There's an interesting post over at New Scientist on the new eugenicists. What's even more interesting, though, are the numerous comments, which repeat many of the myths about population growth and control, and feasibility of mitigating it through space technology, including space (to use the politically incorrect word) colonization.
I don't really have time to critique in any detail, other than to note that anyone who makes feasibility arguments on the latter subject by referring to Shuttle costs is completely clueless. Sadly though, years ago, Carl Sagan did exactly that.
Hmm.
I don't think space colonization is a feasible way of giving troubled earth people living possibilities in probably at least fifty years.
Just consider the resources needed to put one human living off earth compared to many babies being born every second on earth.
There would need to be some magic inventions to not only send but to make a living environment for a human at one per second pace, or a hundred thousand people per day.
But much much before that, space resource use could help humans on earth.
Hopefully people in densely populated areas will realize that having as many kids as possible will not always make things better for them (once your family has split the farm so many times the kids can't sustain, they start craving for more Lebensraum). Those who haven't realized already, that is.
This is where such "weird" concepts like education of women in poor countries also aim as a side product.
There are some people who have lots of children for religious reasons, despite material disincentives. They will inherit the earth. They look set to inherit Europe in a generation or two, unless there's a radical change in policy there with regard to immigration and welfare.
I view it likely that the immigrants' kids born in Europe won't have that many kids themselves. When they grow up where they do, they see from all the people around them that that's not the only option.
When they grow up where they do, they see from all the people around them that that's not the only option.
Given how segregated and insular their communities tend to be, "all the people around them" are just like them. And now Britain is paying welfare for polygamists' multiple wives...
Well, at least where I've lived, they haven't been so segregated. The immigrants' kids play with all the other kids and they visit each others homes etc...
Well, at least where I've lived
That's called an "anecdote." It's not a substitute for data. Did you live in a banlieue?
It's a personal observation. It's likely different in France, I understand there they are more segregated. It's just not the same everywhere. I haven't seen any formal studies of the immigrants' kids' social relations.
They go to school at most places at least.
"There are some people who have lots of children for religious reasons, despite material disincentives ... They look set to inherit Europe"
They (meaning the Orthodox) certainly look to inherit Israel. The question is: will they change their policy about serving in the military? Israel will not survive a week without one, and it can't field one if 80% of the population demands a religious out from service.
This has been said many times, and by many people: Space colonisation does not mean that the existing population of Earth will transfer to space colonies. What it does mean is something like what happened in the colonisation of the New World, at least before maybe 1860; that the population of stay-at-homes will stay about the same, and just about all the population in space will be descended from the vanishingly small proportion that decide to visit the wild black yonder, and the wealth and power of those descendants will dwarf that of the ones who stayed at home.
At least, this time, there are no troublesome natives that have to be exterminated to make it happen.
Rand, you really need to stop reading Mark Steyn and the Daily Mail.
The data doesn't support your assertion no matter how you slice it, unless you assume that the entire British non-muslim population stops breeding tomorrow. With current birth rates the differential with Muslims somewhere at the 6% of population number, there isn't a credible way to catch up.
There's also a wide spread of populations with most integrated not segregated.
But then, let's not let facts stand in your way eh?
Rand, you really need to stop reading Mark Steyn and the Daily Mail.
I rarely read the Daily Mail. I can't recall the last time it happened. But I'll give your sage advice all the consideration that it's due. Maybe twice as much.
Well, you do read Mr Steyn who has been repeating the same ridiculous canard for a long time.
As for the Daily Mail and not reading it.... I seem to recall you have often quoted articles from there, especially those by Mellanie Phillips.
I must have been mistaken.
I occasionally read articles by Melanie Phillips that others forward to me, or point out. If you don't understand the difference between that and "reading the Daily Mail," I'm not sure how to explain it to you. But then, that's the case much of the time with you.