Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We're nowhere near those constraints yet, and wont be in any of our lifetimes.

In the meantime, avoiding an inversion of the demographic pyramid is a far more pressing matter.

It is the natural order of things, and has been for millennia, that there must be more young and productive workers than old and infirm pensioners for society to function.

this require exponential population growth.
exponential CO2 production
exponential growth in the food supply

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Future generations will be infinitely more stuffed if we leave them with a burden of 5 pensioners for every 1 worker, rather than 5 workers for every 1 pensioner as the system was designed for.

Perhaps the 'system' is no longer fit for purpose then? I don't think it was designed for an average of over 10 years of retirement per person either.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

this require exponential population growth.
exponential CO2 production
exponential growth in the food supply

Wrong, wrong, and unsurprisingly, wrong.

kabayiri

Here's a technology example.

A company I worked for used to have to bring in specialist IT resource in from India. It was expensive; we had to fly them over; find accommodation; etc.

Now they use greatly improved comms to have the work done remotely. The guys back in India earn well above the local average wage, and they don't have to suffer the English weather!

The company was able to grow it's market share. It adopted a smarter approach.

Forward looking, not 19th century ideas on work.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Nikkster wrote: »

Perhaps the 'system' is no longer fit for purpose then? I don't think it was designed for an average of over 10 years of retirement per person either.

Agreed.

But to move the pension and aged care burden down through two generations without absolutely hammering the young of today (via increased taxation and economic stagnation) will take many decades to achieve.

In the meantime, there is little other choice.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Here's a technology example.

A company I worked for used to have to bring in specialist IT resource in from India. It was expensive; we had to fly them over; find accommodation; etc.

Now they use greatly improved comms to have the work done remotely. The guys back in India earn well above the local average wage, and they don't have to suffer the English weather!

The company was able to grow it's market share. It adopted a smarter approach.

Forward looking, not 19th century ideas on work.

Great.

So you're exporting wages to India rather than having Indians here spending the bulk of those wages in our economy. Genius...... Not.

And how is that relevant to my earlier question?

Namely, increased use of technology and increased population are not mutually exclusive.

So why are you against immigration?

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Great.

How is that relevant to my question?

Namely, increased use of technology and increased population are not mutually exclusive.

So why are you against immigration?

I think the point was that whilst not being mutually exclusive, they are equally not mutually inclusive.

I don't think kabayiri sounds like they are anti-immigration. More that they don't believe it will solve everything. And certainly that there are other ways of working with people remaining based overseas.

kabayiri

Nikkster wrote: »

I think the point was that whilst not being mutually exclusive, they are equally not mutually inclusive.

I don't think kabayiri sounds like they are anti-immigration. More that they don't believe it will solve everything. And certainly that there are other ways of working with people remaining based overseas.

You are right of course. There are ways in which we can work which minimise our impact on the environment. We can't go on burning ever greater quantities of jet fuel, pumping out CO2.

Hamish wants more people here to flog them houses; charge them rent.

If Mark Zuckerberg wanted to come here as an immigrant, I'd be welcoming with open arms . I'm very pro intelligent migration and recruitment.

Quasar

Nikkster wrote: »

I think the point was that whilst not being mutually exclusive, they are equally not mutually inclusive.

I don't think kabayiri sounds like they are anti-immigration. More that they don't believe it will solve everything. And certainly that there are other ways of working with people remaining based overseas.

At this juncture I wish to state that I'm not anti-immigration either, being a non-Briton resident in Britain. But since there still is a semblance of national economy in every country, excessive and fast rate immigration from one part to another of the world (or even within countries themselves), does cause massive problems of adjustment in terms of infrastructure, displacement, and the old humanb condition: adaptation and integration.

CLAPTON

to maintain the current demographic age distribution requires exponential growth in population

unless they stop eating it requires an exponential growth in food supplies

because, if we import people to balance the current lot of 'old' people, those people we import will themselves grow old and of course there is now a lot more of them and so we will need to import an ever growing nimber of young people to maintain that ratio


of course from hamish's point of view it does kick the can down the road and Scotland is of course a pretty empty place