4 ms·

This is like suggesting a biological cell not have a cell wall. One of the fundamental functions of a country is to regulate input/outputs at the border. Ther

This is like suggesting a biological cell not have a cell wall. One of the fundamental functions of a country is to regulate input/outputs at the border. There are so many disastrous problems that arise from the elimination of a border, that I question whether such a suggestion is ever even made seriously or made by sane people.

gjm11 4y ago
That analogy may be more insightful than you meant it to be. Animal cells (e.g., the ones in your body or mine) do not have cell walls. They do have membranes surrounding the cells, but they aren't walls. In the same way, any country has borders, but there's a lot of scope for variation in what they allow across the border under what conditions. "Open borders" does not mean "no borders". For instance, the borders between countries in the Schengen Area of Europe are "open", even though those countries still have borders. This has been the case since 1995. Civilization there does not appear to have fallen so far.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  To get into the Schengen area there is a bit more inspection though right? We are just talking about a bigger cell.
  - gjm11 4y ago
    We're talking about a multicellular organism. An animal's skin keeps out things that its individual cell membranes aren't concerned with. (I don't actually think the details of what cell walls, cell membranes, skin, etc., do and don't regulate / completely block really tell us anything much about what should happen at national borders. If tomorrow someone discovered a previously unknown regulatory mechanism in cell membranes, that shouldn't make anyone change their mind about immigration controls. The way these analogies actually work is that someone decides what they think about immigration on other grounds, and then goes looking for an analogy that fits the rhetorical point they want to make. Someone arguing for "open borders" would probably choose something else rather than cells to make analogies with. The analogy isn't doing any real intellectual work, it's just window-dressing.)
- koheripbal 4y ago
  You've made a useless semantic argument between using the word "wall" vs "membrane". A membrane or wall regulate the input/output of everything in/out of the cell - from water to proteins to everything else. A cell without a membrane dies - immediately.
  - gjm11 4y ago
    No, I've made a substantive observation about the point actually at issue: you implied that every country necessarily has immigration controls at its border, which in fact is not true. You had tried to support that claim by making an analogy with biological cells, and it pleased me that in fact my counter-point fits into that analogy, but it doesn't really matter: if it turns out that the cell-analogue of "every country has to have immigration controls at its border" is true, all that means is that cells were a bad analogy because, again, it is simply not true that every country needs immigration controls at its border. I am not a cell biologist so this might be wrong, but my understanding is that cell membranes are in fact permeable to water and don't have any particular ability to regulate the movement of water in and out of the cell. The rate at which that happens will be affected by e.g. concentration of solutes on each side, but it's not a thing a typical cell has mechanisms for controlling. I think there are such mechanisms in some cells in the kidney, but AIUI while most (all?) cells have aquaporins there's nothing adjusting their permeability. But, once again, while this is all interesting in its own right it tells us nothing about what countries can, or do, or should regulate. If some researcher makes a stunning discovery that overturns our understanding of what cell membranes do, the appropriate adjustment in national-border regulation will be zero.
DarthNebo 4y ago
Pre-modern world having no borders is what gave birth to immigration into the said country & other parts of the world which got colonized over time. Kinda hypocritical to suddenly have everything closed up. Who knows maybe space travel or resource scarcity is what unites all countries centuries down the line.
hackerlight 4y ago
I advocate for almost completely open borders, for three reasons, freedom + economic growth + national security. (1) Freedom. Closed borders was actually one of the first iterations of technology being used to suppress human freedom. We had open borders for most of human history. Only with the advent of modern nation states (and the associated mind virus of nationalism) and recent technical capabilities have we both been motivated and capable of blocking people from travelling and moving freely. (2) Economic growth. Self-explanatory. Look at where our top founders, or their recent ancestors, come from. The more immigration, the better. (3) In the long-run steady state, geopolitical power comes from population size. China and India surpassing the US economically and militarily is a near inevitability and a matter of time. I'd rather a liberal democracy play the role of world police than an authoritarian regime. But that's only possible with 600 million+ Americans. TLDR, closed borders is a disgusting modern aberration with racist and protectionist motivations that stunts the growth of countries and eliminates the freedoms of humans.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  I still think there is merit in Lifeboat Ethics. Our country can only support so many people before it would be overwhelmed by resource scarcity and further overpopulation that burdens other nations. Of course closed borders are protectionist. I don't think that's a bad thing.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    We're nowhere close to the point where that argument would have merit.
    - chimineycricket 4y ago
      Correct, so the right thing to do is make sure we get to that point by having open borders.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        Correct, because in doing so you max freedom, growth and power, which you don't want to stunt in order to avoid a made up concern that may or may not happen and can be prevented before it happens if it almost happens. Anyway, the market will tend to equilibrate. If one country hypothetically gets "overpopulated", then the less populated place will become more attractive (although I strongly challenge this, nobody wants to move to rural areas within so-called overpopulated countries -- overpopulation is a myth by anti-freedom conservatives), leading to reverse migration. I'm making practical and utility arguments here but I also simply think noone has the right to prevent someone's freedom of movement unless the stakes are truly dire (infectious disease with high mortality). I believe it's evil for people whose ancestors immigrated (which is everyone, including England, which used to be black inhabited) to then point guns at the border and prevent others from doing so for no reason whatsoever aside from fear and bigotry masquerading as vacuous excuses. The planet is so small, it's a heinous assault of freedom to deprive humans of the freedom to explore and settle around it during our brief existence.

gjm11 4y ago

That analogy may be more insightful than you meant it to be. Animal cells (e.g., the ones in your body or mine) do not have cell walls. They do have membranes surrounding the cells, but they aren't walls. In the same way, any country has borders, but there's a lot of scope for variation in what they allow across the border under what conditions. "Open borders" does not mean "no borders". For instance, the borders between countries in the Schengen Area of Europe are "open", even though those countries still have borders. This has been the case since 1995. Civilization there does not appear to have fallen so far.

galangalalgol 4y ago
To get into the Schengen area there is a bit more inspection though right? We are just talking about a bigger cell.
- gjm11 4y ago
  We're talking about a multicellular organism. An animal's skin keeps out things that its individual cell membranes aren't concerned with. (I don't actually think the details of what cell walls, cell membranes, skin, etc., do and don't regulate / completely block really tell us anything much about what should happen at national borders. If tomorrow someone discovered a previously unknown regulatory mechanism in cell membranes, that shouldn't make anyone change their mind about immigration controls. The way these analogies actually work is that someone decides what they think about immigration on other grounds, and then goes looking for an analogy that fits the rhetorical point they want to make. Someone arguing for "open borders" would probably choose something else rather than cells to make analogies with. The analogy isn't doing any real intellectual work, it's just window-dressing.)
koheripbal 4y ago
You've made a useless semantic argument between using the word "wall" vs "membrane". A membrane or wall regulate the input/output of everything in/out of the cell - from water to proteins to everything else. A cell without a membrane dies - immediately.
- gjm11 4y ago
  No, I've made a substantive observation about the point actually at issue: you implied that every country necessarily has immigration controls at its border, which in fact is not true. You had tried to support that claim by making an analogy with biological cells, and it pleased me that in fact my counter-point fits into that analogy, but it doesn't really matter: if it turns out that the cell-analogue of "every country has to have immigration controls at its border" is true, all that means is that cells were a bad analogy because, again, it is simply not true that every country needs immigration controls at its border. I am not a cell biologist so this might be wrong, but my understanding is that cell membranes are in fact permeable to water and don't have any particular ability to regulate the movement of water in and out of the cell. The rate at which that happens will be affected by e.g. concentration of solutes on each side, but it's not a thing a typical cell has mechanisms for controlling. I think there are such mechanisms in some cells in the kidney, but AIUI while most (all?) cells have aquaporins there's nothing adjusting their permeability. But, once again, while this is all interesting in its own right it tells us nothing about what countries can, or do, or should regulate. If some researcher makes a stunning discovery that overturns our understanding of what cell membranes do, the appropriate adjustment in national-border regulation will be zero.

DarthNebo 4y ago

Pre-modern world having no borders is what gave birth to immigration into the said country & other parts of the world which got colonized over time. Kinda hypocritical to suddenly have everything closed up. Who knows maybe space travel or resource scarcity is what unites all countries centuries down the line.

hackerlight 4y ago

I advocate for almost completely open borders, for three reasons, freedom + economic growth + national security. (1) Freedom. Closed borders was actually one of the first iterations of technology being used to suppress human freedom. We had open borders for most of human history. Only with the advent of modern nation states (and the associated mind virus of nationalism) and recent technical capabilities have we both been motivated and capable of blocking people from travelling and moving freely. (2) Economic growth. Self-explanatory. Look at where our top founders, or their recent ancestors, come from. The more immigration, the better. (3) In the long-run steady state, geopolitical power comes from population size. China and India surpassing the US economically and militarily is a near inevitability and a matter of time. I'd rather a liberal democracy play the role of world police than an authoritarian regime. But that's only possible with 600 million+ Americans. TLDR, closed borders is a disgusting modern aberration with racist and protectionist motivations that stunts the growth of countries and eliminates the freedoms of humans.

unethical_ban 4y ago
I still think there is merit in Lifeboat Ethics. Our country can only support so many people before it would be overwhelmed by resource scarcity and further overpopulation that burdens other nations. Of course closed borders are protectionist. I don't think that's a bad thing.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  We're nowhere close to the point where that argument would have merit.
  - chimineycricket 4y ago
    Correct, so the right thing to do is make sure we get to that point by having open borders.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Correct, because in doing so you max freedom, growth and power, which you don't want to stunt in order to avoid a made up concern that may or may not happen and can be prevented before it happens if it almost happens. Anyway, the market will tend to equilibrate. If one country hypothetically gets "overpopulated", then the less populated place will become more attractive (although I strongly challenge this, nobody wants to move to rural areas within so-called overpopulated countries -- overpopulation is a myth by anti-freedom conservatives), leading to reverse migration. I'm making practical and utility arguments here but I also simply think noone has the right to prevent someone's freedom of movement unless the stakes are truly dire (infectious disease with high mortality). I believe it's evil for people whose ancestors immigrated (which is everyone, including England, which used to be black inhabited) to then point guns at the border and prevent others from doing so for no reason whatsoever aside from fear and bigotry masquerading as vacuous excuses. The planet is so small, it's a heinous assault of freedom to deprive humans of the freedom to explore and settle around it during our brief existence.