It’s nice to see that my old colleague, Peter Brimelow, has ventured into a forum other than Vdare. Love to pat him on the back for getting out and about, except that he hasn’t come bearing any facts.
Brimelow mentions the high series projection of 518 million cited by the Census Bureau. Well, he seems to have forgotten the low projection of 283 million — which would mean that the U.S. population would remain virtually unchanged. Since neither the low or high estimates are ever achieved by either businesses or governments (Brimelow should remember his Forbes training), the middle is the one that will most likely occur.
As for this argument that population growth will lead to sprawl and a lack of “amenity”: This assertion entails that development will continue unabated without some sort of government interference. Obviously Brimelow haven’t been paying attention to the ordinances passed by Atlanta and other metro areas to restrict residential development, either through subsidy programs to encourage urban infill development or by levying “environmental impact” fees on projects.
This also assumes that there won’t be any sort of market approach that will ultimately accommodate both growth and the desire for green space. I don’t know if he can prove it. After all, look at history: Over the last century, this country has grown from 76 million to 280 million, yet there are still vast stretches of open country. The average person in 1900 would have breathed in fumes from factories that weren’t equipped with scrubbers used to reduce toxic fumes; chances are they wouldn’t have had running water. Today, sensible environmental regulations have led to cleaner air; technology and markets have equipped all but the most antiquated homes with running water. I would say those factors, along with our strong population growth — which has fueled the growth of our consumer-oriented economy — we live in a more amenable period of time than in any point in history.
None of this has apparently factored into either the arguments made by lefty anti-immigrationists or those on the Right such as Brimelow. But then, I wouldn’t especially expect the Right-leaners to do so because the environment is not an issue of real concern.p>Like other strange bedfellows, the alliance Brimelow and his fellow-travelers have formed with the Tanton-Lamm anti-immigrationists is based on the desire to banish all but European-born Caucasians — such as himself — from entering the country. To take it further, with the exception of Brimelow, who has shown me nothing but kindness, I would suspect that most of the Right-leaning anti-immigrationists would also want to ship native Hispanics (which are considered Caucasian) and non-Caucasians out of the country as well. Why? Because the arguments made by Right immmigrationists are based on an irrational fear that if European-born Caucasians become a minority, the nation will sink into an abyss. br> — RiShawn Biddle /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?