of the world - all population growth is now the result of immigration (including the children of immigrants). If we had clamped down on immigration 10 or 20 years ago, our populations would be falling. That really does matter, both in terms of sheer numbers (and moving in the right direction instead of the wrong direction) and culture (because a lot of these people are coming from places where people are still reproducing too quickly, and they are bringing that culture with them).

The truth is that our native population, just like that of North America and Japan, has already reached the point of population contraction. The continuing problem is entirely caused by immigrants, an awkward reality that is dealt with extensively in those books I linked to. We cannot allow political correctness to stop us from pointing this out. It needs to be said.

[clv101]

The very concept of a self sufficient UK is anachronistic in the 21st Century, it makes about as much sense as talking about a self sufficient Manchester.

Well then, given that our main "export" as a country is "financial services", it looks like we're heading for very serious trouble, doesn't it?

Quite likely, maybe one reason why quite a few people a rather worried about the next financial crash.

Trade is indeed important, but I don't think we should be getting this thread, which is talking about migration in general, with the debate about EU membership.

My point isn't to bring in the EU debate. My point is that it doesn't make sense to talk about a country's carrying capacity without also considering trade.

The point is that there are going to have be enforced borders somewhere - either around the UK or around Europe. The debate about whether it should be the UK or/and the EU will largely by moot after June 23rd, because that decision will have been taken. The argument we're having with Biff isn't really about the EU - that is just a side issue. It's actually about the ethical justification of preventing the immigration into Europe (and North America) of large numbers of people from poorer parts of the world where the collapse is already starting. Your point about farmland is parts of Europe that have a lower population density than the UK will cease to be relevant if those parts of Europe are over-run with a tsunami of migrants from north Africa and western and southwestern Asia.

We are't going to reduce our population by 10s of millions by fiddling with migration policies...

By the same logic, we aren't going to reduce greenhouse emissions by me buying an efficient car instead of a 4x4, so I might as well buy a 4x4.

If you want to be serious about UK carrying capacity, then inward migration is the wrong area to focus on, you'd need to find a way to reduce the population by 10s million.

This is wrong, Chris.

In both North America and Europe - the two destinations most desired by migrants from poorer parts of the world - all population growth is now the result of immigration (including the children of immigrants). If we had clamped down on immigration 10 or 20 years ago, our populations would be falling. That really does matter, both in terms of sheer numbers (and moving in the right direction instead of the wrong direction) and culture (because a lot of these people are coming from places where people are still reproducing too quickly, and they are bringing that culture with them).

The truth is that our native population, just like that of North America and Japan, has already reached the point of population contraction. The continuing problem is entirely caused by immigrants, an awkward reality that is dealt with extensively in those books I linked to. We cannot allow political correctness to stop us from pointing this out. It needs to be said.

Obviously I don't disagree with much of that. However it simply isn't relevant to a discussion about the UKs carrying capacity which I think we both agree is exceeded by 10s million.

The 'reality' you're so keen on is that we aren't going to return the UK to its carrying capacity by reducing net inward migration from 100s thousands to a "virtual halt" as Steve suggests.

Unless you're willing to talk about net emigration policies of 100s of thousands to millions per year then migration policy is simply the wrong tool for the carrying capacity problem.

Please note my comments are are limited to discussion about carrying capacity not the wider issue of pro/cons of migration.

[AutomaticEarth]

Interesting to hear that Yanis Varoufakis wants the UK to remain in the EU. I thought he'd be the last one to say that, given what happened to Greece..... Oops...wrong thread......

[vtsnowedin]

Will what you Brits call moorland support trees?

Yes, apart from the very highest mountain-tops, mixed deciduous forest is the natural vegetation. The trees have been gradually cleared, starting in the neolithic.Today the moorland is maintained by sheep grazing and burning the heather to promote a habitat for grouse, the shooting of which provides a large income for the landowners.

So you can crowd the new emigrants into the cities, but that leaves the question of where you will grow their food? Iowa in the USA? Sorry we are already planted state line to state line. There isn't any more land to plant or water to irrigate with.

Your cereal growing lands of Iowa may be profitable given the current prices of land, labour and other inputs, but it's not very productive in terms of human food per unit area.
This is the week during which British gardeners watch a lot of television - it's Chelsea Week, when the world's foremost flowershow happens in London. Last night the programme included a piece about the multi-million pound orchid growing industry and we saw how the nation's love of indoor flowers is met by the high-tech greenhouse production millions of these pot-plants. Don't go thinking we can't produce enough food in a small space if the price is right.

Well unless you like to eat orchids you might want to be nice to the farmers in Iowa. Compare these stats to any Uk data base you prefer.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/A ... state=IOWA

[biffvernon]

I don't think orchids are very good to eat! The point is that we have the physical capacity to produce far more food if we switched from non-food to food horticulture, and Iowa could also feed many more people if they adopted intensive horticulture rather than beef production. We do today what is economically viable today but that has little to do with what is technically possible under different economic circumstances.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think orchids are very good to eat!

Well you need to think again then. Vanilla is the most well known crop orchid, but there are also several northern temperate species that are good to eat. The most famous of these is the early purple orchid, from which a drink called "salep" was made, which was very popular before tea and coffee became affordable and only went out of fashion because it became known as a treatment for STDs, and therefore nobody wanted to be seen consuming it.

http://herbs-treatandtaste.blogspot.co. ... ealth.html

Other edible orchids:

http://www.ionopsis.com/edible_orchids.htm

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think orchids are very good to eat! The point is that we have the physical capacity to produce far more food if we switched from non-food to food horticulture, and Iowa could also feed many more people if they adopted intensive horticulture rather than beef production. We do today what is economically viable today but that has little to do with what is technically possible under different economic circumstances.

You have got this totally wrong, as usual.

The problem has always been population, right from the start of human history. But I am not going to put this reply in this thread. It deserves its own thread, which I will start later this morning in the general section. It will be called "Population, history and the rape of the wild world."

It would be better titled "Why Biff Vernon's worldview demonstrates everything that is wrong with the contemporary greeen movement and intellectual left"....but that wouldn't fit.

[johnhemming2]

The problem is that the truth is somewhere in between. Things get harder to handle with increases in population, but it can be coped with (depending upon how much). An important question is what policy changes are proposed to deal with the issue.

For example I like to wander around the countryside and don't want to see it all built on apart from the areas reserved for horticulture. Hence I support the benefit changes that stop encouraging people to have large families paid for by the state.

[biffvernon]

I don't think orchids are very good to eat!

Not because most of the ~30000 species are not edible but because most don't produce enough food to be worth eating. We could use the greenhouse space for stuff that was good to eat in quantity if we needed and chose to.

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually I have changed my mind. There is no point in posting it here. The one person who needs to read it will ignore it, and for everybody else it is a case of preaching to the converted.

A summary is this: "how many humans can the earth support?" is the wrong question. It is part of a systematic brainwashing which causes us to think of everything in terms of human superiority over other life forms. Maybe the Earth could, if we pushed both human behaviour and technological advances to their limits, support 15 billion humans. But what would be left for wildlife? And what sort of world would that be to live in? A world where even most of the oceans had been subjected to human management, where almost no land was left for wildlife, and where it is almost impossible to get away from large concentrations of humans. What sort of life is that? It sounds like a nightmare and that's what it would be.

The truth is that if what we want to leave for our descendents is a world that is actually worth living in - a world where there is a space for wild nature and where humans have a good quality of life instead of merely existing, then the question "How many humans can the earth support?" needs to be replaced with "How few humans can support a complex, technological civilisation?" and we should be aiming to reduce the human population to that level (which is probably about 100 to 500 million) instead of aiming to stabilise it at the maximum supportable figure.

The difference between these two goals is one of worldview - it is about whether you believe it is morally acceptable for humans to dominate the entire ecosystem, and that non-human living things have no rights, or whether you believe that non-human living things also have the right to somewhere to exist and reproduce.

And you could not get a more perfect example of the former than Biff Vernon. Everything he posts about migration and population betrays this attitude that human life is more important than wildlife. This is regardless of the fact that he actually owns a wildlife reserve.

Humans have been fighting the boundaries of overpopulation since the neolithic/agricultural revolution started 12,000 years ago. We took up farming because overpopulation as hunter-gatherers meant a continual threat of starvation. But instead of fixing the problem, the invention of farming made it worse. It condemned people to back-breaking work all day, instead of hunting-gathering for 5 hours, and caused their diet to deteriorate. But the additional food production, instead of providing increased protection from famine, simply had the effect of the allowing the population to rise until the threat of starvation was as great as before. It started a vicious circle involving warfare: growing populations mean food insecurity and more young men, so those men were sent into battle with neighbouring groups in order to gain control of more land, so more food could be produced, so the population grows...

This process has never ended. For the whole history of civilisation, we've been finding ways to increase food production, while the population expands so the threat of starvation was never far away, so we start wars to gain territory to feed more people, to grow more food.

It has always been about overpopulation. There was only ever one way to break this vicious circle, and that was to voluntarily reduce the human population at the same time as being able to defend borders from other groups of humans who are not reducing theirs.

For the good of both the human race (at all levels, including national and global), and the rest of the living things we share this planet with, the only way to create a world worth living in is to reduce our population. This must take precedence over human rights. It is more important than human rights, because without it human rights end up being meaningless. There is no point in keeping humans alive if the behaviour of those humans is keeping the vicious circle going. The circle has to be broken, and that is going involve the involuntary death of humans.

Those in the green movement and the intellectual left who refuse to accept this must be attacked relentlessly until they acknowledge the truth. Their anthropocentric, overpopulation-denying solutions to our problems aren't solutions at all. They are merely a continuation of the exactly the same mindset that has been causing the problems all along - a mindset that point blank refuses to accept that the problem underlying all our other problems, from ecological collapse to war, is the unwillingness of humans to accept population control (including both resistance to internal population control from the right and resistance to controls on immigration from the left).

[UndercoverElephant]

We could use the greenhouse space for stuff that was good to eat in quantity if we needed and chose to.

Alternatively, we could reduce the human population, demolish the greenhouse and return that land wild nature. But that solution requires you to replace your anthropocentric worldview with one where other species matter as much as humans.