4 ms·

> The people of developed nations are, for the most part, going to gradually go extinct. I doubt that. Or at least, it depends how you define "people of develo

> The people of developed nations are, for the most part, going to gradually go extinct. I doubt that. Or at least, it depends how you define "people of developed nations". Racial (for lack of a better word) composition will change, and immigration will play a role there. The US, for example, is becoming more Native American (many Mexicans being ~indigentes). And Europe more semitic (in the general sense). Edit: Oops, I mean "indígena".

python_gt_r3 7y ago
Surely you mean indígena. Indigente means homeless, or when you want to call someone that has no idea what he talks about, for instance when they talk about racial trends in Europe and North America, "indigente intelectual".
rjf72 7y ago
What do you think makes a country, a country? I mean what makes, for instance, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia -- and what makes Norway, Norway? Let's carry out a simple thought experiment. Imagine you instantly swapped the peoples of the nations but kept everything otherwise identical. Are the people of Saudi Arabia (who now reside within the land and laws of Norway) now going to stop oppressing women? Are the people of Norway going to do the exact opposite and suddenly start oppressing their women, executing homosexuals, and all that stuff? I'm sure you'd agree they would not. The nations would rapidly regress/evolve, depending on your worldview, to what they originally were. So it should be clear that what makes up the "people of a nation" are the people themselves - and by that you have shared cultural, ideological, and other views. And with migration and cultural assimilation this culture can grow and expand, as has been the history of much of America. On the other hand cultures can also be completely replaced. For instance, imagine Islam continues to fail to really integrate into nations and, through raw fertility rates, starts to become the dominant factor in a generally liberal nation. What do you think would happen to LGBT rights? Women's rights? Freedom of religion and expression? Nations, in the sense of geographic locations, will probably not be going extinct anytime in the foreseeable future. But the views and values of nations, particularly those that trend towards embracing social views, are very much at risk of going extinct in the future. And the most ironic part this is that this is all completely foreseeable.
- oblio 7y ago
  Trying another thought experiment, let's call it "boiling the frog" or "ship of Theseus". If you introduce small quantities of immigrants into a society, gradually, and they adopt local customs, if after 100 years the native population has been replaced after integration, does it mean that the original country and its culture have disappeared?
  - sfasfsafd 7y ago
    "introduce small quantities" small being the key qualifier.
    - oblio 7y ago
      Yes, but what's the threshold? What's "small"?
  - rjf72 7y ago
    If you take any nation today, regardless of hetero or homogeneity, it will likely scarcely resemble the culture of that nation from 50 years ago, let alone 100. Cultures changing is not really a problem and I think migration is in no way a negative when people assimilate. Assimilation, practically by definition, tends to be a host culture casting away perceived undesirable views and values, while adopting the perceived positive views and values of a migrating culture. But a failure to assimilate, should the migrant culture become large enough, can result in the exact opposite outcome. Minority views seen as unacceptable may, over time, start to reach the point of becoming politically influential. So for instance, how likely do you think it is that a western liberal nation will criminalize homosexuality over the next 100 years? The question's ostensibly stupid. It's so far outside our trajectory and realm of thought that it seems about as likely as pigs learning to fly. But just consider one example. Sweden today is one of the most liberal nations in the world with an extremely generous welfare state and an incredibly inviting people. They're also a very small nation of about 10 million people, not long ago it was less than 9 million. And their fertility levels have plummeted. At one point they were literally negative. And their embracing nature has also seen a near open door policy to migration, which is a big part of the reason that their population (and fertility) rates have increased. However, many of the individuals migrating are not assimilating - and hold views which are in extreme contrast to 'Swedish' views. If we assume Sweden continues along its current trajectory, it's not really out of the question to see what is today one of the most liberal nations in the world criminalizing homosexuality and beyond. That is fundamentally what I meany by a people being exterminated. It's not the 'people' as in a genetic lineage, but the shared views and values that makeup a people. There will certainly be people that call themselves Swedes in the future. But the views and values of this nation may end up regressing (from our perspective) dramatically in the future. Centuries of progress and social development cast aside in what could be a matter of decades for a lack of fertility and a refusal to consider the implications of nonassimilating migration.

python_gt_r3 7y ago

Surely you mean indígena. Indigente means homeless, or when you want to call someone that has no idea what he talks about, for instance when they talk about racial trends in Europe and North America, "indigente intelectual".

rjf72 7y ago

What do you think makes a country, a country? I mean what makes, for instance, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia -- and what makes Norway, Norway? Let's carry out a simple thought experiment. Imagine you instantly swapped the peoples of the nations but kept everything otherwise identical. Are the people of Saudi Arabia (who now reside within the land and laws of Norway) now going to stop oppressing women? Are the people of Norway going to do the exact opposite and suddenly start oppressing their women, executing homosexuals, and all that stuff? I'm sure you'd agree they would not. The nations would rapidly regress/evolve, depending on your worldview, to what they originally were. So it should be clear that what makes up the "people of a nation" are the people themselves - and by that you have shared cultural, ideological, and other views. And with migration and cultural assimilation this culture can grow and expand, as has been the history of much of America. On the other hand cultures can also be completely replaced. For instance, imagine Islam continues to fail to really integrate into nations and, through raw fertility rates, starts to become the dominant factor in a generally liberal nation. What do you think would happen to LGBT rights? Women's rights? Freedom of religion and expression? Nations, in the sense of geographic locations, will probably not be going extinct anytime in the foreseeable future. But the views and values of nations, particularly those that trend towards embracing social views, are very much at risk of going extinct in the future. And the most ironic part this is that this is all completely foreseeable.

oblio 7y ago
Trying another thought experiment, let's call it "boiling the frog" or "ship of Theseus". If you introduce small quantities of immigrants into a society, gradually, and they adopt local customs, if after 100 years the native population has been replaced after integration, does it mean that the original country and its culture have disappeared?
- sfasfsafd 7y ago
  "introduce small quantities" small being the key qualifier.
  - oblio 7y ago
    Yes, but what's the threshold? What's "small"?
- rjf72 7y ago
  If you take any nation today, regardless of hetero or homogeneity, it will likely scarcely resemble the culture of that nation from 50 years ago, let alone 100. Cultures changing is not really a problem and I think migration is in no way a negative when people assimilate. Assimilation, practically by definition, tends to be a host culture casting away perceived undesirable views and values, while adopting the perceived positive views and values of a migrating culture. But a failure to assimilate, should the migrant culture become large enough, can result in the exact opposite outcome. Minority views seen as unacceptable may, over time, start to reach the point of becoming politically influential. So for instance, how likely do you think it is that a western liberal nation will criminalize homosexuality over the next 100 years? The question's ostensibly stupid. It's so far outside our trajectory and realm of thought that it seems about as likely as pigs learning to fly. But just consider one example. Sweden today is one of the most liberal nations in the world with an extremely generous welfare state and an incredibly inviting people. They're also a very small nation of about 10 million people, not long ago it was less than 9 million. And their fertility levels have plummeted. At one point they were literally negative. And their embracing nature has also seen a near open door policy to migration, which is a big part of the reason that their population (and fertility) rates have increased. However, many of the individuals migrating are not assimilating - and hold views which are in extreme contrast to 'Swedish' views. If we assume Sweden continues along its current trajectory, it's not really out of the question to see what is today one of the most liberal nations in the world criminalizing homosexuality and beyond. That is fundamentally what I meany by a people being exterminated. It's not the 'people' as in a genetic lineage, but the shared views and values that makeup a people. There will certainly be people that call themselves Swedes in the future. But the views and values of this nation may end up regressing (from our perspective) dramatically in the future. Centuries of progress and social development cast aside in what could be a matter of decades for a lack of fertility and a refusal to consider the implications of nonassimilating migration.