NPC MEME#23978668

[supermeatboy]

Comments

[politikhos]

Because otherwise you get into a bubble and then when you do meet one with radically different morals and values you will probably be very hostile towards them. Imagine: All progressives live in town A, all conservatives live in town B, nobody ever talks to the other, not even if they're their family. And then both towns have an army and the people can decide whether they want to escalate or mediate conflict. Or if it's in the same country, then you have an election and both blocks vote for their guy, who wants their group to benefit at the expense of the other

By talking to people with different views, we also get a more nuanced view of our own morals. That may mean we understand beter why our own morals are correct, or we realize parts of them aren't

[supermeatboy]

"By talking to people with different views, we also get a more nuanced view of our own morals. That may mean we understand beter why our own morals are correct, or we realize parts of them aren't"
^ i 100% agree and i find great pleasure in doing so.

Does not refute the point that putting people next to each other that do not only difer in said ways,but are hostile towards each other for religious, cultural, political is a dangerous thing to do. THe more homogenous a country is, the stronger it is.

The more fractured a country is culturally, religously and politically, it becomes a real danger as we can see around the world. The solution obviously is not to forcibly create homogenity anywhere, but not to foster it politically. That´s what basically forces conflicts to boil within communities.

[politikhos]

I don't really understand how your though process goes here: 1 million white Christian Europeans see 50'000 Muslim Arab immigrants on the streets every day, and that automatically creates hate? Let's take different religions: Say 1 million Christian Europeans see 50'000 Jewish Israeli immigrants on the streets every day, would that also create hate?

In Germany, half of the Christians are Protestants, the other half Catholic, and much of the rest of the country are atheists: They all get along just fine.

I guess the question is what does "putting people next to each other" mean? Does it mean allowing people to come here that desperately want to come here, and that we want here in large parts for humanistic or often actually economic reasons (population becoming older)? And besides: It's not like people fleeing from ISIS are like the most extreme muslims, rather the opposite actually. That's the most moderate of them, coming to the West, if they were ISIS sympathizers, guess where they would stay

[supermeatboy]

To your first question; Does it create hate to see people other than your own by e.g. ethnic differentiation on a daily basis?
Clearly not to the extend where it would become an issue. It´s more about the behavior of man itself that tends to congregate with people of their own.
Hierachical structures, also between cultures, have always been a part of humans history. For a peaceful coexistence everyone has to play by the same rules, which of course is very hard to achieve. There is war all over the world, people are still as tribalistic as they used to be 2000yrs ago in most cases.
To assume it can work to place people with belief and ethical systems next to each other that are naturally competing for societal dominance is a dangerous path to go down.

My personal experience undermines that point as well. In my homecountry Germany i had the chance to observe this more thoroughly then elsewhere naturally. Parts of my hometown are turkish by a big majority. Germans close down their shops there and move away. Turkish culture dominates these parts and drives others away.
The other way around Turkish people naturally want to live with "their own" people as well.

I suggest we stop artificially creating friction by allowing rapid cultural change by allowing too many foreigners in. It has nothing to do with being unsympathetic towards people in need, and there are lots of them. I argue that they need to be helped locally which is undeniably the most effective way economically and especially under sociological aspects.

[politikhos]

I agree that it's not a sensable idea to try to get everyone who needs help into the few rich countries, but rather to help people in need locally. That includes doing trade deals with poor countries that are not exploitative, unlike the one the EU has done with African trade blocs and countries. Helping people locally can and should also mean doing what the US did in Europe after WWII, to massively invest into the infrastructure and basic production of countries in need, to boost their economic growth. We can do the same for Africa.

Africa has a combined GDP of 1.5 trillion $, which is less than South Korea and 10% more than Spain. The African Union, with all of Africa being members, is mostly just a place to coordinate inner-African policy today, but they are trying to make it into more ofa real Union, including introducing a common currency, the Afro (not kidding), in a few years. This is just a thought, but if we were to bind that investment plan to the condition that the African Union gets the sole power to negoatiate foreign trade deals, then that could greatly improve the kinds of deals they get. Right now they have about 5 separate economic zones and many countries are all on their own.

[supermeatboy]

I´m interested in how the aid should look like in your view.
I feel that most of the efforts to e.g. stop the worldhunger have been around for ever with not much changed eversince.
Tons of money gets lost in corruption instead of helping the people.

Withouth having spend too much thought on it, i feel like trade deals should be avoided in favor of low regulatory hurdles.
I consider myself a libertarian, but this might be one of the examples where the free markets reign might not fix things, but neither government intervention into the business of people.

The free market makes it cheaper to produce clothing and food on other continents and ship it to africa to dump the prices there.
Socialism in many countries has crippled aspring economies and stunted their growth.
Interested in your thoughts

[politikhos]

I imagine massive investments in roads, highways, electricity, water supply and communication (internet, phone), basically a New Deal (FDR) type of program. I suppose to avoid corruption we could employ local businesses who hire local workers to build all that, in an auction for each contract, giving it to the one who offers the lowest price. The question is who determines which contracts are given out, I suppose to avoid conflicts of interests we neither give it to the foreign investors who don't care about the African people, or the local governments who are corrupt, but to a Commission consisting of both: Half representatives of the African Union and half of all foreign investors.

That would create jobs for an emerging African middle class, which then creates a local demand for consumer goods, which gives businesses, whether foreign or African, an incentive to produce those goods in Africa for Africans locally, saving shipping costs. That in turn also creates jobs, and after the infrastructure projects have finished, this will be what's continuing the cycle. And the improved infrastructure will increase growth even more.

The reason Western powers saying they want to end world hunger hasn't worker (or not enough) is because they didn't try enough, they didn't do such a massive imvestment plan but just foreign aid, subsidies to the governments. And they only did that to make them dependent, and then turned around and said they were merely trying to "help" them.

If Africa had its own base of consumers, then increasing wages there would work economocally. But since they don't, all that does is massively decrease the amount of Western companies wanting to settle there.

[valorforfreedom]