4 ms·

I think he meant countries borders, which should probably be the conclusion you would have reached if you weren't being so obtuse.

genman 3y ago
The example was consciously made like this to illustrate clear limits of resources. While I support freedom of movement in general, it for sure creates numerous problems that have been on multiple occasions also discussed here as it can happen also within a single country when single place will attract too many people in too short time span. It is a common demand here by fresh immigrants of SF to the people who have lived there for generations to make room for them, destroy their homes as they want to move in instead. I think it very closely correlates with my example, to be honest.
- piloto_ciego 3y ago
  There’s plenty of room in the country, and arguably I have plenty of room in my home. Come on by, I usually have beer.
  - genman 3y ago
    I love guests too. But they have this one nice property - they will leave. I will not. I will be also not your new girlfriend. So how many of me you can take into your home? Only me? 2 of me? 10 of me? Will your quality of life improve or decline?
    - piloto_ciego 3y ago
      Right, but let’s be realistic the analogy of houses is not the same as a country - there’s plenty of room in all of them for the most part. And legitimately, I’ve had people crash on my couch when they were in a rough spot for weeks and weeks. Literally all of them wanted their own space and as soon as they were on their feet, they left. If you’re in trouble, you’re more than welcome here. Happy to help, though I don’t know what I can do.
      - genman 3y ago
        The analogy is fair. See, when it comes to your home, you expect people to leave and not come to occupy your home, most likely because it will limit your own autonomy. There are borders you are not willing to cross. It is not different with countries. I think that immigration is perfectly fine until a country can absorb new people but too many people too fast is going to create troubles. I think that you can imagine very well a situation when you are kind and let somebody into your home but they now start to make their own rules - in your home. If it gets unbearable for you in your home then perhaps you can call police, but if you make such a mistake on the country level then there is less remedies - so you have to be considerably more careful. Let's imagine that four hundred million Chinese would move into US in the world without borders and now they vote into power a new political party that will prohibit all the other political parties. Why? Perhaps only because this is the only way they know about and they didn't have the time to gradually learn other political possibilities or worse they are instructed to do so by their leaders. Destruction of democratic system using democratic means is not rare. Perhaps the most known one is rise of Nazis in Germany. Most obvious recent example is rise of Putin in Russia but it also happened for example in Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood won elections and then attempted to destroy the democratic system of Egypt to enforce sharia, and this was preempted by the events in Gaza where Muslim Brotherhood offshoot Hamas did exactly the same, but successfully. The world without borders will also mean that a malicious and well organized political force can move around the globe and take over local power using seemingly benign methods instead of military power. So while your idea sounds something to root for, it is also incredibly naive and dangerous in the real world we live in.
- rafaelero 3y ago
  The only factor known to reliably limit resources is human stubborness. Besides that, there is always a way to increase output.

genman 3y ago

The example was consciously made like this to illustrate clear limits of resources. While I support freedom of movement in general, it for sure creates numerous problems that have been on multiple occasions also discussed here as it can happen also within a single country when single place will attract too many people in too short time span. It is a common demand here by fresh immigrants of SF to the people who have lived there for generations to make room for them, destroy their homes as they want to move in instead. I think it very closely correlates with my example, to be honest.

piloto_ciego 3y ago
There’s plenty of room in the country, and arguably I have plenty of room in my home. Come on by, I usually have beer.
- genman 3y ago
  I love guests too. But they have this one nice property - they will leave. I will not. I will be also not your new girlfriend. So how many of me you can take into your home? Only me? 2 of me? 10 of me? Will your quality of life improve or decline?
  - piloto_ciego 3y ago
    Right, but let’s be realistic the analogy of houses is not the same as a country - there’s plenty of room in all of them for the most part. And legitimately, I’ve had people crash on my couch when they were in a rough spot for weeks and weeks. Literally all of them wanted their own space and as soon as they were on their feet, they left. If you’re in trouble, you’re more than welcome here. Happy to help, though I don’t know what I can do.
    - genman 3y ago
      The analogy is fair. See, when it comes to your home, you expect people to leave and not come to occupy your home, most likely because it will limit your own autonomy. There are borders you are not willing to cross. It is not different with countries. I think that immigration is perfectly fine until a country can absorb new people but too many people too fast is going to create troubles. I think that you can imagine very well a situation when you are kind and let somebody into your home but they now start to make their own rules - in your home. If it gets unbearable for you in your home then perhaps you can call police, but if you make such a mistake on the country level then there is less remedies - so you have to be considerably more careful. Let's imagine that four hundred million Chinese would move into US in the world without borders and now they vote into power a new political party that will prohibit all the other political parties. Why? Perhaps only because this is the only way they know about and they didn't have the time to gradually learn other political possibilities or worse they are instructed to do so by their leaders. Destruction of democratic system using democratic means is not rare. Perhaps the most known one is rise of Nazis in Germany. Most obvious recent example is rise of Putin in Russia but it also happened for example in Egypt, where Muslim Brotherhood won elections and then attempted to destroy the democratic system of Egypt to enforce sharia, and this was preempted by the events in Gaza where Muslim Brotherhood offshoot Hamas did exactly the same, but successfully. The world without borders will also mean that a malicious and well organized political force can move around the globe and take over local power using seemingly benign methods instead of military power. So while your idea sounds something to root for, it is also incredibly naive and dangerous in the real world we live in.
rafaelero 3y ago
The only factor known to reliably limit resources is human stubborness. Besides that, there is always a way to increase output.