8 ms·
>Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years, and only marginally so. >...nor is it even pra
by remarkEon 7y ago
>Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent
This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years, and only marginally so.
>...nor is it even practically true, since negative natural growth with positive population growth had been observed in countries.
Only with substantial immigration is this the case, which brings with it a whole host of other potential problems.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years No, it's been true that nations are memetic rather than genetic constructs as long as nations have existed, and migration and assimilation have existed and been factors for a much longer time than 50 years. Non-transitory sub-replacement levels of natural population growth may be a recent phenomenon, but the nature of nations being such that such does not tautologically spell doom has been true much longer.
- remarkEon 7y agoEhh, this is just factually wrong and discounts the histories of Europe and e.g. Africa in such a grand way that it's hard to even know where to start. If you wanted to restrict your claim to something like "nations have memetic characteristics that often follow from genetic lineage that don't make membership in that nation strictly genetic" then I'd be inclined to agree. But back to the point, sup-replacement levels of natural population growth is a recent phenomenon and it's hard to say what comes next - since we don't have any perfectly analogous historical parallels.