Switzerland is to hold a landmark vote on a right-wing party’s proposal to restrict the nation’s population to 10 million, amid divisions over immigration.
The proposal, put forward by the country’s largest political grouping the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), would require the government to act before the population – currently at 9.1 million – rises to the proposed 10 million upper limit.
If the vote, due to be held on June 14, is passed, the government would have to refuse entry to newcomers including asylum seekers and the families of foreign residents once the population reaches 9.5 million.
If the population hits 10 million, the government would be forced to end its free-movement agreement with the European Union (EU), which is Switzerland’s largest trading partner.
They are right for the wrong reasons. Population control is necessary. The environment cannot handle infinite people.
Ok, just to speed this along: Any discussion that starts this way will eventually come to the questions:
Who do you want to remove from the populations?
Who do you want to prevent from having children?
If we just open the conversation with this question, we can find out what your real motivation is here.
Thank you! That’s exactly what irks me about “overpopulation is the problem”. Their path inevitably leads to genocide. I’ll try anything to stop us from cooking the planet, but not that. It’s morally wrong
Holy misconstrued reading, Batman!
How about I flip your argument like you did to me:
Are you proposing forced rape to impregnate women? That’s what “population decline disaster” people end up wanting.
I’ll believe you this isn’t your intent, but this path will lead to nasty stuff down the line. As soon as we start saying there should be fewer people, that this is the solution, the question becomes “who has to go?”.
Lol, not even close. Also, yikes. Just quit while you’re behind
So when I say that a declining population isn’t a disaster I’m promoting genocide, but when you take the opposite position it’s not forced birth for women?
Stop being a hypocrite. I didn’t claim genocide just like you didn’t claim rape.
None! I didn’t even hint at a forced population reduction.
In the developed world, fewer people are having children and those that do are having smaller families. That means instead of a worker supporting both his parents and children they only need to support their parents. When the parent dies there is now more land and resources so things like real estate gets cheaper. Fewer workers means each worker is more valuable and can demand more pay from the ownership class.
I have no fucking idea how stating this gets construed into meaning genocide.
(supporting doesn’t necessarily mean direct support but through their job that helps everyone in society and taxes that go to schools and healthcare.)
Your response, combined with your original statement of
brings us to:
See question 2: which group of people do you want to tell aren’t allowed to have kids?
A woman’s right to birth control isn’t forcing anyone.
There are many things that are necessary but that doesn’t mean forcing people.
Clever to try and make this about a woman’s right to use birth control (which also implies the corollary of a woman’s right to not use it.), but your assertion is that the population control is necessary.
Controlling things means making people comply when they don’t.
Also, what’s you’re goal here: To have people just decide to choose not to have kids? In your mind what people should choose not to have kids? What happens when people choose to have kids anyway?
Which is, you know, how biology and biological systems work. As long as people exist: they’re gonna fuck. When they fuck, there are gonna be kids.
And yet affluent countries have birth rates below the 2.1 required for a steady population, meaning that in a generation’s time, the ratio between pensioners and productive workers will be a lot worse.
If the population is locked in to shrink in a few decades, a country will need immigration to stave off economic collapse. If Switzerland is concerned by large numbers of new immigrants arriving in a short timeframe and changing the culture, the sensible thing to do is to keep a slower, steady influx of immigrants coming in, assimilating and guiding the next ones in.
Eh. This is malarkey. Have you ever noticed how new technologies never seem to reduce the number of hours worked? Office computers and the internet didn’t reduce the work week. They did free up time; the work simply expanded to fill the available hours. Things that were once taken care of with a one-page typewritten memo are now handled by 100 page reports with charts and graphics. Analyses became ever more complicated and elaborate. It’s the bullshit jobs phenomenon.
And this is also why I don’t worry at all about decreasing population. As labor becomes more scarce, companies will simply be forced to cut back on the amount of bullshit fluff work in their workflows. There is a ton of useless fluff built into the modern workplace. That waste is only possible because businesses have been used to having very cheap labor for a very long time. When markets force wages higher, companies are forced to become more efficient and to cut back on the number of bullshit jobs in the economy.
Realistically, we could produce all of the things we currently do even if we cut the labor force by 30%. Maybe we won’t be able to hire as many vice presidents of social media marketing strategy. But we’ll get along just fine.
That is a false idea not supported by theory or history. It costs more to raise a child than care for elderly. When the child is grown it consumes more resources unlike the elderly who free up resources upon death.
The historical periods following large population declines were always the most prosperous. For example the Black Pague and more recently WW2.
Sure, let’s have another plague. You first.
I didn’t even imply a plague should happen. Parents having fewer children isn’t a war.
The only people who are hurt by a population decline is the 1% whose income isn’t from working but from how many people they have working for them.