Belinda wrote:The other problem is that the world is over- populated by humans.
I don't think the world is currently overpopulated--although some regions of the world may be. Mass starvation in Africa during a drought is a clear indication that that part of the world is TOO highly populated (given its level of technology, form of government, and so forth--and the deaths of many is the earth's way of equalizing that imbalance. But whether the overpopulation problem is in the FUTURE or the PRESENT it is undoubtedly a problem that is on the way and will have to be dealt with eventually--or the earth will do it for us, much as it has in Africa and other places.
One of the biggest problems, of course, is that we are living in a so-called, CIVILIZED, MODERN world. And one of the results of this type of world is ironically that fewer people die in war. Historically, WAR has been one of man's principle ways of re-balancing its communities.
As with all things, there are two reciprocal forces at work here. On the one hand, you have the need of WAR to whittle down the population counts. On the other, you have the necessity of building up the population levels so that your community will be strong enough to weather the next war and come out victorious.
Modern society has interfered with this global social dynamics--which has been universal throughout virtually all of human history, and which is a pattern also followed by the vast majority of other living organisms, including plants.
Belinda wrote:...immigration by low wage earners would solve the problem of old people's need for young carers, if the immigrants were suitably educated of course.This solution would also allow the poor immigrants to earn good enough money not to feel it necessary to have too many kids, and also with luck, get therselves liberally educated and become good Americans.
This sounds very much like the traditional method that America used to bring in immigrants... except that you failed to mention the most important ingredients--which is that they must be highly motivated, "legal" immigrants.
In addition, there are important traditional American principles that must be in place, in order to make this system work--and foremost among those is that each person must work hard to earn their own bread.
The Liberal social welfare system has largely destroyed this social ethic--and so many of the immigrants who enter the US end up being more dead weight. One of the reasons that health care costs are so high in America is because of the radically liberal policies, such as the one that says a hospital can't turn away a patient if they show up at the emergency ward and ask for help. Many poor (including illegal aliens) use ERs as their primary health care, and never pay their bills. Schools and prisons have similar dynamics, where illegals are a severe drain on society.
It used to be that immigrants would do almost anything to come to partake in the American dream of building a better life for themselves. And the vast majority of immigrants ended up being much better off within a few generations than they were before. But the current situation is totally different. This is not to say that there aren't illegal immigrants who might become law-abiding, productive citizens--but percentage wise, the numbers have shifted so far south that an immigration policy based on promoting cheap labor through an influx of illegal aliens is extremely destructive. It promotes lawlessness, it shifts the voter base towards the democrats who vote in destructive, big-government policies that stifle the economy, wrack up massive debt, and favor increases in the various destructive social welfare programs.
Illegal immigration is not a solution to the growing aged population--it is part of what is creating the problem. It would seem to keep inflation low--by providing low wage workers for those who would take advantage of them. But this is only a short-term gain, and only for the wealthy--who want to hire cheap servants and other employees. In the long run, however, it depresses the economy by impoverishing the average lower to middle class individuals, who must compete for the lower wages. And because these people have less money to save (to go into business for themselves) or to spend, the over all economy suffers as well.
Bottom line: When poor immigrants come to America these days, it's far too easy to become an additional drain, rather than a productive citizen.
I agree that immigration could solve much of America's demographic imbalance, but (particularly with the current liberal social welfare programs in place) we should be discouraging low-skilled, illegal immigrants and encouraging high-skilled, legal immigrants. Our policies on the former are WAY too liberal, while our policies on the later are far too limiting. It is far easier for the former to enter America than the later. And that causes problems too--because those law abiding immigrants see that they're being screwed--they had to spend years and a great deal of effort to EARN their citizenship, while the illegals jump ahead in line and don't have to do anything for their American 'perks'. This (justifiably) promotes resentment and a lack of respect for the law, and that is never a good way to begin one's membership in any society.
pjkeeley wrote:Please provide evidence of a supposed increase in homosexuality.
No thank you. I also do not feel the need to provide proof that the sun rises in the morning.
I will make one amendment to my comments, which may address your real concern. And that is that it may not actually be the incidences of homosexual tendencies which has increased, but rather the percentage of those who feel these tendencies that act upon them.
Also, I acknowledge that there have been a few other societies (throughout history) such as the Greeks, who did 'embrace' homosexuality with an unusual degree of openness. But some would argue that this 'openness' was part of what lead to the downfall of Greek. That's still an open debate, I suspect. lol.
However, I also recall a number of studies which seem to suggest that a rather large percentage of 'gay' individuals also had same-sex encounters during their early formative years--suggesting that exposure to such events can increase one's likelihood of adopting homosexual tendencies. (Which is why the gay-agenda to get pro-homosexual study material into the hands of very young children is so pernicious.)
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron3.html
Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors - how they "got that way." ... Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
This suggests that those societies where homosexuality is more openly accepted will also have a higher population of homosexuals. And given that homosexuality has become much more acceptable and openly practiced (and even 'taught' to our youngest children) seems to indicate (by logical deduction) that there would be a greater prevalence of homosexuality as a result.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a homophobe; and some of my best friends are gay. But that doesn't change the facts.
- By Lagayascienza
- By Sy Borg
- By Dea Ann Bridegroom