5 ms·

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.

by 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.

amanaplanacanal 7y ago
You point to Sweden, but this is still in process, and I think it is too soon to say how that will turn out. Can you point to any historical examples of the process you are describing?
- rjf72 7y ago
  I would fully agree you with you. Newton's Third has a habit of showing up in many sociopolitical scenarios. This alone would make prediction any distance into the future effectively impossible, even if we ignore the million other variables involved. Thought I think we can at least consider which scenarios seem, at minimum, more or less likely than others. As for examples though, we have to consider two major differences. First, extremely low fertility rates are extremely new -- even as recently as the 60s the US total fertility rate (average number of children per woman over their lifetime) had peaked at just a bit under 4. That already meant things like fertility did not really play a major role in these issues. And obviously as you go further back there is an upward trend. The second issue is that widescale welfare systems did not exist mostly until the 20th century, and the great depression time in particular. You had things like poorhouses where people could exchange hard labor for a meal and bed, but these were extremely local and small scale systems. There would not be support for millions of foreign individuals unable to otherwise independently support themselves. As a consequence of this, mass migrations were effectively impossible. So you won't find today's scenario in the past, because it did not exist. But I do think we can at least see rough analogs of this scenario play out practically everywhere that 'we' have colonized and decided to stay. Those were different times and war was often involved, but when you look at the times following peace things rarely got better for the natives. Once 'we' established ourselves disparities just grew over time and native views, values, and cultures were gradually relegated to an ever smaller piece of society to the point that, for instance, today in America we rarely even acknowledge Native Americans when speaking of things like 'minority representation.'
  - mirimir 7y ago
    > ... for instance, today in America we rarely even acknowledge Native Americans when speaking of things like 'minority representation.' Well, that's because 90% of them had died, mostly from diseases spread by colonists, and many in war. Even perhaps genocide. So of course there's not much of their culture left. But if descendants of immigrants from Central and South America become the majority, that's in some way a victory for Native Americans.

by rjf72 7y ago

amanaplanacanal 7y ago

You point to Sweden, but this is still in process, and I think it is too soon to say how that will turn out. Can you point to any historical examples of the process you are describing?

rjf72 7y ago
I would fully agree you with you. Newton's Third has a habit of showing up in many sociopolitical scenarios. This alone would make prediction any distance into the future effectively impossible, even if we ignore the million other variables involved. Thought I think we can at least consider which scenarios seem, at minimum, more or less likely than others. As for examples though, we have to consider two major differences. First, extremely low fertility rates are extremely new -- even as recently as the 60s the US total fertility rate (average number of children per woman over their lifetime) had peaked at just a bit under 4. That already meant things like fertility did not really play a major role in these issues. And obviously as you go further back there is an upward trend. The second issue is that widescale welfare systems did not exist mostly until the 20th century, and the great depression time in particular. You had things like poorhouses where people could exchange hard labor for a meal and bed, but these were extremely local and small scale systems. There would not be support for millions of foreign individuals unable to otherwise independently support themselves. As a consequence of this, mass migrations were effectively impossible. So you won't find today's scenario in the past, because it did not exist. But I do think we can at least see rough analogs of this scenario play out practically everywhere that 'we' have colonized and decided to stay. Those were different times and war was often involved, but when you look at the times following peace things rarely got better for the natives. Once 'we' established ourselves disparities just grew over time and native views, values, and cultures were gradually relegated to an ever smaller piece of society to the point that, for instance, today in America we rarely even acknowledge Native Americans when speaking of things like 'minority representation.'
- mirimir 7y ago
  > ... for instance, today in America we rarely even acknowledge Native Americans when speaking of things like 'minority representation.' Well, that's because 90% of them had died, mostly from diseases spread by colonists, and many in war. Even perhaps genocide. So of course there's not much of their culture left. But if descendants of immigrants from Central and South America become the majority, that's in some way a victory for Native Americans.