Of course any forecast can only ever be a forecast, but it's neither optimistic or pessimistic. It's just the best forecast, given all the currently known variables.

I don't ignore "the effect migration will have on genetic lineage". So far as I can see the UN report doesn't attempt to assess that as it isn't the purpose of their report. You were claiming much higher net figures and the UN report clearly shows them to be wrong. Looking at how the future genetic make up of the world's population may change is a totally different subject and one not to be conflated with this one.

You accuse me of half truths when I have shown you to be offering whole lies! In fact I have not told any "half truths" at all. All I have done is referred to a reputable report.

My view on the unrelated and therefore quite separate subject of the way the genetic make up of future generations may change is that it is going to. The thing is though that this is nothing new. It always has. Most, if not all of us, have a wide spectrum of ancestors in our blood lines. In today's world, with the advent of constant travel and regular movements of people in the global village, that is only going to increase markedly.

Some seem to fear this, whilst others embrace it. The issue for me is not about our genetic make up but our cultural perceptions. British culture has never been locked into a time warp and has always modified itself as the years passed by. It has though also managed to preserve it's essential character and I don't think that's going to change, provided we take the necessary steps to protect it and nurture it.

We have already discussed what I regard as the most important step we need to take to achieve that. That we face challenges is obviously true but I am not a defeatist. We cannot turn back the clock, nor should we try. We can though look forward to a positive future if we plan and prepare for it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This is all so disingenuous.

The possible future global population has a huge range. The UN has decided to apply a selection of different formulae to predict possible outcomes. The one you choose has no real basis to be any more likely than the higher predictions, In fact, there are a number of reasons to suspect that it could be very optimistic.

Have I lied about that?

Thanks for finally admitting that migration will have a massive effect on genetic heritage even if you could not bring yourself to say it straight out.

There is nothing the least bit disingenuous about referencing the most authoritative source on this subject.

The disingenuosity is entirely your own in trying to suggest that your assumptions have equal validity. Of course the UN apply a variety of variables but they do so with a great deal of knowledge at their disposal and the experience in knowing how to interpret it and extrapolate the likely outcomes. To suggest that there are any reasons why the results could be optimistic, without evidence, is just nonsensical.

I didn't say that migration will have a "massive" effect on genetic heritage. I said it will continue, as it always has, to have an impact, and that effect is likely to accelerate given the world we now live in. What I also said, and will repeat, is that rather than moaning about it and trying to push water up hill, we must embrace it, manage it and learn to enjoy it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

So what if we all end up mixed race? What's the big deal?

Do you seriously believe that the UN do not understand these things better than you?

Like long range weather forecasts they have got a great deal better in recent times.

Immigrant birth rates are higher now but will reduce and then match our current levels over a relatively short time. There is plenty of past experiences to indicate that is a very confident prediction. It's also common sense.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The NRA owns the GOP, and large swathes of Dems too.

It’s that simple.

Until the NRAs grip over politics is broken, things will never change.

If Sandy Hook didn’t do it, another mass slaughter won’t, except if someone can do something more heinous than Sandy Hook I suppose.

Moscow Mitch is up for re-election soon, and he is a sniveling coward rat f*** who is scared of the NRA.

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

So because he did not leave a convenient video explaining his actions you just dismiss his obvious fanaticism as a motive.
The court might have a different opinion.

You might want to separate out various aspects of identity politics to suit your position but no one other than White man is ever called a 'supremacist' for sticking up for his own kind.
Even Donald Trump is using the phrase incorrectly in this particular case if the reports of this guys motives are true.

Defending his very existence?

What the hell are you talking about Hrolf?

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It was in Las Vegas and I was there just a few days after it happened. His motives remain unknown but no political ones appeared likely from all I heard then on the TV coverage.

There was though a huge outcry about the need for better gun control. It was centred then on the need to outlaw "bump stocks" which modify a rifle into a semi automatic and was what that gun man used. Trump joined in, but I don't think anything has actually happened.

What was unnerving was the sense of normality in Vegas at the time. Apart from the floral tributes at the Vegas sign it all just carried on. As if such things were daily events in the USA, which is almost true.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.