Statistics Austria--perhaps unwittingly--revealed that the past 25 years saw a massive influx of immigrants who stand poised to overwhelm 'the system' before too long
Okay, I just read your introduction (not the entire post), but how exactly is migration a purely modern phenomenon? DNA evidence shows that many populations have been replaced by other populations. Most famously, the Yamnaya people (from whom we are both descended) spread across large swaths of Eurasia and replaced the previous populations. And what about all the migrations around the time of West Roman collapse? And look what happened to the New World!
What sounds more plausible is that you have periods of intense migration (I didn't say it had to be peaceful), followed by longer periods of relative population stability, followed by another round of migration, and so on.
Are you familiar with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" in evolution? Basically, you have long periods of time when nothing much changes, and then short periods of intense change. My understanding is that something similar happens with migrations. Long periods of relative stability, punctuated by relatively brief periods of intense migration, which radically change the population make-up.
So, basically, please define 'long' in this context.
Long, as in the 'decline and fall of the Roman Empire', actually took an awful long time; here, my main point would be--a quarter-century is an awfully short period of time for any such changes.
25-ish years is a very short period of time, no question about it. But due to modern transportation and communication technologies, all sorts of things happen faster now. A couple of centuries is "fast," and a couple of decades is faster.
I've come to think that no-one's actually in control of mass migration. Sure, there were reasons (namely, labor shortages) when it got started, but by now, it's taken on a life of its own, greatly aided by bureaucratic inertia. Between various constituencies that demand this or that type of migration for their own reasons, plus the courts - I really don't think anyone's actually in charge or doing the math or anything like that. There's a huge amount of wishful thinking, though, as well as attempts to squeeze blood out of turnips. To wit: try to get as many people as possible into the work force, but without giving them job security, all that after having kept them in education far longer than was the case for previous generations, increase the price of essentials such as housing, and then complain that they've gone on a breeding strike. Oh, but that's okay, let's just import some immigrants - oh, wait, many of them have no useful skills, oops. As I said, I don't think anyone's actually in charge.
Okay, I just read your introduction (not the entire post), but how exactly is migration a purely modern phenomenon? DNA evidence shows that many populations have been replaced by other populations. Most famously, the Yamnaya people (from whom we are both descended) spread across large swaths of Eurasia and replaced the previous populations. And what about all the migrations around the time of West Roman collapse? And look what happened to the New World!
What sounds more plausible is that you have periods of intense migration (I didn't say it had to be peaceful), followed by longer periods of relative population stability, followed by another round of migration, and so on.
I'm not claiming that it's a purely modern thing; IOM is saying it's been around forever, which is a questionable assertion.
Granted, no population stays the same, much like it's impossible to step into the same river twice.
My point being--this is gaslighting to obscure the massive changes wrought in less than a generation.
But it has been around forever, hasn't it?
Are you familiar with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" in evolution? Basically, you have long periods of time when nothing much changes, and then short periods of intense change. My understanding is that something similar happens with migrations. Long periods of relative stability, punctuated by relatively brief periods of intense migration, which radically change the population make-up.
So, basically, please define 'long' in this context.
Long, as in the 'decline and fall of the Roman Empire', actually took an awful long time; here, my main point would be--a quarter-century is an awfully short period of time for any such changes.
25-ish years is a very short period of time, no question about it. But due to modern transportation and communication technologies, all sorts of things happen faster now. A couple of centuries is "fast," and a couple of decades is faster.
I've come to think that no-one's actually in control of mass migration. Sure, there were reasons (namely, labor shortages) when it got started, but by now, it's taken on a life of its own, greatly aided by bureaucratic inertia. Between various constituencies that demand this or that type of migration for their own reasons, plus the courts - I really don't think anyone's actually in charge or doing the math or anything like that. There's a huge amount of wishful thinking, though, as well as attempts to squeeze blood out of turnips. To wit: try to get as many people as possible into the work force, but without giving them job security, all that after having kept them in education far longer than was the case for previous generations, increase the price of essentials such as housing, and then complain that they've gone on a breeding strike. Oh, but that's okay, let's just import some immigrants - oh, wait, many of them have no useful skills, oops. As I said, I don't think anyone's actually in charge.