Liberals used to consider population control a necessary part of any sane talking point regarding sustainable environmentalism. In fact, population control was deemed a top concern by the Sierra Club. Unfortunately, the Sierra Club has been taken over by globalist elites who prefer cheap labor to environmental issues. At what point is the population in a country too much? Is there a preferable population density per square mile? As population increases anxiety increases. Violent crime increases.
Al Gore used to encourage urban dwelling versus country sprawl. However, as there is more sprawl, more property per person, there is less overall population. Having a metropolis with a dense population that exceeds the environmental capacity to sustain these people is not natural. A relatively self sustained agrarian society that is able to sustain their own individual needs without thrusting this burden upon their neighbors is a society that will be able to survive and protect the environment for a longer duration of time.
Larger population densities per square mile necessitates larger energy use per square mile, more food resources per square mile, more waste per square mile, more water, less green space, more carbon dioxide/monoxide, etc, etc.
Leftist societies that control the political landscape of civilization. With this being the case, leftists have been pushing to expand our populations to numbers never seen before. Immigration is promoted as a righteous act of rescuing third world migrants from their poor states of life. However, aren't these poor states of life typically the result of exploding populations that are unmanageable by their governing bodies? Africa and Asia have exploding populations and are also the continents with the lowest per capita incomes. Should the western world be emulating this model? Should we be forcing our populations to be mirroring the populations of these countries? Mass migration from these less developed countries to our more developed countries is not altruism, it is self destruction. As western countries become more populous with an uneducated, unskilled, and poor population, this will result in a welfare society. The social stratification will become more pronounced. There will be more war, more crime, more unhappiness and less freedoms.
A strict limit on immigration for all developed countries is necessary to sustain our values, culture, limited resources, and to stem the rising taxation, welfare utilization, and promote freedom. Yet, the intellectual elites in concert with the NSA have pushed for increased immigration as a means for increasing the GDP. Increasing the GDP is a worthy goal, but if the immigrants are bringing little skill and needs a higher welfare than the native population, thereby causing an increase in state expenditure, then the GDP increase is offset.
The USA is in financial turmoil. I don't think I need to write about that in this blog. I would believe most people in the country believe we are facing financial ruin. By adding more migrants that depend on the welfare state, we are increasing our debt proportionally, it is only a matter of time before insolvency is inescapable. The charade can last only so long before the facts outweigh the narrative.
We do not need more highly skilled workers from foreign countries. What we do need are less university sociology degree mills. The universities are responsible for ensuring they are training their students for jobs that are pertinent. It is wholly unacceptable for a university to ask taxpayers and the students to pay for a $200,000 tuition without any proof of a benefit. Universities claim a B.A. degree is associated with a higher income per year. This is not enough. There are far too many variables that are not accounted for in this simple statistic. What is true and cannot be denied is the fact that corporations claim that the populace does not have the necessary training to conduct certain high skill jobs. Universities, and the citizen consumers, need to ensure these high skill jobs are being trained for in the our country. I find it odd that a lesser developed country such as India or China has the capabilities to produce workers for these high skill jobs. This should not be happening. This country pays far too much on education to be lagging less developed countries. And if that is the case, we as a country cannot find this an acceptable outcome. If I were to go to a car lot and buy a $200,000 automobile I would want to know exactly what I was buying and what I would expect to get from this car. At a university you receive a B.A. with an unknown proof of concept, this is unacceptable. Universities and industry need to become inextricably tied to produce the types of jobs necessary for todays high skill market. What we do not need are more "free thinkers" who pontificate and lecture the population at large about our individual shortcomings.
NYT population editorial
