Right vs Left: How Politics is Radically Changing | Dr. Stephen Davies Explains

[@erelpc]

Unfortunately politics does indeed seem to be dominated by nationalism, and most people either fall within British nationalism or European nationalism. There is an ideologically motivated section of the population who would like to see Europe turned into a nation. Hence, every economic debate seems to turn into a pro or anti Brexit debate.

[@adam7802]

Just a general lack of critical thinking which is the worst... people are arguing using feelings. The recent riots/protests demonstrates this perfectly, both sides cannot discuss their views as they are just spewing ideas they've heard elsewhere as opposed to being something they have developed themselves.

[@evolassunglasses4673]

Because open borders Globalisation is destroying European Civilisation. My part of London collapsed into Mogadishu in the 90s.

[@peterfmodel]

The whole immigration or population growth is based on GDP per person, as long as GDP per person continued to improve and immigration was part of an overall plan which assisted in ensuring GDP per person continued to slowly grow people would be happy with immediation. I suspect the reason why people want zero immigration is a result of a lack of trust in the government, who promises one thing and delivers something else. When you are dealing with a government of that nature, your demands need to be simple because you need a simple way of determining if your demands are being met or not. The world we are living in now is a result of the way globalisation has been implemented over the last 30 years. Jobs and money have moved from the developed to the developing world while people have moved from the developing world to the developed world. This has resulted in a lot of winners, but in the long terms the biggest losers are the old working class. As for the conservative party, I suspect they need to go back to the old Disraeli conservatives, which depends on the working class of the day. Many of the old conservatives at the time were not happy about this, but they had no choice. As for japan, as someone who has worked there for two decades, its solution is rather good for the common people. The elites may not be happy, but if you are part of the working class you have reasonable wages and reasonable job security. I am not suggesting it’s the best solution, but it’s a solution.

[@philipdurling1964]

Well said.

[@evolassunglasses4673]

Immigration is destroying European Civilisation.

[@evolassunglasses4673]

Quick reminder that there is no upper limit to diversity. You'll just be endlessly told things are too White until you wake up one day to something between Mogadishu and Karachi.

[@780special]

Who pays the IEA piper ? Come on, where does your funding come from !? Do tell .....

[@sirrodneyffing1]

All these people are from the Left and I'm utterly sick of hearing endless rubbish of people on the left. Just go away.

[@Knappa22]

How can you say that when Stephen Davies (the guy speaking) literally explained to you how he is a Thatcherite?

[@tb8865]

​@@Knappa22Free Markets or whatever dont make you Right Wing anymore. If it ever did outside of America.

[@hocolate271]

@@Knappa22 they're just sick of immigants and gay people and women talking back to them. anything that doesn't want to roll back the tide on either of those things is left wing

[@user-jm8yh1dp6l]

You can pick zero immigration and a welfare state as long as you have above-replacement birthrates among the natives. This is how Britain became a developed wealthy country that people who could not develop wealthy countries became desperate to move to, because of indigenous British people. If we stop immigration , or even stop immigration and repatriate undesirable non-indigenous people, then we will eventually have above-replacement birthrates because all the low fertility people will die out and you'll be left with only high fertility people. Also, determined pro-natalist policies have not been tried yet and there's evidence that there are promising interventions that could help boost birth rates. For example, In Australia, they wanted to reduce teenage pregnancies, so they thought that teaching teenagers about pregnancy and childrearing and being parents would educate teens and teach them to be more careful , so they ruled out this scheme across a bunch of Australian schools and found that there was actually a huge jump in teenagers choosing to get pregnant and become mothers after they had been taught about pregnancy and had the opportunity to seriously consider it as an option.

[@Knappa22]

So you want teenage pregnancies? Also why would ‘low fertility people’ die out? Also how are you going to persuade people who want nice houses, nice cars and nice annual holidays that having financially crippling extra children is a good idea. It costs roughly £200k to raise a child from birth to 18.

[@user-jm8yh1dp6l]

@@Knappa22 There's nothing wrong with a married couple below the age of 20 deciding to start a family, I never said it had to be young teenagers. However I gave the Australian example as an example of what could be possible with committed pro-natalist policies as it shows there could well be even better more effective pro-natalist policies out there, not to say that this particular Australian scheme is the one solution that must be followed. low fertility people are going to die out because they don't have enough children to replace themselves, while high-fertility people have more kids so they will form a larger and larger % of the population in the future. fertility is itself heritable. people have genes that make them more or less likely to have large numbers of children. It's just natural selection. People's priorities and values can change with policy and cultural interventions, as they have changed in the past. Either we'll find those effective interventions and policies and change the mindset of people who are currently low-fertility, or we won't and they'll be replaced by high fertility people anyway.

[@Knappa22]

@@user-jm8yh1dp6l fertility is heritable?? What?? That’s absolute rubbish, or at least its effects are minimal. If you go back 150 years most families were enormous by today’s standards. My four grandparents, for example had this number of siblings respectively, 9, 11, 9, 6. And they were produced to assist in the then very arduous labour intensive family farming business. Children were required to help you make your living. Then guess what happened? Contraception, family planning, a huge shift in lifestyle careers, population mobility, women’s fertility rights and their job prospects. The vast majority of people are fully capable of producing huge numbers of children, it is not a genetic quirk of some can / some can’t.

[@user-jm8yh1dp6l]

​@@Knappa22 Heritability is defined as to what degree are the differences between individuals in some trait accounted for by their genes. Heritability is something that is considered relative to a given environment. For example, intelligence is 60% heritable if humans are raised in regular western society, however if humans were raised in an environment where half of infants were kept malnourished and beaten in the head regularly and half of infants were raised normally, then in the environment intelligence would be only say 10% heritable . So the fact that the environment has changed drastically since 80 years ago does not change the fact that in the environment today, fertility is significantly heritable. The people who are having lots of kids today tend non average to have genes that make them more likely to have lots of kids in today's environment. It might be helpful if you consider what kind of genes might cause someone to have more or less kids in today's environment. For example , genes for impulsiveness and low IQ would tend to cause people to be more likely not to use contraception or be more likely to use contraception incorrectly which would cause them to have more birth, while genes for high IQ would tend to cause people to be more likely spending more time in education e.g. up to grad school where they are less likely to get married and start a family earlier and so have more time for having more kids and more likely to delay having kids for the sake of lofty career goals than people who have genes for less high IQ who are more likely to leave schooling early where they are more likely to get married early and more likely to start having kids earlier which tends to result in more kids in total. And this is what we have seen for a long time in Britain, family registry records show more intelligent people (using the proxy of occupation) have tended to have less kids than less intelligent people since at least 100 years. This is just one example of how genes would account for differences between individuals in fertility in today's environment.

[@adam7802]

You seem to be a bit deluded no offence. We have a low birthrate not because we have low fertility people, we have a low birthrate because a) society keeps telling us, especially women that having children is a burden and should be left as late as possible. b) It isn't affordable. Cost of living continues to increase alongside taxes whilst our salaries remain stagnant. On top of that housing is unaffordable and difficult to get. We have to wait till later in life in many cases anyway. You might argue there are poor women who have big families... they are also some of the least educated. The data shows uneducated women have more children, my guess as to why is because they make poorer decisions or simply don't care about the consequences. Also I would argue you see young rich couples having many children.