4 ms·

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happies... White

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happies... White countries with low diversity.

pknight 8y ago
These are all modern economies, most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes. Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Finland are all signed up to freedom of movement, which doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or place of birth, provided you are a citizen in the EEA or Switzerland, or if you are married to such a citizen. Anyway, the point is not that diversity cultivates happiness (no simple answer to that), the point is that some people believe in keeping communities homogeneous and argue that this promotes happiness. That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples.
- bluthru 8y ago
  >These are all modern economies They aren't the only modern economies. Demographics plays a role. >most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes Recent policy and current demographics are two different things. These are still homogenous countries for the most part, especially Iceland which is exceedingly safe. Where demographics have shifted drastically away from the native population, the quality of life has reduced. (Look at Malmo, for example.) >That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... Here's a list of countries ranked by diversity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et... Doesn't look like a happy list.
  - pknight 8y ago
    I'm not advancing the claim that high levels of diversity bring about happiness, I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition. It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.
    - bluthru 8y ago
      >I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition. Read Robert Putnam. People love a sense of belonging and it's embedded in our genes. http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-study/ http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-study/ http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-common-ancestry-share-similar-genes/ http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-common... >It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities. There can definitely be miserable people who are looking for a scapegoat. It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo. On the other hand there are people like me: anonymous, have traveled the world, lived in rural areas and cities, have a masters from a top 10, have a good job, etc. who look at the data and go: "Oh, the data is indicating that this recent configuration of humans isn't as good as it could be." You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm--were they all miserable? Portraying people who are against diversity as ignorant or miserable doesn't disprove the fact that if you take a homogenous, high-performing population and flood it with diverse, lower-IQ, culturally-incomptable, more violent, less-productive people the nation will become worse. Simple question: would Europe be better or worse today if there were only Europeans in it?
      - pknight 8y ago
        > It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo. It's not taboo though is it. People go on and on about immigration and there are entire media outfits that are devoted to casting foreigners as threats while promoting the idea that 'these people are not as good natives, have lower IQ, are more violent and less productive', which is typically based on outright lies and prejudice. Beliefs about immigrants are entirely warped to cater to a smaller subset of the population which has a hard time dealing with change while they grip with tremendous entitlement to mythical constructions of the past. > You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm A very curious statement. Europe's history is one characterised by migration and constant changes in demographics. There have always been groups of people at odds with one another because they were different enough to be seen as a threat. Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good and bad results.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/16/these-are-the-top-10-happies... White countries with low diversity.

pknight 8y ago

These are all modern economies, most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes. Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Finland are all signed up to freedom of movement, which doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or place of birth, provided you are a citizen in the EEA or Switzerland, or if you are married to such a citizen. Anyway, the point is not that diversity cultivates happiness (no simple answer to that), the point is that some people believe in keeping communities homogeneous and argue that this promotes happiness. That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples.

bluthru 8y ago
>These are all modern economies They aren't the only modern economies. Demographics plays a role. >most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes Recent policy and current demographics are two different things. These are still homogenous countries for the most part, especially Iceland which is exceedingly safe. Where demographics have shifted drastically away from the native population, the quality of life has reduced. (Look at Malmo, for example.) >That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... Here's a list of countries ranked by diversity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et... Doesn't look like a happy list.
- pknight 8y ago
  I'm not advancing the claim that high levels of diversity bring about happiness, I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition. It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.
  - bluthru 8y ago
    >I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition. Read Robert Putnam. People love a sense of belonging and it's embedded in our genes. http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-study/ http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-study/ http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-common-ancestry-share-similar-genes/ http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-common... >It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities. There can definitely be miserable people who are looking for a scapegoat. It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo. On the other hand there are people like me: anonymous, have traveled the world, lived in rural areas and cities, have a masters from a top 10, have a good job, etc. who look at the data and go: "Oh, the data is indicating that this recent configuration of humans isn't as good as it could be." You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm--were they all miserable? Portraying people who are against diversity as ignorant or miserable doesn't disprove the fact that if you take a homogenous, high-performing population and flood it with diverse, lower-IQ, culturally-incomptable, more violent, less-productive people the nation will become worse. Simple question: would Europe be better or worse today if there were only Europeans in it?
    - pknight 8y ago
      > It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo. It's not taboo though is it. People go on and on about immigration and there are entire media outfits that are devoted to casting foreigners as threats while promoting the idea that 'these people are not as good natives, have lower IQ, are more violent and less productive', which is typically based on outright lies and prejudice. Beliefs about immigrants are entirely warped to cater to a smaller subset of the population which has a hard time dealing with change while they grip with tremendous entitlement to mythical constructions of the past. > You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm A very curious statement. Europe's history is one characterised by migration and constant changes in demographics. There have always been groups of people at odds with one another because they were different enough to be seen as a threat. Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good and bad results.