Will Everyone Work In Their Country Of Birth Oneday?

[rootX]

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 .

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[BobG]

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 I don't think the evolution of countries will ever be superceded by globalisation.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.

 

[BobG]

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) http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_chinese_exports_imports
b) Too many US companies have investments in China

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]

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.

 

[Zdenka]

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]

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]

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]

If huge numbers of people tried to all move to the same places, . . . .

I'd be moving in the opposite direction.

 

[Zdenka]

I'd be moving in the opposite direction.

hey, that's me as well going against the grain. :)

 

[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.