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

IDL said:
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.
Click to expand...
It does seem to be a kind of fundamental contradiction to tie diversity to establishing a strong identity. I'm concerned by our lack of patience in that area, and it's nice to agree with you for a change.
 
Wayweary said:
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.
Click to expand...

This video was reportedly aquired via a freedom of information act from the Pentagon which describes how they see things going and what they need to do to prepare for future military requirements.

Basically the mass movements of people into mega-cities with huge discrepancies in wealth, criminal networks, with ethnic and religious tensions.

Primarily for the developing world but I'd assume with open borders this sort of outlook would apply to most places over time.

 
While it would be a beneficial thing to get along with neighbors I'm not sure how we would go about achieving that goal. And depending on the neighbors, I'm not sure it's one worth pursuing. I don't want the wife beater crackhead from the trailer park on my street, let alone my yard.

Borders should be open only to those on the same page financially, and on key issues like equal rights and tolerance. After all, it should be a mutually beneficial relationship to all groups wanting unimpeded movement between regions.
 
Bald1 said:
While it would be a beneficial thing to get along with neighbors I'm not sure how we would go about achieving that goal. And depending on the neighbors, I'm not sure it's one worth pursuing. I don't want the wife beater crackhead from the trailer park on my street, let alone my yard.

Borders should be open only to those on the same page financially, and on key issues like equal rights and tolerance. After all, it should be a mutually beneficial relationship to all groups wanting unimpeded movement between regions.
Click to expand...

That's a joke.

The ones coming are rich and displace the more poor in their own country. Just look at Vancouvers housing prices issues, canuck's cant even afforded to live in their own city.

Borders should be mostly closed and only temporarily open to people of tourism and business.
 
Fawlty said:
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.
Click to expand...
And we're finding out that trust/cooperation in large scale is not possible without in-group-favoritism/out-group antagonism. Not even among eusocial Hymenoptera species, and they are the most cooperative social creatures on Earth.

Eventually you'll have to deal with the fact that hypocrisy and tribalism are evolutionary advantages.
 
As long as you don't have welfare state, open borders are a great idea.
 
M3t4tr0n said:
One foot before the other. We have till the sun explodes
Click to expand...

Oh, what's happening in Europe is just a baby step towards the end goal of globalization and open boarders, regardless of the cost? Ok, got it now, thanks for clearing that up
 
lfd0311 said:
Oh, what's happening in Europe is just a baby step towards the end goal of globalization and open boarders, regardless of the cost? Ok, got it now, thanks for clearing that up
Click to expand...
No problem. See you on the other side ;)
 
Wayweary said:
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.



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.



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.



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?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

1.- Actually no, its a classic example of nirvana fallacy, we are also not talking about "now", we are talking about the future and in an scenario where the vast majority of the world has catched on.

2.- Open borders means less restrictions on trade of good and services, which of course would need to be hammered out, it doesnt means give citizenship to anyone.

3.- We are not talking about the near future, and certain zones do have grim near term projections.

4.- Africa still has a shitload untapped resources in a world where the price of commodities is still low.
 
Fawlty said:
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.
Click to expand...
Africans are the oldest and most diverse humans. Modern humans arose in Africa and they have more genetic variation than anyone else on Earth. Do you think that time and diversity will make people become less tribal? Think again.
 
caxias said:
And we're finding out that trust/cooperation in large scale is not possible without in-group-favoritism/out-group antagonism. Not even among eusocial Hymenoptera species, and they are the most cooperative social creatures on Earth.

Eventually you'll have to deal with the fact that hypocrisy and tribalism are evolutionary advantages.
Click to expand...
I'm open to being wrong about this, but I don't think tribalism is even as hard-coded into us (as individuals) as something like whether we're generally grumpy or generally pleasant. And when you say "not possible" in your post, don't you mean "not present" instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,693
Messages
55,435,035
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top