February 2024
« Jan    

Demographics – turning opportunity into catastrophe?

(Friday/Saturday/Sunday blog)

You’ll all know that most advanced Western countries (including Japan) are facing what alarmists like to call a ‘demographic time bomb’. Actually, all that is happening is that the indigenous populations are not reproducing at replacement rate.

This has two main consequences:

  • A shrinking economy as older people tend to spend less

  • The number of working age people to every pensioner, or the “old age support ratio”, is forecast to fall to 2.9 by 2050, from 3.3 in the mid-1970s to 2006. And the ‘experts’ give us warnings such as “Tax revenue from those in work may fail to keep up with demand for social security and healthcare from an increasingly large proportion of people aged over 65 and out of work and who have poor health”.

A once in a lifetime opportunity?

But is this situation actually the disaster our rulers and the ‘experts’ and journalists in search of an attention-grabbing story predict? After all, is Britain a better place with an ever-growing GDP as the population rises to 70 million people then 80 million then 90 million? What if our rulers were to realise that the quality of life in Britain would actually improve if we could slowly manage the population down towards 55 million or 50 million or even fewer people? There would be less overcrowding, less congestion, less pressure on public services, less pollution. Yes, in terms of GDP the economy would shrink, but perhaps this would give a better life for everyone?

As for the fact that there would be fewer people of working age supporting the retired – well firstly, with the pension age rising and in order to maintain a healthy life, many people are choosing to work well past 65. And secondly, with robotics and automation, there are ever fewer people working in industry and agriculture producing ever more. So ratios of working people to the retired that applied in the past are no longer meaningful or relevant.

Of course, this summary is necessarily over-simplified. But hopefully it shows that with a little imagination, the supposed ‘demographic time bomb’ is nothing of the sort. In fact, it’s a wonderful opportunity to substantially improve the quality of life of British people – precisely the people whose interests our rulers are supposed to work for.

Turning opportunity into catastrophe?

But what have our rulers done? They’ve taken the opposite path and decided that we must keep increasing the population to maintain supposed ‘economic growth’. But it’s not totally obvious that many of the people they are bringing into Europe and thus Britain are really going to make a substantial contribution to our economy.

Are we getting this?

or are we getting this?

Not all the members of the migrant invasion army are highly-educated doctors, architects and engineers. In fact, well over 95% of all the migrants to Austria, Germany and Sweden over the last 2 to 3 years are unemployed and most have absolutely no intention of ever getting a job. Why not? Our rulers have the wonderful idea that we need more people of working age to support the increasing elderly population. But these ‘people of working age’ have to want to work. Unfortunately for our floundering rulers, many of the new arrivals have their own retirement plans – father as many children as possible with several wives and they could easily be getting €100,000 or £100,000 a year in benefits. If you can do this, why would you bother working?

So there is a more than insubstantial conflict between the ‘contributions’ our rulers hope the ‘New Europeans’ will make and the plans the ‘New Europeans’ have for their own lifelong comfort at our expense.

Running harder for ever less reward?

In Britain, there are more people in work than ever before. Moreover, more older people are working than ever before. The Government should be raking in tax revenues. But it isn’t. Every year the Government borrows increasing our national debt and the interest we’ll all have to pay. Why? Because the Government’s open-doors immigration policies mean we are importing ever more people who have no intention of ever contributing anything to our country and are only here for what they can leech from us.

I humbly propose that our useless rulers have managed to turn a huge opportunity into a catastrophe which we’ll all be paying for in an ever-declining quality of life – increased over-crowding, inter-communal violence, collapsing public services, terrorist attacks, pollution and social breakdown.

56 comments to Demographics – turning opportunity into catastrophe?

  • Julia Green

    No doubt about it, we’re heading for catastrophe.

  • Barry Foster

    As someone pointed out a few weeks ago, you can’t have a welfare system AND an open-door policy. The two simply aren’t sustainable. The US welcomed immigrants, to build a nation. But there was no welfare system, so they worked. Whereas Britain had a wonderful welfare system, to support those on hard times, but little immigration. This too, works. But you can’t do both. We have an added problem anyway, that there isn’t the space for more immigrants. We’re maxed out. So even if these people want to work (and most do) we don’t have the room. We have a population growth of 400,000 a year. It doesn’t matter whether your xenophobic, racist, or the world’s greatest liberal, that population increase is simply NOT sustainable on a small island. I’m baffled as to why everyone cannot see this. We can do nothing about the birth rate, nothing about the death rate. The only power we have is invited deportation, forced deportation, and zero immigration. I actually favour all three. Incentivise people to leave by offer of money, force those who are illegally here to go, and stop all immigration from this afternoon. The alternative is that in 10 years from now our population would have grown another 4 million…and therein lies deep trouble.

  • Eddie John

    A question for all those in support of mass immigration to support those really old people who are just so annoying and just insist on not dying , what are you going to do when these immigrants get old. How are you going to fund them. Many of them will pay nothing into the kitty in their entire lives yet will breed like rabbits. So the “problem ” as you see it that you have now will be of a magnitude you cannot imagine , the difference being that the current crop of oldies who just wont fucking go away ( I am one of them ) are in fact supporting the economy because we actually worked all our lives and have some disposal assets will be replaced by an army of people who have sucked the system dry.
    The words shit and fan come to mind.

  • brian rodney

    I suspect that many young people are under the impression that retired folk in the UK do not pay income-tax – well many of us do, even ones like me with a very modest occupational pension.

  • Simon

    Barry has articulated this very well. I would add that since the current economic model is unsustainable – we don’t actually do anything apart from employ people on zero hour contracts in nail bars and the like – then the whole system will naturally collapse. It’s only an opinion, but I just don’t understand how more can be taken out than is being put in. The U.K. is losing credit worthyness at an alarming rate. How long before the pension schemes collapse, inflation will outstrip earnings, and as for interest rates – what interest rates. I suspect the locusts (immigrants) will quite simply up sticks and leave for the next host – they are after all parasitical. The host dies, they go – simples. Engineers & construction workers are regarded as scum in this country, well guess what, all the penpushers, liberals, feminists and politically correct invertebrates can get their hands dirty for a change when the sh*t hits the fan. Apologies for the rant, but I’ve had enough.

  • twi5ted

    Japan is becoming an interesting study with almost zero immigration and those are usually ethnically and culturally close like chinese and koreans. Population is starting to fall. Yet street crime is extremely low – streets are very safe and even known areas where organised crime operate are safe to walk at night without fear of rape or robbery.

    High levels of immigration flatter the politicians as the GDP grows (includes gov debt spending after all) but the critical measure is GDP per capita and that has been shrinking in the UK for several years really since the borders were thrown open and will continue i expect. The pie is larger but your share is smaller and smaller.

    Everyone knows the stresses seen on hospitals, schools, GP surgeries, youngsters not affording houses, young competing for jobs from dubiously qualified foreigners, crowded streets, crime, ever higher taxes etc they are all direct consequences of this political vanity.

  • Alan Thorpe

    I am not sure what is the right number for any country. Looking at the population density, the UK does not seem to be too bad, but the problem is the majority want to be in cities. These are now overcrowded, congested, polluted hell holes.

    I do not see how the population can be controlled especially to give and appropriate distribution of ages. But I am convinced that the states are the cause of the problem and it is because they are all socialist with policies based on wealth redistribution not wealth creation. If we had to take responsibility for ourselves then we would not have children we could not afford. We would save for our old age so the younger generation did not have to support us. We would make our own decisions on health expenditure and I am in no doubt that expensive treatments to extend life a few months would come to an end. Immigration would be welcomed but the immigrants would have to support themselves.

    There is a natural control system if we are allowed to be responsible for ourselves. State interference makes this unstable.

    The UK economy has been heading for a disaster for decades and the indicator of this is our continual and huge trade deficit. When does any politician ever talk about it? Harold Wilson was the last PM I recall talking about it. A country is only going to improve its living standards if it creates new wealth and the only way is through trade. We have been living on debt and that can only go on for a limited period. The fall will come at some point.

  • David Brown

    If Corbyn gets in the economic crisis will come sooner he Abbott , McDonnel and momentum’s Owen Jones can seen on numerous youtube clips just a few years ago advocating we should copy the economic model of Venezuela.
    The Conservative Party is headed by a women who would prefer Corbyn elected than take action on reducing immigration.

  • Barry Foster

    Alan Thorpe:
    Re population density.
    Britain is more densely packed than Pakistan or China. You say the UK isn’t too bad, but we’re over TWICE as densely populated as France! Everything about this country is at peak, from electricity generation to sewerage ability. In heavy-populated urban areas, there is a waiting list at GPs if you want to change, A&E is a 4-hour wait (if you’re lucky), and primary schools are full. And obviously the NHS can’t even cope with our current population level. They’re about to start building on the green belt and areas of the country will see new towns spring up

  • Alan Thorpe

    To Barry Foster: You can pick various countries but the fact is that we are the around the 53rd most populated country and the countries at the top of the list are 72 times as densely populated as the UK. In 2012 the BBC concluded that 93% of England was not urban and that 54% of the urban areas are not built on. Their final conclusion was that around 3% of the land is built on. Let’s keep some perspective on this.

    I agree about the problems but this is the result of decades of completely incompetent governments. The electorate has voted for promise after promise that cannot be fulfilled because we do not have an economy that can support the desires of the population. Our living standards depend on borrowing. Savings and investments are low so it is no surprise that infrastructure is failing. We do not believe in business and profit. One thing you can be certain of it the state does everything badly and the more it takes over our lives the worse everything becomes. We are a country the believes that everybody can live at the expense of everybody else. We are a perfect example of a socialist country and soon the poverty that goes with it will be upon us. Nothing can prevent it. We are too far down the path.

  • NoMore

    @Alan Thorpe. Yes UK maybe but the vast majority of people live in England, and this is where the vast majority of mass immigrants are moving to. Also the bulk of the list is small crammed city states like Monaco and small islands like Malta. Comparing like with like we are well in the top 10 of countries with the highest population density. Land is needed for food not just shanty towns. Besides it’s OUR land not theirs’ – our homeland.

  • Alan Thorpe

    To NoMore: The figure of 93% was for England. Look them up yourself. I have often seen comments about the amount of built-up land but every time I have check the figures they don’t seem to confirm the views of the greenbelt disappearing. The report I used was from 2012 but I doubt it has changed that much. There is a variation between areas It is the cities that have the problems of high density.

    The list includes Japan, Belgium and Netherlands and Germany is not far behind us. But if places like Monaco and Singapore and other large cities with high population density can organise themselves then why can’t we.

    We have never been self-sufficient in food and the last war showed this problem. Most countries are not. It does concern me, but we like cheap food and we are not going to get that by providing it ourselves with the high wages people now expect. When you say it is our land consider we do not seem to mind about our food being grown on land that is not ours. We don’t object to our clothing and other goods being made in conditions and at wages we would not work for. We don’t mind our gas, oil and uranium coming from other countries. We send our rubbish abroad for recycling.

    No country can live in isolation, and especially not in our modern world.

  • David Brown

    Based on the growth rate of the Muslim population the 2001 and 2011 census its now bigger than the total population of Wales.So the constituent parts of the Kingdom in order would by population would be England,Scotland, Islamland, Wales, Northern Ireland.

  • Barry Foster

    My principle point (that I made at 6.29) is not about the amount of land left, but the infrastructure supporting it. I think the density (from memory) is something like 700 people per square mile, but those people have to have a support structure. Although we have had incompetent governments, one after the other, who haven’t done anything meaningful to support our base infrastructure, they shouldn’t have to, too much! Our population growth was quite small. In the 1970s to 2000 our population growth averaged around 2-4 people per km2, per decade. In the decade 2000-10 it rose by 7 people per km2, and in this decade will rise by 17 people per km2! Admittedly there were similar growths in the past, but we then had the ability to do something about it, we no longer have that. So please don’t think this is solely about space. That’s a huge factor, but the principle concern is our infrastructure – we are maxed out. Sorry to repeat myself, but although infrastructure investment has been poor, it shouldn’t have to be that great anyway, if we kept a check on our population.

    We can talk about land space, if that is your reason for believing that we shouldn’t yet be panicking. As I understand it, our self-sufficiency level on food has now dropped to 58% (I just looked it up). There are a number of factors for this, admittedly, but one is certainly going to be lack of space! We have vast areas turned over to growing animal-feed (can’t remember the figure), and we now even have solar farms where once crops were grown. My, aren’t we insane? But added to that is, and will be, growing housing estates, garden villages, and towns. Where else are we going to house a population growth of 4 million people every ten years? It goes without saying that brownfield sites will be used up quite quickly. Then there’s only the countryside left on which to build…

  • NoMore


    We have been trading with other nations for time immemorial but mass immigration is a different beast entirely. Millions of people from completely different and often inimical cultures being waved in by our globalist elites despite it never being in any party manifesto is a threat to our homeland. 70% of schoolchildren in London are non-white (not even non-English) – do you see that as a threat or a fair return for their letting us buy some of their crops and providing them with a job back in their own homelands?

    How can we ever organise if we don’t know from one year to the next how many more hundreds of thousands of people are going to be arriving? Do you think Monaco and Singapore have an open door immigration policy?

  • Alan Thorpe


    I support classical liberalism which means free trade and free movement of people. I do not see how the two can be separated. But Liberalism also is about limited state control.

    I cannot blame people for wanting to move here. I would probably be doing the same considering the dreadful conditions in some countries. We would not have these conditions in other countries with Liberalism because it depends on free trade which cannot exist in unstable countries. It is idealistic, I know, but that is the basis for my views.

    Liberalism would allow the movement but it would expect them to support themselves and not rely on the state from day one. Immigration is not the problem; the governments are the problem – those where conditions are intolerable and those that encourage immigration at the expense of taxpayers.

    In the early days equality was all the range in the UK and immigrants were allowed the freedom to live as they wanted. But now we want to ban clothing, faith schools of certain kinds, we have brought in hate crimes. Our incompetent governments have created the situation you describe but how many MPs would accept this. I do not blame the immigrants. I blame the government and we are in a position where nothing can be done about the problems they have created. It is our government that is the threat to us.

  • Barry Foster

    Touching on a wider subject, we can’t live with people who aren’t like us, it just doesn’t work. Look how different we are even to the French, and they’re just 26 miles away. Historical events have shaped us. We also have different genes. I admit to being a bigot, as in the definition that I cannot tolerate people who aren’t the same as me. But then, that’s 95% of the population, so the vast majority of us are bigots. People often mistake this for recism, which I’m most certainly not. Like you, I really feel for the ‘refugees’ that want to settle here – it’s perfectly understandable, who wouldn’t want to? But we can’t live with people who aren’t like us.

  • NoMore

    Thanks for your long and considered response Alan. Like Barry above I of course don’t blame the immigrants either – these problems are entirely due to our incompetent and power-mad yet weak governments. Things would not have reached this sorry pass if they had firmly insisted immigrants support themselves and not confused them with pushing the lie and unsustainability of multiculturalism. This just leads to monocultural ghettos of different tribes all eyeing each other with suspicion and mistrust. I also believe in controlled, compatible and limited immigration too however especially in small islands like ours though I understand your viewpoint.

  • A Thorpe

    NoMore: Thanks for your comment. I’m pleased to read that we agree on the cause of the problem. We need immigration in both directions. The sooner we get out of the EU fully and cut Westminster and public expenditure down to size the better.

  • A Thorpe

    Barry Foster: We do share most of our genes with other races. I would suggest that the differences are due to governments and power mad kings in the past and now governments fighting over who is top dog.

    If the emphasis is on free trade and movement of people and this is seen as being vital to our standards of living and the means of improving the standards for everybody in the world then we will live peaceably together. Trade cannot exist when there is conflict, and that includes internal conflict.

    Trade and free movement (not supported, encouraged or forced on us by governments) I think will bring cultures together. I am not an expert on Venice, but when it was at its peak I think it did bring people together through trade. North Korea is isolated from most of the world and look at the problems that is causing.

    As for not getting on with other cultures surely one of the reasons people are attracted to foreign travel is to experience other cultures. We certainly like foreign restaurants here. Do we just like the food and not the culture? I can’t believe that. Or is travel really just for better weather?

  • Barry Foster

    Yes, we share 90% genes with cats, too! But no one is going to tell me that humans (nationally) aren’t different from each other. Like I said, our historical events have shaped us. I agree with you that we like to experience other cultures…but not all the time. Most want to briefly experience it in a holiday, they don’t want it all the time, or they’d emigrate.

    I disagree with you that trade and free movement will bring cultures together – based on what we’ve achieved with that so far. A few hundred years ago, ships brought goods to and from countries, but it was purely commerce.

    Be honest and tell me who your friends are. Are they just like you – I’m guessing white, and from the same social background? How many (true) friends that are black or Asian do you have? I’m going to guess it’s probably zero. We are (for the most part) bigots in the sense that I’ve already described. All my friends are white, with one exception, an Indian. But even she isn’t a ‘true’ friend. We (humans) do this because we feel safe with people of like mind, it’s an evolutionary thing. So I disagree with you that we can somehow gel together. Religion, of course, also gets in the way. In this country, we place the rule of law above everything. Muslims place the rule of their religion above everything, and their religion IS law. This is not compatible with our culture. So a Muslim and you are always going to view things differently.

    But anyway, all this is not my principle reason for being against immigration – it’s space! A population rise of 400,000 a year simply isn’t sustainable. It’s not just my opinion, that’s a fact. Like I said, I don’t blame others for wanting to come here, but we cannot accommodate them…even if we did get on with people who are fundamentally different to us, which we don’t.

  • A Thorpe

    Barry Foster: Humans are not different. We want the same things-shelter, warmth, food and companionship. We do not want to live with violence. It might help you to read the autobiographical book by Eric Lomax – The Railwayman and you will understand that we are not that different.

    You have not followed what I am saying about trade and movement. I am talking about it being free and not controlled by governments. Trade is not about commerce. It is about humans creating wealth and better standards of living. This is something everybody in the world should share in.

    I completely disagree with your views on friendship. Colour and race do not make people different. I select friends based on their views. Statistics are against you anyway. In 1991 the white British population in England and Wales was 94% so most of us are not going to come into contact with many immigrants. The figure is now about 86%. Of course, your final sentence in the paragraph where you discuss this says exactly the same as I have said. It is views that matter. As an atheist, most of my closest friends are of the same view.

    There is plenty of space as statistics again show. What you are talking about is not having the money to build houses and infrastructure to support people who come here and cannot support themselves. My other key point was that we should all be able to support ourselves if we move to another country. If people had to ensure that homes and services were available in a new country they would only move in numbers that can be accommodated. As I keep saying – it is the governments that cause all our problems.

  • Barry Foster

    Colour and race DO actually make people different, that has been proved. There is also much circumstantial evidence. Black people are more athletic than whites, white people have a higher IQ than blacks, East Asian people are more ingenious than whites. Even circumstantial stuff like a lack of Arab (and Israeli) sports people is even evidence. There is a greater tendency toward paedophilia among whites and Asians than blacks. Black people are less likely to own a pet, even! Alan, there is a massive amount of data to support that colour and race make people different. Sorry, but you’re wrong. Although we all want warmth, food and shelter, that’s where any similarity ends. Some people want faith, some want violence, some want sport!

    I meet immigrants every working day. My job (I live in a VERY multicultural town!) means that I speak to either East European or Asian (Muslim, mostly) people all the time.
    I get on with 95% of them perfectly fine. However, I also meet Australians and Canadians, and I don’t want them here either! It isn’t based on xenophobia, but on our population level.

    Alan, if you select friends based on their views, then that is certainly bigotted, as I said. You are intolerant (by your own admission) to others’ views. We almost all are! Please tell me which statistics are “against” me. By the way, I’m an atheist too, and cut my teeth on atheist vs Christian forums some 15 years ago.

    You wish that government was different, and that we could free trade (you must like Professor Patrick Minford). Well, yes, we all wish government was different, and got back to representing people rather than leading them. But I’m afraid wishing isn’t going to be. The facts are that different nationalities don’t get on – that’s why there ARE different nations, and we don’t have the finances nor the space to do anything about our infrastructure – to support any more immigrants.

    It may be a utopian dream of yours that people free trade with each other across the world, and that we all get along fine. But it is a dream. We here in the UK have a different social outlook even from the French, as I said. And yet they’re white, west European, and part of our ancestry…yet we’re still so different! The FACT is that nations are different from each other. Indeed, like the primate species are different from each other. We have formed nations of like-minded people. We can’t get along because we have different ideals. That’s nothing to do with governments, that’s us, it’s ingrained! We have a system that puts the law above everything. Asians (Muslims) have a system that puts their religion above everything – even our law. Those two can’t be meshed, Alan, they just can’t.

  • Alan Thorpe

    Barry Foster: Racist doesn’t even begin to describe this. As for selecting friends, why on earth would I want to be friends with somebody who I do not agree with. It am not a bigot because I do not treat people who I am not friends with any differently. You assume a lot about my behaviour and that of other people. It says a lot about you.

    Borders are lines on maps drawn by politicians who want power and control. I may be an idealist, but at least I have ideals that would result in a better life for all.

  • Barry Foster

    It may be classed as ‘racist’ in the definition of the word, though that’s how it is! There have been numerous scientific studies stating exactly what I said – whether you like that or not. Do you really believe that black people are NOT more athletic than white people?…
    “Black athletes have a phenotypic advantage. They have bodily characteristics that evolved over tens of thousands of years of evolution.”
    You’ll find evidence to support all what I said if you simply Google it. The fact that you think this is unspeakable says more about you than I ever could!
    ““Delusions, carefully implanted, are difficult to correct.”
    ― Joost A.M. Meerloo

    I still have friends who I do not share views with. They are still friends – I respect their viewpoint even when it opposes mine. You seek out ‘friends’ who share your viewpoint.

    I don’t ‘assume’ anything, I merely point out facts. IF you do not tolerate people with opposing viewpoints, you are a bigot. Again, it’s not my opinion, Alan, but a fact stated in the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s not about ‘treating people who you are not friends with any differently’. It’s:
    “A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.”
    We all tend to seek out and be close to people who are like-minded.

    You have an unrealistic ideology. What you wish for isn’t going to happen. We could all have unrealistic and childish dreams of how the world should be run, but what’s the point? That’s something you should grow out of in your early 30s.

  • Barry Foster

    Let me further clarify, lest you get excited:
    It is morally wrong to denigrate someone of a different race with statements that have no basis in fact or are highly subjective. If I say I hate the Chinese because they are horrible, that’s a racist statement. However, if something is factual then it can never be racist. If I say the general level of IQ of East Asians is consistently above that of black people, that is a fact.

    Similarly, it is not sexist to state that men have a higher IQ than women. That’s a simple fact, and shown out time and again in scientific studies.

    There is also a proposed link between earnings and IQ:
    Race Median Income
    Jewish $97,500
    Asian $76,260
    White $60,256
    Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians $60,133
    Black $35,398

    The highest IQ ratings for nations positively show what I am stating. This is the top ten nation IQs:

    Rank Country IQ
    1 Hong Kong Hong Kong 108
    1 Singapore Singapore 108
    2 South Korea South Korea 106
    3 Japan Japan 105
    3 China China 105
    4 Taiwan Taiwan 104
    5 Italy Italy 102
    6 Iceland Iceland 101
    6 Mongolia Mongolia 101
    6 Switzerland Switzerland 101

    It’s simply undeniable that East Asians have a higher IQ. And the bottom 10?:
    39 Lesotho Lesotho 67
    39 Liberia Liberia 67
    39 Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis 67
    39 São Tomé and Príncipe São Tomé and Príncipe 67
    40 The Gambia The Gambia 66
    41 Cameroon Cameroon 64
    41 Gabon Gabon 64
    41 Mozambique Mozambique 64
    42 Saint Lucia Saint Lucia 62
    43 Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea 59

    Sometimes, things are unpalatable. But they are factual nonetheless. It’s like the gender thing. There are many people to the liberal left trying desperately to make out that there are more than two genders! Tumblr are listing more than 300!!! But the FACT is that there are not, there are just two. Everyone else is simply a ‘transvestite’.

  • Alan Thorpe

    Barry Foster: I think you should go and lie down in a dark room.

  • Barry Foster

    I tried that, but all I could think about is people like you who cannot think rationally and logically.

  • Alan Thorpe

    Barry Foster: The demographic time bomb is about us not reproducing at high enough rate and it is turned into a racist issue in the original post and in your comments.

    All your statistics are based on creating conflict between the races. You might want that; I don’t. There is concern about IQ in declining in the UK. It is because of education standards falling and nothing to do with genes. I suspect that if you quote the expenditure on education in those countries it will reveal quite a lot about the IQ. As always, it is not the average, it is the distribution.

    As for the demographic time bomb you cannot see that it will continue to be a problem because it is created by our health services increasing our life span but with poor health and people who still think they should retire at 65 and not do anything to build up saving to pay for their retirement and extra care. The lower birth rate is also associated with better education and opportunities for women. Would you like to be a woman in a third world country who is just viewed as a baby factory to provide manual labour for the family?

    We also have a problem because we expect to have a high standard of living but don’t want to study to acquire the skills needs to provide it. Hence, the need for many immigrants who do acquire the skills. Have you thought what that means for the countries who are losing their skilled people? We don’t like the brain drain from the UK but we welcome it in reverse. We also are not creating the wealth to pay for the standard of services we expect, and as I said we are not saving and investing to create new wealth and provide for our future needs. The massive state and personal debt shows how bad this has become. This is the problem if you really think rationally.

  • Barry Foster

    Ok, you keep making the same basic error, so let’s continue this, but before we do, please answer me a question:
    Can something factual be ‘racist’?

  • Alan Thorpe

    What is a fact? It is often what people want it to be to justify their point of view. The sun used to go round the earth. Perhaps you have forgotten that.

    It is not clear to me what fact you are talking about. You went from being overcrowded, which is clearly not the case to racist views about intelligence. The statistics are designed to be racist. All we need to know is that intelligence varies as does expenditure on education. I am quite sure that there are many black people who are more intelligent than either of us.

  • Barry Foster

    You see, this is what I meant about you not applying logic or rationale. First of all, a ‘fact’ is something that is proved to be true. The ‘Earth going round the Sun’ was never proved to be true! And I’m not even going to get started on the rest of your post as it’s puerile. So I ask again:
    Can something factual be ‘racist’?
    Now you have been educated as to what a ‘fact’ actually is, and not your truly bizarre interpretation, perhaps you’d like to offer an answer. I suspect you won’t as you don’t seem to understand the question.

  • Alan Thorpe

    And you miss the point. Some facts are only true until we acquire more understanding that changes the view. I said that people took as a fact that the sun went round the earth and that is a fact. They also took as a fact that the earth was flat. Knowledge changed that. Some people took as a fact that MMR vaccines caused autism because research was available to prove. It was a lie. Now that you have been given more information about facts perhaps you will understand something. When ever somebody resorts to claim what they say is a fact, you know they have no argument. Politicians often do this.

    You have not produced any facts. You have just produced statistics designed to prove a point. IQ is related to education standards not race!

  • Barry Foster

    Oh, dear! Can you not see that you’re still not getting basic stuff correct? NO, a ‘fact’ is something PROVED TO BE TRUE! They are NOT facts when they are a theory that requires more understanding! Knowledge doesn’t change a fact, it is NOT KNOWLEDGE until it is proven to be true. Jesus, Alan, this is basic stuff you learn in school. Even Black Holes aren’t a fact, as they have yet to be proved, as has dark matter and dark energy. Both still very much theories.

    ‘Knowledge’ is the sum of what is known. They didn’t KNOW the earth went round the sun or the sun went round the earth. It was what they ‘thought’. They weren’t facts as it wasn’t proven to be true! Similarly, NO ONE took it as a fact that the MMR vaccine caused autism…no one. It was one scientist’s view. And you prove my point, because it wasn’t proven to be true! Do you see now? You are tying your own self up in knots by proving my exact point!

    PLEASE, try and understand. When something isn’t known to actually be true, it isn’t a fact, it’s a guess. When something is proven to be true, it is a ‘fact’. This isn’t me saying it, Alan, it’s the Oxford English Dictionary for crying out loud!

    Can something factual be ‘racist’?
    If it is a fact (proven to be true) is it racist to state it?
    I’m afraid that you are simply showing yourself to lack a basic understanding of the English language, so far, and how it is applied. You have confused yourself a treat – and it’s exactly what I meant about you failing to apply logic and rationale.

  • A Thorpe

    No. You are wrong. You cannot see that what is thought to be proven still depends on our knowledge at the time. Your rubbish about the earth and the sun proves the point. The Ancient Greeks had proof of this but the church had the proof from the bible. You are also wrong about MMR. It is what people believe is the fact that matters especially when you have more than one view. Do you believe that humans are causing global warming? Most people do?

    Your mistake is that you think that statistics about IQ based on race at a specific point in time are proof of a difference between the races. But IQ does not depend on race alone and so you do not have the proof you claim. This is why you are promoting racism with these statistics. I’ll leave you with your version of logic and rationale.

  • Barry Foster

    So you still don’t accept the Oxford English Dictionary (a fact is something proven to be true) not ‘thought’ to be true at any given point in time, but actually proven – that’s the bit that’s really tripping you up. It was YOU that brought up the rubbish about the earth and sun. You are THAT confused! “The Ancient Greeks had proof of this but the church had the proof from the bible” Yet again, you prove my point for me, and I’m grateful, thank you. The ancient Greeks DID have proof, the Bible didn’t; it was ‘thought’ by Christians, not ‘proven’. So what the Christians BELIEVED wasn’t proven and was thus not factual.
    The Greeks had proof, so it WAS factual. Are you starting to see yet, Alan? It has nothing whatsoever to do with what is ‘though’ at any given time, it is solely what can be proved…that is what is ‘factual’.

    You go wrong even further:
    People believing MMR caused autism didn’t make it factual.
    People believing in global warming doesn’t make it factual.
    Every scientist in the world believing that continental tectonic plates were fixed and couldn’t move didn’t make it factual.
    Stress being the cause of stomach ulcers (believed by every doctor) didn’t make it factual.

    It was proven that MMR doesn’t cause autism.
    Global warming has not been proved – hence the fevered debate. If it was proved, there would be no sceptics.
    Scientists now know that tectonic plates move because it’s been proven.
    Stomach ulcers being largely caused by a bacterium has been proved.

    Are you starting to see the difference in BELIEVING something is true, and something PROVED as true? That’s what a ‘fact’ is, Alan, something proven to be true, not ‘thought’ to be true at any one point in time – even if it is believed by everyone (plate tectonics).

    Let me try it another way:
    Can something factual be sexist?
    If I say men are stronger than women, is that sexist, or is it factual?

  • David Craig

    Come on chaps. Relax. After all, it’s only the end of Western civilisation you’re discussing. If I might intervene, intelligence (IQ) is a function of two things – heredity (genes) and environment (the complexity of the society in which you grow up and have to function). It seems clear there is a difference in IQ between different races. All IQs of each race are distributed along a “bell curve”. The problem for the we’re all equal” politically-correct mob is that the average intelligence level (the centre of the bell curve) is highest amongst Chinese and lowest amongst Africans. So, there will always be very intelligent Africans (the right tip of the bell curve) and very stupid Chinese (the left tip of the bell curve). But in general Chinese have an average IQ of about 105 or 110, Europeans about 100 and Africans around 75.

    One reason for the high IQ of the Chinese may be the complexity of their language. This means they are forced to deal with complex issues at a very early age thus encouraging the development of a higher IQ. Similarly Europeans have developed a complex civilisation which requires much greater reasoning and problem-solving than living in the African bush or jungle. So the differences in IQ will widen, not narrow, over time.

    By importing millions of people who don’t have sufficient IQ to function in Western society we are condemning ourselves to catastrophe as these disadvantaged (as they see themselves) millions seek to take what they cannot earn through work.

  • Barry Foster

    Can something factual be sexist?
    If I say men are stronger than women, is that sexist, or is it factual?

  • A Thorpe

    No it is not a fact. For goodness sake, it is not specific enough to be a fact. Does it mean that all men are stronger than all women?

    One last time. How is it possible for anybody to know what is a fact? Complex issues need expert knowledge to prove. If we don’t have the knowledge then we have to trust the expert has not made a genuine mistake and is not committing a fraud. Just because somebody says something is a fact does not make it a fact. The link to research on IQ says that your facts are just statistics produced to make them look like facts to people who want to believe what they seem to say. I notice that you have nothing to say about that!

    What we are discussing is effectively how people interpret the information they are given. Hence some people believed that Andrew Wakefield was giving them factual information about MMR and some still do even after he has been discredited. There was a case of some scientific research and unfortunately I do not remember the name of the person but his work was thought to be so significant that he was expected to get a Nobel prize and his fraud was then discovered. Be very careful what you assume to be a proven fact and never look for confirmation of something you believe to be a fact without having any knowledge of the subject. You will find the proof of your theory on the internet just as you have done with IQ and race and that is a fact.

  • Barry Foster

    But mean ARE stronger than women, that is a proven fact. Despite your confusion, when we talk of such matters, it’s ‘generally’ – mean are generally stronger than women. There are no doubt many women stronger than some men, but generally it is a FACT that men are stronger than women. It is a proven fact. And this is precisely where you keep going wrong, because you don’t have the basic intellect to know what a fact is. When you don’t have the knowledge to prove something, then it is proven, so it isn’t a fact.

    “Just because somebody says something is a fact does not make it a fact.”
    Ah, are you starting to understand that now? I have already stated this to you above:
    “Are you starting to see the difference in BELIEVING something is true, and something PROVED as true? That’s what a ‘fact’ is, Alan, something proven to be true, not ‘thought’ to be true at any one point in time.”
    Now you are repeating what I’m saying, so you ARE starting to understand! I love how you tie yourself up – because you don’t understand what you’re saying.

    Until you fully understand that a fact isn’t a fact until it is proven, and is simply prior conjecture, then you’ll continue to chase your own rear end. It doesn’t matter what Andrew Wakefield gave out, or who believed him, it doesn’t matter about the fraudulent scientist, ALL that matters is real facts – that which have been proven.

    And we go back to you stating on here, above, that men are not stronger than women. You really show yourself up at every opportunity. One day, you’ll think back to this conversation and realise what an uneducated, ill-informed person you have been to state that men are not stronger than women. But let me tell you this; until you get that then you’ll continue to think incorrectly.

  • Barry Foster

    My thanks to you for your input. Like you, I suspect, I have read up on the IQ of races and there is a great breadth of information for discussion, with some fascinating insights as to why black people score a low IQ and East Asians score a high one. I must admit, I haven’t seen your offered explanation of this FACT. Of course, information from studies is now poor, due to it being politically incorrect to state what has been known for many decades now. Four years ago, the journal, Scientific American even asked the question ‘Should Research On Race And IQ Be Banned’?!?

    It’s a rich subject, but doesn’t get an airing because of people like Alan Thorpe. Facts can sometimes be unpalatable, but they are facts nonetheless, Even left-wing Green Party politician Peter Seifert, in Germany, has this week stated, “We must not hide facts, just because they do not fit into our worldview.” When a left-winger even states this, it must be a good thing.

  • Alan Thorpe

    Oh for goodness sake stop your nonsense. If I see a man and a woman talking how does your fact offer any information about which is the strongest? I could not possibly know. Are you defining it as ability to lift weights, or boxing, or judo and are you taking age into account? I wouldn’t like to match myself against Nicola Adams. You cannot generalise on complex issues. It is pointless.

    Then there is more racist views about IQ because you refuse to read papers about views you do not want to hear and I have supplied you with an expert view that proves you and David Craig to be wrong. You just have a simplistic view of everything. You are quite deluded in your view if you think that I have any influence over what is published.

    I am still waiting for you to pronounce on whether humans are responsible for global warming. There are different views. Can you enlighten us about which is a fact and why?

  • Barry Foster

    Men (plural) are stronger than women (plural). I didn’t use the singular for any particular man or woman. I quite clearly asked you:
    “If I say men are stronger than women, is that sexist, or is it factual?”
    To which you replied that it isn’t a fact!!! It isn’t a complex issue, it is a known fact – except to you! Astounding and ingloriously-stupid answer, Alan.

    And you’re still not getting what is a ‘fact’: Man made global warming is not a fact, as it hasn’t been proved. The Earth’s average temperature has risen a little since the mini ice age of the 19th century, and the lower troposphere shows a warming of 0.13 degrees per decade. However, there could well be natural factors that account for this, and the forcing of CO2 by athropogenic means would and should be currently showing significant results, such as a warming of the troposphere over the tropics at a rate of 1.2 times that of the surface. Therefore, man-made global warming has not been proved, and thus is not classed as a fact. It doesn’t matter how many scientists believe it to be so (as I explained about tectonic plates and stomach ulcers – ALL scientists believed that too), it is not a fact, hence the fierce debate. If it was a ‘fact’ then there would be no debate or argument…and you might (though I seriously doubt it) now be seeing why I want you to understand what a fact is (something that has been proved and thus cannot be argued about because it is classed as a ‘fact’). So let me try again:
    If I say men are stronger than women, is that sexist, or is it factual?
    Remember, plural.

  • Alan Thorpe

    If it is a fact then I should be able to select at random any man and any woman and the man according to you would always be stronger. That is not true. A fact is something on which I should be able to make a decision and the decision would be correct.

    Try some maths. IQ = f(x,y,z,…) hence IQ = f(x) is not a fact. Strength = f(x,y,z,….) hence Strength = f(x) is not a fact.

    You have rambled around a discussion that has nothing to do with the original and made the entire discussion entirely pointless. And all this because you want me to believe that black people have a lower IQ than white people and that it is an established fact. I provided you with a paper written by experts that says it is not a fact.

    As for climate change, the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (AR5, 2013/14) asserted that “human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history.” This is based on the research of many scientists. Even Prof Brian Cox says that humans are the cause of climate change and the recently objected to the BBC allowing Lord Lawson to oppose this view. What is a fact again?

  • Barry Foster

    Why do men not race women at the Olympics?
    Why do men not play women at Wimbledon?
    Why do men play five sets at tennis, and women play three?
    Why do men boxers not fight women boxers?
    I could give you many more examples. Like I said, one day, you’ll think back to this conversation and realise what an uneducated, ill-informed person you have been to state that men are not stronger than women. Some people might call you stupid, but I don’t think you’ve even reached that level yet. As scientists like to quip, you’re not even wrong!

  • Barry Foster

    Well if Brian Cox says it, it must be true, right? Jesus, could you have come out with a more stupid statement? I’m starting to believe that you will never understand, despite someone explaining it over and over. And what is the name we apply to someone like that? You clearly know nothing about climate change, whereas I do, so be careful where you tread.

  • Barry Foster

    Alan, was Jesus the son of God?

  • Alan Thorpe

    You really are pathetic. You now list a series of issues that are about competitions. Why don’t you ask why Cliff Richard watches the tennis at Wimbledon and does not play. It is because it is a COMPETITION. For goodness sake. Why do non professional men and women play tennis together or run marathons together? For enjoyment and because it is not a competition. Your have completely lost the point of this debate. What I am actually thinking is that I am wasting my time in a discussion with a complete moron who eventually resorts to insults and religion to make a point.

    If I accept your view that men are strong than women, and I want to employ a strong person then using your argument I would be quite justified in advertising for a strong person and saying women need not apply. If I wanted an person with a high IQ I would be justified in advertising for such a person and saying black people need not apply. You are both sexist and racist and you do not even see it. Did the USA reject Obama because as a black person he will have a lower IQ. Off course they didn’t.

    Why would I agree with your meaningless statement that men are stronger than women when it is clear that some women are stronger than some men. Some black people have a higher IQ then some white people. You have generalised your arguments to such a degree that they are completely meaningless.

    You fell straight into the trap I set you about Brian Cox. I simply asked you a question on climate change and quoted to you what Brian Cox, a highly respected physicist, had to say on the subject. Brian Cox was agreeing with the IPCC, all governments accept the IPCC conclusions and we are also told that 97% of scientists agree that we are causing global warming.

    You cannot answer the question – when is something a fact and how do people who are not an expert in the area know when something is a fact. If an expert like Brian Cox says it is a fact then why would people not accept it if they do not have any understanding of basic physics? You have no answer to the question. I can assure you that thermodynamic is my specialist field so tread carefully with your insults. The ice ages are enough to tell me that climate change is not caused by humans and my knowledge tells me that is tis gravity that causes the earth’s surface to be at a higher temperature than the sun alone can produce. It is gravity and the dense atmosphere that causes the higher temperature on Venus and not the CO2 and the greenhouse effect. Perhaps you don’t like those facts.

  • Barry Foster

    Do you travel on a special bus?

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>