Gates

[Ungod]

Spoiler

 

The more I read/learn, the more I see the underlying common stratum in everything, including people. We really are all quite the same, with circumstances shaping that essential part which is the same to all of us. Differences are all superficial; we can see applications of this idea in legislation banning discrimination and promoting 'unity in diversity' or movements that stem from the idea of 'we're all brothers and sisters' etc

While I consider this to be the truth, there's another truth: that we're all fighting for survival. The world's population is rising, resources stay the same, the Earth is not getting bigger. So if we're all brothers and sisters and yet we must fight each other, doesn't this fight become fratricide? How do you decide who goes down? How do you choose?

With nations, it's all very easy. The others are 'the enemy'. They're different. They're not like us. They're evil. The funny part about this is, while being completely untrue, people burn themselves for their country with joy. Both parties do, in both (all) countries. That's not to say all's well, but there's no guilt of going against your brother. There's no burden of choice.

I think in both systems (global village vs warring states) you get to see the best and the worst of human behavior. It's just that in one system there's awareness and in the other there's ignorance. There's also the fact that to reach the understanding that we're really not that different, it takes many long years. 

 

Long introduction above to serve as base for the question: 'Do you want lands to be more closed than they are now? Do you want borders/walls or do you want more inclusion?'

I'm asking because I remembered my 6-year old idea about buildable gates and I wonder if that is a good idea. It would make lands more 'closed' and create centers of authority once again. Is it good to build walls or should we wait for enlightenment in a global village?

 

[Chewett]

I have always felt that getting to know your neighbours, either in road, town or country is always a good thing. Understanding the differences and why people do things do wonders for acceptance.

A lot of racism stems from not understanding why certain things are done in a different way and the cultivation of an idea that someone else is unlike you and unworthy.

[Ungod]

There's also some merit in this, in that being ignorant relieves you of those moral choices you'd otherwise have to think about but you still have to meet your neighbours, to learn whom to like and whom to dislike.

I take it you're against building walls Trump-style. 

[Chewett]

1 hour ago, Ungod said:

There's also some merit in this, in that being ignorant relieves you of those moral choices you'd otherwise have to think about but you still have to meet your neighbours, to learn whom to like and whom to dislike.

I take it you're against building walls Trump-style. 

You would probably grow a greater economy accepting those trying to enter your country and helping them integrate than demonising them.

[Ungod]

Yea, well, you can't declare war to China if you don't start creating the 'us vs them'. And you need the war because the American empire is falling (all that while you still need immigrants, so you still let them in).

[lashtal]

The history of mankind is a history of migrations.

Be it for food, wealth, climate, wars or whatever.

I think building walls, creating a 'us vs them' culture is kinda shortsighted.

For sure it may have positive short-terms implications, from a strictly economic point of view.

But we are expanding so rapidly, and our influence on our habitat is so dramatic, that we should start to think more in perspective, and as a "whole".

 

OR, we could stop making children, realize we are fucked up anyway and walk hand in hand towards extinction, but that's a bit unpopular.

[Lazarus]

Waiting for enlightenment in global village I think is a lost cause, we can barely even take care of ourselves yet. Us-themming has its roots in the evolution of our species, which makes sense looking back millenias in the past, but I think it is nothing more than a neighbourly extension of kin-selection. I think we needed to craft certain kinds of iron-age myths and beliefs that forms cultures and traditions to control thousands even millions of the members of our society and we feel the need to preserve them, so to succeed, we create borders as to not let wandering Janes and Joes who we deem as aliens enter our turf. Imperial expansion and resource allocation is also a major contributor to this global monopoly and in some cases, it's driven by our own collective narcissism.

Borders I think is founded in trust, without the concept of borders, we'd still be trying to expand our realm by waging war with each other for whatever reason, even with this we're still trying to broaden our backyards bit by bit by creating "china towns" or any form of seclusion within a foreign land.

So to answer your question, borders can be necessary if it's main purpose is to filter out people who we suspect will cause disorganization, but not necessary enough to welcome change, if these migrants are adaptable then there will be no need I think, but then again this entirely depends on what kind of upbringing they have and what practices or culture they grew up in.

[Ungod]

10 hours ago, lashtal said:

But we are expanding so rapidly, and our influence on our habitat is so dramatic, that we should start to think more in perspective, and as a "whole".

OR, we could stop making children, realize we are fucked up anyway and walk hand in hand towards extinction, but that's a bit unpopular.

Yea, a bit unpopular, I'd agree. 

I think that seeing the larger picture is something only some have the ability, luxury and desire to do, so I doubt pushing this burden onto the common folk is going to achieve anything. China, for example, did something great when implementing the one-child policy; of course there were major downsides to that, but I think it was the right choice for China (and the world as well).

The irony of a 'us vs them' culture is that sometimes it manages to create healthier communities than the 'no barrier' culture; the downside is that sometimes it ends up all life. 

9 hours ago, Lazarus said:

So to answer your question, borders can be necessary if it's main purpose is to filter out people

You're the first to take a 'pro' gate stance. Your arguments sound like those of a Roman governor. Too bad they left those Germanic tribes bribe them over the decades.

Edit:

Spoiler

 

Oh, I keep hearing about the economy all the time. Certainly, because you cannot have power without money, since they are almost equivalent, the economy argument is always going to be forwarded. But when you hear that, you can only think about it if you are rich. If you are a common man, it's not a good idea. Why?

Trump will talk about the economic benefit because he has to motivate those businessmen and senators. It's like in the old days, when the King had to motivate the nobles to pay for the war effort. When the Emperor had to convince the Senate. The economy argument is not for you unless you are one of those. Otherwise, you're using words that were never addressed to you.

So what arguments should a common man use? I don't know. I use the arguments of 'health' and 'eudaimonia'. I think, when talking about wars, gates and discrimination, money is just not in 'it', for me. If I'm the peasant contributing to the war effort by paying my taxes, whether the troops will bring back home the loot or not, I'll still get crumbles. I will stay a peasant. Of course, If they lose, I lose doubly, but the economy is just not 'in' for me.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Ungod
more info

[MaGoHi]

parts of this conversation remind me of this clip

 

[Ungod]

I hate propaganda films, they're an insult to my intelligence. Propaganda films  are coming from one of the parties involved which pretends to be speaking 'objectively'. Like I can't see you're on one side of the trench. I may choose to fight with you, or pay you taxes, but I should know I'm not allying The Angel of Righteousness, but one of the sides trying to **** up the other side.

The thing about ethnic purity or nationalism is that it eliminates the guilt of choosing which one of your 'brothers' goes down. They're all your brothers, and you're told you're supposed to love them equally. Yet as I was saying, we are competing, all living things are. Somebody HAS to go down. That's when we create guidelines and principles that are not respected much, mostly because it takes years of studying to understand them, and it takes everybody's cooperation to uphold them. (these laws choose who goes down and who wins, and eventually crumble) So the merit of nationalism and borders is blissful ignorance and a much more intuitive and irrational way of settling who goes down: the other guy, the different one. 

I'm pretty much like everyone that has commented, and I've said it in the initial post. But you see, even if you understand people, even if there are no barriers, there will still be winners and losers. There will still be the higher-ups and the rest. We cannot create equality, because equality is something for machines, not for living creatures.

My view on this is of someone who would like to believe in a common dream, but sees the impossibility of it. We can continue on this argument (although it's a dead-end for my idea, it's almost 0 support), but I'll give you another:
 

Spoiler

 

If I erect a fort and make a gate/door for my house, you'll assume it's to stop animals from entering (including bipeds). But perhaps it's to stop me from going out (like China and Japan did in the past). You see, the fight I'm having is with myself and my desires, the greed, the ambition. A hermit goes into hermitage because he can't stand people falling prey to their base desires, and does not wish to be contaminated. A hermit wants to keep improving himself, to grow as a human, and not debase. Gates are not that simple - they create order. It's true that the initial reason was to be protected from the outside world.

Imagine houses didn't have doors. Imagine your house didn't have doors. Gates and doors are already part of our culture. We enjoy the separation, the categories doors create. Inside, outside. Bedroom, living room, kitchen. City and village, street and residential area. If it all looks swell, imagine they didn't exist. Nature doesn't have these separators. We do. It's one of the things that make us 'human', that is, different from animals. It's true, we go further away from the way the natural world is divided, but while doing it and decrying the original state of which we've been 'robbed', while asking for a 'return to nature', we cannot conceive living in that way.

Don't believe me? Go live in a village. Or, if you already live there, go to a third world country village. They live closer to nature, the natural world. See if you like it. You can grow accustomed to it (and some even like it), but most will view it as a regress. You are used to your separators and consider them to be part of your humanity.

I messed up with my previous argument and we delved into politics, but politics were also part of MD and the four main lands, no? Of course, I think politics in MD sucked, and now you can see why: nobody really believed in closed lands and intolerance. MD is not based on those principles anyway.

Perhaps this argument is better?