The number of babies born in the UK hits a 20 low.
This is a "good thing" according to Britain's "top demographic expert" - Oxford professor Sarah Harper.
But who is this expert and what does she want?
Sarah thinks that there are too many babies in Africa, which is causing African countries trouble, and that there are too many babies in the developed world leading to "overconsumption".
Put short, the solution to this is to ignore difficult pro-natalist policies in the West, and import the 3rd world to take care of the old.
Then, to address the intergenerational fairness problem you've just created by importing millions of poors, you should give them money.
Sarah, who was an advisor to the Tory government on demography under Theresa May when the current government's immigration policy was written, is in favour of what she calls combating the "age-structural" change in the population.
Stability in the population pyramid is the aim. An old population is a burden on the young, a young population is politically and economically chaotic.
In her 2018 book "How Population Change will Transform our World", she presents evidence the pro-natalist policies tend to fail (France, Sweden, Romania), and anti-natalist policies are not always effective (Pakistan, Nigeria etc).
Therefore, governments can't create age-structural stability through birth policies.
The only remaining tool is migration.
Her book is written in a careful academic style, presenting itself as neutral, but there are always tell tale signs of someone's true intentions.
E.g. she only presents evidence that migration is an economic good, and never once tries to distinguish between types of migrant.
High caste, low caste, illegal entrant or investing entrepreneur - all are simply numbers in the age pyramid.
Demographics is destiny.
Sarah, who has also worked for BBC News, HSBC, and the EU, was critical of the UK's EU immigration policy, as it didn't allow in enough migrants.
Instead she praised Australia's migration policy for bringing in more foreigners.
The UK now has an "Australian style" system.
Migration levels to Europe are described in her book as needing to be between net 800,000 to 1,400,000 per year in order to maintain working age population numbers.
This migration is not only "needed" in order to ensure prosperity in devolped countries, but is also inevitable.
250,000,000 people will be international migrants by 2030, and "international agreements" are needed to ensure their "education and welfare".
At the end of the book, she, for no reason whatsoever, decides to share the dreams of poor brown girls in developing countries.
These stories have nothing to do with the demographic data she spent the rest of the book talking about.
Sarah is global-race-communism personified.
Migration is not only necessary and inevitable, but good; stop having babies in the West please; give money to train and feed poor browns.
People like her are our true new elite, and we're all suffering as a result.
Fin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Lots of new technology isn't actually being used.
2. Lots of new technology doesn't actually increase productivity.
3. Productivity gains we have made have been eaten through the creation of non-jobs.
🧵
1. Not using tech.
Nuclear power was once a new technology, and was resisted heavily by political interest groups. As a result only really France bothered investing heavily in it. France reaped rewards for this, the rest of the West did not, and is still dragging their heels..
Similar stories can be told with lots of technological improvements big and small.
At every company I visit I'm shocked by how much printing still takes place, forcing people to wait for documents to be printed, picked up, and then eventually disposed of.
An increasing number of business leaders are calling for people to come back to the office for a variety of reasons.
Most of these reasons are completely bullshit.
They want you back because
1) They weren't taught how to manage remotely
2) Worried about office investments
3) Remote work habits expose how much time can be spent doing nothing
4) You don't feel as powerful sitting in a garden compared to being on the top floor of an office
Thanks to remote work, I've been able to hire far more talented people than I could if people had to regularly commute.
No one who works for me lives within 60 miles.
With Florida's Ron DeSantis about to dramatically loosen the requirements for Judges to impose the death penalty on criminals, lets have a look at some of the most unusual and tortuous forms of the death penalty throughout history.
A thread🧵.
The BLOOD EAGLE
This Viking execution method involved cutting someone's ribs open down their back, pulling them apart, and draping their lungs over their back to resemble a pair of wings.
It is said that the best executioners could keep the condemned alive until the very end.
KEELHAULING
Rather than simply throw the condemned into the ocean to drown, some captains elected to drag people along the bottom of their boat, cutting their flesh against the barnacled wood and giving brief chances to breath air to extend the torture.