The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160
Original post by Sonny_J_D
Can I come too? :wink:


definitely :tongue:
Reply 161
Original post by tiger_socks
However much we dont like to hear it because of our multi-cultural society and our public correctness, there are currently 181,000 illegal immigrants in England alone who have over-stayed their vise by 5+ years. These people will have families here by now, using the NHS, taking our necessary jobs and benefits.
Free for all does need to stop, if you can bring something worthwhile to out country, education, occupation, experience- then come on in.
On the other hand, if you are coming to use our free health service and council housing, brilliant schools and generous culture then dont bother.
Lauren,


How are they using the NHS and claiming benefits if they are here illegally?
Original post by Alhae
Nothing good will come to a first world country by turning it into the one on the right.


On the right? Wtf?
Reply 163
Original post by Alhae
Nothing good will come to a first world country by turning it into the one on the right.


1. There are statistical group differences in intelligence so large scale immigration from African countries will certainly transform first world countries in a negative way, unless you carefully screen for intelligent migrants. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

2. The economic benefits of immigration are generally overstated & overlook the infrastructure/welfare/social cohesion impacts. A skilled migrant criteria would be a more sensible approach - see the House of Lords select committee of economic affairs report.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

3. Immigration from statistically high crime populations should also be minimised - again screening for smart/highly skilled migrants would help achieve this.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=vgHgNsmZ3vsC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=race+crime+walsh&source=bl&ots=PCUU8T-Ri9&sig=zVIm6pbWDis_L345yL2iAoAK0E8&hl=en&ei=tlOETc_kEo3SsAPZsb31AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 164
Original post by cybergrad
We are so "advanced" only because we stole everything they had and used them as free labour.
...


Not true, genetic changes accelerated over the past 10,000 years in response to agriculture and population density (see 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution'). These helped pre-select traits that would prove beneficial for developing an industrial economy (docility, patience, forward planning etc). For instance, also you see differences in average cognitive ability across populations. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php

Also, see UC Davis economist Greg Clark's 'A Farewell to Alms'. Some of Clark's recent work is summarised here:

In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work which consequently spread widely.

And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology. We are also presumably equivalently different from groups like Australian Aboriginals that never experience the Neolithic Revolution before the arrival of the English settlers in 1788.


http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/social-darwinism-21st-century-edition.html
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 165
Original post by LaidBaqq
Wow. Somebody needs to do some more research.

Ancient Egypt ring any bells? Where was that? Ah , yes Africa.

I think you'll find that the general consensus is that Egypt was seen as the most 'advanced' ancient society.


Except that the racial mix in Egypt was quite different to sub-saharan Africa. Classics scholar Mary Leftkowitz has debunked a number of afrocentric myths. http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMary_Lefkowitz&rct=j&q=Mary%20Lefkowitz&ei=b1iETaKvN4i2sAP-0NiDAg&usg=AFQjCNFMtuaTkC7L6P8kY4UhrOQrG3pbCg&cad=rja

Also, in terms of books I'd recommend you 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution'. This helps explain the disparities seen today. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e3465a8a-19e1-11e0-b921-00144feab49a.html#axzz1H1m3AHpw

'A Farewell to Alms' is also good on the Industrial Revolution and the role of malthusian selection for certain traits. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/social-darwinism-21st-century-edition.html
Iraq 3000 years ago





Britain 3000 years ago




Does this mean Iraqi's are superior to white people? What terrible logic.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 167
Original post by Busby_Babe
Iraq 3000 years ago
Does this mean Iraqi's are superior to white people? What terrible logic.


Probably more relevant are current disparities in measured cognitive ability and crime rates.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/P&E%20Crime.pdf

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
Original post by Chi019
Probably more relevant are current disparities in measured cognitive ability and crime rates.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/P&E%20Crime.pdf

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php


I admit I only skimmed through those but what are you arguing? That East Asians are superior to Europeans who are superior to Africans due to lower crime rate and academic achievement amongst those communities which is down to genetics?

And I can't help but think whoever wrote the second article was wearing a tinfoil hat whilst doing so.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 169
Original post by Busby_Babe
I admit I only skimmed through those but what are you arguing? That East Asians are superior to Europeans who are superior to Africans due to lower crime rate and academic achievement amongst those communities which is down to genetics?

And I can't help but think whoever wrote the second article was wearing a tinfoil hat whilst doing so.


1. Those are just facts based on empirical data. That doesn't make people superior, it means that there are statistical differences across populations. Therefore, just as insurers charge higher premiums to statisically risky groups (ie. males) immigration could require higher standards for populations more at risk of poor outcomes. Skill selection is a reasonable way of doing this.

2. The article about James Watson by Jason Malloy? It's a pretty good summary of research you can otherwise find in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 170
Original post by Investment Banker
So very ignorant and stupid of you ! Dumb statement at its best


Ignorant of what? I think he's alluding to statistical differences across populations that suggest that immigration has to be carefully managed. Populations, in other words, aren't simply interchangeable.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/national-iq.html#more
Stop reading the DM, and instead watch some of the border force programs on TV. It's real life stuff, and most(like 99.99%) illegal immigrants can't get anything, lest they want to come up on the radar
Reply 172
Original post by de_monies
Stop reading the DM, and instead watch some of the border force programs on TV. It's real life stuff, and most(like 99.99%) illegal immigrants can't get anything, lest they want to come up on the radar


And nor should they, of course. People shouldn't stop reading the DM, they need to be less apathetic and protest about the abuse of the asylum system & use of human rights laws to subvert national borders.
Jesus OP is a moron

This is coming from a 3rd gen British-Sikh...grandparents were immigrants but myself+parents are British:

-Immigration is a wholly positive process WHEN controlled....since 1997 immigrants have added well over £36 billion to our economy. Why totally ban something which is brining benefit to our country? Madness sir. Utter utter madness!

-Yes, atmo, we need to do something to control immigration. I believe the new system the con-dems want to introduce is highly flawed in many places...for those unaware of how it works they want to but a monthly limit on non-EU workers...the irony being if you earn more than £150k equivalent, yearly, in the country you are coming from, you aren't affected by the monthly cap. So much for the con-dems not wanting to blow open the rich-poor gap even further....

But wanting to totally ban immigration? That's absolutely ridiculous. As I often say: "Do your research before complaining about immigration..."
Reply 174
Original post by Barden
Indeed, without colonialism, the industrial revolution would also have happened in Africa and India...


This is a bizarre comment. There wasn't the malthusian selection in Africa that lead to the adoption of traits which were a pre-requisite for an industrial economy. This had occurred in China and in Europe (see links below).

In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work which consequently spread widely.

And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology.


http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07/social-darwinism-21st-century-edition.html

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/02/sociobiological-implications-of.html
Reply 175
Original post by Singh993
J

Immigration is a wholly positive process WHEN controlled....since 1997 immigrants have added well over £36 billion to our economy. Why totally ban something which is brining benefit to our country? Madness sir. Utter utter madness!."


So allowing Muslim migrants into India or Israel would be wholly positive provided there was a GDP boost? You need to factor in social cohesion, along with instrastructure demands & environmental concerns. More fundamentally, overall GDP type arguments avoid the crucial question of actual benefits for current citizens. The House of Lords select committee report showed these are actually pretty marginal.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

That said, I agree that skilled migration is useful and necessary in some areas. The problem is unskilled migration from higher crime populations that add to an existing underclass.
Original post by Chi019
So allowing Muslim migrants into India or Israel would be wholly positive provided there was a GDP boost? You need to factor in social cohesion, along with instrastructure demands & environmental concerns. More fundamentally, overall GDP type arguments avoid the crucial question of actual benefits for current citizens. The House of Lords select committee report showed these are actually pretty marginal.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

That said, I agree that skilled migration is useful and necessary in some areas. The problem is unskilled migration from higher crime populations that add to an existing underclass.


yes and this is why i am a fan of a points-based-system so those with the necessary skills & qualifications can come here to work, improve their lives and help the economy...
Reply 177
Original post by Chi019
1. Those are just facts based on empirical data. That doesn't make people superior, it means that there are statistical differences across populations. Therefore, just as insurers charge higher premiums to statisically risky groups (ie. males) immigration could require higher standards for populations more at risk of poor outcomes. Skill selection is a reasonable way of doing this.

2. The article about James Watson by Jason Malloy? It's a pretty good summary of research you can otherwise find in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/


Well done, you have managed to misuse statistics like Hitler misused Darwin. The difference in intelligence/crime rate/economic output is across countries and regions, and has more to do with economic differences than racial ones even within countries. There is absolutely no causal link that has been established and proven between race and crime rate/intelligence/economic contributions, all there is is a bunch of wannabe racists looking at correlations, disregarding all socio-economic variations and going "oh, he's a convict, must be because he's black", all because that is the only thing they think people are defined by.
well i said nothing about my background you silly boy - We happen to be very well off but unlike being rich and stuck up our own backsides, we care about the poor as, go back 15 years, we were dirt poor with my grandparents having to work 13 hour shifts every day to keep our family afloat.........

Try and be more considerate, eh - I never said I was jealous, I'm just disgusted by the government doing anything that would even slightly widen this gap - no need for it.
lol. Sky news is nearly on par with DM for it's drivel. When you watch the border force programs, you'll see different

Latest

Trending

Trending