Will Everyone Work In Their Country Of Birth Oneday?

[MissSilvy]

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.

 

[Mammo]

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.

 

[BobG]

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]

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."

 

[BobG]

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]

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.

 

[Mammo]

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.

 

[Zdenka]

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.

 

[Zdenka]

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.