Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration

110 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Neil,

    House prices in Auckland are dropping even though immigration remains high.

    A higher population means more people to pay for and utilise public transport.

    A higher population creates a larger local market in which to develop added value products that can be exported.

    And yet Labour are sticking to cutting numbers. Or something, it doesn't seem particularly clear.

    It's easy enough to promise trains for all, harder it seems to stand up to the rhetoric of Peters.

    Since Nov 2016 • 351 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Neil,

    And yet Labour are sticking to cutting numbers. Or something, it doesn't seem particularly clear.

    A higher population means a greater impact on the environment.
    A lesser impact on the environment might be something that the populace believes should be brought about.
    Cutting immigration would be easier and cheaper than reducing the impact of the present population.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Farmer Green,

    Cutting immigration would be easier and cheaper than reducing the impact of the present population.

    Which is not to say that reducing the impact of the present population is particularly difficult, just that immigration is a seemingly trivial thing to change. The flow-on effects are much more exciting, not least because "real" GDP growth depends almost entirely on immigration. National is more dependent on that effect than Labour, but both rely on it to provide the illusion of progress in the neoliberal framework they use.

    The annoying thing is we could reduce the environmental impact of a number of sectors just by reducing the subsidies or changing the subsidy mix. Some of the stupid things we spend money on only make any sense at all if you rely on tradition and never think about what we're actually doing. "We have always sacrificed our first-born to Moloch" makes as much sense as "farmers have always let the cow shit run off into streams".

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    makes as much sense

    Do you mean "makes as little sense" ?
    The comparison is between two untrue statements.
    Can "reducing the environmental impact" ever be enough?
    In other words , how far do we want to go in reducing the human footprint , and who decides when enough is enough?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    It would be true to say that ruminants have always recycled most of their excretions into the grasslands/soil association which has evolved with them, and which sustains them.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Farmer Green,

    But then it would also be true to say that NZ ecosystems have not evolved with any ruminants. NZ is the last landmass (other than Antarctica) to have been settled and changed by humans, which makes your question

    how far do we want to go in reducing the human footprint, and who decides when enough is enough

    even more pointed. There’s a Radiolab episode, Wild Things, that explores some of the resulting dilemmas: (i) what it means, and whether it’s even possible, to preserve wild animals in a natural habitat; and (ii) an interesting take on hunting vs. conservation.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1886 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Farmer Green,

    It would be true to say that ruminants have always recycled most of their excretions into the grasslands/soil association which has evolved with them,

    Nah bro, you're not in Africa now. Unless you're saying that there's ruminant moa somewhere in Aotearoa? The co-evolution you're talking about happened overnight like so: Mount Taupo erupted, hominids arrived, CO2 hit 400ppm. Blink. Wooah. Or gronk, as the moa apparently used to put it.

    Linger nailed it, but I had the mental picture of a ruminant moa saying "gronk".

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Farmer Green,

    A lesser impact on the environment might be something that the populace believes should be brought about.

    I would like to see us make far greater use of environmental carrying capacity (quantitative analysis) as a part of our planning/development decisions - including built environment as well as natural environment carrying capacity. I think that was what the RMA's effects-based approach was supposed to do but it can't be working given our congestion problems; our nutrient problems; etc.

    It was pointed out very early on in the RMA implementation (and that implementation is 1991) that the Act as written failed to deal with cumulative effects - yet regardless of the many amendments to it since 1991, we still haven't solved that problem.

    So we now see that problem trying to be solved in much lower order (and in many case, non-regulatory) documents, such as catchment strategies and local/village strategic plans. We have become adept at talking the talk.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    Nah bro, you're not in Africa now.

    :-)
    The grasslands that we have today in NZ might suit a moa . . . chickens like it.
    I was just referring to the phenomenon of the building of productive topsoils by grazing ruminants. It might be the only sustainable lifestyle that Homo sapiens has encountered so far.

    But I think you meant Eurasia ;-

    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/March2012/120327-cattle-traced-back-80-animals

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    From what I can read in the farming and business papers , we are, nationally, at the stage of identifying the most problematic soil/catchment situations which will not meet the national guidelines. And regulating these areas to achieve compliance.
    Some soils will always be very "leaky".

    The proliferation of dairying in the South Island took place in spite of the geography, a consideration of which might have led to the conclusion that some locations were totally unsuitable for some types of food production.

    I think that progress on the reduction of human impact is predictably slow , in both urban and rural environments . . . this is a local government function after all.
    But for affected farmers, it is a dream shattered.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    Here's what I was actually trying to get at:-

    "Although all plants photosynthesize, no vegetation type beats grasses, which cover a greater area of the earth’s landmass than any other. And if that wasn’t enough, unlike forests, grasslands store most of the carbon they sequester from the atmosphere deep under the soil surface as organic matter, which actually increases fertility and enhances soil life in countless ways. That is why the great grain growing regions of the world are former grasslands, not forests.



    "Grasslands are the most important ecosystem for human civilization.

    When healthy, they purify the air, absorb and filter water and allow it to infiltrate back into underground reservoirs, they support immeasurable wildlife and biodiversity, and they build the deepest most fertile soils on the planet.

    Grasslands are also home to more than 1 billion people who depend on them for their food and livelihoods."

    Alan Savory is saying that if you want to save agriculture , then you must save the grasslands.
    The question is :- "why would you want to save agriculture" , right?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to Farmer Green,

    A higher population means a greater impact on the environment.

    I responded at length to this other night, but I put it on ice, got bored writing it. But in response to this point, we have a relatively minute population dwarfed by our current environmental issues. Scapegoating immigrants for our incapacity to engage in sound environmental management is what it is.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    . Scapegoating immigrants for our incapacity to engage in sound environmental management

    I don't see anyone doing that at present. But who knows what inanity is "beyond the pale" during an election campaign?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    we have a relatively minute population dwarfed by our current environmental issues.

    Any numbers?
    The point might be that NZ produces protein to feed 20 million people. Should we plan to cease exporting food when our population reaches that number?
    We could produce just enough for 5 million and enough extra to be able to bring in a few million more tourists.
    We've got to sell something as long as we are in debt.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to linger,

    NZ ecosystems have not evolved with any ruminants.

    And humans neither. Should we all go home?
    :-)

    If the thesis is that we should not grow these ruminant-ready Mediterranean grasses in our Mediterranean climate , then what should we grow?
    The grasslands that we now have , co-evolved with ruminants.
    We have the grasses . . . .now what?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to Farmer Green,

    Cutting immigration would be easier and cheaper than reducing the impact of the present population.

    Easier, cheaper - as aspirations seldom - if ever - propagate best outcome.

    Should we plan to cease exporting food when our population reaches that number?
    We could produce just enough for 5 million and enough extra to be able to bring in a few million more tourists.
    We’ve got to sell something as long as we are in debt.

    I find the talk of food and tourists somewhat distracts from our entrenched racism.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    I guess we will have to wait and see whether promises to cut immigration , for whatever reason, is a successful election strategy.
    If it is a good strategy, would promises to see every NZer given the opportunity to develop to their full potential, via some serious attention to education , be an even better electoral strategy?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Farmer Green,

    grasslands that we now have , co-evolved with ruminants

    Well, no. These particular ruminants are not exactly the product of evolution aimed at efficient use of natural grasslands, either: rather, they, and the particular grasslands they inhabit in this country, represent the end result of thousands of years of selection by and management by (and ultimately, codependence with) humans. As you yourself know, they do not form a sustainable permanent system; they require continuous management and maintenance (though less so under some farming methods than others, and much can be done to make that work less intensive). Rather than a purely biological evolutionary process, we’re looking more at a process of cultural and technological development; and of course that’s where any future development of our land use will come from too.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1886 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    our entrenched racism.

    Xenophobia might be closer to the mark ; perhaps .
    Race doesn't seem to come into it ; no target racial group . . . no particular racial group is the perpetrator.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to linger,

    any future development of our land use

    What do you have in mind there?
    What we have done in Godzone to date is to produce fertile topsoils using introduced grasses and ruminants and soil amendments, and the management of those things.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to Farmer Green,

    Xenophobia might be closer to the mark ; perhaps .
    Race doesn’t seem to come into it ; no target racial group . . . no particular racial group is the perpetrator.

    Thanks for adequately illustrating how entrenched the racism and apoligism is FG. Enough were paying attention to the ‘Chinese-sounding names’ campaign to know which group was targeted. Quelle surprise, it was one of the same groups that was specifically targeted by our Government through the first half of the 20th C and then again - post apology - in the 21st century when the Labour Government rushed through legislation to make it harder for Chinese to gain entry.

    Louisa Wall’s dog whistle by contrast was geared more towards students from the sub-continent: those exploited by agencies for immigration under tenuous pretense.

    As pointed out over the page, “Asiatics”, “Asians”. have long been the target of New Zealand policy and as any historical reading will reveal, this racism has been a feature of our culture since the gold-rush.

    Racism need not be perpetrated by a single demographic, racism is not limited to a particular group, but if you’ve been living in New Zealand for any stretch and missed the anti-Asian bent of our largely (but non-exclusively) caucasian population then all I can assume is that you’ve not been paying close enough attention.

    And why would you need to?

    As long as it’s a “successful election strategy” any minority is fair game right?

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    t you’ve not been paying close enough attention.

    It’s true that farming communities can be inward looking, but I live in a Chinese market-gardening community, and I experience none of what you are describing.
    And my four part-Maori children , and Maori/Asian grandchildren have a similar experience. Caucasians are the odd ones out in this little part of Australasia.

    The historical example is just history . Nothing unusual at the time .

    And extrapolating from the antics of the political class? As you say , they’ll do anything for a vote, which is what I was saying in reply to Neil"s musing about Labour cutting immigration. Here:-

    https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/speaker-low-quality-language-on-immigration/?p=375280#post375280

    I suggested some ways that they could “justify” curbing immigration while appearing to care for the environment and be non-racist at the same time. No more than vague plausibility is necessary.

    We must move in very different circles. :-)

    You can own "our entrenched racism" ; I don't think I want to be a part of that.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to Farmer Green,

    “some of my best friends are __ they don’t (AFAIK) experience __ so it’s not a problem”

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    I hear you. :-)
    I'm not sure that you hear me. But just as well that I was here, eh?

    "Thanks for adequately illustrating how entrenched the racism and apoligism is FG."

    What would you have done without me? :-)

    But you weren't saying that an anti-immigration bias is necessarily racist, I thought.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mark taslov,

    As long as it’s a “successful election strategy” any minority is fair game right?

    And this :-

    " we have been systematically making the entire country more stupid for decades.

    We learned long ago in this [media] business that dumber and more alarmist always beats complex and nuanced. Big headlines, cartoonish morality, scary criminals at home and foreign menaces abroad, they all sell. We decimated attention spans, rewarded hot-takers over thinkers, and created in audiences powerful addictions to conflict, vitriol, fear, self-righteousness, and race and gender resentment.

    There isn't a news executive alive low enough to deny that we use xenophobia and racism to sell ads. Black people on TV for decades were almost always shirtless and chased by cops, and the "rock-throwing Arab" photo was a staple of international news sections even before 9/11. And when all else fails in the media world, just show more cleavage somewhere, and ratings go up, every time.

    Donald Trump didn't just take advantage of these conditions. He was created in part by them. What's left of Trump's mind is like a parody of the average American media consumer: credulous, self-centered, manic, sex-obsessed, unfocused, and glued to stories that appeal to his sense of outrage and victimhood.

    We've created a generation of people like this: anger addicts who can't read past the first page of a book. This is why the howls of outrage from within the ranks of the news media about Trump's election ring a little bit false. What the hell did we expect would happen? Who did we think would rise to prominence in our rage-filled, hyper-stimulated media environment? Sensitive geniuses?

    We spent years selling the lowest common denominator. Now the lowest common denominator is president. How can it be anything but self-deception to pretend this is an innocent coincidence? "


    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-26/matt-taibbi-confirms-media-real-villain-creating-world-dumb-enough-trump

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.