Japan needs babies.

[CmdrKing]

So the short version seems to be "because immigrants can never become indistinguishable from the native population, and therefore are not assimilated"?
Pity, I was hoping for a sound argument considering that honestly I would tend to agree that most of Eastern Europe should probably not take in many immigrants at this time: "recovering from imperialism and cultural trauma, still rebuilding national identity" is a pretty good reason to be cagey about inviting enclaves of other cultures in.

So I guess I'll try to short version a response to everything else.

It there's two unbelievably baffling aspects to this argument. Both are rooted in a conveniently overlooked fact: it is in fact nigh-impossible to force people to change their beliefs. You can coerce them, threaten them, convince them, but not force them.

Heck, even oppressed peoples are pretty good at preserving aspects of their culture. The whipmasters can call you a new name and deny you your original clothes, but subverting the beliefs they inflict on you to retain touchstones to your original culture? Ubiquitous. I mean, Vodoun practitioners were often nominally Catholic, and it has some symbology of it as well, but the actual beliefs and practices hold their roots in west African traditions.

So in that light, the idea that unassimilated immigrants can somehow dissolve their host culture is at best misguided. Like, we're talking about a scenario where a fraction of the population would have to strategically distribute their population to maximize political power and then change laws with the explicit goal of erasing aspects of the host culture.
Immigration does not work that way. Imperialism does, but that requires armies and economic leverage. Immigrants don't have those.

So does the same hold true of immigrants? Sure, you can't force anyone to assimilate. But of all populations, refugees and immigrants are the most likely people to choose to do so. Because here's the thing:
They don't just dump refugees in the first place they land nowadays. Prospective host countries usually interview candidates to find good ideological matches. Immigrants by definition are people who want to come to, specifically, your country. And they're going to have sound reasons for doing so, and that includes being drawn to or already believing in aspects of your culture.
People who have chosen to go to a place, who want to be there, are motivated to fit in. Are they going to assimilate well? Probably not, historically immigrant generations will always have a blend of their home and adopted beliefs and traditions. But they're going to make an effort, and generally be the biggest cheerleaders for their adopted homeland, warts and all.

It's so disheartening that so many people can't think through people's motivations and logic and then pretend that reacting to them as dangerous is a cold, logical decision.

[ProfessorDetective]

So the short version seems to be "because immigrants can never become indistinguishable from the native population, and therefore are not assimilated"?
Pity, I was hoping for a sound argument considering that honestly I would tend to agree that most of Eastern Europe should probably not take in many immigrants at this time: "recovering from imperialism and cultural trauma, still rebuilding national identity" is a pretty good reason to be cagey about inviting enclaves of other cultures in.

So I guess I'll try to short version a response to everything else.

It there's two unbelievably baffling aspects to this argument. Both are rooted in a conveniently overlooked fact: it is in fact nigh-impossible to force people to change their beliefs. You can coerce them, threaten them, convince them, but not force them.

Heck, even oppressed peoples are pretty good at preserving aspects of their culture. The whipmasters can call you a new name and deny you your original clothes, but subverting the beliefs they inflict on you to retain touchstones to your original culture? Ubiquitous. I mean, Vodoun practitioners were often nominally Catholic, and it has some symbology of it as well, but the actual beliefs and practices hold their roots in west African traditions.

So in that light, the idea that unassimilated immigrants can somehow dissolve their host culture is at best misguided. Like, we're talking about a scenario where a fraction of the population would have to strategically distribute their population to maximize political power and then change laws with the explicit goal of erasing aspects of the host culture.
Immigration does not work that way. Imperialism does, but that requires armies and economic leverage. Immigrants don't have those.

So does the same hold true of immigrants? Sure, you can't force anyone to assimilate. But of all populations, refugees and immigrants are the most likely people to choose to do so. Because here's the thing:
They don't just dump refugees in the first place they land nowadays. Prospective host countries usually interview candidates to find good ideological matches. Immigrants by definition are people who want to come to, specifically, your country. And they're going to have sound reasons for doing so, and that includes being drawn to or already believing in aspects of your culture.
People who have chosen to go to a place, who want to be there, are motivated to fit in. Are they going to assimilate well? Probably not, historically immigrant generations will always have a blend of their home and adopted beliefs and traditions. But they're going to make an effort, and generally be the biggest cheerleaders for their adopted homeland, warts and all.

It's so disheartening that so many people can't think through people's motivations and logic and then pretend that reacting to them as dangerous is a cold, logical decision.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

[Riedquat]

People who have chosen to go to a place, who want to be there, are motivated to fit in. Are they going to assimilate well? Probably not, historically immigrant generations will always have a blend of their home and adopted beliefs and traditions. But they're going to make an effort, and generally be the biggest cheerleaders for their adopted homeland, warts and all.

It's so disheartening that so many people can't think through people's motivations and logic and then pretend that reacting to them as dangerous is a cold, logical decision.

And the result of that can be very good for all involved, as long as the numbers aren't very large. If they're not they bring something new that may get taken up, which is enriching more than changing where they go to, and get the benefits they went there for. But if the numbers get too high you start getting ghettos and much less assimilation, and further still and there's less left to assimilate in to. Historically immigrations have rarely been very great numerically and the result is more evolution - at least when it wasn't happening at the point of a spear or gun and ending up in total domination, as happened with a lot of European colonisation, particularly in the less heavily populated parts.

[Yukaphile]

I still don't get why this is so alarming. I mean, the population NEEDS to come DOWN. It's too damned high. And we could end up going the same way, which is GOOD.

[CmdrKing]

Short answer is that when you have more retirees than working people economics stop functioning as commonly understood and the shifts required to compensate are not good.

Granted the overpopulation argument is a big lie cooked up by racists like 200 years ago that never went away anyways. It’s perfectly possible to sustain modest population growth and start fixing the environment.
Just not profitable.

[ProfessorDetective]

Just not profitable.

And that is why we are so doomed.

[Riedquat]

Short answer is that when you have more retirees than working people economics stop functioning as commonly understood and the shifts required to compensate are not good.

If we hadn't had technological advancement in the meantime that means we don't need the same working population to maintain the same quality of life.

Granted the overpopulation argument is a big lie cooked up by racists like 200 years ago that never went away anyways. It’s perfectly possible to sustain modest population growth and start fixing the environment.

Jesus wept. No wonder the world's so screwed if that sort of mentality is prevalent. Of course we can keep the bloody pyramid scheme going... Congratulations for being right at the heart of the cause of the problem. It's tragic how so many people would rather live in denial than face the balatantly obvious fact that we can't keep adding to the human population indefinelty. Hooray for infinite growth on the back of finite resources, you ivory towered idiot.

[Riedquat]

I still don't get why this is so alarming. I mean, the population NEEDS to come DOWN. It's too damned high. And we could end up going the same way, which is GOOD.

Exactly. But because it's not easy, because it's hard to see an ethical way of achieving it, some people would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's not an issue in the first place.

[CmdrKing]

Granted the overpopulation argument is a big lie cooked up by racists like 200 years ago that never went away anyways. It’s perfectly possible to sustain modest population growth and start fixing the environment.

Jesus wept. No wonder the world's so screwed if that sort of mentality is prevalent. Of course we can keep the bloody pyramid scheme going... Congratulations for being right at the heart of the cause of the problem. It's tragic how so many people would rather live in denial than face the balatantly obvious fact that we can't keep adding to the human population indefinelty. Hooray for infinite growth on the back of finite resources, you ivory towered idiot.

Quod erat demonstrandum

The problem ain’t the number of people. Current land use could support the current population readily with efficient distribution, and the estimates at current average ecological footprint supposes a maximum population of around 10-11 billion ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/geoawesomeness.com/earths-capacity-many-people-can-support/amp/ ), the projected population circa 2100.
Assuming of course no dramatic changes to lifestyles, agri-tech, land use, or rate of population growth. All of which is foolish, especially the last.

None of which is the point because when people talk of overpopulation, they don’t mean all that. They assume we’ve *passed* some imagined point of overpopulation already, meaning suffering in overpopulated regions is a tragic necessity, because they're relying on the half-truths of long-dead eugenicists rather than understand the ways suffering is systemic, not the whim of fate.

So indeed, in a few short decades we will need to have substantially changed aspects of society to start healing the incredible damage done to the planet in the 20th and early 21st century. And zero population growth may be a factor in those changes. But it’s not the biggest one, and as standards of living rise happens naturally it turns out.
But in the immediate term our systems for coping with this change are lacking, and immigration can fill the gaps. Which is where we started.

[Riedquat]

It's either stop growing or have to face up to the consequences at some point in the future, even if it is possible to adjust to accommodate the current level now. It may be possible to have a bit more growth but I can't think of any circumstances where it's desirable (other than perhaps a few very localised situations). And that's before you even start to consider that a large proportion of the world's current population lives pretty basic lives - there's no way at all that can be improved without very significant hits no matter how much development you've got. And the damage from the 20th and 21st centuries would be fairly insignificant if it hadn't gone hand in hand with massive population increases. 1.6 billion people in 1900 have a great deal less impact than 7.5 now.

The gaps that immigration fills are the same gaps that get filled by people whose attitude to finance revolve around constantly borrowing without a plan to ever pay back.