4 ms·

That’s one of many reasons why it’s important to keep on investing in underdeveloped countries. There’s no reason why people there couldn’t contribute in the sa

That’s one of many reasons why it’s important to keep on investing in underdeveloped countries. There’s no reason why people there couldn’t contribute in the same ways that people in more developed countries contribute. And immigration is a good way to help keep the population of developed countries growing. There really isn’t any reason why we can’t tap into the incredible human resources available in the world if we try.

zmgsabst 4y ago
There’s two problems with that argument: 1. “People in developed nations don’t breed due to stress, but meh we can just replace them” is a monstrous way to think. 2. You can’t import people as replacements above a certain rate, because it’s the culture of the developed nation which causes the success — and without maintaining that culture, the benefits cease.
- a4isms 4y ago
  Citation needed for both of your claims, especially the second. What do you mean "it's the culture?" There are democracies everywhere, white people everywhere, protestants everywhere, people speak English everywhere, what is magically special about "the culture" that makes America a powerhouse of innovation? How do you know it doesn't have a lot to do with having two oceans to protect it, and bunch of things that happened 400 years ago to federalize it and create what amounts to a massive economic union? How do you know it isn't one of those things where a little bit of growth magnifies over time if not disrupted by war, just as what makes SF special is that a little bit of growth started there, and the concentration of intellectual and financial capital attracted more intellectual and financial capital? Both of those explanations have nothing to do with a hand-wavey claim of "the culture." And what do you mean that immigration is "a monstrous suggestion?" It sounds an awful lot like you're equating high rates of immigration with genocide. What on Earth is "monstrous" about immigrants? And why is that monstrous, but gentrification of SF by techies not monstrous? Really, this comes across as generic nativism.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Pretty sure the "monstrous" part is trying to denounce the idea of "humans are tools, if these peasants won't do what I want, I'll make them compete with peasants from a different country". I do think discouraging thinking of humans as resources is a good thing, even if this has the potential side-effect of making things more difficult for immigrants.
    - a4isms 4y ago
      > I do think discouraging thinking of humans as resources is a good thing I agree with that. There's a famous rant by a Canadian comic/media personality where he quotes a government slogan "People are our most precious resource" and points out that Canada's approach to "resources" is to clearcut timber and strip-mine minerals. But we're talking about having enough population to maintain an economy of ideas. If we're talking about "There aren't enough people willing to work as flesh-robots in Amazon's warehouses, or if there are, they refuse to work in those conditions so we need desperate replacements from other countries" there's a whole different conversation to have, and it isn't really about declining populations, it's about things like living wages, labour standards, unionization, and recognition that the end-game is not competing with immigrants, it's competing with automation.
      - munk-a 4y ago
        Who is the person you're quoting? I'd like to give it a listen. Considering Canada's history with Uranium mining I'm surprised that they didn't bring that into the fold as well - it's a delicate subject since a large amount of the costs of unsafe Uranium mining were born out by indigenous peoples, but for how few actual mines there were a lot of people have died from health complications.
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        I don't recognise the quote, but it sounds like something Rick Mercer would say.
- munk-a 4y ago
  That second point seems really shakey to me. As someone who has immigrated into a new country I'd highlight that the cost to do so is high enough (as a young person) that I was very careful to choose a country that was in line with my personal priorities. Can you explain what you specifically mean by culture if it differs from an alignment of personal with social priorities?
- brokencode 4y ago
  1. You think people in developed countries don’t have kids because they’re too stressed? I’d think it more stressful to live in extreme poverty as many do in other parts of the world. I don’t think you’ve done any homework on this one. 2. This has been a popular theory among the far-right and white nationalists lately. But I’d be interested to see any evidence that immigration has a negative effect on society, because it sounds fundamentally racist and wrong to me.
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    re 2, immigration policy is a complex question, labelling one position as 'fundamentally racist' is probably like labelling the other position as 'commodifying humans as a plantation-owner would'. Either could be true, but neither furthers productive discussion.

zmgsabst 4y ago

There’s two problems with that argument: 1. “People in developed nations don’t breed due to stress, but meh we can just replace them” is a monstrous way to think. 2. You can’t import people as replacements above a certain rate, because it’s the culture of the developed nation which causes the success — and without maintaining that culture, the benefits cease.

a4isms 4y ago
Citation needed for both of your claims, especially the second. What do you mean "it's the culture?" There are democracies everywhere, white people everywhere, protestants everywhere, people speak English everywhere, what is magically special about "the culture" that makes America a powerhouse of innovation? How do you know it doesn't have a lot to do with having two oceans to protect it, and bunch of things that happened 400 years ago to federalize it and create what amounts to a massive economic union? How do you know it isn't one of those things where a little bit of growth magnifies over time if not disrupted by war, just as what makes SF special is that a little bit of growth started there, and the concentration of intellectual and financial capital attracted more intellectual and financial capital? Both of those explanations have nothing to do with a hand-wavey claim of "the culture." And what do you mean that immigration is "a monstrous suggestion?" It sounds an awful lot like you're equating high rates of immigration with genocide. What on Earth is "monstrous" about immigrants? And why is that monstrous, but gentrification of SF by techies not monstrous? Really, this comes across as generic nativism.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Pretty sure the "monstrous" part is trying to denounce the idea of "humans are tools, if these peasants won't do what I want, I'll make them compete with peasants from a different country". I do think discouraging thinking of humans as resources is a good thing, even if this has the potential side-effect of making things more difficult for immigrants.
  - a4isms 4y ago
    > I do think discouraging thinking of humans as resources is a good thing I agree with that. There's a famous rant by a Canadian comic/media personality where he quotes a government slogan "People are our most precious resource" and points out that Canada's approach to "resources" is to clearcut timber and strip-mine minerals. But we're talking about having enough population to maintain an economy of ideas. If we're talking about "There aren't enough people willing to work as flesh-robots in Amazon's warehouses, or if there are, they refuse to work in those conditions so we need desperate replacements from other countries" there's a whole different conversation to have, and it isn't really about declining populations, it's about things like living wages, labour standards, unionization, and recognition that the end-game is not competing with immigrants, it's competing with automation.
    - munk-a 4y ago
      Who is the person you're quoting? I'd like to give it a listen. Considering Canada's history with Uranium mining I'm surprised that they didn't bring that into the fold as well - it's a delicate subject since a large amount of the costs of unsafe Uranium mining were born out by indigenous peoples, but for how few actual mines there were a lot of people have died from health complications.
      - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        I don't recognise the quote, but it sounds like something Rick Mercer would say.
munk-a 4y ago
That second point seems really shakey to me. As someone who has immigrated into a new country I'd highlight that the cost to do so is high enough (as a young person) that I was very careful to choose a country that was in line with my personal priorities. Can you explain what you specifically mean by culture if it differs from an alignment of personal with social priorities?
brokencode 4y ago
1. You think people in developed countries don’t have kids because they’re too stressed? I’d think it more stressful to live in extreme poverty as many do in other parts of the world. I don’t think you’ve done any homework on this one. 2. This has been a popular theory among the far-right and white nationalists lately. But I’d be interested to see any evidence that immigration has a negative effect on society, because it sounds fundamentally racist and wrong to me.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  re 2, immigration policy is a complex question, labelling one position as 'fundamentally racist' is probably like labelling the other position as 'commodifying humans as a plantation-owner would'. Either could be true, but neither furthers productive discussion.