NationStates Jolt Archive

Often we heard people say "I am a patriot" but when asked what a patriot is, a lot of people struggle with a definition.

So I ask this question:

What is patriotism and who can claim to be a patriot?

I'm a patriot... But we don't have flag g-strings where I come from, so I guess I wouldn't be considered patriotic in the USA.

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." - G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) (EDIT: a great thought even if he was a socialist :mrgreen: )

(These quotes came from The Quotations Page (http://www.quotationspage.com/))

To me, patriotism is the intense pride in your land and the willingness to fight for and die protecting her and her people.

I consider myself a patriot.

It depends on your position as a nationalist or a moralist.

A fanatic nationalist will say some words about nationalism, "Right or wrong is my country". This type of person will defend their country and don't care that the nation's actions are good or bad.

A moralist will say will say, "The nation must act right. There are no ways that we justify any wrong actions taken by the nation". This type of person will warn the nation to take right actions, whatever the cost.

I love China, its culture, language, sacredness of territory. But Beijing thinks I'm unpatriotic just because I don't like one-party rule.

Does loving your nation mean loving the Party?

It depends on your position as a nationalist or a moralist.

A fanatic nationalist will say some words about nationalism, "Right or wrong is my country". This type of person will defend their country and don't care that the nation's actions are good or bad.

A moralist will say will say, "The nation must act right. There are no ways that we justify any wrong actions taken by the nation". This type of person will warn the nation to take right actions, whatever the cost.

Ah but the nation acts right according to its own interests. Nationalism and moality are intertwined. Nationalist fervour is based upon morals and what is deemed to be right (not to say that we are always right).

I don't love or hate nations. I love or hate governments. Nations are merely manmade borders. The governments are the ones that screw up or fix everything.

The trouble with Patriotism is governments think it loyalty to the country and government which is not the same.

I wouldn't die for my country in a war (What, are the people in Britain worth more than people in the other country? Are the hills and rivers of Britain better than the hills and rivers of another country? I really don't get that.... anyway) but I would die to end the war.

I suppose that makes me anti-patriotic.

Aidan

I am not a Patriot, I see no reason to be proud of my country "Britain!" However, as a Scot I am pleased that is my home country. the people are (generally) friendly, the history and culture is uniquely original. The mountains, hills, lochs are amazing. You can lose yourself in the middle of such wonderful scenery. It's great being Scottish! :lol:

The trouble with Patriotism is governments think it loyalty to the country and government which is not the same.

I agree. Elected representatives (save the Bush debate for another thread please) serve the public and hence the nation. It is not the other way around, although many politicians probably think it.

The people are the nation.

I wouldn't die for my country in a war

Well if my country was under attack I would take arms against anyone who invaded. If I was killed, then so be it. The alternative would be a life of servitute and death is preferrable to that.

My country is my home.

I am not a Patriot, I see no reason to be proud of my country "Britain!" However, as a Scot I am pleased that is my home country. the people are (generally) friendly, the history and culture is uniquely original. The mountains, hills, lochs are amazing. You can lose yourself in the middle of such wonderful scenery. It's great being Scottish! :lol:

Since I like you Joe, I won't start on my whole pro-British, King and Empire speech. :wink:

Often we heard people say "I am a patriot" but when asked what a patriot is, a lot of people struggle with a definition.

So I ask this question:

What is patriotism and who can claim to be a patriot?

Patriotism is a rational love of one's country and culture. It is a quality of civic virtue that allows the maintainence of a free nation. At least in the context of the United States, it is fundamentally conservative in that it seeks to lead by example and preserve culture, liberty, and what else makes the US a praiseworthy nation and a good place to live.

Patriotism is not nationalism, the desire to see one's own country rule the world, or the desire to dominate and kill people from other countries.

patriotism is the suport of the best intrests of ones country.

"Justified" Viciousness

Patriotism is not nationalism, the desire to see one's own country rule the world, or the desire to dominate and kill people from other countries.

Well that is not nationalism. A nationalist believes in the greatness of their nation. In a sense, a nationalist and patriot are the same, however I would argue that a nationalist often has the view that the ends justify the means, whereas a patriot displays a certain level of morality and conviction in their actions.

Imperialism is the term which best suits what you said.

I wouldn't die for my country in a war (What, are the people in Britain worth more than people in the other country? Are the hills and rivers of Britain better than the hills and rivers of another country? I really don't get that.... anyway) but I would die to end the war.

I suppose that makes me anti-patriotic.

Aidan

I agree with you, I wouldn't die for my country, that's almost against the beliefs of Canada, I think. In my case it is patriotic to be the best person I can, and treat everyone with respect, and respect that fact that everyone has a right to live, and I'm not making sense, but i know what i mean :D

We're lovers, not fighters.

Patriotism is the first step to fascism.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Patriotism to me is the pride that one has for thier nation. A patriot, however wrongly, argues that his country's weapons are the best (for non-pacifist nations), that they are most peaceful, that they beat the USA/Russia/Britian/Powerful Nation in some ancient, non-remembered conflict, etc.

A patriot of the nation being attacked in a situation of "Canada defeated the US in two wars" could rebut the arguement by saying:

"First off, I dont think it was Canada in either of those wars; it was the British Empire beating back the USA in 1812, and sometime during/after the American Revolution in Canada.

Second off, at those times we were not as powerful as we are today. Even before WWII, our army was rated behind that of Greece and Belguim"

"You are only the richest because you have so many people;a few countries in the world have higher GDPs per capita than the US. Besides, you Americans are fat, crime ridden idiots."

"If we are so stupid, how come people from all over the world come to us for education?"

Such arguements are taken up by the patriot.

I am a patriot. I am damn proud of my country and will do whatever it takes to keep it safe and also to keep it something that I am proud of.

I am NOT a blind patriot who excuses it's errors under some misguided assumption that it can do no wrong.

The most patriotic people are often their countries greatest critics - but only when it is done with the sincere desire to make it better. The fact that some people may disagree on the best course notwithstanding as such opposing patriots still have the best interest of their country at heart.

-Z-

I am not a Patriot, I see no reason to be proud of my country "Britain!" However, as a Scot I am pleased that is my home country. the people are (generally) friendly, the history and culture is uniquely original. The mountains, hills, lochs are amazing. You can lose yourself in the middle of such wonderful scenery. It's great being Scottish! :lol:

Since I like you Joe, I won't start on my whole pro-British, King and Empire speech. :wink:
Thanks, that saves me going off on one about my anti monarchist, pro celtic rant.
:lol: :wink:

To me, being a patriot means that I have an obligation to speak up when my government is behaving in a manner contrary to the principles set down by our constitution. That includes speaking out on how that document should apply in a modern world (equal rights being for all, not just for white males -which is generalising, but close to what it 'meant' in 1776).I think to be a true patriot, you have to be able to admit when mistakes are made, and work to correct them.

I also think a patriot would work to restore the constitution if some wigged-out group decided to conduct a coup. Contrary to the 'evidence' of some turmoil-ridden countries, I do think it is possible to this without resorting to guerrilla tactics/terrorism/wanton destruction.

Do I consider myself a patriot? Yes. I am sure who disagree with me speaking up when I think our government is wrong just think I am mouthy, though.

Patriotism is the willingness to put ones life on the line for ones nation and people and the values that the nation holds dearest in the name of that nation.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

I love China, its culture, language, sacredness of territory. But Beijing thinks I'm unpatriotic just because I don't like one-party rule.

Does loving your nation mean loving the Party?
According to the dictionary, 'patriotism' means supporting the authority of your country. So, according to that definition, yes. However, loving your country does not, in my opinion require patriotism. And in my case, I support the foundations of the government, but I don't necessarily support the party in power.

Being for your country generally means being for the government, which is the basis of fascism. When it gets to Toby Keithian levels, you are dangerously close to fascism.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I'm posting this answer before I read the rest of the thread, so forgive me if the points I make are covered by someone else.

I am a patriot, and to me that means that I have to be critical of my country at all times. Why? Because as many good things as I think my country does, I think it's capable of even greater things, and it certainly does many things that make me ashamed. So in order for my country to reach its potential, I feel like I have to be constantly critical of it, pushing it to be even better than it conceives possible, and that's the crux of patriotism--wanting to see your country achieve its fullest potential as a society.

I am not a Patriot, I see no reason to be proud of my country "Britain!" However, as a Scot I am pleased that is my home country. the people are (generally) friendly, the history and culture is uniquely original. The mountains, hills, lochs are amazing. You can lose yourself in the middle of such wonderful scenery. It's great being Scottish! :lol:

Since I like you Joe, I won't start on my whole pro-British, King and Empire speech. :wink:
Thanks, that saves me going off on one about my anti monarchist, pro celtic rant.
:lol: :wink:

Well, you know what I might do a little rant on loyalty to the crown tomorrow. :wink:

Patriotism is a terrible evil that has lead to the deaths of millions of people throughout man's history.

To me, patriotism is love of my country, even if I disagree with the government. The government is NOT the country. Many idiots seem to think, "I disagree with the government, so I hate the United States. Down with the country that has given me a good life!" It is love of the people that make up my country, and of the land that has provided for me.

Patriotism to me is the will to stand up for your People weather its against another nation or the government in place at that time. You must selflessly defend your home,family, and friends. Take the American revolution when americans went aginst their british government they defended their homes and rights. Even though they gte on my nerves and i disagree with them the anti war protesters could be patriots becuase they dont want to see any more of their family or friends die and they defy the government to get their point across.

I would say im patriotic for i would gladly defend my country my home friends and family from any and all threats even if it coasted my life to do so. 8)

I wouldn't die for my country in a war

Well if my country was under attack I would take arms against anyone who invaded. If I was killed, then so be it. The alternative would be a life of servitute and death is preferrable to that.

My country is my home.

That wasn't really what I was saying. What I meant was to defend and die for a country because I was born there doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

However, fighting for democracy does make sense because you can see the inherent advantages of democracy, and the inherent inequalities and potential cruelties of the alternatives.

Very slowly, the European Union is taking over Britain's legal infrastructure and economy. If Britain wishes to trade with the EU (and it does, they're dependent on it) then they have to uphold what the EU defines as Human Rights, Civil Rights and remove or lower a whole host of tariffs. Eventually there will be a European army/navy/air force which will rival both the USA and China. And I welcome such a change (not so much growth of the military) because it increases democracy and civil rights, reduces xenophobia and all the countries will benefit economically. If it means sacrificing some national identity or pride to do that then that's fine with me.

Compare it to the situation in the USA. All of the states benefit from being in the Union and have sacrificed some of their "sovereign" power in order to gain economic, political and milittristic strength and state patriotism has given way to national patriotism. (Yes there are still plenty of people out there who are patriotic towards the state, but people tend to be more patriotic towards the Union.) It's not that much different to what I just described with the EU really, except I hope that the citezens don't get all patriotic about the EU and decide to invade Isreal, for example.

On a completely unrelated note, to anyone out there who wants to be proud of something, be proud of what you yourself have done. Nobody can argue with that, it's extremely productive and helps you grow as a person, as well as making you a better person.

Being proud of what thousands of other people have done before you were even born is pointless, and so is being proud of millions of people if you've only ever interacted with a very small portion of them on any significant level.

Take a minute to think of the best thing you've ever done, and then the second best and third best, and be proud of those things, because it takes more courage and character to do that than it does to smile at a flag.

\rant

Aidan

Being for your country generally means being for the government, which is the basis of fascism. When it gets to Toby Keithian levels, you are dangerously close to fascism.

Incorrect. A true patriot can tell the difference between his country and his government.

For example, George Washington was a patriot, even though he played a major role in overthrowing his own government.

Klaus von Stauffenberg was a German patriot even though he tried to assassinate the leader of Germany (Hitler) and stage a coup.

I'm not a patriot.

I'm sort of proud of my heritage, generally because I like history and we actually have some in the UK, and I sometimes end up in those 'We're better than you arguments', but mostly my argument is 'I'm better than you'.

On the other hand, I really couldn't care less if my country got nuked to shit, so long as I wasn't there when it happened.

I'm not a patriot.

I'm sort of proud of my heritage, generally because I like history and we actually have some in the UK, and I sometimes end up in those 'We're better than you arguments', but mostly my argument is 'I'm better than you'.

On the other hand, I really couldn't care less if my country got nuked to shit, so long as I wasn't there when it happened.

Gee, there is a rather inane and condescending statement. Has it occurred to you that the people that settled the so called "New World" include that very same history in their own? They didn't just magically apear on foreign shores from nowhere you know.

The histories of Canada, Mexico, the US, etc. may be given a starting point in the history books from the time of Columbus forward, but that is far from the entirity of the story from the peoples points of view. And just because those books are generally written from a European point of view does not in any way diminish the rich histories of the peoples who were already here when the boats came ashore.

-Z-

Very slowly, the European Union is taking over Britain's legal infrastructure and economy. If Britain wishes to trade with the EU (and it does, they're dependent on it) then they have to uphold what the EU defines as Human Rights, Civil Rights and remove or lower a whole host of tariffs. Eventually there will be a European army/navy/air force which will rival both the USA and China. And I welcome such a change (not so much growth of the military) because it increases democracy and civil rights, reduces xenophobia and all the countries will benefit economically. If it means sacrificing some national identity or pride to do that then that's fine with me.

To burst the bubble, the EU is slowly dissolving itself. More Europeans than ever (mainly britons) are migrating elswhere as the poor economic conditions continue.

Europe is sinking lower each day. It is only a matter of time before the EU disbands (Europe was never very successful with joint arrangements anyway) and nations like Britain take pride in their identity again (which has been diminished greatly).

Anyway, your dream of an EU military is imaginative at best. The track record of Western Society on such attempts (The League and the UN) is far from positive.

It is nice to dream though, but the smart Euros are getting out now.

And just because those books are generally written from a European point of view does not in any way diminish the rich histories of the peoples who were already here when the boats came ashore.

-Z-

Right on brother....if only more people would realise what you have said the world would be a much better place.

A pile of shite.

Being for your country generally means being for the government, which is the basis of fascism. When it gets to Toby Keithian levels, you are dangerously close to facism

Exactly- and a country deserves the government that it votes for... So no sympathy for Americans who disagree with bush et al but allowed it to happen..

To burst the bubble, the EU is slowly dissolving itself. More Europeans than ever (mainly britons) are migrating elswhere as the poor economic conditions continue.


Given the population of Europe (over 700 million) and its area is 10,000,000 square km, then it hardly seems a major catastrophe that we should undergo a small decrease in birth rates, especially given that there is also a great deal of immigration from poorer nations. Widening the markets does not lead to economic collapse, or a fall in the standard of living, but in fact increases the amount of trade and the stardard of living.


Europe is sinking lower each day. It is only a matter of time before the EU disbands (Europe was never very successful with joint arrangements anyway) and nations like Britain take pride in their identity again (which has been diminished greatly).


Where's your evidence for this? The nations in the EU still benefit from membership and have been moving closer ever since joining. Membership to the EU is very much sought after by nations such as Turkey, and in order to join they have to significantly improve their human rights record, which is certainly a very positive step to take. Also, the EU was formed as a result of joint arrangements (ECSC for example) and we have seen several succesful programmes since then.


Anyway, your dream of an EU military is imaginative at best. The track record of Western Society on such attempts (The League and the UN) is far from positive.

It is nice to dream though, but the smart Euros are getting out now.

The military is not that imaginative. France proposed a European army, and it was all set to go, but when the UK refused to take part France realised that Germany would make up the majority of the army and used their national veto. Now that there are several other nations willing to take part (I'm not sure where the UK stands on the issue) then it seems more likely to go ahead.

Recently the EU has expanded its borders eastwards, with many of the more socially backward nation like the UK hoping that this would weaken the powerbase of the EU. In response, the EU is now taking steps to reduce the power of the individual nations (for example, removing national vetoes) so that cooperation will continue between the nations. It looks like the EU is going to get more powerful and enact even more policies to improve the standard of living of its citezens, as well as increasing the size of their economies at the same time. You can hardly say that it's about to collapse.

(Food mountains, however, is a different matter, and the sooner they work out what to do them the better)

Aidan

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.- Dr Johnson.

If you have to resort to Patriotism to defend your nation, your nation sucks- Me.

Seriously. Good nations stand out for themselves. Like Holland. I'd love to be Dutch. Or French.

Or, Flanders and Swann- 'When we were young, no one bothered with Nationalism. Nationalism was on its way out. We didn't go round saying how great England was. Everyone knew that.'

Patriotism In my humble opinion

1. Civic duty VOTE!! VOTE!!! VOTE!!!!

2. National duty Do not desacrate your nations flag, or any other nations flag. Remember right or wrong people die under these symbols. Desacrating a flag or national symbol is like pissing on the graves of thousands of people.

3.Community service: Do something for your community, there are many ways and levels to do this, great and small.

4. Military service: If you so choose take up arms in defense of your country.

5. Duty to the land: Rember you are part of the land upun which you were born, protect it, at times it cannot protect itself.

This is just my opinion, I beleive most people are patriotic in some way or another.

*Gains 140 kilos on the spot, puts on an Icelandic flag g-string and runs into the street shouting anti-islamic slogans*

That was my "I'm a patriotic yank" party trick...

Delete

Delete

To Me, true Patriotism is willingness to slaughter the innocent masses for the good of your country's imperialist agenda.

Patriotism is a terrible evil that has lead to the deaths of millions of people throughout man's history.


No offense freind, I think they called that natiomalism.

Patriotism is a terrible evil that has lead to the deaths of millions of people throughout man's history.


No offense freind, I think they called that natiomalism.

Given the population of Europe (over 700 million) and its area is 10,000,000 square km, then it hardly seems a major catastrophe that we should undergo a small decrease in birth rates, especially given that there is also a great deal of immigration from poorer nations.

What Europe doesn't need is immigration from poorer nations, advanced economies look for skills. That is your first mistake.

Secondly, migration from Europe is not the worst of your population problems. Europe has a declining natural birth rate, the worst in the industrialised world.

Italy alone has fallen to 1.54 and that is the highest of all European nations. America boasts 2.6 but then again they have increasing cultural problems to deal with because of the type of immigration.

Europe may have 700 million now, but shall we take the UK as an example...

In 2025 the UK will have 61 million people (only up by 1 million since 1999). By 2050 the UK will have less than 58 million.

In France, there is a similar number issue.

Germany is set to fall by 4 million in this time.

Italy's population is currently 57 million and will fall to 45 million by 2050

As we can see, Europe is suffering population decline.

In the four examples alone, there is already a loss of 28 million people within the next 46 years. Across the board, those numbers skyrocket.

If the trend continues, within 110 years, Europe's population will have fallen by almost 40-50%.

Sure, we may not be alive, but the fact is a mighty EU is a pipe dream...nothing more.

Recently the EU has expanded its borders eastwards, with many of the more socially backward nation like the UK hoping that this would weaken the powerbase of the EU. In response, the EU is now taking steps to reduce the power of the individual nations (for example, removing national vetoes) so that cooperation will continue between the nations. It looks like the EU is going to get more powerful and enact even more policies to improve the standard of living of its citezens, as well as increasing the size of their economies at the same time. You can hardly say that it's about to collapse.

Yes the EU is looking to expand...consuming a large number of transition economies which in the last 13 years since the end of the Cold War have in fact proven worse off because of the hastey moves towards capitalism.

The transition stage should have been careful and slower (like China, now emerging as a booming economy) but unemployment is rife in East European nations (although France and Germany have ridiculously high levels these days too) and industry is still poor.

By allowing poorer nations into the EU it actually creates a greater financial burden of West Europe which is suffering from its own economic and financial difficulties as it is (debts).

And let us not forget that Europe is increasingly reliant on raw materials these days (even uranium for nuclear power). With manufacturing heading to Asia and South America more and more, where does that leave the once industrial cauldron of the world?

The EU is gradually going backwards...not forwards...you must take reality into account. Dreaming is nice, but the truth is not always so rosey.

O beautiful for patriot dream
Which sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!

America, America,
God mend thine every flaw;
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.

Patriotism is a terrible evil that has lead to the deaths of millions of people throughout man's history.


No offense freind, I think they called that natiomalism.

Patriotism and nationalism are both the same thing.

I love no man-made borders or boundries, nor the states that inhabit them, nor the governments that run them. I would not die to serve a Prime Minister's desires, nor to defend a flag.

I like the place I live in. I like other places too.

Can I ask of the people who would gladly die for their country and whatnot: Do you condone the actions of the anti-occupation forces in Iraq?

Can I ask of the people who would gladly die for their country and whatnot: Do you condone the actions of the anti-occupation forces in Iraq?

They'll answer no to that.... :roll:

They'll answer no to that.... :roll:

Or not answer at all......

Not that I didn't expect that. No-one likes to be a hypocrite.

They'll answer no to that.... :roll:

Or not answer at all......

Not that I didn't expect that. No-one likes to be a hypocrite.

Yep, exactly right....though I do tend to have a habit of being a hypocrite (or at least contradict myself a lot).

What about the economic clout of the Euro?
As more national ecomomies join the euro, a real threat is being presented to the hegemony of the dollar.

Right now the US floats on a sea of debt but keeps issueing more currency-much of which is used in other countries, particularly for oil-
When more and more nations start trading in Euros, its all gonna go belly up for the US economy...

Patriotism is a terrible evil that has lead to the deaths of millions of people throughout man's history.


No offense freind, I think they called that natiomalism.

Patriotism and nationalism are both the same thing.

No, they aren't the same thing.

Patriotism: Love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.
Nationalism: As patriotism, but also the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation.
(Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/ )

I am not a nationalist, but I am a patriot. To me that entails holding dear the culture and history of my own legacy. My country may not be better than others', but I'm proud of it all the same.

i'm dutch and i'm proud to be dutch

i think Patriotism it that you do not want to live in an other country then where you live. in that case i'm patriotic

i'm in favour of the EU, and those stubbern britts are to proud on their country to see the benifits. besides nobody in the EU gives a d*mn about the commonwelth etc.
and do you think that we shouldn't embrace the east-block-countries, because their econimy is not strong yet?
well why don't you just stop all help to 2nd en 3rd world-countries, what is your profit for helping poor countries??

"A true sign of a Patroit is a voice raised in protest."

I'm unsure of who said that but it sounds like Thomas Jefferson.

Given the population of Europe (over 700 million) and its area is 10,000,000 square km, then it hardly seems a major catastrophe that we should undergo a small decrease in birth rates, especially given that there is also a great deal of immigration from poorer nations.

What Europe doesn't need is immigration from poorer nations, advanced economies look for skills. That is your first mistake.


That's true, though quite a few immigrants do have skills or are more prepared to work harder that most current residents. I'm not sure about the rest of the Europe off the top of my head, but standards of education have been steadily declining for several decades in Britain. The population may be more educated as a whole, but "specialisations" are getting ever more vocational and vague.

That remains a large problem here- people emigrate to the states to use their cutting edge technology and abundantly funded research facilities, whereas the brits are stuck with the same old equipment and little in the way of funding.

The point is that the immigrants can bring much needed skills with them (even things like basic nursing are of great help) and seccondly can vastly increase the labour pool for the "poorer quality" jobs. If Britain deported all immigrants and their immediate family then there would be a massive void in the work force and the economy would fall flat on its face.

Since this does not really appear to be a cultural phenomenon (it happens in any society that when people move from a more deprived area to a more prosperous area they tend to work harder and longer, often for less) then it's very likely that this is the case all over Western Europe. (Of course, we may well see a similar thing happening with immigrants from Eastern Europe once the borders are fully open.)

Secondly, migration from Europe is not the worst of your population problems. Europe has a declining natural birth rate, the worst in the industrialised world.


That's true, but given that we're comparing Europe, which if anything is overpopulated to the other G8 nations (USA, Canada, Japan, NZ and Australia) then with the exception of Japan (which is overpopulated, with a declining population as well) then it's hardly surprising that the population should decrease a bit quicker in Europe.

Italy alone has fallen to 1.54 and that is the highest of all European nations. America boasts 2.6 but then again they have increasing cultural problems to deal with because of the type of immigration.


Actually you're wrong there. Accoring to the CIA (some pretty top-notch intelligence, especially when it comes to the more developed nations) this is how fertility rates pan out:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

True, pretty much all of Europe is below the 2.0 mark (Iceland comes in at 1.98 ) it's hardly the case that this spells disaster. Incidentally, the US of A is just hovering above the 2.0 mark at 2.07, so it's not as if the US population is going to skyrocket any time soon.

A decreasing population is only a major problem when you have massive areas of land to populate. In Europe people are squashed in left right and centre into anywhere hospitable. The place has been populated for the best part of 6,000 years by people who have done little more than wage war with each other for control of the land and resources.

Europe may have 700 million now, but shall we take the UK as an example...

In 2025 the UK will have 61 million people (only up by 1 million since 1999). By 2050 the UK will have less than 58 million.

In France, there is a similar number issue.

Germany is set to fall by 4 million in this time.

Italy's population is currently 57 million and will fall to 45 million by 2050

As we can see, Europe is suffering population decline.


Where are your sources for this? Given that the sources are up to date, accurate and reliable there is still little reason to trust them for the next 46 years when issues like foreign policies of nations is likely to change dramatically, as well as the cultures. You can't simply project a population model based on what is happening now if you don't know what's going to happen in the future in terms of things like migration and the people who settle in the intervening time. (It could be that "home-born" Europeans aren't reproducing as much as they used to, but that the immigrants will do.)

There are also cultural things to look at. Women are having children later and later, and so lots of women in the lower age bands won't add to the fertility rate right now, but will do in the future. The rate won't "get back into sync" for another decade or so if this is the case, and then all of a sudden it will rise quite dramatically before falling off again.

In the four examples alone, there is already a loss of 28 million people within the next 46 years. Across the board, those numbers skyrocket.

If the trend continues, within 110 years, Europe's population will have fallen by almost 40-50%.


If the trends continue, but who's to say they will? And who's to say that your stats are correct? The CIA seems to disagree with your numbers.

Sure, we may not be alive, but the fact is a mighty EU is a pipe dream...nothing more.

I intend to be alive and kicking in 46 years time, but that's not the point. If it weren't for people 46 years ago working to improve things socially, economically and politically then we wouldn't be where we are today. There's always that bigger picture to consider. Saying "We probably won't be there" doesn't absolve us of interest in an issue.

Furthermore, you have done nothing to demonstrate that the EU is a pipe dream, whereas there are several things I could point out that it has already achieved, as well as pointing to areas it is going to improve in the future.

A slight decrease in population will not counteract the economic growth we will witness when the Eastern European nations join, or the social progress that has been made over the past decade.

Finally, the governments of nations tend to be very good at identifying declining populations and if this is seen as a problem action is usually taken. In Britain there are incentives for having children (tax cuts, reduced TAX on children's comodities etc) though I'm not sure about the rest of Europe.

To conclude, a slowly declining population will not lead to the collape of a strong political body or economic ruin, nor is it unavoidable if governments choose to intervene.

Aidan

Recently the EU has expanded its borders eastwards, with many of the more socially backward nation like the UK hoping that this would weaken the powerbase of the EU. In response, the EU is now taking steps to reduce the power of the individual nations (for example, removing national vetoes) so that cooperation will continue between the nations. It looks like the EU is going to get more powerful and enact even more policies to improve the standard of living of its citezens, as well as increasing the size of their economies at the same time. You can hardly say that it's about to collapse.

Yes the EU is looking to expand...consuming a large number of transition economies which in the last 13 years since the end of the Cold War have in fact proven worse off because of the hastey moves towards capitalism.

The transition stage should have been careful and slower (like China, now emerging as a booming economy) but unemployment is rife in East European nations (although France and Germany have ridiculously high levels these days too) and industry is still poor.

By allowing poorer nations into the EU it actually creates a greater financial burden of West Europe which is suffering from its own economic and financial difficulties as it is (debts).

Allowing poorer nations into the EU will open new areas of the economy. There will be large opportunities for investment for Western Europe as well as a higher standard of living and lower unemployment for Eastern Europe. That's effectively a win-win situation.

All that really happens on the economic side of things is the removal of internal barriers. There will be no tariffs, employment exemptions or biased exchange rates. It's not as if the Western European nations are suddenly going to have to empty their coffers to pay for motorway construction and suchlike. The rate of economic growth of the Eastern "bloc" (and the Western "bloc"'s investments therein) will simply increase.

And let us not forget that Europe is increasingly reliant on raw materials these days (even uranium for nuclear power). With manufacturing heading to Asia and South America more and more, where does that leave the once industrial cauldron of the world?

The EU currently protects itself with sanctions to ensure that the economies are not swamped by external produce. For example it is illegal to import a complete automobile into the EU for sale- it's got to shipped over in pieces and assembled within the borders.

As far as raw materials go, the EU is dependent on things like coal from the US and Canada but only to because coal power plants employ more people than nuclear plants do. (In Germany they go a step further and have kept the mines operating too.) {Aside - Something should obviously be done about this unemployment, but personally I think that polluting the environment even more is not the way to go.}

I'd like to see some sources about the raw materials that are imported though- Google didn't seem to bring up anything and I don't want to plod through a dozen nations on the CIA site for details.

Economically, the EU is doing fine. It has the largest economy in the world with an impressive trade surplus. Both are likely to fall as the new nations join, but this will pick up again, and given that a great deal of trade will be internal there is little cause for panic.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union for some details.

The recent economic slowdown is just part of economics. So the EU hits a decline in the rate of growth for a while, and in a few years there will be a boom again. It happens all the time, but at least it won't be as bad at 1929 or 1987.

The EU is gradually going backwards...not forwards...you must take reality into account. Dreaming is nice, but the truth is not always so rosey.

Again, would you care to back that up with anything? I have seen to nothing to demonstrate the size of the economies of any of the nations shrinking or that the standards of living are falling anywhere. In what sense does increasing the scope of a freer market create any "backwards" movement economically, politically or socially?

Aidan

My country may not be better than others', but I'm proud of it all the same.

And that's bad enough for me.