Hacker News Reader

Comment by SenAnder | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. The researcher correctly states that economic concerns are only an excuse. But he never asks why people object to reducing their homelands to mere economic zones. This is typical of such research - their goal (openly stated in this interview) is to undermine national identity and promote immigration. He does not ask or propose what we should do instead of mass immigration - he is only concerned how to continue immigration despite the people's objections, and how to silence those objections.

All running on the implicit assumption that "xenophobia" is simply incorrect (not just morally wrong) - that humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that they benefit from more competitors in the same territorial and ecological niche.

View on HN

I'm interested to hear alternatives. The only one I've ever heard is that countries should promote fertility amongst the existing citizenry, and that has a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons.

> a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons

They oppose financial aid to young families, flexible working hours, and the promotion of living in multigenerational/extended family homes, where relatives help care for children, and free schooling/kindergartens? There are many countries, past and present, with above-replacement fertility, so this is nothing but pretend-helplessness. Israel, for example, is a modern economy, yet has a 2.9 fertility rate [1]. France and Ireland are at 1.8 - just a small push away from the 2.1 replacement level.

From the point of view of the native population (and not "the economy"), immigration is the worst option - not only does it introduce a competing group, it allows the system that resulted in their sub-replacement fertility to persist, where otherwise some change would be forced to come about.

[1] And better gender equality than the US, as well as China. The latter has a 1.2 fertility rate, which, together with the high fertility of Islamic countries, shows there is no simple linear link between gender equality and fertility. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index

When you look at any [N]GO memo on planned population reduction, Jaffe memo, Kissinger report, The World Bank's 'Population Planning', they are completely aligned with what feminism (and the general left) has been bringing for the past century

>shows there is no simple linear link between gender equality and fertility

There is: https://i.imgur.com/SkLQBlv.jpg

Alternative: increase productivity and automate so smaller populations still have more goods and services.

(Consider the post black-death boom: I personally see very little problem with becoming fewer but richer; Unus sed Leo)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com