It’s refreshing to see a popular commentator like Gwynne Dyer (link here) addressing the politically incorrect topic of population growth.
Although growth rates are slowing in many parts of the world, Africa still has worrying high birth rates. As Dyer points out:
"Nine out of the 10 countries in the world with the highest birth rates are African (the other is Afghanistan) and it seemed uncomfortably like pointing the finger at the victim. But runaway population growth is a big factor in making so many Africans victims, and it doesn’t help to stay silent about it."
Dyer goes on to state:
“Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uganda, Somalia, Congo, Angola and Burundi have all been devastated by chronic, many sided civil wars, and all seven appear in the top 10 birth rate list.”
According to Dyer, Uganda is the worst culprit, population wise:
“Uganda’s birth-rate is seven children per woman, little change from 30 years ago. Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, believes that his country is under-populated, and told parliament last July: “I am not one of those worried about he population explosion. It is a great resource.”
Unfortunately, with today’s liberal immigration policies Africa’s problems may well become the West’s problems. That’s why I don’t really agree with conservatives who dismiss overpopulation as a thing of the past. It’s not just that western countries are having too few children, its that many poor countries are still having way too many.
The only way to put pressure on Africa to become more “demography responsible” it to make aid and debt relief dependent on declining birth rates.
Conservative environmentalist Garett Hardin has been suggesting for some time now that countries must be responsible for their own demographic problems if the world is to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Unfortunately, conservative realism is not very fashional in international aid circles and Hardin is likely to remain a voice in the wilderness for some time to come.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Embarrassed to be middle class
In contemporary rock music circles it has become increasingly unfashionable to be seen as white, educated and middle class.
During the 1970s and 1980s there were plenty of successful that bands combined high standards of musicianship with intelligent lyrics and a white, mostly middle class image, examples include: Steely Dan, Yes, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Kate Bush, XTC, Depeche Mode, the Pet Shop Boys, Talking Heads, the Stranglers and the Police.
It first become fashionable to criticise “arty” middle class bands in the late 1970s when Maxist music critics like Lester Bangs got stuck into the “serious and pretentious” progressive rock groups of the early ‘70s.
Today there is a dearth of rock bands with high standards of musicianship, good lyrics and interesting arrangements. Among the only examples that come to mind are a few competent warblers like Aimee Mann and Fiona Apple, heavy art rock groups like Porcupine Tree and Dream Theater, and post modern prog rockers like Muse and Radiohead.
The Mars Volta stand as a surprisingly successful band with art rock leanings, but having Hispanic members, they are probably less likely to be labelled as “pretentious” by left- liberal music critics.
To be successful, contemporary bands have to narrowly market themselves as hedonistic, anti-intellectual, instrumentally mediocre and fashionably self-effacing.
Instrumental virtuosity and the use of keyboards are frowned upon, as is deviating from an ideologically approved range of influences such as the Rolling Stones, the Ramones and the Small Faces.
The country which has suffered the most from this anti-middle class ideology has been class conscious Britain, which has gone from being a leader in popular music in the early’70s, to a mass producer of diazepam substitutes like Travis and Coldplay.
If you are looking for interesting popular music you are probably better off checking out obscure stuff from Continental countries like Sweden and Hungary, where the egalitarian fashion police aren’t so pervasive (as least in music circles anyway).
During the 1970s and 1980s there were plenty of successful that bands combined high standards of musicianship with intelligent lyrics and a white, mostly middle class image, examples include: Steely Dan, Yes, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Kate Bush, XTC, Depeche Mode, the Pet Shop Boys, Talking Heads, the Stranglers and the Police.
It first become fashionable to criticise “arty” middle class bands in the late 1970s when Maxist music critics like Lester Bangs got stuck into the “serious and pretentious” progressive rock groups of the early ‘70s.
Today there is a dearth of rock bands with high standards of musicianship, good lyrics and interesting arrangements. Among the only examples that come to mind are a few competent warblers like Aimee Mann and Fiona Apple, heavy art rock groups like Porcupine Tree and Dream Theater, and post modern prog rockers like Muse and Radiohead.
The Mars Volta stand as a surprisingly successful band with art rock leanings, but having Hispanic members, they are probably less likely to be labelled as “pretentious” by left- liberal music critics.
To be successful, contemporary bands have to narrowly market themselves as hedonistic, anti-intellectual, instrumentally mediocre and fashionably self-effacing.
Instrumental virtuosity and the use of keyboards are frowned upon, as is deviating from an ideologically approved range of influences such as the Rolling Stones, the Ramones and the Small Faces.
The country which has suffered the most from this anti-middle class ideology has been class conscious Britain, which has gone from being a leader in popular music in the early’70s, to a mass producer of diazepam substitutes like Travis and Coldplay.
If you are looking for interesting popular music you are probably better off checking out obscure stuff from Continental countries like Sweden and Hungary, where the egalitarian fashion police aren’t so pervasive (as least in music circles anyway).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
More Green hypocrisy
Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation is a classic example of late liberal interventionism, and is just the sort of state interference which traditional conservatives are opposed to.
There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.
The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case low-income Maori.
However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with their own issues.
The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively new phenomenon.
Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from below.
The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the early 19th Century.
What makes Bradford’s meddling in the private lives of the country’s citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn’t include conservation of mainstream social norms.
Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the former while also trying to do the later.
There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.
The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case low-income Maori.
However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with their own issues.
The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively new phenomenon.
Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from below.
The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the early 19th Century.
What makes Bradford’s meddling in the private lives of the country’s citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn’t include conservation of mainstream social norms.
Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the former while also trying to do the later.
Monday, March 05, 2007
The Maori party on white immigration
Last week Maori party MP Turiana Turia called for a limit on white immigration to New Zealand, saying it was undermining the Maori party’s chances of gaining another seat in parliament (“Maori party calls for migrant cutback, ” Dominion Post, Monday February 26, 2007).
Despite the racist nature of Turia’s comments, the national media seems to have downplayed them. Mainstream conservative bloggers have been quick to point out that if Don Brash had made similar remarks regarding say, Polynesian immigration, the mainstream media would have been all over him like a pack of wolves, given the grilling he received over his Orewa speech in 2004.
The only reason I managed to catch the story was because an overseas blogger asked me why I wasn’t commenting on it (hat tip Crush141).
In analysing comments like this, it good to start with Lenin’s old question “who, whom?” will benefit from the proposed change. Turia makes the assumption that the majority of Maori will be better off if they become a larger proportion of the population. She also concludes that Maori will benefit from Asian and Polynesian immigration as opposed to European immigration.
However, where is the evidence for any of these claims?
Indigenous Canadians have one of the best deals on the planet precisely because they are a small minority, which the majority can compensate without impoverishing themselves in the process.
As Maori become a larger proportion of the population, they are likely to receive less government assistance per person, and an aging white population will quickly grow tired of seeing a larger proportion of their taxes being used to compensate Maori.
Right-liberal commentator Alan Duff has pointed out that the gap between East Asian and Maori cultural viewpoints is even greater than that between European and Maori New Zealanders. For example, East Asians have small, tightly knit families and a penchant for academic study, while Maori have large, loosely structured families and do relatively poorly academically. Maori vote centre left Labour while East Asians vote centre right National. Perhaps most tellingly, East Asians are far more likely to marry Whites than Polynesians – none of this bodes well for Turia’s “ochre alliance”.
Polynesians are culturally more similar to Maori, but does that mean Maori will benefit from increased Soth Pacific immigration? Currently, New Zealand has an aging population, low unemployment and an increasing demand for both skilled and unskilled labour. This situation is good news for the majority of Maori.
However, increased Pacific island immigration would increase competition for jobs and housing and drive down wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations where most Maori are employed.
Given the negative impact uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and Central America is having on work prospects for US Blacks, I can’t see how Maori would benefit from increased immigration from countries like Tonga and the Solomon Islands.
The Maori party has been labelled elitist by centre right urban Maori John Tamihere and I can see why – a “browning” of New Zealand’s population will help Maori elites in the public sector leverage more resources from central government - while doing little for the majority of Maori who would benefit more from a tight labour market and relatively harmonious race relations.
Given that New Zealand is already losing too many skilled workers overseas, a surge in unskilled non-white immigration could trigger a South African style exodus that would plunge the country into second world status.
Despite the racist nature of Turia’s comments, the national media seems to have downplayed them. Mainstream conservative bloggers have been quick to point out that if Don Brash had made similar remarks regarding say, Polynesian immigration, the mainstream media would have been all over him like a pack of wolves, given the grilling he received over his Orewa speech in 2004.
The only reason I managed to catch the story was because an overseas blogger asked me why I wasn’t commenting on it (hat tip Crush141).
In analysing comments like this, it good to start with Lenin’s old question “who, whom?” will benefit from the proposed change. Turia makes the assumption that the majority of Maori will be better off if they become a larger proportion of the population. She also concludes that Maori will benefit from Asian and Polynesian immigration as opposed to European immigration.
However, where is the evidence for any of these claims?
Indigenous Canadians have one of the best deals on the planet precisely because they are a small minority, which the majority can compensate without impoverishing themselves in the process.
As Maori become a larger proportion of the population, they are likely to receive less government assistance per person, and an aging white population will quickly grow tired of seeing a larger proportion of their taxes being used to compensate Maori.
Right-liberal commentator Alan Duff has pointed out that the gap between East Asian and Maori cultural viewpoints is even greater than that between European and Maori New Zealanders. For example, East Asians have small, tightly knit families and a penchant for academic study, while Maori have large, loosely structured families and do relatively poorly academically. Maori vote centre left Labour while East Asians vote centre right National. Perhaps most tellingly, East Asians are far more likely to marry Whites than Polynesians – none of this bodes well for Turia’s “ochre alliance”.
Polynesians are culturally more similar to Maori, but does that mean Maori will benefit from increased Soth Pacific immigration? Currently, New Zealand has an aging population, low unemployment and an increasing demand for both skilled and unskilled labour. This situation is good news for the majority of Maori.
However, increased Pacific island immigration would increase competition for jobs and housing and drive down wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations where most Maori are employed.
Given the negative impact uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and Central America is having on work prospects for US Blacks, I can’t see how Maori would benefit from increased immigration from countries like Tonga and the Solomon Islands.
The Maori party has been labelled elitist by centre right urban Maori John Tamihere and I can see why – a “browning” of New Zealand’s population will help Maori elites in the public sector leverage more resources from central government - while doing little for the majority of Maori who would benefit more from a tight labour market and relatively harmonious race relations.
Given that New Zealand is already losing too many skilled workers overseas, a surge in unskilled non-white immigration could trigger a South African style exodus that would plunge the country into second world status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
