View Full Version : Will Everyone Work In Their Country Of Birth Oneday?
This must be a prerequisite for world peace, surely, which everyone wants. A time when nobody would want to work in a different country because they have such a fulfilling life in their home area. Is this kind of world equality something to aspire to?
People will always move for one reason or another. Perhaps you are a physicist and you want to work on projects at the LHC... you move. You might want to do research work in LQG, and there is no adequate program in schools near you... you move. People do not always move away from negative circumstances. Often they move to better-position themselves for their careers or studies, and they sacrifice some things to do that, including proximity to family and friends. Life is full of trade-offs and we will never see a world in which these trades-offs can be expressed as a simple dichotomy.
Jimmy Snyder
Mar25-09, 09:58 AM
My wife is from Taiwan and I am from the US. I take it there will be no peace as long as we are married. I had my suspicions.
My wife is from Taiwan and I am from the US. I take it there will be no peace as long as we are married. I had my suspicions.I grew up about 15 miles from where I live now, and my wife grew up on a farm about a mile from here, so rest easy, jimmy. We're balancing you and your wife out.
Waveform
Mar25-09, 10:53 AM
I guess I have to go an a tangential view on this.
I think in the future if there is to be any kind of peace or organization, we will have to abandon the notion of nationalism (yeah, I know an ism).
The idea of a different country/s will have to go.
More on the lines of ' where is the best place for me to work', or 'where can I contribute the most', rather than should I work in this country or that country.
I know this is radical, but in the future I really can not see it any other way. As our technology advances I think it will become even more critical.
A time when nobody would want to work in a different country because they have such a fulfilling life in their home area.
Your home is this planet, not country, as with everyone else, whether admitted or not.
By the way, I am not religious, not a philosopher and not an old hippie (not that there would be anything wrong with that).
Good question Mammo, it actually got some neurons firing and blew away some dust.
JasonRox
Mar25-09, 04:55 PM
I grew up about 15 miles from where I live now, and my wife grew up on a farm about a mile from here, so rest easy, jimmy. We're balancing you and your wife out.
For some reason, I like the idea of being in the area you are from later in life.
I can see myself living and working in France, but I always see myself coming home. No place like home.
If I had kids in France, then surely I would stay there.
I didn't vote because the question doesn't apply to me. I have no option. I'll probably be in the same town for the rest of my life, let alone changing provinces or countries. (Mind you, I spent 13 years fighting to get to this town.)
Astronuc
Mar25-09, 05:08 PM
This must be a prerequisite for world peace, surely, which everyone wants. A time when nobody would want to work in a different country because they have such a fulfilling life in their home area. Is this kind of world equality something to aspire to? I think the underlying proposition is incorrect.
I like to travel to different parts of the country in which I live, which is not the country of my birth.
I've also had the privilege and joy of visiting and working in many different countries, and I look forward to visiting and working in many more.
And what does staying in one's country for an entire life have to do with (ensuring) world peace?!
And what does staying in one's country for an entire life have to do with (ensuring) world peace?!
I suspect that this might reference the fear-based backlash against immigrant workers in the more developed countries.
Living and working conditions cannot ever be exactly equal in all parts of the world, so there will always be a movement of people from one region or occupation to another.
- Warren
My family has not spread more than 100 miles since 1751, but i have often worked abroad, some places i liked very much, but i was all ways glad to get home.
My family has not spread more than 100 miles since 1751
Not surprising. Sheep aren't noted for their wanderlust.
Not surprising. Sheep aren't noted for their wanderlust.
True, but they hardly ever present a Danger to society, a major mercy.
Pythagorean
Mar25-09, 06:25 PM
better question: will anyone here ever actually work?
f95toli
Mar25-09, 06:29 PM
Another problem with the question is that it uses "country" as the smallest "unit". I grew up in a village in the north of Sweden, for me it was a much bigger change to move from that village to a big (well, 600 000 people) city in Sweden than it was to later move from that city to London.
better question: will anyone here ever actually work?
By here if you are referring to PF, I will aim to disappoint you.
Astronuc
Mar25-09, 06:49 PM
My family has not spread more than 100 miles since 1751, but i have often worked abroad, some places i liked very much, but i was all ways glad to get home. Hmm - my grandfather and his family moved 17200 km (10686 mi) from his birthplace in 1910. My father and I moved about 14,480 kilometers (9000 miles) from where we were born to where he now lives, and I live about 2380 km (1480 miles) from there.
I don't know where I'll end up. My choices are NZ, PK, BG or AF, or maybe MN.
JasonRox
Mar25-09, 06:50 PM
Hmm - my grandfather and his family moved 17200 km (10686 mi) from his birthplace in 1910. My father and I moved about 14,480 kilometers (9000 miles) from where we were born to where he now lives, and I live about 2380 km (1480 miles) from there.
I don't know where I'll end up. My choices are NZ, PK, BG or AF, or maybe MN.
I don't even know what those initials stand for except NZ.
Astronuc
Mar25-09, 07:02 PM
Actually, they all have in common certain geological features.
JasonRox
Mar25-09, 07:26 PM
Actually, they all have in common certain geological features.
So, are they American states? I can see MN as Montana and maybe being similar to NZ.
Astronuc
Mar25-09, 07:35 PM
Those are country codes.
BG = Bulgaria (I have a very dear friend there, and the Balkans are beautiful, so is the Black Sea coast)
PK = Pakistan (Baltoro Glacier and the Karakoum)
AF = Afghanistan (Pamirs, shared with Tajikistan, TJ) and it is nicely situated near the Tian Shan, Karakoram, Kunlun, and Hindu Kush ranges.
MN = Mongolia (Altai)
JasonRox
Mar25-09, 07:37 PM
Those are country codes.
BG = Bulgaria (I have a very dear friend there, and the Balkans are beautiful, so is the Black Sea coast)
PK = Pakistan (Baltoro Glacier and the Karakoum)
AF = Afghanistan (Pamirs, shared with Tajikistan, TJ) and it is nicely situated near the Tian Shan, Karakoram, Kunlun, and Hindu Kush ranges.
MN = Mongolia (Altai)
If I had to choose from those, I would choose PK or MN.
How do you find the language barriers?
Astronuc
Mar25-09, 07:43 PM
Before I went to Bulgaria, I took a course in Russia and studied Bulgarian on the side. Plus my friend in Bg speaks German, Russian and English, so she and I used to correspond in all 4 languages so I could learn Russian and Bulgarian and she practiced English. I haven't been to Pk, Af, Mn yet, but they are top on my list of places to go. My wife would prefer NZ.
Many people in Pk speak some or a lot of English, especially many professionals. Pakistan has hosted a lot of mountain climbers going up to various peaks along the Baltoro glacier. The second highest mountain in the work, K2, is at the eastern end of the Baltoro, just a few miles to the NE up the Godwin-Austen Glacier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin_Austen_Glacier
I usually study a language before I go to non-English speaking country, and I do research. Plus I find a contact.
JasonRox
Mar25-09, 08:01 PM
Oh for sure, I would love to try and live in another country. I would probably try France first and branch from there.
So, how do you find the VISA work?
Pythagorean
Mar26-09, 01:15 AM
By here if you are referring to PF, I will aim to disappoint you.
I was banging on an academic stereotype; I have a healthy mix of blue-collar and white-collar myself.
TheStatutoryApe
Mar26-09, 01:41 AM
I think it would do more for, and say more about, the level of world peace the more people are free to move about from one place to another.
Astronuc
Mar26-09, 07:44 AM
Oh for sure, I would love to try and live in another country. I would probably try France first and branch from there.
So, how do you find the VISA work? The work I did was contract work, so I was in the various countries only temporarily. Some countries require a visa, others don't. It would be different if I was immigrating for several years.
JasonRox
Mar26-09, 07:59 AM
The work I did was contract work, so I was in the various countries only temporarily. Some countries require a visa, others don't. It would be different if I was immigrating for several years.
Oh ok, I see what you mean.
If you don't mind me asking, do you enjoy this lifestyle to its fullest or are you aware of personal cons of doing this but still enjoy it very much? What I mean is that do you feel that you're missing out on having a steady home or not?
People will always move for one reason or another. Perhaps you are a physicist and you want to work on projects at the LHC... you move. You might want to do research work in LQG, and there is no adequate program in schools near you... you move. People do not always move away from negative circumstances. Often they move to better-position themselves for their careers or studies, and they sacrifice some things to do that, including proximity to family and friends. Life is full of trade-offs and we will never see a world in which these trades-offs can be expressed as a simple dichotomy.What if it was only high ranking professionals who worked abroad? The large movements of labour skills are often associated with destitution and desperation. A way to escape an impoverished life. Wouldn't this at least be a better world?
The idea of a different country/s will have to go. Your home is this planet, not country, as with everyone else, whether admitted or not. By the way, I am not religious, not a philosopher and not an old hippie (not that there would be anything wrong with that).
Good question Mammo, it actually got some neurons firing and blew away some dust.Thanks for that. Unfortunately we have a difference of opinion on this one. I read recently in New Scientist magazine that humanity is getting genetically more dissimiliar. We are not averaging out into a light brown being at all. Each country will become more genetically different from another. At least I think that's what they were saying.
For some reason, I like the idea of being in the area you are from later in life.I agree. It's idylic in some respects.
Thanks for all your replies. It's very interesting.
What if it was only high ranking professionals who worked abroad? The large movements of labour skills are often associated with destitution and desperation. A way to escape an impoverished life. Wouldn't this at least be a better world?Sometimes you have to move to find work. Not to escape destitution, but to make a little more money or to better-establish yourself in your field, or to broaden your experience.
I have friends in Canada who moved here on work-visas. The wife has epilepsy and doesn't drive, so she needed a house within walking distance of the hospital where she got a job doing lab-work. Her husband is a graphic artist, and he got a job just 3 blocks away from home designing and painting signs and other graphics. They are very hard-working people and were great neighbors. Unfortunately, the immigration people wouldn't grant them permanent status or extend their work visas, so they had to sell their house and move back to Canada. They weren't escaping some desperate circumstances by moving here - they were just trying to get better jobs in a place that is a bit more temperate than central Ontario. They also wanted to live in a larger town, so their daughter would have more opportunities to socialize and participate in activities outside the home with other kids. Nice people who did everything by the book, and the INS ran them off.
Sometimes you have to move to find work. Not to escape destitution, but to make a little more money or to better-establish yourself in your field, or to broaden your experience.
I have friends in Canada who moved here on work-visas. The wife has epilepsy and doesn't drive, so she needed a house within walking distance of the hospital where she got a job doing lab-work. Her husband is a graphic artist, and he got a job just 3 blocks away from home designing and painting signs and other graphics. They are very hard-working people and were great neighbors. Unfortunately, the immigration people wouldn't grant them permanent status or extend their work visas, so they had to sell their house and move back to Canada. They weren't escaping some desperate circumstances by moving here - they were just trying to get better jobs in a place that is a bit more temperate than central Ontario. They also wanted to live in a larger town, so their daughter would have more opportunities to socialize and participate in activities outside the home with other kids. Nice people who did everything by the book, and the INS ran them off.Of course there will always be cases that we know of where moving country has proved beneficial to all concerned. But I'm thinking about the bigger picture, from an ecological point of view. On a global scale, if all countries abided by this rule, then the world economy created would be more stable in my opinion. Your friends incidentally, could still have moved to a better location within Canada itself. Also there is the effect of "the grass is always greener". People become dazzled by the advertising and promise of high earnings etc. It can often be an llusion to lure large numbers in so that an economic shortfall can be filled.
Living and working conditions cannot ever be exactly equal in all parts of the world, so there will always be a movement of people from one region or occupation to another.
- WarrenWhat if the conditions were close enough that a global law could be established which disallowed this movement?
Another problem with the question is that it uses "country" as the smallest "unit". I grew up in a village in the north of Sweden, for me it was a much bigger change to move from that village to a big (well, 600 000 people) city in Sweden than it was to later move from that city to London.An interesting point. Perhaps the idea of non-movement of people to work in other countries would increase the popularity of staying and working in the countryside of one's own country? Is the pull of the mega-cities overrated perhaps? The bright lights not all they are cracked up to be?
I don't even understand the poll question?
People move all the time within their country, between countries, etc, even when there is little or no economic incentive to do so. Some people will always want to move, to see the world, etc. And some people will always prefer to stay put.
Also, New York is New York and Paris is Paris and no matter of economic equalities will ever turn one place into another place.
Astronuc
Mar26-09, 12:38 PM
Oh ok, I see what you mean.
If you don't mind me asking, do you enjoy this lifestyle to its fullest or are you aware of personal cons of doing this but still enjoy it very much? What I mean is that do you feel that you're missing out on having a steady home or not? Well it's a tradeoff. I have a steady home because I'm married with children. My wife prefers to stay put, and my children prefer the continuity, which is beneficial.
If it was just me, I move more often, and spend more time in Asia and Africa, and maybe S. America doing sustainable development projects - and this is my plan for the future.
Actually, if I wasn't currently married, I'd be in Bulgaria most of the time.
Ultimately, I'd like to spend my last days in the mountains somewhere - Pamirs, Hindu Kush, Karakorum - possibly at the base of Paiju peak. But that could change.
I don't even understand the poll question?
People move all the time within their country, between countries, etc, even when there is little or no economic incentive to do so. Some people will always want to move, to see the world, etc. And some people will always prefer to stay put.
Also, New York is New York and Paris is Paris and no matter of economic equalities will ever turn one place into another place. Good points! Why be constrained by artificial and arbitrary boundaries.
As for cities, I'm OK with small towns, but by and large, I find cities are too crowded, dirty (grimy/gritty), smelly (air pollution) and noisy, so I prefer to live outside of large metropolitan areas. I've lived in small coastal and rural areas, and major cities, and I prefer the quiet countryside.
I prefer the quiet countryside.
Yeah... it's a bit more difficult to romp around naked in the snow if you live in lower Manhattan. :biggrin:
Yeah... it's a bit more difficult to romp around naked in the snow if you live in lower Manhattan. :biggrin:It's not harder to do. It may be tougher to come up with money for the bail-bondsman, though. NY cops probably don't have such an open attitude about such fun. When I was in college, we had parties at a rural place with a nice sauna from time to time. One moonlit night, a few of the participants carried the fun, snowball-fights, etc off-property, and the older lady whose back yard they ended up in called the Penobscot county sheriff's office. We had to pool our meager resources and drive to Bangor to bail them out of the county jail.
Okay, I can sense that I'm not really convincing many people with my original idea. What about thinking in the far distant future. Forget about yourselves for one moment, if you can. I still believe that the idea of all countries being advanced and stable enough to consider a global immigration ban is a potential measure of world peace. What other measure of world peace is there? Are we to assume that this will never arise, and that the constant cycles of economic hardship and warfare will always exist? Is the notion of world peace just an illusion, simply words that were spoken in the 1980's by a few well-meaning individuals?
JasonRox
Mar27-09, 07:50 AM
Okay, I can sense that I'm not really convincing many people with my original idea. What about thinking in the far distant future. Forget about yourselves for one moment, if you can. I still believe that the idea of all countries being advanced and stable enough to consider a global immigration ban is a potential measure of world peace. What other measure of world peace is there? Are we to assume that this will never arise, and that the constant cycles of economic hardship and warfare will always exist? Is the notion of world peace just an illusion, simply words that were spoken in the 1980's by a few well-meaning individuals?
That would be stupid because the shifting of the most important economic ressource is what helps stabilize the world... that is the movement of people.
What other measure of world peace is there? Are we to assume that this will never arise, and that the constant cycles of economic hardship and warfare will always exist?
I don't like it, but the fact is that humans will always find an excuse to wage war. We're territorial by nature. That territory might be land, ideology, religion, culture... you name it, and we'll find an excuse to fight over it.
That would be stupid because the shifting of the most important economic ressource is what helps stabilize the world... that is the movement of people.But why do the people need to move in the first place? Often, it is because the work force from a 'poorer' country will accept much lower wages, live in crowded and unhygenic accomodation and work harder. From an employers point of view, a foreign workforce may help the business succeed. But often the employer has to take this action simply because his competitors will. If there was no immigration, it would still be a level playing field.
I don't like it, but the fact is that humans will always find an excuse to wage war. We're territorial by nature. That territory might be land, ideology, religion, culture... you name it, and we'll find an excuse to fight over it.Humanity has made progress in the past w.r.t overall morality. The abolition of the slave trade, and more recently, the establishment of a welfare system for the needy. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider that further progress will similarly be made? Something positive to tell the children, if nothing else.
But why do the people need to move in the first place? Often, it is because the work force from a 'poorer' country will accept much lower wages, live in crowded and unhygenic accomodation and work harder. From an employers point of view, a foreign workforce may help the business succeed. But often the employer has to take this action simply because his competitors will. If there was no immigration, it would still be a level playing field.That is absolutely not true. We don't have a flood of Chinese workers rushing to the US to take manufacturing jobs. Instead US manufacturers, rush to China to contract with their factories to make products for the US market. No immigration, but still the "playing field" is not level.
That is absolutely not true. We don't have a flood of Chinese workers rushing to the US to take manufacturing jobs. Instead US manufacturers, rush to China to contract with their factories to make products for the US market. No immigration, but still the "playing field" is not level.Good point turbo-1. I'm talking from someone who lives in the UK, and the influx of newly entered Eastern European Countries to the European Union has meant a sharp rise in immigration. There is a difference in production of cheap consumer goods in foreign countries and the arrival of a labour workforce. It is the immigration which people seem to notice the most. In my vision of the future, perhaps I should include the abolition of excessive consumerism.
I think in the future if there is to be any kind of peace or organization, we will have to abandon the notion of nationalism (yeah, I know an ism).
The idea of a different country/s will have to go.
I am in complete agreement with this thought, and the good thing is, it's already happening. Why? One world: globalization. Because of this, the practical implications of a 'nation' is becoming blurred, and the world is instead being sorted by ideology - democracy, communism, Islam etc. Fortunately democracy and freedom is winning. Decades ago there were over 2 dozen communist countries, but now there is only 2 true communist states. The rest, eg China, Japan, South Korea is being diluted by western ideology. SKorea and Japan are already a democracy.
So to look at the big picture, we all came from Africa but have branched out into the world as the human race progressed. We aren't going back to Africa. I mean look at Europe, they are a good model.. many countries have become part of European Union and they use the Euro currency. Soon Russia and America will also be working more closely with Europe- France, Germany, UK etc.
The World is our Oyster and and no leader or government have the power to control where people choose to go. To see peace through we ought to view the world as a whole and not be constrained by artificial boundaries.
MATLABdude
Mar29-09, 07:56 PM
... and the world is instead being sorted by ideology - democracy, communism, Islam etc. Fortunately democracy and freedom is winning. Decades ago there were over 2 dozen communist countries, but now there is only 2 true communist states. The rest, eg China, Japan, South Korea is being diluted by western ideology. SKorea and Japan are already a democracy.
Islam is an ideology, and Japan and South Korea were communist nations?
I don't like it, but the fact is that humans will always find an excuse to wage war. We're territorial by nature. That territory might be land, ideology, religion, culture... you name it, and we'll find an excuse to fight over it.
If there's going to be a WWIII, it will no doubt be fought between nations supporting different ideological beliefs, just as it has been in the past World Wars I, II. It will be between, Democracy vs Communism. Islamic countries, as usual won't get involved.
So, in a Third World War, the sides will be:
1. America + Europe (ie UK, Germany, France, etc etc) + India + South Korea + Japan + Canada + Australia + other democratic.countries
VS
2. Russia [If it hasn't already been absorbed into European Union] + China [assuming China hasn't democratized/sufficiently westernized like Japan, by then] + North Korea [assuming it hasn't fallen by then]
Considering the rate at which communist states are fizzling out, the longer we can delay a 3rd World War, the more the advantage favors Side 1.
I am in complete agreement with this thought, and the good thing is, it's already happening. Why? One world: globalization. Because of this, the practical implications of a 'nation' is becoming blurred, and the world is instead being sorted by ideology - democracy, communism, Islam etc. Fortunately democracy and freedom is winning. Decades ago there were over 2 dozen communist countries, but now there is only 2 true communist states. The rest, eg China, Japan, South Korea is being diluted by western ideology. SKorea and Japan are already a democracy.
So to look at the big picture, we all came from Africa but have branched out into the world as the human race progressed. We aren't going back to Africa. I mean look at Europe, they are a good model.. many countries have become part of European Union and they use the Euro currency. Soon Russia and America will also be working more closely with Europe- France, Germany, UK etc.
The World is our Oyster and and no leader or government have the power to control where people choose to go. To see peace through we ought to view the world as a whole and not be constrained by artificial boundaries.This view doesn't seem to fit with the fact that genetically, all countries are becoming more different. I don't think the evolution of countries will ever be superceded by globalisation. There will always be trade, but I don't think that this necessarily means that there will always be a mass movement of people (i.e. immigration).
MissSilvy
Apr1-09, 12:09 PM
Mammo, I respect your opinions and your right to them but you're coming off as a very big fascist. First you're denouncing capitalism as evil and now you're considering banning the free movement of people in peacetime. What exactly do you see that is beneficial if a totalitarian country passed such a law?
If I want to move to Paraguay and practice physics, I should be able to. EVEN if the United States is sorely lacking in physicists or Paraguay has too many or what-have-you.
The idea that nationalism or a similar institution with similar effects (religion or racism, an 'us versus them' sort of thing) will ever be eliminated is a pipe dream. If there are no more separate nations, there will still be separate races, religions, and other groups and still people who are quick to identify wholly with one group over any other. This is the situation that breeds violence, not merely 'state versus state'.
If I want to move to Paraguay and practice physics, I should be able to. EVEN if the United States is sorely lacking in physicists or Paraguay has too many or what-have-you.
I think North Korea would be a great place for Mammo. No capitalism there, and a high quality of life! :))
The World is our Oyster and and no leader or government have the power to control where people choose to go. To see peace through we ought to view the world as a whole and not be constrained by artificial boundaries.There are immigration laws for obvious reasons, a country with plentiful resources cannot take in an unlimited number of immigrants without reducing their success and welfare of the people already living there. The thought that anyone should be allowed to move anywhere without restrictions is crazy. If that were possible, who would choose to live in horendous conditions? Sorry, but that's the way it is. Without immigration laws, what's to prevent the entire world's population from trying to cram into a small percent of the world's land?
If huge numbers of people tried to all move to the same places, war would definitely break out as people struggled to either keep what they have or try to take posession.
Without immigration laws, what's to prevent the entire world's population from trying to cram into a small percent of the world's land?
That portion would be the most expensive place to live (most likely) which would deter more people from coming in there.
It would be interesting and I think it would behave similar to free markets. At least, there would be no illegal immigration :rolleyes:.
That portion would be the most expensive place to live (most likely) which would deter more people from coming in there.If there were no laws to prevent them from moving in, a lot of people wouldn't pay, they would take the land by force. At least that's how populations took over land that they wanted in the past. Then the people already there would take measures to prevent people from moving in by passing laws and enforcing boundaries with armed forces, oh wait, we already have that. :tongue2:
This view doesn't seem to fit with the fact that genetically, all countries are becoming more different. I don't think the evolution of countries will ever be superceded by globalisation. There will always be trade, but I don't think that this necessarily means that there will always be a mass movement of people (i.e. immigration).
What you say is true about world regions, which roughly correspond to countries, except it's been going on longer than any of the current countries have been in existence.
It also may not be true, today. A lot of the genetic diversification is because it has been hard to move from place to place. Over the last few hundred years, moving from place to place has become easier and easier, very rapidly.
If countries are still becoming more different genetically, it's because the mix is different; not because they're evolving in a different direction than their neighbors. No matter what pattern the convection currents in the glass move, the end state is that the water in the glass winds up pretty close to the same temperature throughout.
If there's going to be a WWIII, it will no doubt be fought between nations supporting different ideological beliefs, just as it has been in the past World Wars I, II. It will be between, Democracy vs Communism. Islamic countries, as usual won't get involved.
So, in a Third World War, the sides will be:
1. America + Europe (ie UK, Germany, France, etc etc) + India + South Korea + Japan + Canada + Australia + other democratic.countries
VS
2. Russia [If it hasn't already been absorbed into European Union] + China [assuming China hasn't democratized/sufficiently westernized like Japan, by then] + North Korea [assuming it hasn't fallen by then]
Considering the rate at which communist states are fizzling out, the longer we can delay a 3rd World War, the more the advantage favors Side 1.
Two things:
1) It would be hard for the US and China to go to war with each other.
a) We trade too many goods (http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_chinese_exports_imports)
b) Too many US companies have investments in China (http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-10-25-china-profits-usat_x.htm)
You can fight wars over ideologies, but only if the war doesn't automatically devastate your own economy.
2) Why wouldn't Islamic countries get involved? In fact, I think a war between Islamic countries would be the most likely start of a World War. Not only do Sunni dominated countries have a different ideology than Shiite dominated countries, but they also compete against each other economically more than they trade with each other. (Yes, I know that they do cooperate via OPEC, but that's regulation of their competition; not trade between them).
MissSilvy
Apr1-09, 04:29 PM
If countries are still becoming more different genetically, it's because the mix is different; not because they're evolving in a different direction than their neighbors. No matter what pattern the convection currents in the glass move, the end state is that the water in the glass winds up pretty close to the same temperature throughout.
Fair enough; let's say at some point in the future that everyone is roughly the same color. This doesn't mean that they will all like each other or even have anything remotely in common. Same race and free movement doesn't guarantee a homogeneous mixture of beliefs or values. People will always fight over something. For thousands of years, the basic unit of human culture was very, very small; let's say a tribe of about 30-50 individuals. And now suddenly the whole world is connected. Hurrah! But people still function best in small groups because that's how we evolved. Sorry, I don't think this prophecy of an eventual 'one race' will guarantee peace or even just a lower level of violence.
Two things:
1) It would be hard for the US and China to go to war with each other.
What if China attacks U.S? I'm sure that will be the start of WWIII. Maybe it won't happen today, but in the future they might go to war. Once India gains more power, the U.S companies will diversify into India, and there will be more opportunities there. What I had meant by Islamic countries 'not getting involved', I mean they won't take the sides (communism vs democracy). But they certainly can start their a war themselves.
It also may not be true, today. A lot of the genetic diversification is because it has been hard to move from place to place. Over the last few hundred years, moving from place to place has become easier and easier, very rapidly.
I agree, and this is why I think the world is becoming more similar. For example, young Chinese today are eating Mcdonalds, learning English, watching MTV and grooving to hip-hop music with their ipods, where as 100 years ago, those same teens would probably be vying for a position as Eunich in the Kingdom. :))
Moonbear
Apr1-09, 09:05 PM
If everything were wonderful everywhere, location would be less of a factor in deciding where to work. If anything, I'd think that would make it more attractive to take a chance on a job in another country. There are plenty of people who move to new places, not because they can't find work where they used to live, but because they want the adventure of trying something new and meeting new people.
Mammo, I respect your opinions and your right to them but you're coming off as a very big fascist. First you're denouncing capitalism as evil and now you're considering banning the free movement of people in peacetime. What exactly do you see that is beneficial if a totalitarian country passed such a law?
If I want to move to Paraguay and practice physics, I should be able to. EVEN if the United States is sorely lacking in physicists or Paraguay has too many or what-have-you. You are talking from someone who is in the professional elite. The opinions of lower valued workers, for example the building trade, have different views. The idealised situation of the future which I am visualising is more beneficial to the average everyday person of a society, not just the elite. It would also be more beneficial to all societies, not just our own.
I think North Korea would be a great place for Mammo. No capitalism there, and a high quality of life! :))As I've said before, I'm not anti-capitalist or racist or fascist. It's just a philosophical talking point.
There are immigration laws for obvious reasons, a country with plentiful resources cannot take in an unlimited number of immigrants without reducing their success and welfare of the people already living there. The thought that anyone should be allowed to move anywhere without restrictions is crazy. If that were possible, who would choose to live in horendous conditions? Sorry, but that's the way it is. Without immigration laws, what's to prevent the entire world's population from trying to cram into a small percent of the world's land? If huge numbers of people tried to all move to the same places, war would definitely break out as people struggled to either keep what they have or try to take posession.Thank you Evo, someone who gets my drift.
Astronuc
Apr2-09, 05:51 AM
If huge numbers of people tried to all move to the same places, . . . . I'd be moving in the opposite direction.
I'd be moving in the opposite direction. hey, that's me as well going against the grain. :)
MissSilvy
Apr2-09, 09:08 AM
The idealised situation of the future which I am visualising is more beneficial to the average everyday person of a society, not just the elite. It would also be more beneficial to all societies, not just our own.
The 'educated elite' of this society make up about 1% of the world population but hold almost all the power. I don't see why someone who holds all the cards would want to throw up their hands and suddenly decide that they take a major reduction in their lifestyle in order to benefit a few people in some impoverished, far away place.
And personally, the idea of being forced to give up what I see as my basic rights in order to improve someone else's life is abhorrent. I don't see why you'd think someone in the building trades (which isn't an impoverished profession here in the developed world) would want to toss everything out the window so someone in Africa could possibly be better off. America is a nation of selfishness and I mean that in a good way.
The 'educated elite' of this society make up about 1% of the world population but hold almost all the power. I don't see why someone who holds all the cards would want to throw up their hands and suddenly decide that they take a major reduction in their lifestyle in order to benefit a few people in some impoverished, far away place.
And personally, the idea of being forced to give up what I see as my basic rights in order to improve someone else's life is abhorrent. I don't see why you'd think someone in the building trades (which isn't an impoverished profession here in the developed world) would want to toss everything out the window so someone in Africa could possibly be better off. America is a nation of selfishness and I mean that in a good way.That's a very honest point of view. Do you not relate excessive selfishness to the current economic crisis, which threatens to adversely affect the lives of millions of people? I know what you mean about not wanting to give up the lifestyle that we have all become used to. That's not quite what I mean. It's a longer timescale with which I am talking about. The original post was meant as a philosophical look into the far future, not just about our immediate needs and wants.
BTW The building trade has suffered enormously in Europe. I can't believe it's much different in the US.
What if China attacks U.S? I'm sure that will be the start of WWIII. Maybe it won't happen today, but in the future they might go to war. Once India gains more power, the U.S companies will diversify into India, and there will be more opportunities there. What I had meant by Islamic countries 'not getting involved', I mean they won't take the sides (communism vs democracy). But they certainly can start their a war themselves.
I agree, and this is why I think the world is becoming more similar. For example, young Chinese today are eating Mcdonalds, learning English, watching MTV and grooving to hip-hop music with their ipods, where as 100 years ago, those same teens would probably be vying for a position as Eunich in the Kingdom. :))
I guess it depends on whether you feel the major driving force in the world is ideology or commerce.
Commerce involves more than just exchanging goods. It also results in an exchange of culture, which is the real reason bin Laden hates the US and the Western world. Oil has made Arab countries more prosperous, but it has also made many of them more Western (UAE and other small Middle East countries, in particular).
Ideology is just another facet of culture to be exchanged. The spread of democracy or communism is a side effect of nations having very close economic ties to each other. Having a similar ideology doesn't prevent nations from going to war against each other. The early Americans and Iriquois had very similar ideologies, but the vast cultural gap between them overrode that. Likewise, a democratic Iraq is no guarantee that Iraq will be a friend to the US in the future. They could all vote to hate us.
I do agree that it would be easier for a non-democratic nation to go to war against a country they depend on economically. China could decide ideological differences were more important than prosperity and attack the US - at least as long as they do it before China develops a strong middle class, which means they'd better hurry. Any American politician proclaiming he wanted to cut the economic ties between the US and China would wind up with no campaign money and would never be elected (unless this new fad of using the internet to gather small donations directly from the voters catches on, of course - heck, if people will send money to a TV preacher during an infomercial, they'll send money to anyone - heck, if they'll buy a Ronco salad shooter, they'll buy anything).
misgfool
Apr2-09, 10:30 AM
I do agree that it would be easier for a non-democratic nation to go to war against a country they depend on economically. China could decide ideological differences were more important than prosperity and attack the US - at least as long as they do it before China develops a strong middle class, which means they'd better hurry.
It has often puzzled me, why does anyone think that China would attack the US. It would be almost stupid. It can eventually defeat the US economically, which will bring it much more power than military conquest. Additionally by simply immigrating to the US, they can change it from within. And even if a military path was chosen, it should be remembered that:
"War is not so much a matter of weapons as of money."
It has often puzzled me, why does anyone think that China would attack the US. It would be almost stupid. It can eventually defeat the US economically, which will bring it much more power than military conquest. Additionally by simply immigrating to the US, they can change it from within. And even if a military path was chosen, it should be remembered that:
"War is not so much a matter of weapons as of money."
I don't. It would just be more likely than the US attacking China. His idea was theoretically sound, even if practical considerations reduce the chances to nearly zero in the case of US-China.
MissSilvy
Apr2-09, 09:27 PM
That's a very honest point of view. Do you not relate excessive selfishness to the current economic crisis, which threatens to adversely affect the lives of millions of people? I know what you mean about not wanting to give up the lifestyle that we have all become used to. That's not quite what I mean. It's a longer timescale with which I am talking about. The original post was meant as a philosophical look into the far future, not just about our immediate needs and wants.
BTW The building trade has suffered enormously in Europe. I can't believe it's much different in the US.
Not really. The current economic crisis is caused by capitalism, that is true, so if you consider capitalism to be selfishness, then I suppose the crisis is caused by selfishness. I'm assuming that in 'millions of people' you mean all around the world, not just US. Since I don't believe that the US has any moral duty to maintain the economies of any country that relies on the us, I'm not very swayed by the accusations that irresponsibility in the US has single-handedly dragged the world down into a depression. Perhaps that is true and perhaps it isn't, but either way we're not exactly anyone else's keeper.
I didn't realize that you had a longer timescale in mind but please clarify what you mean by that. If you mean that we should restrict travel little by little over the course of generations then that's still a horrifying idea. The end result would still be the same; you'd just be lessening the shock of implementation.
Ah, yes. I can see that people in the working class might support some sort law that limits 'those durn illegal immigrants' stealing their jobs. While it can be extrapolated that they would also support anti-immigration laws, this is something that should not be decided democratically, because the majority is not always right.
I didn't realize that you had a longer timescale in mind but please clarify what you mean by that.It's just the way I think. It's abstract. Philosophical. My middle aged mind is probably just talking rubbish.lol.
America is a nation of selfishness and I mean that in a good way.
Those are wise words.. A doctor must take care of his own health first if she/he expects to help the sick. Therefore America just any other nation should take priority in keeping herself strong first.
I guess it depends on whether you feel the major driving force in the world is ideology or commerce.
Without a strong democratic foundation, the economic society we see today worldwide, is simply not possible. Ideology and commerce are therefore related in this regard, and to continue one, you must have the other. Just imagine a dictatorship/communism achieving this level of global economic success.. they've had their thousands of years, but achieved nothing. Look at North Korea..
I agree with you that culture difference can cause a war between nations, even if ideologies are similar. Which is why it's important that globalization bridge the difference between cultures and even develop new similar aspects of cultures shared by many nations. It has already been a success between many European nations and America. For instance hundreds of years ago, France fought against England.. they were ultimate enemies. Today, and in the future they will NEVER fight again, because their society are so intertwined - from culture, ideology, entertainment, trade, movement of people between the nations. etc.
Same applies to United states, Germany, England, Spain, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Australia, and many other European nations. A war between these nations is close to zero. I predict Russia, China and India, which is already a democracy will be on the bandwagon, as time marches on. Followed by Islamic nations, which are the 'toughest' against the world order.
Additionally by simply immigrating to the US, they can change it from within. Yes many have, and they are known as 2nd, 3rd generation Americans.
Since I don't believe that the US has any moral duty to maintain the economies of any country that relies on the us, I'm not very swayed by the accusations that irresponsibility in the US has single-handedly dragged the world down into a depression.
I concur. Many countries are equally responsible for this economic downturn - from corrupt CEOs in China to wealthy billionaires in Japan, Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia, and Europe who've taken part in driving the stock markets. No country is forced to follow America's principle. They can choose to follow Iran, or North Korea if it pleases them. :))
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.