Is "open borders" a worthy long-term goal?

[Wayweary]

70 years ago, WW2 was barely ending just take that into account about how fast the world changes.

Most of the world poverty is concentrated in China and India, these countries are moving forward at a pretty quick pace, bar some catastrophic world event i see that the vast majority of the world will be living modern lives in the next 30-40 years.

50-70 years, i cant even imagine what would happen.

Sorry, you just sound like a guy raving about how flying cars are "right around the corner" in 1989. Large parts of Africa are still having major problems even providing themselves with clean water while the Middle East has been locked in internecine warfare for multiple generations already with no signs of slowing down and yet the African and Middle Eastern population are growing the fastest in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate). We see today the migrant crisis affecting Europe which completely flies in the face of what you are predicting and advocating. But even accepting "the majority of the world living modern lives" will be a reality in a few short decades does not justify open borders. Open borders would require that essentially the entire world be on a relatively even playing field developmentally speaking unless we are prepared to move away from a collectivist sort of society and towards a more libertarian one in the West.

 

[Rod1]

Sorry, you just sound like a guy raving about how flying cars are "right around the corner" in 1989. Large parts of Africa are still having major problems even providing themselves with clean water while the Middle East has been locked in internecine warfare for multiple generations already with no signs of slowing down and yet the African and Middle Eastern population are growing the fastest in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate). We see today the migrant crisis affecting Europe which completely flies in the face of what you are predicting and advocating. But even accepting "the majority of the world living modern lives" will be a reality in a few short decades does not justify open borders. Open borders would require that essentially the entire world be on a relatively even playing field developmentally speaking unless we are prepared to move away from a collectivist sort of society and towards a more libertarian one in the West.

You sound like the guy who says, well there will always be alcoholics therefore we should ban all alcohol.

Even if those regions remain fucked up forever, the vast majority of the world population will enjoy higher interconnectivity and similar economic opportunities.

Nobody is saying that borders should be opened first and then have the rest sorted out, im merely saying that economically, the vast majority of world is moving foward.

And Africa will probably be fixed up as people scour the continent for valuable minerals and resources.

 

[Undying Poster]

They're not supposed to but I'm not surprised that of 11 million people, that one has gotten it. If I had said "Black communities are violent" or "Asian people are peaceful" you wouldn't give me a reply like that because it goes with your agenda, in fact, you might even drop a like on my post. but if I generalize illegal immigrants in a positive light I get these replies. It's a generalization, pretty much everyone I know that was gaming the system was white but I would still say most white people don't do that even though I have several examples of people doing it.

 

[caxias]

Humans are tribal by nature. This will remain true with or without borders.

 

[Quipling]

Sorry, you just sound like a guy raving about how flying cars are "right around the corner" in 1989. Large parts of Africa are still having major problems even providing themselves with clean water while the Middle East has been locked in internecine warfare for multiple generations already with no signs of slowing down and yet the African and Middle Eastern population are growing the fastest in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate). We see today the migrant crisis affecting Europe which completely flies in the face of what you are predicting and advocating. But even accepting "the majority of the world living modern lives" will be a reality in a few short decades does not justify open borders. Open borders would require that essentially the entire world be on a relatively even playing field developmentally speaking unless we are prepared to move away from a collectivist sort of society and towards a more libertarian one in the West.

Africa is still having major problems, but those problems are greatly reduced from just 20 years ago. They still have a high population growth rate, but the birthrate is plummeting, which means the population growth rate will slow, too. (The issue is that medical care has drastically cut the mortality rate, and birthrate tends to lag behind that somewhat). Poverty is still high, but poverty rates are dropping, and extreme poverty is dropping extremely rapidly. The problems in Africa aren't unsolvable - they are being solved! They are just extremely severe, so while the floor is rising, it had a very low starting point, and it takes a while to become obvious.

 

[sub_thug]

I don't think that a borderless world will ever happen. There will always be global threats, creating the need for political isolation and the ability to project a force for preemptive kinetic action (AKA a military). If you think that there will ever be a time without war, then this belief makes sense. But Plato was right: "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Keep dreaming, globalists.

 

[Rational Poster]

This has become a hot topic, particularly with the release of Hillary Clinton's leaked speech.

What do you think?

Spoiler: Clinton quotation

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Open borders, closed borders. That's the old school of thought.

No borders. One planet under one nation under god.

America.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

This the most childish notion ever concieved. The US and Canada wouldnt even get along with out borders, let alone Europe, or any other continent.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Hell no

 

[Wayweary]

You sound like the guy who says, well there will always be alcoholics therefore we should ban all alcohol.

Hm, interesting. Seems like a non sequiter. Knowing that alcoholics and junkies are a problem NOW, I'm for putting locks on liquor shops and pharmacies. That's more accurate.

Even if those regions remain fucked up forever, the vast majority of the world population will enjoy higher interconnectivity and similar economic opportunities.

Open borders means open borders, does it not? It means that you let anyone in, including those that will bring nothing but problems from those regions. Not controlling immigration is just begging to be colonized by people that don't share your values and will bring social ills to your doorstep.

Nobody is saying that borders should be opened first and then have the rest sorted out, im merely saying that economically, the vast majority of world is moving foward.

That's great, but your projections about where the world will be in the near future are laughable if you think they will mean open borders won't cause the issues I stated above.

And Africa will probably be fixed up as people scour the continent for valuable minerals and resources.

Africa has long had resources. I don't see that as a game changer. Or are you saying that when their resources are stripped, the colonization will stop and their problems with it? Are you one of the people that thinks everything wrong in the world is the fault of the West?[/QUOTE]

 

[Dalarna3]

Yeah, people who have done nothing to build up a country's infrastructure, wealth, and quality of life should be allowed to use and degrade these things for free!

 

[Fawlty]

Humans are tribal by nature. This will remain true with or without borders.

Nature is never static. Social science and hard science are making discoveries about ingroup/outgroup behavior and the factors that influence it, and are finding that it can be influenced even if it's probably partly genetic. I think we'll keep improving there.

 

[IDL]

Nature is never static. Social science and hard science are making discoveries about ingroup/outgroup behavior and the factors that influence it, and are finding that it can be influenced even if it's probably partly genetic. I think we'll keep improving there.

Tribal and general group behavior is well known as an evolutionary strategy and as part of all humans throughout history, but sure there are more scientific techniques in behaviorism as well as technologies to indoctrinate people (it would start with the children).

In theory you could indoctrinate a society heavily enough to numb natural behaviors and instincts.

The game would be to assimilate people into one universalist mass. So no distinct peoples and cultures. Sort of like creating a borg society.

 

[Fawlty]

Tribal and general group behavior is well known as an evolutionary strategy and as part of all humans throughout history, but sure there are more scientific techniques in behaviorism as well as technologies to indoctrinate people (it would start with the children).

In theory you could indoctrinate a society heavily enough to numb natural behaviors and instincts.

Any set of social norms is brainwashing. Any form of education is indoctrination.

Tribalism isn't an evolutionary advantage afaik, if you're in the first world.

 

[Vitor CroCop]

Any set of social norms is brainwashing. Any form of education is indoctrination.

Tribalism isn't an evolutionary advantage afaik, if you're in the first world.

If tribalism isn't an advantage in the first world then how in the hell do you explain special interest groups, political parties, private elite social clubs, unions...etc...etc...Untill resources are infinite of course tribalism is going to be an evolutionary advantage for the people getting theirs.

 

[IDL]

Any set of social norms is brainwashing. Any form of education is indoctrination.

Tribalism isn't an evolutionary advantage afaik, if you're in the first world.

In a way I suppose, but we're talking the scientific ability to switch off peoples instincts. This would require pretty heavy and concerted and centrally managed indoctrination.

You'd have to take children and submit them to such programs, and the indoctrination would need to be maintained through their life through constant reinforcement in the media and perhaps training lest they revert back to a more natural state, or even discover an identity that is outside of the prescribed one.

 

[Fawlty]

If tribalism isn't an advantage in the first world then how in the hell do you explain special interest groups, political parties, private elite social clubs, unions...etc...etc...Untill resources are infinite of course tribalism is going to be an evolutionary advantage for the people getting theirs.

Are you confusing the behavior of keeping wealth within a small social group with evolution? I'm not aware of any disadvantage that comes from marrying outside your social class. I was thinking of places that are so fucked up, your tribe is literally trying to survive. We don't have those kinds of pressures. The evolutionary behavior of tribalism doesn't seem to be that useful these days. It's a bit of a relic and causes us a lot of practical problems.

 

[Fawlty]

In a way I suppose, but we're talking the scientific ability to switch off peoples instincts. This would require pretty heavy and concerted and centrally managed indoctrination.

You'd have to take children and submit them to such programs, and the indoctrination would need to be maintained through their life through constant reinforcement in the media and perhaps training lest they revert back to a more natural state, or even discover an identity that is outside of the prescribed one.

I don't think it's that dramatic. Each generation reflects its values, and if the trend is toward tolerance and diversity, that will become that generation's norm, and so it goes.

 

[IDL]

I don't think it's that dramatic. Each generation reflects its values, and if the trend is toward tolerance and diversity, that will become that generation's norm, and so it goes.

To an extent, but tolerance and diversity propaganda is heavily pushed to bring this about and yet there are still all sorts of identity groups that can be observed. To eliminate it entirely you'd have to take some pretty extreme measures.

 

[Wayweary]

Africa is still having major problems, but those problems are greatly reduced from just 20 years ago. They still have a high population growth rate, but the birthrate is plummeting, which means the population growth rate will slow, too. (The issue is that medical care has drastically cut the mortality rate, and birthrate tends to lag behind that somewhat). Poverty is still high, but poverty rates are dropping, and extreme poverty is dropping extremely rapidly. The problems in Africa aren't unsolvable - they are being solved! They are just extremely severe, so while the floor is rising, it had a very low starting point, and it takes a while to become obvious.

And how long do you think it will take for the continent to be on par with Western democracies? Just getting your house in order such that you aren't dying and breeding beyond all reason is a single step in that direction. Then you need to build up the infrastructure, institutions and governments that will foster prosperity. You need to educate a generation of people capable of running such a state. You need to eliminate violence to include genocide and all that theocratic nonsense as well. The list goes on.