Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« June 2006 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Friday, 16 June 2006
It's the demography, stupid!
Topic: Politics
Another piece to add to my essential reading collection.

Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries.

Read the whole thing.

Saturday, 17 June 2006 - 1:08 AM BST

Your comments on this please Mr DY...,,1799717,00.html

Okay, read your link. All very well but what are you going to do about the situation?

Saturday, 17 June 2006 - 2:33 PM BST

Name: David Young

I don't have much to say about America's domestic policies. There is a constitutional limit on presidents, so the most GWB can have is eight years. Blair by contrast has already had nine and can remain PM if he wants for another four! If you want to worry about erosion of civil liberties, look at the UK first. What Labour's been able to get away with is amazing. Holding people without trial, next they want ID cards!

As far as the situation that Steyn was referring to is concerned there are a few things that could be done to reverse the birth-dearth. America is low-tax and has cheap land. Most other western nations are either high-tax or expensive land. Some are both. Britain is reasonably low tax compared to many, but the soaring housing market makes it really hard for young families to contemplate having more than one child. How many people starting work now in their twenties are going to have enough money for a three bedroom house in the next six years? Anyone with a decent education has to pay off their student loan first!! That takes some people until their mid to late 20s!

When Steyn was asked the same question he replied that we had to change the attitude that it was progressive to have huge numbers of people in higher education living as adolescents until by the time they could afford to start a family they no longer had the urge to do so. I couldn't agree more with that. We have far too many people in Britain doing pointless courses in Universities (many of them former polys). A lot of them are no more employable at the end of their courses than they were three years earlier. But they are now older and in debt. This seems to be a pretty stupid thing to do to your nation's most fertile age group!!

So to answer you, I would relax planning permission SCRAP the fucking GREEN BELT and stop encouraging people to do three years of Media Studies and just get a job. The resources spared could be spent improving primary and secondary school education, which I personally think is a lot more important.


Saturday, 17 June 2006 - 3:33 PM BST

That is not going to work.

The problem is that productive westerners just aren't interested in breeding. Nothing to do with housing or financing a child.

After all, low/no income westerners in council estates have no problem breeding.

It would therefore seem like a choice made by people who achieve a certain level of wealth, comfort and education that prefer to do things other than breeding. You being a fine example.

Where you and Steyn are totally wrong is that there is nothing wrong with population contraction. It is good for the species in its present state. Not total extinction but a reduction.

All you have to look out for is to ensure that the economy contracts in a controlled manner and that you protect your borders.

For you, science conquers everything though how you would know that, not having any scientific knowledge/education/experience, is beyond me. However, why not use your beloved science to create parentless children in test tubes? All the labour you could want and you can breed them for specific purposes too.

Steyn's "story" is full of inaccuracies. The fact is that land for farming is decreasing by 7 hectares every second. The world's resources ARE depleting. The world is filling up with homeless, unemployed, starving people. Those are facts and they are catching up with you and Mr Steyn.

If the current population of the world ALL wanted to live like Americans then you would need 5 planet earths to provide the required resources. If they wanted to live like you in the UK then only 3 planet earths. Still, that is 2 planets that we don't have.

It's not space. There is plenty of room to stack people in cities. It's that even if there were the resources they are increasingly harder to get at so there is a production plateau preventing increased production. As is the case with crude oil. Production is at a maximum so too many people are chasing too many delivery contracts for oil so the price increases to destroy demand.

Maybe you want to keep the majority of the world's population in hunger and deprivation to ensure your lifestyle. However, you appear keen to export something called democracy and all that goes with it so wanting everyone on the planet to live like you is a must. As stated though, that is not possible.

Yourself and Mr Steyn are of limited knowledge. Both of you are rather blinkered to anything other than your "hot topic". You have correctly identified that Islam will take over in Europe but for all the wrong reasons.

The fact is that it's a case of survival of the fittest. If westerners want to hamstring themselves by not breeding then that exacerbates the problem that their lives are not sustainable.

Could it be that living a simple, pious life, reading the Koran all day is the answer to humanity's survival? It could well be. Not for any religious reason. Not because the Islamic world is better than the western world but simply because the west will burn itself out.

My first professor at university introduced me to the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid. The complexities of western life will make it untenable. The simple things in life really are free.

Monday, 19 June 2006 - 1:53 PM BST

Name: David Young

I can't reply to everything that you say James. But I'm interested in this:

"The problem is that productive westerners just aren't interested in breeding. Nothing to do with housing or financing a child. After all, low/no income westerners in council estates have no problem breeding. It would therefore seem like a choice made by people who achieve a certain level of wealth, comfort and education that prefer to do things other than breeding. You being a fine example."

Firstly, thanks for the backhanded compliment. I'm not usually called productive! You are right that low and no-income people in council estates have no problem breeding. I'm not sure however that this suggests that the problem of the birth dearth is 'Nothing to do with housing or financing a child.'

Firstly why have people had children in the past? Well for a start, they didn't always have the same control over their fertility that they have now. But beyond that, I think you have to look at the cost-benefit calculation involved. If your work is connected to agriculture, a child goes from being a burden to being an asset quite soon. At an early age he/she can scatter seed, milk cows, feed animals etc.

Step forward to a society that's based more on simple manufacturing and the child is a burden into his teens, when he can do an apprecenticeship as a blacksmith, carpenter etc. After that he can earn his own way and perhaps contribute to a family business.

Now imagine a modern service sector based society where most people live in cities. Not much call for milkmaids or blacksmiths there. The child can of course grow up to be an accountant or lawyer, but that won't happen until he/she is about 21. That's a long payback period. So you would expect fewer people to want to start families because it's expensive and there is no return on the investment.

But what about these council estates where people have no-income or low-income. Well if there is a welfare state like ours, it can just be that child-rearing is not a burden really. The benefits pay for the cost of raising the child and the inconvenience of having offspring doesn't come into play because if you can't afford skiiing holidays and evenings at the opera, then children won't stop you enjoying those things anyway! The middle classes have something to lose by breeding. The people at the bottom don't.

This is a fairly crude analysis of what's happening. But it seems to fit the facts as far as I am concerned.



Monday, 19 June 2006 - 11:01 PM BST

I don't believe that people sit down and calculate the equity of child birth.

They either want them or they don't. Whether nature does the calculations or not is another thing.

Thinking of the consequences is probably the more likely answer. The under classes are more likely not to consider the consequences of their actions.

The middle classes might think along the lines of, "I wouldn't mind a child but it would get in the way of career for now."

The middle classes are more likely to want a child in wedlock than the under classes. This would lead to a higher proportion of middle class people waiting until they had achieved their goals only to be "left on the shelf" and not want to have children in middle age.

A number of pluses are arise from the eradication of the middle classes.

1) It creates a more intolerant society. One that can actually revolt against the status quo.

2) A society not afraid to be racist when it needs to be. (It will take a pig ignorant white member of the under class to deny that for me.)

3) People willing to join the army and do the dirty work of fighting without questioning their orders. (Look at the morons chanting, "1 world cup, 2 world wars" in Germany right now. Very useful people in wars. They probably all admire Hitler too! Moronic and useful. A boon to any army.)

I do agree with Mr Steyn that the EU is doomed. Lots more intolerant Slavs and gypos joining right now who are not afraid to put the boot in when needs be. They live a lot closer to Muslim states and quite rightly fear them.

I once flirted with the middle classes when I was younger. To hell with them now. I know where the future lays. Back to roots.

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 - 11:22 AM BST

Simple, and no intended as a snide question, but why haven't you done your bit to improve the demography of this country?

Of the figures Steyn quotes, how many of these babies being born in the developing world actually survive? Infant mortality rates in Kabul are significantly higher than in Kilburn.

Also, I could be mistaken but everywhere I go in London, I hear Australian, South African, French, Polish, Irish etc etc voices. These are white christian/secular people who will not fundamentally change the character of our country.

The top five "sender" countries, who provided some 30 per cent of all immigrants to the UK, were India, South Africa, Poland, the United States and Australia. As for the death of the middle classes, 20 per cent of immigrants in 2004 had degrees, compared with 17 per cent of the UK-born population.

You do attract some odd people here. I like the idea of a society encouraged to be racist. Can we bring back lynching too, or does the contributor envisage the working classes advocating a more tolerant form of discrimation?

Tuesday, 20 June 2006 - 12:12 PM BST

Name: David Young

It's not clear whom you're addressing here. My own failure to improve Britain's demography is down to various failures. I haven't met the right woman being the chief one. I like clever women. Indeed when I look at the website of one girl I dated several years ago, I wonder how I kept up. But such women are rare. So in general, my love life is pretty academic.

You may be hearing Australian, Polish etc accents where you go, but I guarantee you that where I live there is a growing population of people from places like Somalia. The women wear headscarves and they are always pushing children in prams. I can see the change right in front of me. I will write about it one day.


View Latest Entries