Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

So are europeans ok with going extinct or what? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
    What does this mean for the future of europe?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "such a long time", not really. Birth rates can change exponentially over a generation. The UK had a short baby boom in 1990 and before that in 1964. We're keeping our numbers up. As a native European i want a football team sized family and i know that british families tend to go for the 2 children mark so we'll keep our number regardless. You mention the future of Europe but you forget about Westernisation, immigrants that come countries with large families tend to stop after a generation because their children will value the standard of living. So, we won't go extinct and it is incredibly unlikely that the UK's native population will be outnumbered by the sons and daughters of immigrants. However, hypothetically if it did happen then the very nature of Europe will change depending on the replacing dominant ethnic group as it obviously would. But that is also why we need to stress assimilation and not multi-culturalism so that if that ever did occur they would still be culturally british and still have british values.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    "extinct" smh :erm:
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by hvydna)
    Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
    What does this mean for the future of europe?
    Rather than exaggerate then it might be more helpful if you make clear what your claim is along with some evidence.

    It neednt be a bad thing if populations are decreasing. They are still growing in most cases, just less quickly than Africa. the point would be that they are mature societies where people live longer and they have greater productivity. A lot of the slack is taken up by migrants. I wouldnt be writing Europe off just yet.

    It makes more sens to have quality of life and prosperity than ten children families starving and asking for famine Aid in Africa. Whatever makes you happy though.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Well, it already happened once. Neanderthals were the only hominid species in Europe for around half a million years and they went extinct, and I guess the Neanderthals replaced Heidlebergensis and Homo Erectus before that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hvydna)
    Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
    What does this mean for the future of europe?
    Some indigenous European (i.e. White) women would like to have a lot more than 2.1 children but are told that there is something wrong with being a housewife, so they go out to work instead of having more children.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matwillis)
    "such a long time", not really. Birth rates can change exponentially over a generation. The UK had a short baby boom in 1990 and before that in 1964. We're keeping our numbers up. As a native European i want a football team sized family and i know that british families tend to go for the 2 children mark so we'll keep our number regardless. You mention the future of Europe but you forget about Westernisation, immigrants that come countries with large families tend to stop after a generation because their children will value the standard of living. So, we won't go extinct and it is incredibly unlikely that the UK's native population will be outnumbered by the sons and daughters of immigrants. However, hypothetically if it did happen then the very nature of Europe will change depending on the replacing dominant ethnic group as it obviously would. But that is also why we need to stress assimilation and not multi-culturalism so that if that ever did occur they would still be culturally british and still have british values.
    Assimilation is virtually impossible at this point, the numbers coming in now are just too great. It was different with the migrants in the decades after the Second World War, their numbers were small, and when you are one of the only non-white families in an area, then you have little choice but to assimilate into the host culture (though I would question how 'assimilated' a person of non-native descent can ever truly be. It's not at all hard to find second, third, even forth generation offspring of those early immigrants who will openly tell you they still don't feel they really belong here. They will often chalk it up to 'racism' making them feel unwelcome, but I think it's much deeper than that. At the very least they are still visibly different to everybody else and even if they have fully imbibed the superficial cultural aspects of being 'British', the fact remains they still don't have the deep ancestral connection to these lands and it's history, which I believe is fundamental in forming one's sense of identity and belonging to a nation. But that is a whole other topic for another day).

    Today this is not the case, migrants are coming in such numbers now that they can just ghettoise into their own enclaves right off the bat, and that is exactly what we are starting to see in many towns and cities across Europe. I don't think I need to spell out how dangerous it is to have radically different and increasingly hostile parallel societies forming within a society (see former Yugoslavia). Halting further immigration would be a good start, but it won't go far enough. The only solution I see at this point is to as peacefully and humanely possible, send significant numbers of these people back to their ancestral countries, we can at least start with the ones who beligerantly refuse to integrate or assimilate and are only here for financial gain. I know it's highly controversial stuff I'm talking about, but it's a damn sight preferable to the nightmare that awaits us in a few decades if we do nothing about this (which I suspect is exactly what our governments will do. Nothing).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Rather than exaggerate then it might be more helpful if you make clear what your claim is along with some evidence.

    It neednt be a bad thing if populations are decreasing. They are still growing in most cases, just less quickly than Africa. the point would be that they are mature societies where people live longer and they have greater productivity. A lot of the slack is taken up by migrants. I wouldnt be writing Europe off just yet.

    It makes more sens to have quality of life and prosperity than ten children families starving and asking for famine Aid in Africa. Whatever makes you happy though.
    My concern is exactly what you said.
    Populations seem to be increasing YET stabilizing around the world everywhere EXCEPT Africa. By 2050, the earth will have an extra 2.4 billion humans. Most of this population increase will be occurring in Africa and India in that order. The population of continental Africa is set to be around 2.4 billion by 2050 up from the current 1.6 billion right now. With the amounts of mass immigration occurring in europe AS IS and the future strain on the european continent due to the many extra hundreds of millions of Africans that will try to cross over into europe in the next 2-3 decades, the future looks dark. LITERALLY.
    If european governments, especially western european governments don't address this issue, european civlization may be at stake even more so than it already is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Assimilation is virtually impossible at this point, the numbers coming in now are just too great. It was different with the migrants in the decades after the Second World War, their numbers were small, and when you are one of the only non-white families in an area, then you have little choice but to assimilate into the host culture (though I would question how 'assimilated' a person of non-native descent can ever truly be. It's not at all hard to find second, third, even forth generation offspring of those early immigrants who will openly tell you they still don't feel they really belong here. They will often chalk it up to 'racism' making them feel unwelcome, but I think it's much deeper than that. At the very least they are still visibly different to everybody else and even if they have fully imbibed the superficial cultural aspects of being 'British', the fact remains they still don't have the deep ancestral connection to these lands and it's history, which I believe is fundamental in forming one's sense of identity and belonging to a nation. But that is a whole other topic for another day).

    Today this is not the case, migrants are coming in such numbers now that they can just ghettoise into their own enclaves right off the bat, and that is exactly what we are starting to see in many towns and cities across Europe. I don't think I need to spell out how dangerous it is to have radically different and increasingly hostile parallel societies forming within a society (see former Yugoslavia). Halting further immigration would be a good start, but it won't go far enough. The only solution I see at this point is to as peacefully and humanely possible, send significant numbers of these people back to their ancestral countries, we can at least start with the ones who beligerantly refuse to integrate or assimilate and are only here for financial gain. I know it's highly controversial stuff I'm talking about, but it's a damn sight preferable to the nightmare that awaits us in a few decades if we do nothing about this (which I suspect is exactly what our governments will do. Nothing).

    Some immigration into any country is absolutely fine. Individuals that can assimilate and contribute to a society are welcome I believe.. but this isn't 'healthy' immigration I fear, this is a take over. The amount of immigration occurring in europe and the types of cultures many of these people are coming from-they're simply incompatible. An immigrant population should never rise to over 90% of the host population imho. Like you said, a lot of those people that feel they don't belong there should try their best to either assimilate or go back to the country they feel they can meld into. It would be for the best for EVERYONE. And also, I agree. It's hard for a large amount of immigrants to feel at home in a land that isn't their native lands a lot of the times.
    The problem is, it's a lot easier to take in these people than to get them out..
    I don't think it's EVER too late though but the sooner this problem get addressed, the better.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Assimilation is virtually impossible at this point, the numbers coming in now are just too great. It was different with the migrants in the decades after the Second World War, their numbers were small, and when you are one of the only non-white families in an area, then you have little choice but to assimilate into the host culture (though I would question how 'assimilated' a person of non-native descent can ever truly be. It's not at all hard to find second, third, even forth generation offspring of those early immigrants who will openly tell you they still don't feel they really belong here. They will often chalk it up to 'racism' making them feel unwelcome, but I think it's much deeper than that. At the very least they are still visibly different to everybody else and even if they have fully imbibed the superficial cultural aspects of being 'British', the fact remains they still don't have the deep ancestral connection to these lands and it's history, which I believe is fundamental in forming one's sense of identity and belonging to a nation. But that is a whole other topic for another day).

    Today this is not the case, migrants are coming in such numbers now that they can just ghettoise into their own enclaves right off the bat, and that is exactly what we are starting to see in many towns and cities across Europe. I don't think I need to spell out how dangerous it is to have radically different and increasingly hostile parallel societies forming within a society (see former Yugoslavia). Halting further immigration would be a good start, but it won't go far enough. The only solution I see at this point is to peacefully and as humanely possible, send significant numbers of these people back to their ancestral countries, we can at least start with the ones who beligerantly refuse to integrate or assimilate and are only here for financial gain. I know it's highly controversial stuff I'm talking about, but it's a damn sight preferable to the nightmare that awaits us in a few decades if we do nothing about this (which I suspect is exactly what our governments will do. Nothing).
    Assimilation is not impossible at this point, no-one expected the West Caribbeans to assimilate as well as they have done. I don't think it is easy to find a 3rd or 4th generation immigrant that will say that. I believe in the process of Westernisation and that the majority of those that came in the 60's, their descendents do consider themselves British. I'm not emphasising the superficial aspects of British culture but the culture in its entirety especially our national values. Fundamentally we seem to disagree on this, i believe the people shape themselves, you seem to think that the land shapes the people. I don't think you have to be born somewhere to have a sense of identity, i don't believe being British is only reserved to those whose families have resided here for centuries. How long would a family have to reside here until they form those ancestral roots to these lands? 3 generations? 10 generations? 20 generations?

    I agree with you, immigrants should not set up their own societies within our own. It does hinder assimilation and does contribute to sections of society alienating from one another. I do disagree with your next point though, we should not send them back unjustly. Just to uproot immigrants because they have the wrong history, that by another name is ethnic cleansing. Borders are fine but just deporting people because we need to keep the majority could be devastating for people. At this stage, i'm happy with just stronger borders and i think what you want is just too extreme an option.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matwillis)
    Assimilation is not impossible at this point, no-one expected the West Caribbeans to assimilate as well as they have done. I don't think it is easy to find a 3rd or 4th generation immigrant that will say that. I believe in the process of Westernisation and that the majority of those that came in the 60's, their descendents do consider themselves British. I'm not emphasising the superficial aspects of British culture but the culture in its entirety especially our national values. Fundamentally we seem to disagree on this, i believe the people shape themselves, you seem to think that the land shapes the people. I don't think you have to be born somewhere to have a sense of identity, i don't believe being British is only reserved to those whose families have resided here for centuries. How long would a family have to reside here until they form those ancestral roots to these lands? 3 generations? 10 generations? 20 generations?

    I agree with you, immigrants should not set up their own societies within our own. It does hinder assimilation and does contribute to sections of society alienating from one another. I do disagree with your next point though, we should not send them back unjustly. Just to uproot immigrants because they have the wrong history, that by another name is ethnic cleansing. Borders are fine but just deporting people because we need to keep the majority could be devastating for people. At this stage, i'm happy with just stronger borders and i think what you want is just too extreme an option.
    Assimilation is possible for the minority of immigrants that actually care about adapting but given the speed at which new immigrants are coming and where they're coming from, it's extremely unlikely that these new waves will adapt. What makes you think that these people/ won't/ continue to join/form their own enclaves? People tend to take the easier route in everything. There's no incentive for these people to adapt when they already have ethnic niches they can fit into. I also don't see how removing these people would count as 'ethnic cleansing' since the people we'd be removing are people that are not ethnic europeans at all for the most part. Non-native europeans don't have a right to be in europe. It's a complete privilege given to them. I'm not promoting the removal of immigrants who have adapted to the western way of life, just the ones that don't adapt, specifically.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hvydna)
    Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating...birth rates fluctuate, right? Right...BUT, your birth rates have way below replacement for such a long time. I understand that societies with such high living standards usually don't need to have as much children but native europeans either don't want to have at least 2.1 kids to sustain the population or can't afford it...
    What does this mean for the future of europe?
    I think people’s decisions on how many children to have will normally be based on how it will personally affect them, and depend on things like time and financial constraints, emotional readiness, being able to provide a stable home environment, being willing to commit to the responsibility etc.

    Compared to that, I doubt people will care too much about what racial population statistics are going to look like long after they’re dead anyway.
    • Offline

      20
      The fear of becoming a minority in their own lands is what drives many people to the far-right in Europe.

      In the past, Europeans like Hitler and Churchill were so obsessed by European birth rates that they wanted to gas the 'inferior' races in order to ensure the survival of the European race.

      So the answer is obviously no.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by hvydna)
      Assimilation is possible for the minority of immigrants that actually care about adapting but given the speed at which new immigrants are coming and where they're coming from, it's extremely unlikely that these new waves will adapt. What makes you think that these people/ won't/ continue to join/form their own enclaves? People tend to take the easier route in everything. There's no incentive for these people to adapt when they already have ethnic niches they can fit into. I also don't see how removing these people would count as 'ethnic cleansing' since the people we'd be removing are people that are not ethnic europeans at all for the most part. Non-native europeans don't have a right to be in europe. It's a complete privilege given to them. I'm not promoting the removal of immigrants who have adapted to the western way of life, just the ones that don't adapt, specifically.
      I disagree, assimilation is possible for all immigrants. Also there are insentives to assimilate, if there weren't foreigners wouldn't be speaking English in their every day lives for 1 example. Also i have no reason reason not to believe that they won't continue to group together but what you can notice is that the host culture is wearing down the cultural practises of the immigrants. It's a process hell with mixed race marriages on the rise most prevalently between whites and black does that mean nothing? Westernisation works, the family sizes of immigrants are falling generation after generation.

      Now, if you move a group of people because of their ethnicity or religion that is ethnic cleansing. The gypsies are originally believed to be from India yet most reside in Europe. If we told gypsies to return to India simply because they've kept the ways and haven't assimilated, that is an ethnic cleansing. You are removing an ethnicity either by the sword or the boat the result is the same. How would you classify those that have and haven't properly assimilated. Would you only allow those that know all of the verses to god save the queen or those that work in Asda and keep to themselves? How would you tell who is or isn't assimilated. Besides people do things at different speeds, it may be easier for certain people to assimilate sooner than others. I totally disagree with you.
      Name:  untitled.png
Views: 21
Size:  413.5 KB
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      7
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by matwillis)
      I disagree, assimilation is possible for all immigrants. Also there are insentives to assimilate, if there weren't foreigners wouldn't be speaking English in their every day lives for 1 example. Also i have no reason reason not to believe that they won't continue to group together but what you can notice is that the host culture is wearing down the cultural practises of the immigrants. It's a process hell with mixed race marriages on the rise most prevalently between whites and black does that mean nothing? Westernisation works, the family sizes of immigrants are falling generation after generation.

      Now, if you move a group of people because of their ethnicity or religion that is ethnic cleansing. The gypsies are originally believed to be from India yet most reside in Europe. If we told gypsies to return to India simply because they've kept the ways and haven't assimilated, that is an ethnic cleansing. You are removing an ethnicity either by the sword or the boat the result is the same. How would you classify those that have and haven't properly assimilated. Would you only allow those that know all of the verses to god save the queen or those that work in Asda and keep to themselves? How would you tell who is or isn't assimilated. Besides people do things at different speeds, it may be easier for certain people to assimilate sooner than others. I totally disagree with you.
      Name:  untitled.png
Views: 21
Size:  413.5 KB
      I never said assimilation is impossible for all immigrants and I wasn't suggesting that they had to know all the verses to 'god save the queen' either. Stop being so nitpicky. You know exactly what I mean. It's just that certain immigrant groups, depending on where they come from and how devoted they are to their own ways of life, don't readily adapt as quickly. The current waves of immigration occurring right now is unsustainable. Yes, you're correct to an extent that the host culture can ware down the immigrant culture. Immigrants tend to have less children upon entering a more developed country in the 2nd and 3rd generations. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case and the more 'migrants' that enter europe, the greater the chances that they will continue to reproduce at way higher rates than native europeans and completely outbreed them within the next 50-65 years. It's already happening as a significant portion of births in major cities within western europe are immigrant births.

      These interracial unions between europeans and people of african descent aren't a good thing either especially compounded with low native european birth rates and non-stop immigration which is obviously meant to mix white europeans out of existence.

      Oh PLEASE. You know very well the current immigration INVASION problem has nothing to do with gypsies but with waves of immigrants from the middle east. Gypsies aren't the ones causing the major issues in europe and creating no-go zones for themselves. Once a certain ethnic group becomes a threat, there's no reason to NOT send them back where they came from (no, obviously not all of them, that would be unrealistic). How many european women have to be raped for people to realize that this isn't multiculturalism? It's just a takeover waiting to happen. These people are in europe by privilege not right.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.