5 ms·

I think a strong pattern here is: the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. See Italy, Spain, Belgium for ins

by simo7 9y ago

I think a strong pattern here is: the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. See Italy, Spain, Belgium for instance: people from different area of those countries really feel belonging to different cultures. Contrari to the Nordic & Easter European ones. In Germany is more of a historical thing instead.

retox 9y ago
You've touched on one theory of why European governments are seemingly so in favour of mass immigration; a people with no common identity are much less willing to go to war for it. The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because it lets them hold on to their wealth.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Unfortunately it is never the people who start wars. Politicians do. If you want to decrease the chance of your country going into war it would be an easy fix to introduce laws that mandates pro-war politicians to submit their family members to service to fight at the front in case of a war.
  - EugeneAZ 9y ago
    SMS Direct Democracy with the right of citizens to secede. And professional military, of course, like in the USA. You make war much rarer thereby.
    - arethuza 9y ago
      Does having a professional military leads to fewer wars - the UK has had a preference for professional military for centuries and it didn't stop us invading a significant proportion of the world!
      - EugeneAZ 9y ago
        Professional military (by definition) force politicians to spend money on them. So, every conflict becomes measurable in terms of money. Thus, citizens become aware of the true cost of it. When you have conscription, you cannot measure how much each of the soldiers loses in terms of money - they don't ask them such a question deliberately. Also, when all citizens (women and "disabled") are forced to pay for the military equally, they will tend less to be provoked into a war - it may cost too much for them. Get it? By the way, I would support new British Empire, if its authorities would be decent people (as it usually happened). I'm from Ukraine : )
        arethuza 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure the UK defence industry isn't run primarily to equip our armed forces with decent equipment.... [Edit: UK armed forces seemed to have to suffer comparatively poor but very expensive equipment foisted on them for political reasons].
        EugeneAZ 9y ago
        Man. They are all corrupted or just too ignorant. J.R.Nyquist can tell you even more : ) Have you ever heard of thista? For any engineering problem one can make a "brute-force" algorithm, which theoretically finds its solution, describe that algorithm as a logical scheme (a directed graph with logic gates as nodes) and then one can use an AI agent to make that logical scheme easier to compute, by simplifying (through transformation rules like the De Morgan rule) unnecessary computation steps, input variables, etc. The solution to the problem can be found by calculation of that simplified version of the logical scheme. The AI agent may be built from Neural Nets, or from the algorithm, which I call Evolution of Neural Graphs [0]. Some of interesting engineering problems are: - to find a machine code for a controller of a bipedal robot [1], which makes it able to work in warehouses and factories; - to find a machine code for a multiprocessor system [2], which behaves as an AI agent purposed for a given work to be done; - to find a CAD file [3], which describes the design of a spheromak working with MHD generators; - to find a file [4], which describes the manufacturing steps to produce the first molecular nanofactory in the world; - etc… Officials of what country would take it seriously, can you guess? [0] https://github.com/Eug145/TetrAI/blob/master/Source-v0.92beta/aimodule_a.cpp#L234 https://github.com/Eug145/TetrAI/blob/master/Source-v0.92bet... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtHCFToYPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtHCFToYPY [2] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/08/23/new-microchip-demonstrates-efficiency-and-scalable-design?section=topstories https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/08/23/new-microchip-demo... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynomak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynomak [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg I have a reddit account, you may discuss it there too.
- TorKlingberg 9y ago
  That's a really far fetched conspiracy theory. Personally I am happy that Europeans are not too exited to start more wars.
- tobltobs 9y ago
  Peace is only good for the wealthy?
- pjc50 9y ago
  If "mass immigration" makes war in Europe less likely then that's yet another thing in its favour. But I don't think there's much of a correlation. People forget that migration was much easier administratively before WW1. Austria-Hungary was a multicultural state with a dozen languages whose residents could live anywhere within the borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#/media/File:Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#/media/File:Au... Similarly the British Empire had free movement of people within it.
- JohnStrange 9y ago
  That theory would be in serious need for backup, because I can't see any connection. The pension systems will break down in countries like Germany without substantial mass immigration, that much is true, but is clinging to existing power the major motive for avoiding this breakdown? I'm not sure about this second part. As for Germany, by the way, the explanation is kind of simple. Contrary to popular belief, the German border cannot be effectively closed, and once someone has seeked for asylum, this needs to be checked. At the same time, the Dublin II regulation is extremely unfair and unsolidaric, it was designed for a few refugees here and there, and insisting on it would have tumbled Greece even further into crisis and alienated Italy. More importantly, however, the German constitution would have made rejecting refugees impossible, as it guarantees the right to asylum to someone who comes from a country in which a war rages. Moreover, rejecting them would also have violated Article 18 of the EU constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is constitutional law and ratified international law, so Merkel thought something like "Blimey, what do I do now? Break all these laws and loose in front of the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights , or risk my career while standing in for those fancy human rights values I've always held speeches about?"
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  "common identity" is kind of an oxymoron. Any person can at at best have their own identity. A "shared identity" is not a lot of people having a shared identity, but each of them not having one. Shared values, mutual trust, those make sense, "shared identity" is double think. If it can be shared it's not identity. How would not going to war allow wealthy people to hold on to their wealth? That's a head scratcher, too. And remind me, what are a lot of those immigrants fleeing from? Who was in favour of fucking up the already fucked up Middle East plenty more, for example? Who set the stage for ISIS? Wasn't it a nation riled up into a frenzy, with a "shared identity" pouring out every nook and cranny?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
davissorenson 9y ago
Finland and Denmark have mandatory military service for males. Sweden got rid of mandatory military service in 2010, then reinstated it in 2016. Norway currently has "weak conscription" in that recruits are not forced to serve. Latvia was a part of the Soviet Union a generation ago, and had conscription until 2005. So what all those countries have in common is that a large portion of the male population has actual military training.
- notfromhere 9y ago
  And are next to Russia (except Denmark)
Lewton 9y ago
I don't think that's a strong pattern at all... Iceland? Denmark? Austria?
- glebedel 9y ago
  Not to mention Japan was the lowest with 11%...
- simo7 9y ago
  Strong doesn't mean it's the only explanation, probably different factors at play like in most things. For instance for Germany (and maybe Austria?) major factor could be aversion to nationalism?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
gkya 9y ago
> the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. I guess the correlation is inverse, i.e. the more patriotic a people the less the diversities.
- simo7 9y ago
  Well correlation has not direction of causality, but I get your point. Although not sure why you see it that way, seems easier to explain the other way around to me.
dejv 9y ago
Not really true: Czech republic have one of the most homogenous population in the world (95%, 97% if you count Slovaks which we used to share the country with) and still the the score is just 23%.

by simo7 9y ago

retox 9y ago

You've touched on one theory of why European governments are seemingly so in favour of mass immigration; a people with no common identity are much less willing to go to war for it. The theory goes that this is favourable for the wealthy euros in power because it lets them hold on to their wealth.

StreamBright 9y ago
Unfortunately it is never the people who start wars. Politicians do. If you want to decrease the chance of your country going into war it would be an easy fix to introduce laws that mandates pro-war politicians to submit their family members to service to fight at the front in case of a war.
- EugeneAZ 9y ago
  SMS Direct Democracy with the right of citizens to secede. And professional military, of course, like in the USA. You make war much rarer thereby.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    Does having a professional military leads to fewer wars - the UK has had a preference for professional military for centuries and it didn't stop us invading a significant proportion of the world!
    - EugeneAZ 9y ago
      Professional military (by definition) force politicians to spend money on them. So, every conflict becomes measurable in terms of money. Thus, citizens become aware of the true cost of it. When you have conscription, you cannot measure how much each of the soldiers loses in terms of money - they don't ask them such a question deliberately. Also, when all citizens (women and "disabled") are forced to pay for the military equally, they will tend less to be provoked into a war - it may cost too much for them. Get it? By the way, I would support new British Empire, if its authorities would be decent people (as it usually happened). I'm from Ukraine : )
      - arethuza 9y ago
        I'm pretty sure the UK defence industry isn't run primarily to equip our armed forces with decent equipment.... [Edit: UK armed forces seemed to have to suffer comparatively poor but very expensive equipment foisted on them for political reasons].
        EugeneAZ 9y ago
        Man. They are all corrupted or just too ignorant. J.R.Nyquist can tell you even more : ) Have you ever heard of thista? For any engineering problem one can make a "brute-force" algorithm, which theoretically finds its solution, describe that algorithm as a logical scheme (a directed graph with logic gates as nodes) and then one can use an AI agent to make that logical scheme easier to compute, by simplifying (through transformation rules like the De Morgan rule) unnecessary computation steps, input variables, etc. The solution to the problem can be found by calculation of that simplified version of the logical scheme. The AI agent may be built from Neural Nets, or from the algorithm, which I call Evolution of Neural Graphs [0]. Some of interesting engineering problems are: - to find a machine code for a controller of a bipedal robot [1], which makes it able to work in warehouses and factories; - to find a machine code for a multiprocessor system [2], which behaves as an AI agent purposed for a given work to be done; - to find a CAD file [3], which describes the design of a spheromak working with MHD generators; - to find a file [4], which describes the manufacturing steps to produce the first molecular nanofactory in the world; - etc… Officials of what country would take it seriously, can you guess? [0] https://github.com/Eug145/TetrAI/blob/master/Source-v0.92beta/aimodule_a.cpp#L234 https://github.com/Eug145/TetrAI/blob/master/Source-v0.92bet... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtHCFToYPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtHCFToYPY [2] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/08/23/new-microchip-demonstrates-efficiency-and-scalable-design?section=topstories https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/08/23/new-microchip-demo... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynomak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynomak [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqyZ9bFl_qg I have a reddit account, you may discuss it there too.
TorKlingberg 9y ago
That's a really far fetched conspiracy theory. Personally I am happy that Europeans are not too exited to start more wars.
tobltobs 9y ago
Peace is only good for the wealthy?
pjc50 9y ago
If "mass immigration" makes war in Europe less likely then that's yet another thing in its favour. But I don't think there's much of a correlation. People forget that migration was much easier administratively before WW1. Austria-Hungary was a multicultural state with a dozen languages whose residents could live anywhere within the borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#/media/File:Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#/media/File:Au... Similarly the British Empire had free movement of people within it.
JohnStrange 9y ago
That theory would be in serious need for backup, because I can't see any connection. The pension systems will break down in countries like Germany without substantial mass immigration, that much is true, but is clinging to existing power the major motive for avoiding this breakdown? I'm not sure about this second part. As for Germany, by the way, the explanation is kind of simple. Contrary to popular belief, the German border cannot be effectively closed, and once someone has seeked for asylum, this needs to be checked. At the same time, the Dublin II regulation is extremely unfair and unsolidaric, it was designed for a few refugees here and there, and insisting on it would have tumbled Greece even further into crisis and alienated Italy. More importantly, however, the German constitution would have made rejecting refugees impossible, as it guarantees the right to asylum to someone who comes from a country in which a war rages. Moreover, rejecting them would also have violated Article 18 of the EU constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is constitutional law and ratified international law, so Merkel thought something like "Blimey, what do I do now? Break all these laws and loose in front of the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights , or risk my career while standing in for those fancy human rights values I've always held speeches about?"
thinkfurther 9y ago
"common identity" is kind of an oxymoron. Any person can at at best have their own identity. A "shared identity" is not a lot of people having a shared identity, but each of them not having one. Shared values, mutual trust, those make sense, "shared identity" is double think. If it can be shared it's not identity. How would not going to war allow wealthy people to hold on to their wealth? That's a head scratcher, too. And remind me, what are a lot of those immigrants fleeing from? Who was in favour of fucking up the already fucked up Middle East plenty more, for example? Who set the stage for ISIS? Wasn't it a nation riled up into a frenzy, with a "shared identity" pouring out every nook and cranny?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

davissorenson 9y ago

Finland and Denmark have mandatory military service for males. Sweden got rid of mandatory military service in 2010, then reinstated it in 2016. Norway currently has "weak conscription" in that recruits are not forced to serve. Latvia was a part of the Soviet Union a generation ago, and had conscription until 2005. So what all those countries have in common is that a large portion of the male population has actual military training.

notfromhere 9y ago
And are next to Russia (except Denmark)

Lewton 9y ago

I don't think that's a strong pattern at all... Iceland? Denmark? Austria?

glebedel 9y ago
Not to mention Japan was the lowest with 11%...
simo7 9y ago
Strong doesn't mean it's the only explanation, probably different factors at play like in most things. For instance for Germany (and maybe Austria?) major factor could be aversion to nationalism?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

gkya 9y ago

> the more cultural/social homogeneity the more willingness to fight a war for your country. I guess the correlation is inverse, i.e. the more patriotic a people the less the diversities.

simo7 9y ago
Well correlation has not direction of causality, but I get your point. Although not sure why you see it that way, seems easier to explain the other way around to me.

dejv 9y ago

Not really true: Czech republic have one of the most homogenous population in the world (95%, 97% if you count Slovaks which we used to share the country with) and still the the score is just 23%.