Yeah, but that is unavoidable; unless you expect other countries to provide you with a stream of young people for the rest of the world's existence. As things are now, only countries with low life expectancy can expect to avoid this fate in the long run. In the scenario that all countries end up similarly wealthy, there may no be countries with young people to export.
Duh.And those will or won't happen irrespective of refugees.
I don't see this sub-debate going anywhere any time soon.And what you said doesn't relate to the topic.
Which is to say that any solution does not involve making citizens younger (although it is highly likely that aging can be both halted and reversed at some point in the future), but would rely on things like technology and new ways to arrange society (reforms).No, because with active measures countries could reduce poverty and raise education levels, for general population as well as immigrants, while there's no way to magically make citizens younger.
Which also happens/happened to consistently be one of the most peaceful places in Europe.Even if we accept this as true, the only place in Europe where it is true is Scandinavia.
Even if we say that terrorist entities abroad are a vital part of the radicalisation, they are only an issue because there exists a Muslim population in Europe in the first place. The larger this population is, there more people might travel to whatever areas the terrorist entities are active within; and these areas don't have to be very large before they are capable of contributing to such radicalisation (and attempts at destroying such terrorist nests can also increase local radicalisation..).Apparently, the principal goal of the terrorist organizations is to get those Muslims to the Middle East so they could be radicalized, trained and redirected. So, them being the Middle East is instrumental.
Bookmarks