Politicks

[hertz vanrental]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

I have long been fascinated with anthropology and in particular the concepts of evolutionary psych and human universals. Donald Brown has done some fascinating work on these subjects. I’m not saying it’s the gospel or anything but it rings true for me, personally. here’s a link to his human universal list that is still a work in progress.

https://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/h...humunivers.htm

The ones that stick out to me in this regard are the universals of territoriality, coalitions, collective identities, in-groups distinct from outgroups, etc.

My use of the word “instinct” may be imprecise. It’s more a shorthand part of my own mental models and internal monologue vis a vis these subjects than probably something I should use to frame my arguments and worldview to others. I’d rather revise it to just “normal genetic predisposition” or maybe “innate behavior predispositions” or perhaps just “human nature” with the word “normal” being used in a statistical context and not as a value judgement.

Apologies for the delay in answering but Humble Beauty has been spouting his scientific shit again and he needed correcting. This time he was saying that although mass is a form of energy, energy isn't a form of mass. Had to point out certain experiments done at Stamford in 1997. FFS, where do these people get their shyte from?

I'm surprised that territoriality is considered a Universal. As I said, the majority of Mankind's time on the planet has been spent as a nomad. Not disputin' it, just thinking out loud.

Perhaps I should read Donal Brown. I have a holiday coming up and will have lots of time on my hands. Maybe I should read him.

[hertz vanrental]

Noodle wrote

I'm under the impression that EU citizens can travel around the EU as if it were borderless. That's no problem because the member states are similarly developed and modern. You're not going to have the citizens of Italy flood Germany because there are too many mopeds and everyone is late for everything.

Turkey, for example, is not a member of the EU, I think because there are membership requirements involving economics and human rights. Can Turkish citizens freely travel to and within the EU the way EU citizens can? If not, then the EU is only borderless within itself and is also "locking the door" to immigrants who are from less desirable places to live.

But is the fear of immigrants justified? Are they gonna come in our house and steal our stuff?

Once in mainland Europe, any citizen, whether EU or not, can travel border and customs free between EU countries because the custom's post, that used to exist between countries, have been removed.

The UK is an exception because there was a convention/agreement which the UK didn't sign. As such, border controls between the UK and the rest of the EU still exist. That's the problem with the UK. It wants to be in the EU but not. By way of another example, the EU's currency is the Euro. The UK decided to remain in its cave and retain Sterling even though, if it were attacked, it doesn't have the financial clout to defend it. George Soros did precisely that in 1992 and made his Quantum Fund a profit in excess of $1 billion. Typical.

Turkey isn't a member of the EU. Therefore, Turkish citizens are required to go through border controls on entering an EU country. However, once inside the EU, a Turkish citizen is free to move from one mainland EU country to the next without checks. However, if travelling to the UK, a turkish citizen would need to go through border controls.

Is the fear of immigration founded?

Some think so. Others, on the other hand, do not.

[Sinfidel]

[Sinfidel]

[Sinfidel]

[dogpet]

hertz vanrental wrote

Is the fear of immigration founded?

Some think so. Others, on the other hand, do not.

Suppose you have a garden, nice lawn, weed free. Then someone comes along & decides, that's a nice bit of land to build on, the peeps in that house won't mind, it's all about sharing.
The population of Africa is 1.25 billion. What % do you think would like to move to Europe? I don't know, but it's a reported a 700 million worldwide.



I don't know the answer, but it seems sure to me that the more we help desperate people to breed, the more desperate people there will be.


Until we can share technological wealth amicably all we can do is guard our lawns & hope to not starve in our old age.

[hertz vanrental]

dogpet wrote

Suppose you have a garden, nice lawn, weed free. Then someone comes along & decides, that's a nice bit of land to build on, the peeps in that house won't mind, it's all about sharing.
The population of Africa is 1.25 billion. What % do you think would like to move to Europe? I don't know, but it's a reported a 700 million worldwide.



I don't know the answer, but it seems sure to me that the more we help desperate people to breed, the more desperate people there will be.


Until we can share technological wealth amicably all we can do is guard our lawns & hope to not starve in our old age.

Have YOU ever been desperate?

[dogpet]

hertz vanrental wrote

Have YOU ever been desperate?

No never. You?

[hertz vanrental]

dogpet wrote

No never. You?

It's a matter of definition is it not?, but, in the true sense of the word, no, but on several occasions my grandfather was.

[dogpet]

hertz vanrental wrote

It's a matter of definition is it not?, but, in the true sense of the word, no, but on several occasions my grandfather was.

Yeh well. If my granny had a headache that night this post wouldn't exist.

[hertz vanrental]

dogpet wrote

Yeh well. If my granny had a headache that night this post wouldn't exist.

I had a headache the night before last. Hmmm

[Noodle]

I don't think someone moving onto your lawn is a very good analogy for immigration, generally.

I'm definitely in favor of helping the world's women avoid birthing children if they don't want to. That doesn't seem like something the current US administration would support though, puzzlingly. It seems to me like such a cheap, easy way to reduce a lot of the suffering in the world.

[hertz vanrental]

Noodle wrote

I don't think someone moving onto your lawn is a very good analogy for immigration, generally.

I'm definitely in favor of helping the world's women avoid birthing children if they don't want to. That doesn't seem like something the current US administration would support though, puzzlingly. It seems to me like such a cheap, easy way to reduce a lot of the suffering in the world.

But the kat lickers aren't. They want Africans to have lots of babies to swell their ranks so that their crutch remains powerful. That's why they teach the uneducated Africans not to use birth control.

Don't you just love kat lickers?

[Davin]

The main problem with immigration is the limited supplies that the wealthy have engineered over the last several decades. When so few people have half the world's wealth it means that we have to fight over half the pie, or least that's what seems to be the conclusion when we've been conditioned to ignore the 1% who have half of everything.


There is no economist in the world that will disagree that flowing money is good for an economy. Some however are stupid and don't see that about half the world's money is stagnating at the top. It's not flowing. The solution of these idiot economists is to siphon more money in the top 1% which predictably stays there and stops flowing through the economy making the economy unhealthy.



Now what's wrong with immigration would be solved by no longer pushing money to the top where it sticks. These immigrants would be great for a healthy economy, they would diversify spending and create new streams of money (which as stated before, all economists agree is good the economy), the only problem is that the economy is not healthy, because half of the money in it is stuck at the top and and not flowing.


So the problem isn't immigrants, the problem is that half the world's money is not flowing.


Other things like land space and capacity are also some problems not really related to the economy, but these problems aren't as big of an issue.

[Hobotronic2037]

Davin wrote

The main problem with immigration is the limited supplies that the wealthy have engineered over the last several decades. When so few people have half the world's wealth it means that we have to fight over half the pie, or least that's what seems to be the conclusion when we've been conditioned to ignore the 1% who have half of everything.


There is no economist in the world that will disagree that flowing money is good for an economy. Some however are stupid and don't see that about half the world's money is stagnating at the top. It's not flowing. The solution of these idiot economists is to siphon more money in the top 1% which predictably stays there and stops flowing through the economy making the economy unhealthy.



Now what's wrong with immigration would be solved by no longer pushing money to the top where it sticks. These immigrants would be great for a healthy economy, they would diversify spending and create new streams of money (which as stated before, all economists agree is good the economy), the only problem is that the economy is not healthy, because half of the money in it is stuck at the top and and not flowing.


So the problem isn't immigrants, the problem is that half the world's money is not flowing.


Other things like land space and capacity are also some problems not really related to the economy, but these problems aren't as big of an issue.

Do you have an idea on a means of getting the money to flow? And would you propose a mechanism to stop consumers of earth from pushing money to the top where it sticks?