I return once again, with a heavy heart, to the issue of gay marriage. There is more rather one-eyed polling by the campaign against gay marriage, dutifully reported the Telegraph. The way polling commissioned by the lobby opposed to gay marriage is reported by the newspapers and those commissioning it is almost a masterclass in poor interpretation of polls.

Firstly we have the problems of polls conducting using agree/disagree statements, which risk bias in the direction of the statement asked (which I have written about at length here) and often give contradictory answers if properly balanced with statements in the other direction. For example, in this poll 62% of people agreed with the statement “marriage should continue to be definied as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”. The campaign against gay marriage have consistently focused on this question and interpreted this as meaning that 62% of people are opposed to gay marriage. However, the same poll found people agreeing by 44% to 38% that “legalising gay marriage is important because maintaining the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage worsens public attitudes towards gay people”. One could just as easily cherry pick that question from the poll and claim that more people support than oppose gay marriage.

As I have written before, we have a multitude of polls that have actually asked directly whether or not people support the legalisation of gay marriage, and they should really be the starting point for anyone looking for polling evidence of whether people support or oppose gay marriage. I summarised the main polling on the issue earlier this month, but suffice to say, polling asking a straightforward question on whether people support or oppose gay marriage consistently finds more people support it than oppose it. Polls that offer more nuanced options, and ask if people support gay marriage, only civil partnerships, or neither gay marriage nor civil parterships, still consistently find support for gay marriage in the mid-40s, but normally find a substantial minority of people who support civil partnerships but not gay marriage, so sometimes show more people opposed to gay marriage than support it.

Secondly we have “would X make you more or less likely to vote for party Y” questions. Again, I have ranted about these at length before, but essentially it is a type of polling question which gives false prominence to and therefore greatly overstates the importance of specific policies when voting intention is actually driven by broad perceptions of parties, their competence, leaders, capability on major issues like the economy and so on.

Now we have that hoary old chestnut of a poll showing people want a referendum on gay marriage. As previously discussed, if asked in an opinion poll people want a referendum on almost everything – unsurprisingly, given that questions on referendums basically boil down to “would you like to have a say on this or should it be left to the hated politicians to decide”. It doesn’t mean there is some huge untapped demand for a referendum on that particular issue, people support a referendum on anything you ask about (the one exception I have managed to track down was a MORI poll back in 2001 that found people did not want a referendum on abolishing the monarchy)

Why do I keep coming back to this? I think its mostly the consistently credulous and one-sided reporting of polls on gay marriage in some sections of the press. Readers of some newspapers could be forgiven for thinking that the polling showed that the public were opposed to gay marriage, when any fair minded look at the broad range of polling on the issue would show that the balance of opinion is broadly positive towards it.


168 Responses to “So it comes to this, a poll on a gay marriage referendum. Sigh…”

1 2 3 4
  1. @The Sheep

    It seems that this is already being discussed, but the “prohibited degrees” that you quote originate in Leviticus 18:

    h ttp://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Leviticus+18

    One difference is that the BCP prohibits marriage to your niece as well as to your aunt, whereas Leviticus does not, for whatever reason (oversight, an implicit assumption that the proscriptions can be transcribed to females as well as males), and hence there was no such proscription in much of Catholic Europe. This is why the British royal family never went the full Habsburg, like some on the continent:

    h ttp://powerofthegene.com/joomla/images/Habsburg_family_tree_09.jpg

    @ChrisLane1945

    “Including Blair, lol.”

    You might want to keep a bit quiet about that one ;-).

    Report comment

  2. I need help of the (psychiatric kind) I have just been sitting here winking trying to work out if the facial expressions on this ;) emoticom are in the correct order (they are) – Is this OCD or following politics too much?

    Report comment

  3. There is some evidence to suggest that most Welsh people would like to see Tax powers devolved without a referendum on the issue first.

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2012/11/21/poll-walesonline-readers-in-favour-of-tax-varying-powers-91466-32275780/

    Although I doubt that that poll was partiuclarly scientific and the majority is well within the margin of error, it does indicate that there are issues besides the monarchy that significant numbers of people don’t want. a referendum about.

    I don’t want a referendum on tax powers – I’d rather see them implemented without wasting the money on a vote, esp. when it’s clear that a massive majority here would favour their devolution in a referendum.

    Report comment

  4. @TingedFringe

    I know it may rock a psephologist’s boat, but I’d be wary about attaching too much importance to the voting intention figures for self-identified religious groups in opinion poll sub-samples. Didn’t Dawkins commission some polling recently that questioned the accuracy of census figures showing that over 75% of the population deemed themselves to be Christians? A significant proportion were found not be religious in any meaningful sense but aligned themselves, by ticking a box, to a certain religious group primarily by dint of birth and education.

    Hence the CoE responses in the poll you quote are far more likely to reflect social class, income group and ethnicity rather than have any religious dimension. That’s why I’m dubious, unlike Chris Lane 1945 for instance, that ethical questions like gay marriage, faith schools, abortion and women bishops have any great political import or significant effect on party voting intention. For those inside a dogmatic religious bubble, maybe, but that’s a tiny fraction of the electorate now.

    Keeping on thread, I happen to think gay marriage is an issue that could backfire on those who broadly support the assimilation of gay people into mainstream life and wish them to be able to live free and open lives without fear and discrimination. That’s most of the population, by the way, but what’s the point of institutionalising a union between two gay people when we already have civil partnerships? All it does is risk antagonising conservative but tolerant people who will start to believe it reveals a growing gay militancy, with an endless agenda, that threatens their largely traditional, but ultimately, benign world.

    Report comment

  5. @Chrislane1945 – “We can compile a long list of social reformers who were inspired by religion.

    Blair included lol.”

    In many ways, that’s the nub of the issue for atheists. I’ve always been slightly baffled by the observation that when Mother Theresa tells us god moves her to do great things, we laud her as a saint, but when the Yorkshire Ripper tells us god told him to murder prostitutes, we lock him up as a madman.

    This god thing is very confusing.

    Report comment

  6. Anything that is susceptible to “interpretation” – as opposed to fact – is. indeed, very odd indeed.

    I love the empirical evidence of such lines as:

    “jesus loves me – this I know.

    ‘cos the bible tells me so.”

    … right………………………………………..

    Report comment

  7. @Chrislane1945 – “We can compile a long list of social reformers who were inspired by religion.”

    We can compile a long list of people who tried to hold back social reform who were inspired by religion as well. For a start name any pope you care to mention.

    Report comment

  8. Charts updated to reflect latest YG poll. Click my username to get them.

    There seems to be a flattening of the polls. Labour lead (MAD data) of 10.0% is constant for 2-3 polls now.

    Report comment

  9. Gay marriage will easily pass when goes through Parliament next year. It will be a free vote, but it will still easily pass. Its just a minority on the right who try to make it into a major issue. They need to get over themselves. Dodgy polling interpretation smacks of desperation.

    Report comment

  10. Politicians with strong religious beliefs are likely to hold less objective and more entrenched views on many subjects, and less likely to modify their actions in response to reasoned argument. Talking of Blair, I have just come across this cartoon from the M/c Guardian showing Blair (& Hague) as puppets in the hands of the Wicked Uncle Bibi.

    htt p://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza?INTCMP=SRCH

    Report comment

  11. NOBOLD.
    Good early afternoon to you.

    Please! LOL as they say: papal social teaching has been radical for centuries. JP 11 in particular. Leo 1X also.

    Report comment

  12. @BAIL

    “Its just a minority on the right who try to make it into a major issue. They need to get over themselves.”

    I just love the way that you sneer at peoples deeply held beliefs. Typical, but just a sad reflection on modern society.

    Report comment

  13. I presume you are referring to Canon Law as it was redefined by the Council of Trent in 1563

    -I thought Canon Law was a 1970′s American Detective Series.
    Probably shows the limitations of an entirely secular education

    Report comment

  14. CrossBat
    “Keeping on thread, I happen to think gay marriage is an issue that could backfire on those who broadly support the assimilation of gay people into mainstream life and wish them to be able to live free and open lives without fear and discrimination. That’s most of the population, by the way, but what’s the point of institutionalising a union between two gay people when we already have civil partnerships? All it does is risk antagonising conservative but tolerant people who will start to believe it reveals a growing gay militancy, with an endless agenda, that threatens their largely traditional, but ultimately, benign world.”

    That’s a much more eloquent way of putting the point I was trying to make. Thanks!

    Report comment

  15. Changing the thread did not work AW.

    Report comment

  16. CrossBat
    I happen to think the (end of segregation) could backfire on those who support the assimilation of (minority) in to mainstream life. But what’s the point of institutionalising (end of segregation) when we already have (segregated service)? All it does is risk antagonising conservative but tolerant people who believe it starts to reveal a growing (minority) militancy, with an endless agenda, that threatens their largely traditional, but ultimately, benign world.

    Insert your own historical or hypothetical comparison as you see fit.
    Progressives seem to be fighting the same fight over and over, with the same structural arguements used each time with different groups fitting in to the same patterns.
    We can’t fight for procedural equality or to end segregation because it might upset those with privilege?

    Should we wait for SoCal to give a history lesson on racial segregation to make the point clearer? ;)

    Report comment

  17. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    Best banner I ever saw at Pittodrie read “We’ll support ewe evermore”. :-)

    Report comment

  18. Don’t want to start up yesterday’s “discussion” again but Rotherham by-election does look interesting judging by the odds.

    Labour are still massively favourites which suprises me a little bit given the reason for the by-election, the candidate selection (are they missing activists as a result?), focus on 3 by-elections and the news story from yesterday that we don’t want to re-open! I guess they have such a big lead and can expect votes from ex Lib Dems (who were on 15%).

    What is interesting is, based on the odds I am looking at, UKIP could well beat the Tories and we are looking at 6th and 7th places for Tories and Lib Dems.

    It is certainly the best chance UKIP have had to make a name for themselves.

    Report comment

  19. @chrislane
    “Please! LOL as they say: papal social teaching has been radical for centuries. JP 11 in particular. Leo 1X also.”

    Yes, they have been especially radical on questions of homosexuality and contraception and condemning millions to poverty and aids.

    Report comment

  20. Changing the subject slightly. What do we think about adult nappies(diapers) outselling baby nappies in Japan?

    Report comment

  21. CB11

    May I join PeteB in his remarks about your post.

    It recognises the ground I’m on & you put it very well.

    Report comment

  22. CB 11

    Like Colin, I agree with your post, and for the same reasons.

    Report comment

  23. JOHN PILGRIM

    No great wish to disagree, I’m afraid.

    Civil Law and marriage is essentially about transmission of property. Where property is held in common, the kids are communally brought up too.

    As to Amber’s question – given the looming bill I face for my daughter’s wedding, I hope there is a dramatic change in social norms very soon to cut the number attending! :-)

    Report comment

  24. I can’t say I understand the “deeply held beliefs” bit at all. Self-evidently allowing same-sex marriage does not impinge in any way at all on the ability of male/female marriage so where is the problem?

    I also think that since religion itself seems a huge leap in logic to me that church marriages could easily sit outside the law and vicars etc could/should be quite free to choose whether they wish to hold same-sex ceremonies or not.

    I’m rather with Amber on the odd nature of marriage itself. I married for the second time last year and both my wife and I shared amused looks when the registrar pronounced us “man and wife”, because nothing had actually happened that we hadn’t already agreed to anyway, it just made inheritance etc easier.

    Anyway, back to my Dowland programme with baritone singer Kevin Smith – now that IS real: absolutely wonderful music..

    Report comment

  25. @Paul Croft

    I just knew you would not be able to understand. Like many on here you do not seem able to accept that there are other views to your own, and that those views are held sincerely.

    Report comment

  26. @The Other Howard

    I did not sneer at all. How on earth you got that from what I said I do not know.

    Report comment

  27. @Crossbat11, and latterly also @Colin, @Pete B and @The Other Howard

    While I agree that there will be an element of ‘whatever next’ in the small c conservative reaction to the gay marriage proposals, I really don’t see this creating any significant backlash, before or after the event.

    As @Tingedfringe pointed out, there are various stages of resistance to all change, and the line that it will ultimately be bad for the people seeking the change, is one of the common lines that begin to appear after the main debate has been lost by conservatives.

    When the change is brought in, what happens next is usually very little. In this case a few gay people get married, and everyone’s world continues to turn unaffected.

    Rather than pick a social policy to compare this to as an analogy, I would prefer to pick an economic policy that went through these same stages.

    In the mid 1990′s Labour proposed the minimum wage. The Tories and their supporters in business and the media initially said it was not the role of government to interfere in wages – the philosophical resistance. Pretty soon, this idea was swept aside, as the notion of permitting poverty pay was seen as distasteful by the majority of voters.

    The next step was where you are now with gay marriage – a minimum wage would create unemployment and would be bad for the low paid. This message was hammered home with the fear of 1 million jobs lost.

    Fortunately, this argument wasn’t listened to either, and the measure was enacted. Employment climbed, there was no apparent impact on jobs, and everything moved along nicely (although obviously, we can’t place the economic outcomes of the time solely at the door of the minimum wage – it’s a simple observation that the measure did not harm those it was intended to help).

    Soon enough, Tories (and near everyone else) accepted the minimum wage, and winding on a few years, we now have Tory mayors and others going even further and joining left wing calls for an even higher Living Wage.

    Gay marriage will eventually happen at some point, and apart from a few gay married people,society will be supremely unaffected. In terms of worrying about any backlash, I would be far more concerned about any measures that seek to portray gay people as somehow different.

    The gangs of queer bashers we have sometimes seen hanging around, hoping to find a gay man to attack, exist purely because the view that gayness is ‘different’ has been allowed to become ingrained the collective mind. As we have slowly eradicated that particular prejudice, these kinds of behaviours have become less acceptable and rarer.

    No amount of claiming to care for the best interests of gay people by refusing them their rights, will obscure the fact that we are now entering the final stages of a long and painful struggle by one section of society that has, historically, been particularly poorly treated.

    Report comment

  28. @Crossbat11, and latterly also @Colin, @Pete B and @The Other Howard

    While I agree that there will be an element of ‘whatever next’ in the small c conservative reaction to the gay marriage proposals, I really don’t see this creating any significant backlash, before or after the event.

    As @Tingedfringe pointed out, there are various stages of resistance to all change, and the line that it will ultimately be bad for the people seeking the change, is one of the common lines that begin to appear after the main debate has been lost by conservatives.

    When the change is brought in, what happens next is usually very little. In this case a few gay people get married, and everyone’s world continues to turn unaffected.

    Rather than pick a social policy to compare this to as an analogy, I would prefer to pick an economic policy that went through these same stages.

    In the mid 1990?s Labour proposed the minimum wage. The Tories and their supporters in business and the media initially said it was not the role of government to interfere in wages – the philosophical resistance. Pretty soon, this idea was swept aside, as the notion of permitting poverty pay was seen as distasteful by the majority of voters.

    The next step was where you are now with gay marriage – a minimum wage would create unemployment and would be bad for the low paid. This message was hammered home with the fear of 1 million jobs lost.

    Fortunately, this argument wasn’t listened to either, and the measure was enacted. Employment climbed, there was no apparent impact on jobs, and everything moved along nicely (although obviously, we can’t place the economic outcomes of the time solely at the door of the minimum wage – it’s a simple observation that the measure did not harm those it was intended to help).

    Soon enough, Tories (and near everyone else) accepted the minimum wage, and winding on a few years, we now have Tory mayors and others going even further and joining left wing calls for an even higher Living Wage.

    Gay marriage will eventually happen at some point, and apart from a few gay married people,society will be supremely unaffected. In terms of worrying about any backlash, I would be far more concerned about any measures that seek to portray gay people as somehow different.

    The violent gangs we have sometimes seen hanging around, hoping to find a gay man to attack, exist purely because the view that gayness is ‘different’ has been allowed to become ingrained the collective mind. As we have slowly eradicated that particular prejudice, these kinds of behaviours have become less acceptable and rarer.

    No amount of claiming to care for the best interests of gay people by refusing them their rights, will obscure the fact that we are now entering the final stages of a long and painful struggle by one section of society that has, historically, been particularly poorly treated.

    Report comment

  29. @ Paul Croft

    Try reading both my posts again. I did not say you sneered although the fact that you thought i did may make you think about what you wrote.

    Report comment

  30. Paul Croft,

    “I can’t say I understand the “deeply held beliefs” bit at all. Self-evidently allowing same-sex marriage does not impinge in any way at all on the ability of male/female marriage so where is the problem?”

    People who oppose gay marriage will have to pay for tax incentives for gay couples; they will have to not discriminate against them and treat them like straight couples in business affairs; in general, legalising gay marriage means obliging everyone to recognise gay marriages to exactly the same extent that they have to recognise straight marriages.

    Now, if you have liberal principles like I do and think that gay marriage should nonetheless be legalised, then these facts are unfortunate but necessary to remove an unjust barrier to homosexuals. However, it won’t convince anyone to simply say that “This doesn’t affect you”. It does: that’s the point!

    My answer to The Other Howard is this: I recognise your moral beliefs, but I don’t think that your right to your beliefs extends to restricting the freedom of contract of homosexuals. Ideally, I would want no favouritism for marriage full-stop, though this is not practical given the way that the welfare state presents an alternative to marriage and thereby undermines it. I want you to approve of gay marriages in all senses, but I don’t want to force my moral beliefs on you and I want you to do the same to me; the most reasonable compromise at the present time is to allow homosexuals to marry.

    Of course, for people who think that society must match their moral desiderata on issues like racial discrimination, income equality and the like, the above position is impossible. You can’t consistently be a liberal if you only want freedom for people who you agree with.

    Report comment

  31. TOH

    Actually you completely [deliberately] misunderstand what I wrote. I think I am able to understand both that people hold other views to my own and that they hold them sincerely. It would be difficult not to wouldn’t it?

    But, again rather obviously, because of the clear difference, I can’t understand why it matters to you so much as ut affects nothing in a practical sense. Its as though you are saying that if ‘gays” can marry that somehow reduces the significance of a man/woman marriage and, if so, that’s the bit I don;t get.

    Its much easier, for example, to disagree with someone who thinks we should leave the EU yet still understand their rationale.

    Hope that’s clear.

    Report comment

  32. @Alec

    I have no doubt that the legislation will be introduced , and passed. That will not resove the matter at all, people who believe as I do will have to put up with it but we will never agree with it. As I said earlier it just reflects modern society which on the whole I dislike. Fortunately I have enough money to live in my own cosy world with my wife of 50 years plus.

    Report comment

  33. @ Colin, T’Other Howard,

    David Cameron wishes to spread the privilege of marriage. Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing which the supporters of his conference speech should be applauding? There are so few privileges which can truly be spread without them ceasing to be “privileges” but marriage is one which can be. Why aren’t you pleased?
    8-)

    Report comment

  34. So what about those adult nappies in Japan, bit worrying don’t you think, that’s one demographic timebomb with its fuse lit. Difficult to see how the Japanese are going to deal with this without mass immigration. In Norway about 50% of care workers in elderly care are immigrants. Our anti immigration party wants to cut back on penpushers and make them work in elderly care instead, somehow I can’t see that happening, in fact the only solution I can see is to have a major recession and use that to push down wages and thereby increase the labor supply by making it uneconomic to work 40 hours a week, realistically we need all care workers to work 60+ hours a week.

    Report comment

  35. Amber Star

    I am not a great fan of Cameron or the current Conservative Party. The latter has my grudging support as it seems to me to the only party which can keep Labour out of power.

    Report comment

  36. TOH:

    Re your last little attack on me: perhaps you should check who you ought to be respinding to – ‘cos I wrote nothing about “sneering.”

    You can even apologise if you like.

    Report comment

  37. @Paul Croft

    I don’t really understand what you are talking about now. I do not see anything in the least offensive in my posts to you and I an certainly not going to get into a silly argument about it. Some weeks ago you said that you would not post to me. It sounds a good idear to me and I will be happy to agree to not post to you if it bothers you.

    Report comment

  38. The thing about stuff like this – marriage, religion, royalty, nobility etc – is that a lot of people find it hard to truly understand that they just are man-made constructs. In reality nobody is reallty a “queen”, in the same way as, for example, I am a musicain or my step-daughter is a doctor.

    And ideas made up by men are clearly susceptible to tinkering with, alteration and change, as decided upon by the majority

    Report comment

  39. TOH:

    I shall try again.

    1/ Read post at 4-24 and who wrote it to you.

    2/ Now read YOUR 4-45 post, incorrectly addressesd to me.

    3/ Until you wrote to me directly, at 4-09, I hadn’t addressed you by name in a post on this thread. However, since you di do so I thought it polite to respond and explain myself more clearly.

    Hope that helps your understanding.

    Report comment

  40. Paul Croft,

    1. “they just are man-made constructs”

    - does not imply-

    2. “And ideas made up by men are clearly susceptible to tinkering with, alteration and change, as decided upon by the majority”

    - if the second sentence is supposed to in anyway justify any social change. Just because a building is made by human beings, it doesn’t mean you can change its foundations any way you want without potentially disastrous consequences. Just look at the French Revolution or the Cambodian “experiment”.

    As with a building, gradual change in response to apparent problems is the right approach. This is why I have a lot of respect for Labour’s approach on gay marriage: start with civil partnerships, examine any consequent problems, and provided all looks well, move on to full legalisation.

    Also, a lot of people disagree that marriage fits under 1. You and I disagree with them, but it’s inaccurate to say that they “it hard to truly understand” this fact. They disagree, and there’s a big difference between not understanding a position and disagreeing with it.

    Report comment

  41. @ Bill Patrick

    As I said to Alec, I am sure it will happen but you cannot make me believe it is right. It of course depends on how you view marriage. I have no problems with Civil Partnerships any more than I have a problem with unmarried men and women living together in partnerships, but you will never convince me they are equal to marriage.

    Report comment

  42. Funnily, in theory, the Guardians of Canonic Laws of the Catholic Church in countries where the office exists could authorise gay marriage even if it not recognised by the country and would probably cause a stir in the church (and of course the Holy Sea could annul it).

    Report comment

  43. Bill

    What an enormous leap to Pol Pot. I used the word tinkering to suggest exactly what the Blair Govt achieved, ie gradual change.

    More dramatically, simply because of the length of its existence, the monarchy has also been subject to gradual change – but that could quite easily and conceivably move to ending it completely.

    I’m actually not quite sure what it is we seem to be disagreeing with?

    My point is that is one is able to understand that something like marriage is essentally a legal concept developed by man then perhaps there would be less of a propensity to be upset by changes to that institution.

    Of course a lot of people think its about other things – but they are also man-made ideas – not realities.

    Report comment

  44. @Paul Croft

    You are quite right I should have replied to Bail, point taken and I apologise for that particular post.

    Report comment

  45. TOH:

    “You will never convince me” etc.

    i don’t imagine anyone feels the need to do so, one because you are perfectly entitled to your own views and two because whether you agree or not, it won’t affect the legality of the new situation in any way at all.

    Report comment

  46. TOH:

    That’s quite alright; thanks

    Paul

    Report comment

  47. @Paul Croft

    Hence my dislike of Modern Society which fortunately as i say I can mostly avoid since my friends and family have similar views to my own.

    Report comment

  48. @ Bill Patrick

    What’s the problem with the French Revolution?

    Report comment

  49. @Welsh Guy

    ” There is some evidence to suggest that most Welsh people would like to see Tax powers devolved without a referendum on the issue first…..it’s clear that a massive majority here would favour their devolution in a referendum. ”

    Absolutely wrong ! The poll you quote is a self selecting sample from an already biased electorate. There is no evidence to suggest that Welsh voters as a whole want tax raising powers to be given to the Assembly Government. To the contrrary, I can assure you that Labour will find it very difficult to get a majority of Party members to support this, and indeed that there will be a majority of Labour members and supporters in the Valleys and East Wales opposed to it. The 2nd largest Party in the Assembly (Conservatives) are likely to be heavily opposed. That leaves Parties 3 and 4 in the current pecking order – Plaid ( ? heavily in favour) and the the LibDems (? divided). How you construct a majority for devolution of tax powers here outside voodoo media polls will be interesting, either in the Assembly or via a referendum.

    Large numbers of the Wales electorate remain unconvinced about the Assembly. The majority don’t even vote in the Assembly elections. They often say to me that the Assembly should start delivering effectively on key devolved issues like health, education, local government and the environment before further powers are even considered. After 12 years of devolution Wales is gradually falling further behind the rest of GB on many objective indicators – especially health and education – a painful fact for me to face as I voted FOR devolution in the previous referenda. Even the Welsh language polices – expensive though they are – appear to be failing. as the number of regular speakers gradually falls.

    Report comment

  50. @ RiN

    Difficult to see how the Japanese are going to deal with this without mass immigration.
    ———————-
    Technology will provide a solution if the conditions which demand it exist. I think the necessary conditions do exist.

    Those who care for the elderly provide a service which the recipient needs but does not want; most of the recipients’ dislike is having another human invading their personal space.

    The carers themselves do not, for the most part, enjoy providing the service. They may take some satisfaction from helping others who are in need but the job itself, they do not enjoy.

    Demand – or more importantly awareness of potential future demand – has risen to the point where developed societies already resent the resources this need is forecast to consume.

    Therefore, technology will provide a solution. Ideally it will be a ‘high-tech’ medical or mechanical solution which improves physical mobility beyond the possible life span of the brain; sadly, it may be ‘lower tech’ e.g. devices which assist people to feed, clean & clothe themselves even when they suffer from very restricted mobility.

    If the issue is as large & important as we are being told it is, technological solutions will be conceived, designed & made available. Creating technological solutions to this kind of problem is what humans do.
    8-)

    Report comment

1 2 3 4