You do realize your maps actually prove my point. Look at that population density scale maxing at 100 or more. Compared to what Wikipedia gives for south cental england at over 600 or Singapore at over 7000.
South central England happens to have London, one of the largest cities in the world. Likewise Singapore is a city state, and one incredibly populated at that (it is also one of the largest cities in the world). Singapore and London will inevitably be far more population dense than most of Aussieland. I'm not sure what your point is, that Australia is less population dense than London and Singapore therefore the Aussies can start building towns in their desert, or further increase density in their coast? They can't really do either. Australia is not London or Singapore. Both cities have far more available resources and infrastructure than Australia, with a far more agreeable clime.
Also your solutions to Brazils issues sound more like a massive problem then a solution. Where's that big fertile Brazil you are talking about if they turn it into a man made desert.
I'm not talking about solutions, I'm talking about what is happening. I'm not too particularly pleased with what's happening to the environment in Brazil, India or China for the sake of development. End of the day, it is their choice however, likewise immigrants are still free to exploit better economic opportunities in Brazil and Brazil will be able to cope with it. The point is not whether they should, but that they
can. Likewise, they are doing so - and have to do so, and on the bright side are also pursuing conservation efforts (it makes plain economic sense to do so) and are cracking down on illegal mining and logging operations. There's a silver lining to it all.
Not really, many of the problems with illegal immigrants (no control over who gets in, no integration because migrants are afraid to interact with the state, abuse of migrants that have no legal recourse, migrants undercutting native by working for starvation wages because they have no other choices...) are specifically problem due to the illegality of the migration. Prohibition is a better metaphor than your burglary one here.
Right now over here it's just the quantity. What with the channel serving as a barrier, illegal immigrants have to either smuggle themselves in, or apply for a visa and then stay when it expires. They are estimated 400,000 to 800,000 illegal immigrants in the whole of the UK for example, while there are 7,500,000 legally residing immigrants. Making those 400-800,000 legal residents will not solve the issue of the millions failing to integrate and even attempting to radicalize the future generations of immigrants against Britain. I wouldn't choose prohibition as an analogy merely because that's rather defeatist. The prohibitionists intended to rid America of the most destructive drug mankind's ever had the fun of making; one should hope attempts to curtail unsustainable migration will not merely be a futile effort that will end in the same outcome - everyone fucked.
But no, if you'll excuse me, I have to rante a little. I am appalled, and to be frank disgusted by some of the sentiments I've seen expressed here. And this is a relatively liberal part of the internet, I guess I should be glad no one supported airstrikes on boat peoples yet.
Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with immigration.
The most authoritarian progressive force pervading Europe would support far worse actions than even a mentally deficient tabloid columnist of the Sun.We have people fleeing injustice, crossing desert and seas for a chance to beg entry. Those are not any people, they're the one that managed to organize funds, that are willing to risk their life for a chance to better their and their family's lot. They are coming begging at your gate, and you want to turn them away because you're afraid not doing so might (might!) makes you a fraction of a percent less well-off.
You fuckers were mostly born in rich country, with a fucking silver spoon if your fucking mouth, and instead of trying to share that luck with others, you're bargaining your luck, letting a select few in so you might be a fraction of a percent better off.
I had no silver spoon, wasn't even born here, had to spend my childhood making sure I never got the attention of the wrong people. I still wonder whether my area was always shit like that back then, or whether it became shit around about the time when children the age of 7 were smuggling knives in their socks (a bloody stupid place to put it I might add, for obvious reasons). I lived amongst Cypriots, Russians, Bangladeshi, Vietnamese, Indians, Africans and hold fondly onto the fact that I was considered an honourary Paki (though that term has since become politically incorrect). Then my cultural enrichment increased in scope in central London, big fancy City of London, where my personal scope grew to incorporate north london Ashkenazi AND Sephardi Jews, east end Arab Muslims, Parisians, Germans, Poles and a smittering of north/south Americans, all the while remaining in southeast London. And nothing disgruntles me more than the hypocrisy of rich white people telling everyone below them that we need more immigration when they've only ever lived in their gated community or their rich riverside apartment where their idea of cultural diversity was paying someone for a Balkan bite or a Kraut sausage. This isn't aimed at anyone on Bay12, rather the wealthy lib-dem voters I know who have
summer homes, and not only that, but
summer homes larger than my own house, telling people about how they as people who are born with a silver spoon are willing to make everything worse for everyone else because they are completely unaffected by the consequences of their actions. It is not their house that is burgled, their mother that is assaulted, their daughter who is groomed and their son who goes off to fight in Syria. The richest irony is that rich white college students have begun gentrifying my area, voting labour for more diversity whilst driving it out of the borough.
(response to removed post removed)
So yeah, DF players may have a tiny bit of a clearer picture on migration. Anyways, opinions?
Also, completely missed this. DF and migration only go hand in hand so well because of its horrendous attrition. The Overseer needs to get a megaproject done, this usually involves a lot of migrant deaths simply as a result of the scale of what needs be done and the risks involved. A similar situation would be Qatar, its world cup project and migrant workers. The obvious difference being when a Dwarf dies in DF the Overseer can chuckle and replace him with a new one quite easily, the Dwarf is only so meaningful as the Overseer is willing to ascribe worth to a fictional entity. What Qatar's doing is real life. When a Nepalese builder dies under the sun, that's it for him.
There is perhaps a parallel to be drawn here.
Author
Topic: Immigration, Emigration and Refugees (Read 6725 times)