Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.
No.

Even with continued immigration, population of Europe is getting old, really old, really fast.

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content...-max-roser.png
Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.
It pretty much does. It is safe to assume to that other countries in app. the same economic, social and cultural situation will experience similar issues.

Even if they prove more resilient, the domino effect is a *****.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.
Yeah, no.

Disagree.
Based on?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

This is cereal yield data by world bank. I don't know how familiar you are with soil quality of some of the countries, but let me tell you that the soil in Ukraine is probably even better than in Netherlands but the the yield in Netherlands is over twice that of Ukraine.

Very, very few countries in the world are getting maximal possible yields. Very few countries are using a 100% of their potential. Or literally creating new areas for food production by draining swamps, for instance. Just by applying the latest standards in the entire world, you would be able to increase the yield several times over.

That is not even taking into account the improvements new technologies have yet to bring. In the 18th century, calculations were made that the world would be hungry in the 19th century. There's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

You're not able to differentiate between a general economic situation in a given area and the ability of an area to produce food. New York doesn't produce enough food to feed itself, Las Vegas isn't producing enough food to feed itself. You are also looking at examples in isolation, when the system is global.

You've started from a premise that the planet is at the very end of its ability to produce enough food, which is wrong, Then, you applied a faulty reasoning and reached a conclusion.

Thus, you're approaching "not even wrong" status fast, but at the moment you're at "no use explaining it further" category.

But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).
By applying enough effort and resources, it can be assured that the bad effect are limited. They're used to low paying jobs, low paying jobs by western standards are miles ahead of what they used to get. They desire stability and safety.

Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.
That is because you assume that you and a Viking are one and the same.

This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.
It is nonsensical, because it doesn't give us an estimate of how dangerous Muslims are, which is the whole point of this particular argument. If there is a 100 million Muslims in Europe and ten terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, the percentage is 100%. If there's 10 Muslims in Europe and 10 terrorist attacks, the percentage is again a 100%.

This is rational thinking 101.

Stay classy.
You assume I care how I'm being perceived.