GLR News and Information > Geography, Economy & GLR Politics

Immigration

(1/2) > >>

Feral:

--- Quote from: Athrael on Sat, May 05, 2007, 09:21 ---I know I get chatty when I write, my second vice. ;)

--- End quote ---

Chatty is good. Very good, in fact.

Athrael:

--- Quote from: Mogul on Wed, May 02, 2007, 02:44 ---Oh, no need to apologize for something you are expressely encouraged to do! Compassionate preaching is exactly what is expected here, in particular well-founded sermons are welcome and appreciated.  :Q

I shall insist, however, that disputants stay on topic - there is always the option to post a new thread, when necessary.
:+  P.S. Wish to repost the part on Ecology as a new thread?

--- End quote ---

No I wouldn't repost it as is a new thread as written. Although the subject may be one worth discussing elsewhere.

If you do feel it should be removed then by all means edit it as you will. I know I get chatty when I write, my second vice. ;)

Mogul:

--- Quote from: Athrael on Wed, May 02, 2007, 01:04 ---Well there I went again and preached. Sorry about that.

--- End quote ---

Oh, no need to apologize for something you are expressely encouraged to do! Compassionate preaching is exactly what is expected here, in particular well-founded sermons are welcome and appreciated.  :Q

I shall insist, however, that disputants stay on topic - there is always the option to post a new thread, when necessary.
:+  P.S. Wish to repost the part on Ecology as a new thread?


--- Quote from: Athrael on Tue, May 01, 2007, 01:43 ---I am under the impression that the there is the belief that gays and lesbians will not find ways to insure a steady increase of native born sons and daughters.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Feral on Tue, May 01, 2007, 03:54 ---There are definitely those who have this view. The idea that 'native born' citizens are required for the continued existence of a nation-state is grotesquely hetero-centric and just plain false. Immigration alone can, I am confident, sustain the Gay nation.
--- End quote ---

Oh, there definitely would be ways to ensure a steady population growth of "native born" individuals even in a country run by Gays (of both genders), though these ways would be by no means "natural." The application of a syringe or IVF is most certainly a heavily technical, not "natural" way of making babies. ;) The huge, essential question is: what is in the interests of the Gay State, and what is not? If we were to create a better, unique novel model state for all kinds of human beings, we indeed should agree on relying on the "natural growth" of population by encouraging female residents to produce as many children as possible. Alone, since there are no ways known to make Gay babies on purpose, such a policy would eliminate the Gay constituency of the said novel state within a generation or two. This is not exactly what we are intending, right? It is entirely possible to maintain the population by means of Gay immigration only, without inflicting all the additional complications of "9:1 dilemma" of self-bred babies.


--- Quote from: Athrael on Wed, May 02, 2007, 01:04 ---There is a biological clock that ticks in nearly all of us, I doubt that that should be ignored.
--- End quote ---
No clock ticking within me, and I am late.  >:) The urge to pass one's DNA and one's experience are VERY separate issues. Anyone worried about his unique genes can donate sperm/eggs to suitable facilities, whereas those with a wish to educate a young person will have the opportunity to do so by educating a Gay Youth. However, shall anyone desire to give birth to a child, these persons shall of course be free to do so -- but this private enterprises shall not be a priority for the State demographics.


--- Quote from: Athrael on Tue, May 01, 2007, 01:43 ---It may be somewhat necessary to control the influx and also to provide missionary work to the outside world with the goal of harvesting our brothers and sisters out of the world.  We should never forget that a good majority of the gay world lives in poverty since a good majority lives in poverty.
--- End quote ---

This is a major issue. Though Internet is a powerfull technology for distribution of information, our brethreigns from poor and oppressive countries are largely excluded from the internet, either due to the lack of devices, or due to internet censorship. The Gay State will have to apply different tactics for information spread -- be it even through printing articles superfacially critisizing the Gay State and the "deviants", but effectively bringing the word of its existence to our people, who will know what to do. In a more wealthy countries, we will indeed have to make the folks feel there is a greate chance for them to start a new life in a much better place without loosing too many comforts.


--- Quote from: Feral on Tue, May 01, 2007, 03:54 ---A Gay state would not be much of a Gay state if it did grant a presumptive right of settlement to any Gay person. While I can only imagine the policies of a country that does not yet exist (and I am sure there will be fierce debates on each and every one of its policies), I would hope that the 'right of settlement' would include a right to every assistance in exercising that right.
--- End quote ---

You forgot the word "not". :) Assumingly, properly it should be read:


--- Quote ---"A Gay state would not be much of a Gay state if it did not grant a presumptive right of settlement to any Gay person."
--- End quote ---

The right for a permanent residency should be indeed one of the "natural rights" for any Gay person in such a state. The other folks (straights, bisexuals) will probably have to be subjected to regulations imposed by the overall political situation and economic realities of the Gay State. It is very probable that once the Gay Nation has attended a certain degree of wealth, it will be forced to install some regulations on non-gay would-be residents. It's not an issue of bias, but rather a simple recognition of factual constraints.


--- Quote from: Athrael on Tue, May 01, 2007, 01:43 ---And carefully I add that we should not exclude the straights, bisexuals and those who are tolerant.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Feral on Tue, May 01, 2007, 03:54 ---[..] but yes... there is no reason to exclude bisexuals and even straights from a Gay state.
--- End quote ---

See above -- any restrictions should be imposed solely because of Raison d'Etat, not due to a bias. The future Gay State will probably never have to decide about whether to generally let straight and bisexual individuals in, but rather on the number of such residency permissions issued. While it certainly will be required to requlate the residency rights of foreign citizens, there is much to say in favour of accepting some of them to live among the gay majourity population.  


--- Quote from: Athrael on Tue, May 01, 2007, 01:43 ---I would assume that any Gay Nation would try to be first world in its luxury and its structure.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Feral on Tue, May 01, 2007, 03:54 ---A curious thought -- I would have made the opposite assumption.
--- End quote ---

I would suppose that in beginning the Gay Sstate will be no place of much wealth. Where should it come from? Consider all the poor refugees coming with nothing but their health problems and in need of food, clothes and housing opportunities -- and all the infrastructure which will be needed to created first. In the early years, the rich tourists will stay away from Gay Shores, and the daily bread will be an issue of hard work for everybody who comes without much posessions. With time, the wealth will most certainly grow, thanks the gays from abroad will significantly contribute to the economics of the Gay State - as tourists or consumers of cultural goods. There are not many nations that can rely not only to the usual business relationships, but also can count on loyality from millions of foreign citizens.


--- Quote from: Athrael on Tue, May 01, 2007, 01:43 ---Once a Gay Nation is established I assure you bigotry and hate will grow, not lessen. However it will be in the form of pushing our brothers and sisters to the nation.  Immigration will be set, and as the outside societies become less tolerant and young gays are told to go to that Fag Nation (as we can be assured will be one of the more colorful titles it will receive) the pressure to immigrate will be there.
--- End quote ---

It is of course possible that in some of our "civillized western societies" a number of bigots might feel delighted by the idea to "help" Gays move to a distant island. However, such notions will be of less importance in truly civillized societies. I think that if the argumentation of assimilationists were true, and argumentation of Gay Nationalists were wrong, the emergence of a Gay State would have no impact on straight societies which allegedely turned gay-friendly for the end of time, as we are supposed to believe. Any increased homophobia would not to be attributed to the Gay State, it will be solely a sign of abolishing the hypocritical "tolerance" for Gays. Those who love us when we are weak, and hate us when we are strong, are no friends of us, they never were. In countries where Gays are regarded a fair game anyway, I doubt there is space for an increasing homophobia. If straight governments there shall turn their minds from murdering Gays towards forcing them into emigration, I would consider such developements a considerable progress.

Athrael:
I do not see the propagation of our species through the "old fashion" breeding method as being hetero-centric. How the parents have to be one male, one female to raise the child is. I think we could expect children to have 4 parents, two moms, two dads. Or we might see "deals" being made where a woman willingly carries two babies to term, one for her "family" and one for a male family. There is a biological clock that ticks in nearly all of us, I doubt that that should be ignored.

And too I do not see a lack of immigration Gays will be born and will seek a "home". It already happens thus the gay communities within established cities.

- - - - -

Contrary to popular belief a lack of technology is not actually better on the ecology. In fact the proper application of technology will ultimately lead to a better ecology.  the problem with the modern world is that we humans are in the habit of applying technology in such a manner as to destroy the natural.

I lived without running water, electricity and all of the luxuries of the modern world as a child - my father was a back to nature hippy of the 60's who decided that three people in a 16' x 16' cabin using a privy and relying on kerosen lamps was "good" for the environment.  Actually it was bad, the privy presented us with the problem of what to do with the stuff inside. We had to heat with fire (wood and coal) we had to cook our food (wood and coal again) and we had to haul water 20 miles from the town (Well water being sulfurous and undrinkable in the area). Ashes, coal and wood smoke, driving a car to get water, even the privy presented us with environmental problems which a septic tank, water collection from rain water, a single wind power generator, a few solar cells would have reduced the impact on the environment more.

We do have the technologies and knowledge on how to biologically manage sewage waste. I read Mother Earth News and similar "green" magazines and have studied the subject for a long time. There is a system where the waste water runs through a man made "swamp" where the waste water travels through various planned ecologies feeding plants, bacteria, fish, and other critters. the end product after traveling down a stream is fresh clean drinking water - and no where down the length was any chemical used.

We also know how to harvest energy from wind, solar and other resources. I pointed out a pipe using deep sea water and the contrast in temperatures that provides not only energy but also clean water for irrigation and drinking elsewhere here. We already have the technologies in place that can reduce the energy needs of the average home by half or more. Florescent light bulbs is one, LCD screen technology is another, Even the advances of refrigeration have reduce the net consumption of the modern refrigerator nearly in half since the 1970's. Although people tend to buy the prettier ones which may look nice but are made in such a manner as to burn more power.  I suspect this is done on purpose, one corporation scratching the back of another.

We all know that electric vehicles are possible, we also know that sensible community planning and mass transportation is possible and any one who lives in a major city knows that much more can be done within our technological ability to take the car off the road in the city. everybody knows about insulation leading to less energy consumption, etc. etc. etc. Computers, cell phones and tv is only a problem when it comes to what to do with the old ones. We are keen on recycling and things we use can be made recyclable.

One of the biggest problems of the modern age is petrochemical plastics. Most people are unaware that there are biological sources for plastics, plastics that in a landfill would quickly decay. Washington Carver, the gentleman who gave us a million uses for the peanut also gave us a million and one uses for the soybean. Part of those uses were plastics from those sources. other plant cells can readily and cleanly be processed into plastics, molded and colored and appear exactly like any petro-chemical plastic. The only reason why they are not being used at this time is because we have fashioned ourselves an oil-based economy and we would have to built the refineries, process centers to use other materials to form plastics.

Alcohol, now being sold as a fuel alternative has been around and regulated in the USA making it nearly impossible for one to make it at home.  Fact of the matter is the cost of home brew alcohol has nothing to do with the materials but has a great deal to do with licensing and what you have to add to fuel grade alcohols to meet government (federal and local) standards to own and operate a still. They purposefully make it expensive and nearly impossible for John Q. Public to make fuel alcohol. Further, nobody tells anyone that any vehicle prior to 1980 is easily converted to 100% alcohol fuel. Instead they want you to buy the "new" cars that magically can burn alcohol rich fuels, convincing people to have to buy yet another product in order to be green.

Grain alcohol like corn alcohol does not have to be dirty. In fact the "waste" product is a protein rich feed that is sold to cattle and chicken farms. Further that "waste-product" can also be eaten by people and provides a protein rich food source.

Well there I went again and preached. Sorry about that.

Feral:

--- Quote ---I am under the impression that the there is the belief that gays and lesbians will not find ways to insure a steady increase of native born sons and daughters.
--- End quote ---

There are definitely those who have this view. The idea that 'native born' citizens are required for the continued existence of a nation-state is grotesquely hetero-centric and just plain false. Immigration alone can, I am confident, sustain the Gay nation.


--- Quote ---As such collecting our kindred from those nations will require more than just opening the gates to the rest of the world, it will require that we be fishers of men in a sense.
--- End quote ---

A Gay state would not be much of a Gay state if it did grant a presumptive right of settlement to any Gay person. While I can only imagine the policies of a country that does not yet exist (and I am sure there will be fierce debates on each and every one of its policies), I would hope that the 'right of settlement' would include a right to every assistance in exercising that right.


--- Quote ---And carefully I add that we should not exclude the straights, bisexuals and those who are tolerant. Carefully we tread into a utopia, we should always work toward not carrying on the bigotries we strive to abolish by turning the tables on the straight world. There are many who are straight that love us and accept us unconditionally and who may very well find living in a Queer Nation preferable to the straight ones.
--- End quote ---

'Tolerant' is not something that I personally value, but yes... there is no reason to exclude bisexuals and even straights from a Gay state. I think it is imagined that there are far more of these people (who can actually manage to live lawfully in the company of homosexuals) than there are. I do not think that so awful many people in these categories would be inclined to emigrate to a Gay state.  However, should straight and bisexual people wish to demonstrate a willingness and ability to live peaceably in and contribute to the state, then let them come. I just don't plan on automatically paying their moving expenses.


--- Quote ---I would assume that any Gay Nation would try to be first world in its luxury and its structure.
--- End quote ---

A curious thought -- I would have made the opposite assumption. The bulk of the Gay people I know are outrageous Leftists who find that the Kyoto Protocols are of more political moment than homophobic assault is. Most of them don't own cars. They buy their clothes in second-hand shops. They are (as one of them phrased it) "frugal." Of course, I don't know all Gay people. I don't know very many of them at all.  Something I do know is that there are an awful lot of them and they have very varied inclinations.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page