Vegans Have a Moral Duty to Have Children

[majorbloodnok]

The idea that restricting immigration will solve a population growth problem is shortsighted. It only moves the problem elsewhere. Since the problem is global, there really is no 'elsewhere'. Restricting immigration creates 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The people in places with immigration restrictions get to pretend that they have solved the problem, when they have just made it worse in other places.

I see it from a slightly different angle.

It seems to me migration only occurs for one of two reasons; either the migrant sees a better future in the destination or a worse future (perhaps no future at all) in their old home. That might sound like the same thing, but the first reason is characterised by someone with valuable skills looking for a new place to make best use of them, whilst the other is characterised by those fleeing from oppression, hunger, persecution. Hope or desperation, in essence.

So, by restricting immigration, a country is either saying it doesn’t want to attract the world’s best and brightest or it’s saying it doesn’t want to help those in their time of need. Either way, that‘s pretty isolationist and a great way not to get help when that country’s turn comes round for needing it.

What I don’t know is whether I’ve added to the discussion here or just repeated what you @Kathy Lauren said in a different way. What I do know is I’ve strayed rather a long way off topic. Apologies, all.

 

[Huckleberry]

I see it from a slightly different angle.

It seems to me migration only occurs for one of two reasons; either the migrant sees a better future in the destination or a worse future (perhaps no future at all) in their old home. That might sound like the same thing, but the first reason is characterised by someone with valuable skills looking for a new place to make best use of them, whilst the other is characterised by those fleeing from oppression, hunger, persecution. Hope or desperation, in essence.

So, by restricting immigration, a country is either saying it doesn’t want to attract the world’s best and brightest or it’s saying it doesn’t want to help those in their time of need. Either way, that‘s pretty isolationist and a great way not to get help when that country’s turn comes round for needing it.

What I don’t know is whether I’ve added to the discussion here or just repeated what you @Kathy Lauren said in a different way. What I do know is I’ve strayed rather a long way off topic. Apologies, all.

Or you could say that migration:
1) Constitutes a “brain drain” that deprives poor countries of its most energetic and talented citizens. Brain drain to Canada blamed for ferry disaster | Asian Pacific Post | Chinese newspaper -Vancouver, Richmond, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, North York, Montreal
2) Assists authoritarian leaders by serving as a “safety valve”, releasing poor and dissatisfied citizens who would otherwise cause the authoritarian leaders trouble.

 

[Huckleberry]

The idea that restricting immigration will solve a population growth problem is shortsighted. It only moves the problem elsewhere. Since the problem is global, there really is no 'elsewhere'. Restricting immigration creates 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The people in places with immigration restrictions get to pretend that they have solved the problem, when they have just made it worse in other places.

I think immigration hurts both “haves” and “have nots”.

“Haves”
Migration into many countries depresses wages especially for low-skilled workers. Exhaustive NAS study finds Mass Immigration Depresses Wages & Costs Taxpayers Billions
More migration into a country means more pollution and congestion and more pressure to eliminate wilderness.

“Have nots”
Migration out of your country means less pressure for reform: less pressure for political and economic reform and less pressure to reduce the birth rate.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Or you could say that migration:
1) Constitutes a “brain drain” that deprives poor countries of its most energetic and talented citizens. Brain drain to Canada blamed for ferry disaster | Asian Pacific Post | Chinese newspaper -Vancouver, Richmond, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, North York, Montreal
2) Assists authoritarian leaders by serving as a “safety valve”, releasing poor and dissatisfied citizens who would otherwise cause the authoritarian leaders trouble.

Hmmm. Rather depends on your priorities, doesn't it? Do you ignore the problem or fix it?

Bear in mind we're talking about immigration i.e. the receiving country. Rather than "you're hugely skilled but we don't want you" how about tweaks to your foreign policy to help the other country build itself into a better place? It worked in Germany with the Marshall plan. I'd also suggest this suggestion works as a response to your reply above about "haves" and "have nots".

As for your second point, it's poverty, famine, war and a whole host of other dangers as well as oppressive regimes that refugees flee from. Blocking their exit is certainly going to help the global population issue, but in a rather macabre way. Are you really sure you want to continue that line of argument?

 

[Huckleberry]

Hmmm. Rather depends on your priorities, doesn't it? Do you ignore the problem or fix it?

Bear in mind we're talking about immigration i.e. the receiving country. Rather than "you're hugely skilled but we don't want you" how about tweaks to your foreign policy to help the other country build itself into a better place? It worked in Germany with the Marshall plan. I'd also suggest this suggestion works as a response to your reply above about "haves" and "have nots".

As for your second point, it's poverty, famine, war and a whole host of other dangers as well as oppressive regimes that refugees flee from. Blocking their exit is certainly going to help the global population issue, but in a rather macabre way. Are you really sure you want to continue that line of argument?

I have no problem providing aid to poor countries, though this guy disagrees: NO MORE AID TO AFRICA!!

The dictators who provide the poverty, war, and oppression like nothing more than watching the most energetic and dissatisfied citizens leave the country. I think the prospective migrants, with or without Western help, could do a great job reforming their native countries.

 

[majorbloodnok]

I have no problem providing aid to poor countries, though this guy disagrees: NO MORE AID TO AFRICA!!

Where I talked about tweaking foreign policy, you translated into “giving aid”. If you are unfamiliar with the Marshall Plan I mentioned, you might want to investigate. Although it had a financial component, it was an initiative to rebuild trade, remove trade barriers and improve European prosperity. In other words, it was about getting involved, not just writing cheques. And now the numbers migrating each way between the US and Germany are pretty similar. Lesson to learn - sort out the disparities and the problem of migration due to necessity goes away.

The dictators who provide the poverty, war, and oppression like nothing more than watching the most energetic and dissatisfied citizens leave the country. I think the prospective migrants, with or without Western help, could do a great job reforming their native countries.

Despite my pointing out it's not just a dictatorship problem you've brought the little beggars up again. Ukraine is not a dictatorship, and those fleeing their country are not fleeing because it's oppressive. They need our help and, thank God, have received it. Yes, the aggressor is a dictator in all but name, but the answer was never to block the borders and force the Ukrainian civilians to stay and clear up "their" mess. And no, I'm not trying to put those words in your mouth but with topics like these it's important to test the generalisations and theories with real-world examples from time to time.

You also talk about "with or without Western help"; do you think migration is just an East/West thing? The rich West always handing out to the poor East? Once again, Ukraine is part of Europe - the West. So, in fact, is Mexico, and there's a significant immigration issue there with a well vaunted "solution" (**cough** build a wall **cough**) that is conspicuous in having achieved almost nothing except worsen relations with the US's neighbour.

I should also point out that Japan is certainly not a Western nation, yet provides a markedly greater proportion of its GDP as foreign aid compared with the US. Accidental stereotyping here is all to easy and highly likely to be wildly inaccurate.

I hasten to add that if this post starts feeling like a rant, that's not the intention and I'm certainly not typing it feeling riled. The only point I'm trying to make is that a phrase like "restrict immigration" is easy to say but carries a world of complexity with it that's liable to be ignored and so the reality is that it's not the ultimate solution to anything much even if it might have to be a necessary evil in certain specific instances (such as Covid).

 

[Graeme M]

The growing population is a massive problem in my opinion. The real concern is simply resource overshoot. We are chewing up resources at an ever-faster rate as more countries seek to achieve a better standard of living, particularly when the standard of living seems to have no cap. We know that we cannot have everyone living as most of the West do, for example. But how can this quest for improved material wealth be capped? Probably not voluntarily.

The idea that restricting immigration will solve a population growth problem is shortsighted. It only moves the problem elsewhere. Since the problem is global, there really is no 'elsewhere'. Restricting immigration creates 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The people in places with immigration restrictions get to pretend that they have solved the problem, when they have just made it worse in other places.

Restricting population in-flows can help reduce population on growth in restricting nations. The fact it creates a have/have not problem is, I think, a necessary short-term consequence of limiting the fallout from a rising population. Why cause massive problems in countries that are doing OK because some countries are not? The influx of mostly economic refugees in Europe is already causing a deterioration in social conditions and that will get worse if this problem isn't stemmed. The same might be said for the US.

 

[vesper818]

Graeme said: "
We know that we cannot have everyone living as most of the West do, for example. But how can this quest for improved material wealth be capped? Probably not voluntarily."


The west can no longer live as we have done. We must must cap our own gross overconsumption and pollution.

 

[Huckleberry]

Where I talked about tweaking foreign policy, you translated into “giving aid”. If you are unfamiliar with the Marshall Plan I mentioned, you might want to investigate. Although it had a financial component, it was an initiative to rebuild trade, remove trade barriers and improve European prosperity. In other words, it was about getting involved, not just writing cheques. And now the numbers migrating each way between the US and Germany are pretty similar. Lesson to learn - sort out the disparities and the problem of migration due to necessity goes away.


Despite my pointing out it's not just a dictatorship problem you've brought the little beggars up again. Ukraine is not a dictatorship, and those fleeing their country are not fleeing because it's oppressive. They need our help and, thank God, have received it. Yes, the aggressor is a dictator in all but name, but the answer was never to block the borders and force the Ukrainian civilians to stay and clear up "their" mess. And no, I'm not trying to put those words in your mouth but with topics like these it's important to test the generalisations and theories with real-world examples from time to time.

You also talk about "with or without Western help"; do you think migration is just an East/West thing? The rich West always handing out to the poor East? Once again, Ukraine is part of Europe - the West. So, in fact, is Mexico, and there's a significant immigration issue there with a well vaunted "solution" (**cough** build a wall **cough**) that is conspicuous in having achieved almost nothing except worsen relations with the US's neighbour.

I should also point out that Japan is certainly not a Western nation, yet provides a markedly greater proportion of its GDP as foreign aid compared with the US. Accidental stereotyping here is all to easy and highly likely to be wildly inaccurate.

I hasten to add that if this post starts feeling like a rant, that's not the intention and I'm certainly not typing it feeling riled. The only point I'm trying to make is that a phrase like "restrict immigration" is easy to say but carries a world of complexity with it that's liable to be ignored and so the reality is that it's not the ultimate solution to anything much even if it might have to be a necessary evil in certain specific instances (such as Covid).

Rebuilding trade with the poor countries could help bring prosperity.

Of course I condemn Putin, but I don’t like Zelensky either.

Zelensky nationalizes TV news and restricts opposition parties

Zelensky nationalizes TV news and restricts opposition parties

news.yahoo.com

Amnesty International report exposes Ukraine’s violations of international law, deliberate use of civilians as human shields

The report has dealt a significant blow to the relentless war propaganda in the media and has provoked a hysterical response by the Ukrainian government.

www.wsws.org

Check out number 122: 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index - Explore the results

Zelensky has blocked his own borders.

Zelensky responds to petition to lift ban on men leaving Ukraine

news.yahoo.com

When we restrict immigration we are not condemning the prospective immigrants to poverty. We and they can work to improve their native countries.

 

[majorbloodnok]

...
When we restrict immigration we are not condemning the prospective immigrants to poverty. We and they can work to improve their native countries.

That, I suspect is the heart of our disagreement.

You’re mentioning the work with the other country(ies) for improvement, so no dispute there after all. It seems, though, that you see restricting of immigration and improvement of circumstances as two separate and, perhaps, even independent actions. I see the latter, if done well, as likely to achieve the former anyway.

Not such a big gulf in views after all.

 

[FlandersOD]

The idea that restricting immigration will solve a population growth problem is shortsighted. It only moves the problem elsewhere. Since the problem is global, there really is no 'elsewhere'. Restricting immigration creates 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The people in places with immigration restrictions get to pretend that they have solved the problem, when they have just made it worse in other places.

but the people using this we should restrict immigration arguments are more concerned about restricting immigration than they ware likely concerned about legitimate Environmental matters especially seeing as chances to the way people live including adopting vegan way of life would be the utter minimum anyway and in-fact if we were to all have eco-homes that don't need to be heated, and we lived more harmoniously with other life and the environment immigrants would be global net positive logically; But of course that's of the table that'd be to much, restricting immigration is clearly where it is at.
This of course ignores things super efficient houses are themselves possible not to mention that one can combine this with techniques for saving building materials and reducing the overall material cost.

 

[Brian W]

but the people using this we should restrict immigration arguments are more concerned about restricting immigration than they ware likely concerned about legitimate Environmental matters

Spot on.

 

[FlandersOD]

Spot on.

The policies I mentioned are also antithetical to the idea of morality/ethics are an individual choice paradigm of some people, in-fact i'd go so far to say that it's functionally incompatible with capitalism.

 

[Huckleberry]

Do we really want irresponsible, misogynistic societies with surging populations to spread, to prevail?

Afghanistan: High birth rate killing mothers, infants - UNFPA expert - Afghanistan

News and Press Release in English on Afghanistan; published on 14 Jul 2008 by TNH

reliefweb.int

Immigration restriction is a great way to push societies toward environmental responsibility.

Without such restriction how can we ever reduce human population, end poverty, and save the natural world?

 

[majorbloodnok]

Do we really want irresponsible, misogynistic societies with surging populations to spread, to prevail?

No, we (or at least I) want victims of those irresponsible, misogynistic societies to find their way to a safe pair of responsible, inclusive hands.

Immigration restriction is a great way to push societies toward environmental responsibility.

It’s also a great way to push the victims back into the source of their troubles, a bit like pushing people back into a burning building.

 

[peacefulveglady]

Do we really want irresponsible, misogynistic societies with surging populations to spread, to prevail?

Afghanistan: High birth rate killing mothers, infants - UNFPA expert - Afghanistan

News and Press Release in English on Afghanistan; published on 14 Jul 2008 by TNH

reliefweb.int

Immigration restriction is a great way to push societies toward environmental responsibility.

Without such restriction how can we ever reduce human population, end poverty, and save the natural world?

People never stop having children its evil to encourage people not to have children. The children is for the future. People are into poverity because government made it impossible to live.

 

[peacefulveglady]

How can people disagree with me saying If stopped having kids there will be no more future? If you are so pro life for animals you should be for humans.

 

[silva]

How can people disagree with me saying If stopped having kids there will be no more future? If you are so pro life for animals you should be for humans.

Not sure what you mean by "pro life" here. I support everyones right to live as they see fit, without incurring harm to others. This includes the choice to have children, if you are able to care for them, or not to have children.
For animals that we have domesticated I support sterilisation as that is mitigating the harm we have caused by bringing wild animals into our lives that can't fend for themselves
Not sure what you mean by encouraging people to not have children, although I certainly see where it should be discouraged.
For so many women having children greatly increases the likelihood of generational poverty and dependence on welfare

 

[ewomack]

Barring some technological wonder, someday the earth's resources will not support the ever-increasing number of people that we keep adding to it. Signs of this already exist, even in the US, where some water tables have begun to show unsustainable depletion rates. Though Earth seems to have plenty of physical space for more people, potable water and fertile soil are not infinite resources and the more people we add the more strain we put on these. Adding people at continually growing rates will very likely someday catch up with us. What to do? Colonizing other planets, as of today, still remains mostly science fiction and we have a very long way to go to even conceive of that as a feasible solution. Though I would never personally discourage anyone from having children, I nonetheless think that humanity needs to look at the bigger picture and look at the possible outcomes of our current trajectory.

At this point, I don't think that everyone who can have children should have children, but I obviously can't determine who should or who shouldn't. Someone needs to keep having children, but the growth rate increasingly looks unsustainable in the long term. Lifestyle plays a role as well, as the advanced, and usually more expensive, lifestyles in the West typically demand more from resources than those elsewhere in the world. That includes excessive meat eating. But right now it looks like access to clean water may become a bigger issue before massive food shortages occur. Though I'm no expert in all of this (who even could be?), I think people who have any doubts about their having children should consider not having them. Those who really want children should consider stopping with one child. And everyone, especially those in the affluent West, should consider simplifying their lifestyles, which includes meat consumption. Go vegan if you can, but, at the very least, reduce meat consumption. To those who think that the economy will implode without endless growth, the economy will probably adjust. In the end, the question of having children should become more complicated than simply "do I want to?"

 

[Huckleberry]

No, we (or at least I) want victims of those irresponsible, misogynistic societies to find their way to a safe pair of responsible, inclusive hands.

It’s also a great way to push the victims back into the source of their troubles, a bit like pushing people back into a burning building.

Don’t you see that unrestricted immigration allows misogynistic societies to export their problems? Those “responsible, inclusive hands” won’t exist in a few generations. Why don’t you and your “responsible, inclusive hands” head to one of these misogynistic countries and try to do some good?

i24NEWS

www.i24news.tv

Why not put out the fire rather than spread it around the neighborhood?