"If humanity really wanted to help Haiti to recover, we would offer unlimited open global immigration with work permits to all Haitians." --Alex Lightman
That gives a population density of 2178/sq mile. By comparison Hong Kong and Singapore have population densities of 18,000 and 16,000 respectively. Both countries score very high on indices of economic freedom and quality of life.
So, even if every single person on the planet moved to the United States (excluding Hawaii and Alaska), our population density would still be well below the population density of countries with demonstrably high quality of life.
Of course, not everyone would move to the U.S. or stay if they did move, so the actual population density would much lower.
Have I strongly recommended that you read "A Farewell To Alms" yet? Not because I disagree with your numbers, but because I think there'd be a hysteresis with birth rates and population that might have a macroeconomic impact.
Not that I necessarily disagree with any of your other assertions, just to add that this earthquake is probably the best thing to happen to the Haiti standard of living in the past century or two.
Singapore and Hong Kong are about a quarter and a half of the size of Rhode Island. This does not even begin to scale. With even a fraction as high a population density, you'd overload already stressed aquifers, destroy nature preserves, destroy the most productive agriculture on the planet, necessitate shipping in food from elsewhere, increasing energy usage, and the create the potential for disastrous failure of the supply chain. You'd also destroy every way of life that isn't high density urban living - with all the political and personal intrusions that entails - and since high densities can already be created and enjoyed by those who prefer that, that's a material loss to every American citizen who doesn't already live in a Hong Kong sized apartment. Certainly owning 44 acres of land on the edge of a national forest would be right out. I rather enjoy that lifestyle, and I don't take too kindly to those who blithely propose destroying it in service to their own religious doctrine.
Certainly owning 44 acres of land on the edge of a national forest would be right out. I rather enjoy that lifestyle, and I don't take too kindly to those who blithely propose destroying it in service to their own religious doctrine.
Says the guy who asserts for himself the right to dictate to others who they can hire, associate with, and invite onto their own property, based solely on his fear for what they _might_ do. Would that your concern for the property of others was as strong as your concern for your own.
Singapore and Hong Kong are about a quarter and a half of the size of Rhode Island...This does not even begin to scale.
And you know this how? Malthusians have been predicting the collapse of the world due to overpopulation for the last 150 years, and continue to be proven wrong. The U.S. population is already 100 times larger than it was when the country was founded. How do you know that it can't support another 100 fold increase?
based solely on his fear for what they _might_ do.
You've already clearly stated your intentions. You wish to attain certain things, exercise certain rights that you do not currently have by taking things and limiting rights I do have and exercise. This is wealth transfer. What's more, it's involuntary wealth transfer. In short, theft. If you can claim a right to a thing simply by wishing for it, well... I can take it right back by the same process. And we're right back to where we started. So you're going to have to offer a more robust basis for your taking.
And you know this how?
It's already not scaling. Drought is already a reality. Cities are already highly dependent on fragile infrastructure, and deaths and misery follow whenever that infrastructure is disrupted. The more intricate the supply chain, the more potential for failure, and the worse the consequences of those failures. See New Orleans.
The U.S. population is already 100 times larger than it was when the country was founded.
The expansion of the American population to its present level required destruction of the native's way of life and outright genocide. What makes you think that doing it again wouldn't... do that again? Bear in mind that even though they ultimately lost, they didn't just go gently into that good night. What makes you think that the new natives would give up their lifestyles any more easily? They were outnumbered and outgunned, but quite a few fought back, and it was no easy task to overcome them. Today it's you who are outnumbered and outgunned. You have nothing to offer. No enticements of wealth or culture. (In fact, people are fleeing those places that even partially enact your ideology.) No superior force. And no great numbers.
You're really no threat, so this is kind of a waste of time, but every once in a while I do wonder if people like you are self-aware enough to understand their position. You're a gnat. If you get too troublesome, you'll be slapped. That's the most you can possibly accomplish. More likely, you'll just swoop through a candle flame out of confusion, and immolate yourself without troubling anyone else at all. Except maybe the odd person with a strange fascination for gnats.
Everyone? If anything, it seems that Singapore has a high immigrant population without trying to integrate immigrants into their culture at all.
If any nation has reason to feel threatened by country-level disparities in wealth, Singapore does. The city-state is an oasis of prosperity in a region packed with countries far poorer than, say, Mexico. Yet it has shown itself to be more open to immigrants willing to work than is the relatively empty, relatively well-protected United States. Using the latest data available, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs puts Singapore’s foreign-born population in 2006 at 42.6 percent. In the U.S., the proverbial nation of immigrants, the foreign born comprised 12.9 percent of the population that same year.
And yet Manalac is very much a guest in this country. He says he’ll remain for as long as they’ll have him, though he doesn’t presume to have any right to stay. If he were fired or became unable to work, he’d have to leave within seven days. He is subject to regular medical examinations to ensure that he is HIV-negative. He can’t bring his children here. He can’t bring his wife here. Were his marriage to fail, it would be illegal for him to marry a Singaporean. Were he female, a pregnancy would mean repatriation or abortion. The Singaporean government has made itself very clear: Foreign workers are here to build a nest egg, not to build a nest.
Perhaps the most significant restriction on Manalac is the nature of his work permit and the limits of his freedom to find employment. Only select industries are open to foreigners.
The laws integrate them. you spit on the side walk, you graffitti, you get caned. He leaves if he gets aids. You can have your own culture, as long a you obey the very very very strict law, which is a culture too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archerships
no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 09:54 pm (UTC)i make no apologies for the following
Date: 2010-01-14 10:05 pm (UTC)Re: i make no apologies for the following
Date: 2010-01-15 12:36 am (UTC)very nice
Date: 2010-01-15 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 05:41 am (UTC)world population: 6,796,500,000
surface area of continental U.S.: 3,119,884
That gives a population density of 2178/sq mile. By comparison Hong Kong and Singapore have population densities of 18,000 and 16,000 respectively. Both countries score very high on indices of economic freedom and quality of life.
So, even if every single person on the planet moved to the United States (excluding Hawaii and Alaska), our population density would still be well below the population density of countries with demonstrably high quality of life.
Of course, not everyone would move to the U.S. or stay if they did move, so the actual population density would much lower.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 06:09 am (UTC)Not that I necessarily disagree with any of your other assertions, just to add that this earthquake is probably the best thing to happen to the Haiti standard of living in the past century or two.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 06:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 06:31 am (UTC)Says the guy who asserts for himself the right to dictate to others who they can hire, associate with, and invite onto their own property, based solely on his fear for what they _might_ do. Would that your concern for the property of others was as strong as your concern for your own.
Singapore and Hong Kong are about a quarter and a half of the size of Rhode Island...This does not even begin to scale.
And you know this how? Malthusians have been predicting the collapse of the world due to overpopulation for the last 150 years, and continue to be proven wrong. The U.S. population is already 100 times larger than it was when the country was founded. How do you know that it can't support another 100 fold increase?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 07:30 am (UTC)You've already clearly stated your intentions. You wish to attain certain things, exercise certain rights that you do not currently have by taking things and limiting rights I do have and exercise. This is wealth transfer. What's more, it's involuntary wealth transfer. In short, theft. If you can claim a right to a thing simply by wishing for it, well... I can take it right back by the same process. And we're right back to where we started. So you're going to have to offer a more robust basis for your taking.
It's already not scaling. Drought is already a reality. Cities are already highly dependent on fragile infrastructure, and deaths and misery follow whenever that infrastructure is disrupted. The more intricate the supply chain, the more potential for failure, and the worse the consequences of those failures. See New Orleans.
The expansion of the American population to its present level required destruction of the native's way of life and outright genocide. What makes you think that doing it again wouldn't... do that again? Bear in mind that even though they ultimately lost, they didn't just go gently into that good night. What makes you think that the new natives would give up their lifestyles any more easily? They were outnumbered and outgunned, but quite a few fought back, and it was no easy task to overcome them. Today it's you who are outnumbered and outgunned. You have nothing to offer. No enticements of wealth or culture. (In fact, people are fleeing those places that even partially enact your ideology.) No superior force. And no great numbers.
You're really no threat, so this is kind of a waste of time, but every once in a while I do wonder if people like you are self-aware enough to understand their position. You're a gnat. If you get too troublesome, you'll be slapped. That's the most you can possibly accomplish. More likely, you'll just swoop through a candle flame out of confusion, and immolate yourself without troubling anyone else at all. Except maybe the odd person with a strange fascination for gnats.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 11:32 pm (UTC)"you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves."
I liked that so much the first time he posted that, I researched it, found the Wikipedia article, and even found "The Seven National Crimes" by the same author.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 07:30 pm (UTC)http://reason.com/archives/2007/12/17/guests-in-the-machine/1
no subject
Date: 2010-01-16 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 01:50 pm (UTC)The right to immigrate to another country won't help if you don't have resources to transport yourself.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-15 07:43 pm (UTC)http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6281614.ece