On the Japan question. No, I think and hope they continue to be uniquely stubborn. Why? Because we are all going to be there (we would have been there if we'd be as strict as Latin American countries are about their own immigration). Japan can lead the way for us and for others on how to deal with this issue (population decline).
Japan is in fact dealing with their issue head on by not importing workers. By not importing workers they are not defraying the issue. They are doing the opposite of dealing with consequences later.
People are still clamorimg to get into the US, and fighting tooth and nail to stay here.
You are the first person I've read that considers not importing workers a solution, rather than a symptom of cultural insularity that threatens to bring down their economy through the burden of an aging population.
Japan facing this issue we will all face is good for them and for us as their solutions will pave the way for other countries which will follow (much of western Europe and east Asia).
That's a popular idea, but it's false: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/18/do...
But that's exactly my question. Why is importing workers "defraying the issue" when that same tactic works for the US?
Why isn't immigration a valid solution to population decline? This seems like a classic paean to the old white country to me.
Immigration in Latin America is actually not very restrictive. Organized crime (from anywhere in the world) can come and go as it pleases in the region. Whatever you may have read on right-wing media, illegal immigration is rampant in Latin America.
The irony of some Americans complaining about Latinos now is rich. You didn't care much about them when the US govt was promoting dictators and doing everything it could to undermine the democratic will in the region (predominantly left wing in response to the incredible levels of legacy inequality) and why would you? It made many of your companies super rich which in turn provided you with nice, cushy jobs managing your "banana republic" natural resources. The local population though was saddled with no voice and (usually) murderous psychopaths as their "leaders". As a result they migrated in droves to the US, the richest nation on earth that also happened to be the closest. And now you complain. It would be funny if it wasn't racist too.
But anyway, the response is more about Japan. The long term answer is not the importation of workers, but finding a solution to having a viable economy with a declining population and aging population. It's in our interest that they find real solutions to a problem we will all face, rather than stave off the issue a bit with labor imports.
United Fruit != Many companies. They were in a few counties. They had bad influence, but it was one limited industry making a family rich... The main problem wasn't US companies but rather a very backward uneducated population. Those that put effort into education, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama. Uruguey are doing well. Americans on the other hand did not muck around in Mexico as they did Chile or Guatemala, and see where they are with their nationalism. Who is more racist, the Mexican government and how they dont provide resources for their majority mestizos or Americans, I bet Mexicans get a better deal from the US than they do their own gov't, else they'd enjoy what "Mexico es para Mexicanos" has to offer them rather than emigrate to a foreign land apparently full of racists.
The US isn't full of racists but you clearly are racist. Can't say I'm surprised since I could smell it in your first comment.
It may surprise you but Latin America had its share of intellectual leaders, many of which had to flee their own countries because of the brutal dictatorships propped up by the US govt. The ones who didn't were simply "disappeared". It's very convenient that you only think of United Fruit as the only beneficiary of subservient local dictatorships, it betrays a lack of knowledge about how neocolonialism (or even neoliberalism) works. Either that or you just did a quick "banana republic" google search and completely ignore that the term can be used independently of the United Fruit case. Which, again, betrays an ignorance about the whole subject.
You forget most of their intellectuals come from their elite families, it's not like the average person there has much of a chance in the elite circles.
Pointing out the poor educational infrastructure as well as a culture which does not make it a priority is not being racist.
Its only a short-term answer (sure, natural population contraction and population aging means your workforce to total supported population ratio is shrinking, which can delay the need to address the retooling society to deal with lower labor-hours:population requirements, but it only delays the need, and eventually creates other problems.)
I'm honestly baffled at the endless optimism and belief of others in our ability to innovate and disrupt out of this crisis, whether it be technological advances or some market solution.
Some people even go so far as to suggest that we'll be moving beyond this planet in the next 100 years and all resource problems will be solved. It's hard to reply to them without sounding snarky, but I can't help but wonder in what circumstances those people were raised with that line of thinking. They just sound completely ignorant of both history and basic physics when they make those statements.
Be the change you want to see in the world. If you're worried about climate change and you're not vegan, you need to realize you're contributing to one of the largest causes of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. Consider adopting pets or children instead of breeding them into this world. If you're an activist, fight for local political change to bring sound environmental policy to your community and work to expand to surrounding regions. If you're an engineer or scientist, don't forget that you have the key to making this world a better place (and no global warming denier can take that from you). Finally, I believe Tesla sets a good precedent for manifesting these sorts of ambitious ideas within a system of free market capitalism.
You say we are so fucked, but I'm not so quick to agree. I'm not going to say I'm a total optimist, but I think the potential exists, within our lifetime, for weird and exciting technologies that could allow us to solve these problems in ways we could have never imagined. As long as CERN doesn't destroy all life as we know it, I think we're good.
Third world aid has a similar problem. The more wealthy people become, the more they eat meat and pollute.
Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed are likely the worst of all.
Do you have a source to back this claim?
After one year, more than 99% are unemployed http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-5...
More than half of the unemployed in Sweden are immigrants http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nu-ar-fler-an-halften-av-d...
At least there won't be an ice age, which, according to the timeline, should happen soonish (on geological timescales). An ice age would be very problematic too, and we've averted that easily.
There is growing agreement that what we are facing is going to happen very quickly, even by human standards.
The studies I found all used lake sediments in Irish lakes, so it's somewhat local and not conclusive yet imho. Still, it seems to be a surprisingly fast change in the data. (I was surprised; I didn't know.)
Do you have a source for your point? It looks like a more extensive literature review is needed to answer this question since the answer is not on the surface. Or my google-fu is just weak today.
On the other hand I also found research stating that the next glacial period might be a few 10,000 years off, so there's that.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice...
Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way.
Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...
A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well.
Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101
Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.
A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise.
> If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry.
Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.
It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.
Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.
But go over to Bloomberg news, and they're wondering why the Japanese won't make the tough cultural sacrifices needed to increase immigration, to stave off stagnant GDP caused by declining population and the accompanying demographics. (I get the workers to non-workers issues in play. Even with that, I believe it is telling, which solutions are put forth. Increase immigration. Not, decrease consumption.)
Seriously, our roads are sinking. Record temperatures. Record droughts. Record greenhouse gasses. But how many times were "jobs" talked about at the DNC and RNC? "Global warming"?
We, are so, f-cked.