If we are expected going forward to "do more with less," then shouldn't government, and indeed western populations, honestly sit down and figure out how they are going to do more (grow GDP, or at least GDP per capita), with less people?
Shame! as Greta would say... Isn't it a shame, that we NEED immigrants in the developed world to solve our upcoming retirement crisis? We have a whole pile of boomers heading for the door, and no way to fund them without relying on immigrants to change our population demographics.
Those boomers are on the decline with regards to their consumption patterns. They will soon no longer be requiring vehicles, spatious suburban homes, and things with which to fill those homes. They will instead be looking for retirement villa's, seniors assisted living complexes, and handi-busses to ferry them back and forth from medical appointments.
If the climate crisis is indeed dire, this is in itself a godsent partial solution! But here we are talking out of one side of our mouth saying the climate crisis is the challenge of a lifetime, and at the same time saying we need to dramatically increase our national populations in order to maintain the personal consumption economy that nearly every western nation is dependant upon. We need bodies to fill those suburban houses, people to fill the retail outlets, and yet more people to keep this circular service economy going.
If we were truly serious about the state of the climate, wouldn't it only make sense that immigration needs to be eliminated altogether, or at least looked at strictly through the lense of climate change, rather than national demographics and financial solvency?
Shame! as Greta would say... Isn't it a shame, that we NEED immigrants in the developed world to solve our upcoming retirement crisis? We have a whole pile of boomers heading for the door, and no way to fund them without relying on immigrants to change our population demographics.
Those boomers are on the decline with regards to their consumption patterns. They will soon no longer be requiring vehicles, spatious suburban homes, and things with which to fill those homes. They will instead be looking for retirement villa's, seniors assisted living complexes, and handi-busses to ferry them back and forth from medical appointments.
If the climate crisis is indeed dire, this is in itself a godsent partial solution! But here we are talking out of one side of our mouth saying the climate crisis is the challenge of a lifetime, and at the same time saying we need to dramatically increase our national populations in order to maintain the personal consumption economy that nearly every western nation is dependant upon. We need bodies to fill those suburban houses, people to fill the retail outlets, and yet more people to keep this circular service economy going.
If we were truly serious about the state of the climate, wouldn't it only make sense that immigration needs to be eliminated altogether, or at least looked at strictly through the lense of climate change, rather than national demographics and financial solvency?
Comment