Do you have any evidence that people really do wonder about this?
It is clear why many people vote for populist right wing parties.
They offer simple ideas that people can hang onto although these ideas do not represent reality.
Often based on conspiracy theories or distorted statistics or failures to dig into the underlying reasons for problems.
Look at this ten million initiative, SVP argument is
" As a result of uncontrolled immigration into our country, we are soon facing a Switzerland with 10 million inhabitants."
The first part is a flat out lie
Swiss immigration is strictly controlled and heavily regulated rather than uncontrolled.
The government manages arrivals through strict quotas for non-EU/EFTA nationals and specific bilateral agreements with the European Union.
While free movement grants EU/EFTA citizens the right to live and work in Switzerland, they still must have valid employment or sufficient financial means to register for a residence permit.
There is no attempt to provide any factual basis for growth to 10 million, it is just a number to frighten people.
The UN’s World Population Prospects forecasts by the year 2100, Switzerland’s population is projected to grow by 1.39% from its current level to 9.23M people.
Wow, well I guess, this is a statement indeed. I am happy Switzerland actually doesn’t operate that way. The whole word order in the quote screams “I know it better than you” and is the actual reason why the left is losing elections left and right in most of the EU…
I think and I am happy that in Switzerland this is true for the most part, it’s the job of politicians to enforce the will of the electorate, not to “teach” people what they have to think or to ridicule them by saying stuff like: “the social/generational contract isn’t real” or “you just search for simple solutions or conspiracy theories”.
Oh and people widely distrust projections by the UN or by the government, because when the freedom of people was introduced, they were talking about 8-10K EFTA immigrants per year, we’re off by a factor of 10
‘If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain’
(falsely attributed to W. Churchill)
and a couple that are close to my heart –
“The mother is the one supreme asset of national life; she is more important by far that the successful statesman, or businessman, or artist or scientist.” (Theodore Roosevelt)
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction” (Ronald Reagan)
ah… this one is for
from another Brit, (Burke) " Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did
nothing because he could do only a little"
According to you there won’t be 10 million ever, therefore the initiative will have zero effect.
You’re actually making the case FOR the initiave, a backstop in case you’re wrong.
I trust you know that the federal council predicted a generation ago that the Bilaterale would result in a few thousand immigrants annually, if even that.
Typical SVP style exagerration, according to the Federal statistics office the average net EU/EFTA migration is around three to four times since 2002, EFTA alone is around 10% of that.
You are confusing two different things, the social contract is written into the Swiss Constitution, the generational contract is a fiction and anyway does not work as wished.
Many people reject science.
The UN forecast and the SVP could both be correct, the SVP carefully didn’t say when 10 million would be reached.
Their Low Scenario aligns quite well with the UN forecast, Switzerland’s natural population growth is already in decline.
Any forecast lives and dies on the assumptions so better to discuss those than the actual forecasts.
Key assumptions used in the UN models for Switzerland include:
Fertility: The model uses historical data and probabilistic fertility trends. It assumes that Switzerland will experience sub-replacement fertility (the average number of children per woman will stay below (2.1)), which is typical for developed European nations. [1, 2]
Mortality: The UN projections account for increasing life expectancy and improved survivorship probabilities over time. However, the model also assumes a gradual slowdown in gains at older ages as life expectancy approaches biological limits, while factoring in the demographic impact of the aging Swiss population. [1, 2]
Migration: A probabilistic model is applied to net international migration flows. For Switzerland, the UN assumes continued positive net immigration (more people entering than leaving), which historically has been the primary driver of Switzerland’s population growth. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The statistic proves my point, not yours… sure it might not be 10x (I pulled that number out of my ass, so shame on me), but it’s significantly more than promised before a vote. Some people would call that a blatant lie…
140K aggregated Immigration… good lord. Anyone of those who isn’t a spouse of a Swiss or a brain surgeon probably has no business of being here.
This is not a meta discussion about science - the UN graphic you show has clearly 0 base in reality. We’ll likely hit 9.5M much sooner than projected and will easily reach 10M+, as the Swiss government projects in the graph referenced further up. Not to mention that the last time people made a projection they were way too low in perpetuity - only an idiot would beleive those projections that are off by that much…
Can’t speak for everyone but yes I have.
The deadliest conflicts in human history (WWI, WWII, and communist purges) were driven by secular, nationalist, or political ideologies, entirely distinct from religious theology.
However much liberals squirm and deny it the basic premise is correct, Islam is currently the most violent religion.
Is there anybody who can find this graph credible?
In the bar chart at the bottom, the last two years have a growth of around 0.9% each year, but next year suddenly the projection puts the growth to some 0.4% and the following years lower and lower, what’s the logic in a forecast like this?
Invented to prove that 10M will never be reached I’d say
Why would the UN care if 10 M will be reached or not?
Please explain your logic.
I did post the UN assumptions earlier but here they are again, read them
Fertility: The model uses historical data and probabilistic fertility trends. It assumes that Switzerland will experience sub-replacement fertility (the average number of children per woman will stay below (2.1)), which is typical for developed European nations. [1, 2]
Mortality: The UN projections account for increasing life expectancy and improved survivorship probabilities over time. However, the model also assumes a gradual slowdown in gains at older ages as life expectancy approaches biological limits, while factoring in the demographic impact of the aging Swiss population. [1, 2]
Migration: A probabilistic model is applied to net international migration flows. For Switzerland, the UN assumes continued positive net immigration (more people entering than leaving), which historically has been the primary driver of Switzerland’s population growth
Whataboutism is not a good argument either… We just had a stabbing in Switzerland caused by an Islamist. Crusaders aren’t running through train stations stabbing people.
