6 ms·

I'm interested here, as I'm inclined to disagree pretty strongly. How would you prevent the erosion of rights or culture by a group with a bigger population?

I'm interested here, as I'm inclined to disagree pretty strongly. How would you prevent the erosion of rights or culture by a group with a bigger population? For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US? Or a few hundred thousand mainland Chinese citizens move to Taiwan and do the same? While it's definitely nice to keep migration smooth and easy, it seems like there are lots of issues wherein free and unlimited migration could cause relatively predictable problems.

908B64B197 4y ago
> For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US? That would be a great thing for Cuba. Cubans have been fleeing their failed state by the thousands, risking their lives and dying to get a shot at reaching America. Starvation, medicine shortage, brutal LGBT purges are sadly common place under the Castro regime. Pretty sure these Americans would be welcomed with open arms!
- pastage 4y ago
  Miguel Díaz-Canel is president now.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  Most shortages seem to be due to economic sanctions and trade embargoes. I wonder how much fleeing rates would dwindle if they were lifted.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > Most shortages seem to be due to economic sanctions and trade embargoes. Not really. Cuba is free to trade with any country that's not the USA (and is even free to trade with the USA except for certain entities or commodities). Decades of corruption, incompetence, brain drain and failed government made the local economy unable to compete.
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      >Not really. A country of 11m people loses an estimated $3+ billion per year from various UN condemned restrictions. Are you saying that causes no shortages? That's not a trivial sum of money (~$300 per capita).
      - 908B64B197 4y ago
        ~$300 per capita would be nothing in Switzerland ($92,434) or in America ($75,180). But it's a lot in Cuba ($9,500) simply because the government did mess up the economy so bad.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
The same way you would with a bigger population for any reason. There’s an added bonus that if rights erode, people can simply leave to somewhere less oppressive. People can’t leave oppressive places due to borders. Less oppressive places may become oppressive but that would drive people elsewhere. I’d use the US as an example. In a real sense the US is a collection of small countries with a federal system and free right of migration. For this discussion the federal system is irrelevant. How does California or New York or other high populace states ensure erosion of rights? I’d posit part of the very reason they’re so attractive is they tend to hold rights very high on their list of priorities. More oppressive states, likewise lose populace to migration because unless you’re in the in group you don’t belong there. Cultural erosion is IMO nativism and bias. Time is change, no culture is static, and even our oldest cultures are young compared to humanity and look nothing like they did 100 years ago. Changing populace doesn’t change a culture any more than time does, it’s just easier to blame someone that doesn’t look or talk like you for it. Your examples of mainland Chinese citizens or Americans moving around are only relevant because the issue of borders to begin with. If there were permeable borders we would be in a steady state and you wouldn’t see behaviors like that. Maybe in the beginning you would see artifacts of history manifest weird transient behaviors, as you do in any suddenly changed dynamical system. But in steady state your scenarios would be as likely as all democrats moving to Georgia to change the election. It sounds good but in practice didn’t happen.
- rajin444 4y ago
  > Cultural erosion is IMO nativism and bias Are you implying that non natives are inherently better than natives? One of the hallmarks of declining empires is importing people - not to say those people are better or worse, but mixing diverse peoples together is extremely hard. It has to be done slowly and carefully. > Changing populace doesn’t change a culture any more than time does I don’t see how you can look at the history of anyone anywhere and believe this.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    No, that’s a false dichotomy. You are implying by that false dichotomy that one is greater than the other. Until very recently in human history one would be the same as the other. That is what I am saying. Being born in a location has nothing to do with being better or worse. It’s just a random occurrence. What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth. While I don’t disagree mixing of diverse people can be hard, I would simply point to American history as an example of how the empire you seem to laud was built by mixing peoples relentlessly. In fact immigrants tend to be the drivers of American growth, while the native born… not so much. I find it fascinating you think culture doesn’t change with time, but with the mixing of different people into a culture only. What culture has been unchanged with time? Language itself mutates constantly, how can a culture be static with time? How does it stay static? The people in the culture change with every birth and every death, the memory of the culture is wiped out every 100 years. Written histories are a poor tool of continuity for something as complex as a culture. Human beings themselves change radically over the course of their lives. All things are impermanent, but human culture isn’t just impermanent, it’s an illusion.

908B64B197 4y ago

> For instance, have a few hundred thousand Americans move to Cuba and vote to have Cuba secede to the US? That would be a great thing for Cuba. Cubans have been fleeing their failed state by the thousands, risking their lives and dying to get a shot at reaching America. Starvation, medicine shortage, brutal LGBT purges are sadly common place under the Castro regime. Pretty sure these Americans would be welcomed with open arms!

pastage 4y ago
Miguel Díaz-Canel is president now.
ashwagary 4y ago
Most shortages seem to be due to economic sanctions and trade embargoes. I wonder how much fleeing rates would dwindle if they were lifted.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > Most shortages seem to be due to economic sanctions and trade embargoes. Not really. Cuba is free to trade with any country that's not the USA (and is even free to trade with the USA except for certain entities or commodities). Decades of corruption, incompetence, brain drain and failed government made the local economy unable to compete.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    >Not really. A country of 11m people loses an estimated $3+ billion per year from various UN condemned restrictions. Are you saying that causes no shortages? That's not a trivial sum of money (~$300 per capita).
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      ~$300 per capita would be nothing in Switzerland ($92,434) or in America ($75,180). But it's a lot in Cuba ($9,500) simply because the government did mess up the economy so bad.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

The same way you would with a bigger population for any reason. There’s an added bonus that if rights erode, people can simply leave to somewhere less oppressive. People can’t leave oppressive places due to borders. Less oppressive places may become oppressive but that would drive people elsewhere. I’d use the US as an example. In a real sense the US is a collection of small countries with a federal system and free right of migration. For this discussion the federal system is irrelevant. How does California or New York or other high populace states ensure erosion of rights? I’d posit part of the very reason they’re so attractive is they tend to hold rights very high on their list of priorities. More oppressive states, likewise lose populace to migration because unless you’re in the in group you don’t belong there. Cultural erosion is IMO nativism and bias. Time is change, no culture is static, and even our oldest cultures are young compared to humanity and look nothing like they did 100 years ago. Changing populace doesn’t change a culture any more than time does, it’s just easier to blame someone that doesn’t look or talk like you for it. Your examples of mainland Chinese citizens or Americans moving around are only relevant because the issue of borders to begin with. If there were permeable borders we would be in a steady state and you wouldn’t see behaviors like that. Maybe in the beginning you would see artifacts of history manifest weird transient behaviors, as you do in any suddenly changed dynamical system. But in steady state your scenarios would be as likely as all democrats moving to Georgia to change the election. It sounds good but in practice didn’t happen.

rajin444 4y ago
> Cultural erosion is IMO nativism and bias Are you implying that non natives are inherently better than natives? One of the hallmarks of declining empires is importing people - not to say those people are better or worse, but mixing diverse peoples together is extremely hard. It has to be done slowly and carefully. > Changing populace doesn’t change a culture any more than time does I don’t see how you can look at the history of anyone anywhere and believe this.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  No, that’s a false dichotomy. You are implying by that false dichotomy that one is greater than the other. Until very recently in human history one would be the same as the other. That is what I am saying. Being born in a location has nothing to do with being better or worse. It’s just a random occurrence. What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth. While I don’t disagree mixing of diverse people can be hard, I would simply point to American history as an example of how the empire you seem to laud was built by mixing peoples relentlessly. In fact immigrants tend to be the drivers of American growth, while the native born… not so much. I find it fascinating you think culture doesn’t change with time, but with the mixing of different people into a culture only. What culture has been unchanged with time? Language itself mutates constantly, how can a culture be static with time? How does it stay static? The people in the culture change with every birth and every death, the memory of the culture is wiped out every 100 years. Written histories are a poor tool of continuity for something as complex as a culture. Human beings themselves change radically over the course of their lives. All things are impermanent, but human culture isn’t just impermanent, it’s an illusion.