3 ms·

Harvesting 21st century's most valuable resource -- the best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries is horrific. It's colonialism, in my opinion.

Harvesting 21st century's most valuable resource -- the best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries is horrific. It's colonialism, in my opinion. I'm always astounded by people in rich western countries boasting about how they poached all this talent from some of the poorest countries on earth. Like, yeah that's great you got another doctor for your healthcare system that spends billions of dollars extending people's lives by a few months. Guess that country she came from where children regularly die of easily preventable diseases won't miss her. So long as we don't have to wait more than 10 minutes for an ambulance when we have a boo-boo and get to see a doctor immediately at the ER f- everybody else. Though as you say, I don't judge everyone purely based on that greed and selfishness. They all have their failures and blind spots.

Mikeb85 5y ago
If you don't agree with our immigration policies you're racist. /s You're right though, it's essentially 21st century colonialism. When I studied economics we studied a lot about economic development. Funny how that's pretty much gone by the wayside, extinguished by the very people who should support it (western leftists). As an aside, the whole carbon reduction thing is also thinly veiled colonialism. We want to insist that India and China reduce emissions when they produce 1/10th and 1/4 the emissions per capita that western nations do. We're already developed so it's easy to say let's cap it where it is right now. Fuck poor countries right?
karmanyaahm 5y ago
> Harvesting 21st century's most valuable resource -- the best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries is horrific. It's colonialism, in my opinion. Sure, maybe that is the case when looking at the 'Greater Good' of the whole population, but the > best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries are also real people with individual hopes and dreams. Just because they happened to be born in a bad place doesn't mean that their desire to achieve better things (think research facilities, schools for kids) and contribute to the future of humanity should be discounted.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Yes, it's rich countries screwing poor by exploiting their resources. The robber barons were also real people with individual hopes and dreams. The real problem is so are all those other people in those poor countries. The 99.99% who are left behind are also individuals with hopes and dreams.
  - karmanyaahm 5y ago
    Theoretical question, but do the 0.01% have any obligation towards the 99.99% just because they happen to be born somewhere. Practically, yes, I know society expects people to be nationalist to some degree.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Yes probably some moral obligation to those countries if they enabled them to be born and survive and become skilled or wealthy enough to be in a position to migrate to western countries on that basis, yes I do think there is an argument that they have some non-zero obligation. But wealthy countries are not doing this for the benefit of those people, they are doing it for their own benefit. To the detriment of the rest of those in poor countries. This pretty much seals the lot of those countries to be dependent client states subject to the whims of wealthy countries and prone to having their other natural resources plundered as well. Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome. During colonialism, many collaborators in the countries being exploited got great benefit, they were put in positions of power installed as local rulers, for example. I don't see a lot of difference in the dynamics or results. Theoretical question, because it's quite interesting to me that almost everyone I have talked with about this who has made arguments in this direction have tended to be leftist or collectivist leaning -- what do you think? Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country?
      - karmanyaahm 5y ago
        > if they enabled them to be born and survive and become skilled or wealthy enough to be in a position to migrate to western countries on that basis, yes I do think there is an argument that they have some non-zero obligation. That's a fair point, but I guess the question then becomes - is that non-zero obligation greater than the emigrant's personal quest for a better life. Which, in the real world for most people, seems to be no. > Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome Probably the best outcome for collective human knowledge would be to develop every country, research in every single country = more total research / unit time. But for individuals who just want to be able to invent something in their lifetimes and have a better daily life, this is very far away and humans are bad at long-term decision-making. > Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country? I don't think so. That's actually similar to the premise behind Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged [1]. But, I am very happy that we share the same world and I the same country (US) with some of the best people in pretty much every field. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
twelvechairs 5y ago
Yes brain drain is an issue but quite a different one to the sustainability issues of global overpopulation. Its complex but I do think allowing people to study and work overseas does come back as a net benefit. Your doctor story can fall at a few hurdles - maybe they can't get the training at home, maybe they would turn to another industry just to get a reasonable salary if thats the option, maybe even if they can study overseas and return they don't have the opportunities to practice in their home country. I've seen all of these happen.

Mikeb85 5y ago

If you don't agree with our immigration policies you're racist. /s You're right though, it's essentially 21st century colonialism. When I studied economics we studied a lot about economic development. Funny how that's pretty much gone by the wayside, extinguished by the very people who should support it (western leftists). As an aside, the whole carbon reduction thing is also thinly veiled colonialism. We want to insist that India and China reduce emissions when they produce 1/10th and 1/4 the emissions per capita that western nations do. We're already developed so it's easy to say let's cap it where it is right now. Fuck poor countries right?

karmanyaahm 5y ago

> Harvesting 21st century's most valuable resource -- the best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries is horrific. It's colonialism, in my opinion. Sure, maybe that is the case when looking at the 'Greater Good' of the whole population, but the > best and brightest people -- from disadvantaged countries are also real people with individual hopes and dreams. Just because they happened to be born in a bad place doesn't mean that their desire to achieve better things (think research facilities, schools for kids) and contribute to the future of humanity should be discounted.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Yes, it's rich countries screwing poor by exploiting their resources. The robber barons were also real people with individual hopes and dreams. The real problem is so are all those other people in those poor countries. The 99.99% who are left behind are also individuals with hopes and dreams.
- karmanyaahm 5y ago
  Theoretical question, but do the 0.01% have any obligation towards the 99.99% just because they happen to be born somewhere. Practically, yes, I know society expects people to be nationalist to some degree.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Yes probably some moral obligation to those countries if they enabled them to be born and survive and become skilled or wealthy enough to be in a position to migrate to western countries on that basis, yes I do think there is an argument that they have some non-zero obligation. But wealthy countries are not doing this for the benefit of those people, they are doing it for their own benefit. To the detriment of the rest of those in poor countries. This pretty much seals the lot of those countries to be dependent client states subject to the whims of wealthy countries and prone to having their other natural resources plundered as well. Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome. During colonialism, many collaborators in the countries being exploited got great benefit, they were put in positions of power installed as local rulers, for example. I don't see a lot of difference in the dynamics or results. Theoretical question, because it's quite interesting to me that almost everyone I have talked with about this who has made arguments in this direction have tended to be leftist or collectivist leaning -- what do you think? Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country?
    - karmanyaahm 5y ago
      > if they enabled them to be born and survive and become skilled or wealthy enough to be in a position to migrate to western countries on that basis, yes I do think there is an argument that they have some non-zero obligation. That's a fair point, but I guess the question then becomes - is that non-zero obligation greater than the emigrant's personal quest for a better life. Which, in the real world for most people, seems to be no. > Let's not lie to ourselves about this being some kind of altruism or net positive outcome Probably the best outcome for collective human knowledge would be to develop every country, research in every single country = more total research / unit time. But for individuals who just want to be able to invent something in their lifetimes and have a better daily life, this is very far away and humans are bad at long-term decision-making. > Also do you think the 0.01% of people in a western country have any obligation towards the 99.99% of people in that country? I don't think so. That's actually similar to the premise behind Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged [1]. But, I am very happy that we share the same world and I the same country (US) with some of the best people in pretty much every field. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

twelvechairs 5y ago

Yes brain drain is an issue but quite a different one to the sustainability issues of global overpopulation. Its complex but I do think allowing people to study and work overseas does come back as a net benefit. Your doctor story can fall at a few hurdles - maybe they can't get the training at home, maybe they would turn to another industry just to get a reasonable salary if thats the option, maybe even if they can study overseas and return they don't have the opportunities to practice in their home country. I've seen all of these happen.