This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the usual utilitarian way - "as humanly possible" includes making trade-offs for the greater good, where we'll sometimes deny Bob what would make him happy because it would involve unacceptable discomfort to Alice. (In Thought Experiment Land you can consequently imagine a utility monster who can only derive pleasure from hurting other people, and who tragically can never be allowed to be happy in a just society; but in the real world, even seriously twisted people are capable of getting their kicks some other way than their preferred vice, and very few preferences for illegal things are truly fixed in a way that can't be satisfied by e.g. roleplay, so the question doesn't really arise.)
If we're talking about a post-scarcity USA in particular, where somehow the States have unlimited resources but the rest of the Earth hasn't caught up, then yes, you'd have a moral imperative to have open borders. I don't value the preservation of the local culture at zero, but human beings' lives come first. That's not a very likely scenario, although it's a morally instructive one and what I had in mind when I said that "in an ideal world" we would be able to take in all economic refugees. (Much as "in an ideal world" where I'm a trillionaire I would be able to give ten thousand bucks to every homeless person I meet without sacrificing an inch of my personal comfort and safety. This is, obviously, a casual, non-rigorous usage of "ideal world", since of course in a truly ideal world there wouldn't be homeless people in the first place.)
In an actually ideal, truly post-scarcity world… well, who knows? Such a world would have such fundamentally different dynamics from ours that I'd be surprised if we keep the same political system at all, never mind the specifics of immigration law. For one thing, if resource shortage is no longer a concern worldwide, is there even much demand for immigration to the US? Somehow I don't think people would be lining up by the million to flock to America and get minimum-wage jobs if they had guaranteed food, housing and healthcare back home. In that scenario, maybe the amount of people who want to move to the US per year shrinks to such an extent that concerns about alterations to the culture become negligible, and at that point it would be churlish to create artificial hurdles out of chauvinism.
Still, conceivably demand remains high and damage to the local culture per marginal immigrant remains constant, even if conditions back home are no worse for the would-be immigrants than in the US by objective metrics. At that point, certainly it would be morally acceptable to decide we want completely closed borders to preserve the "local culture". I don't really know which way I'd vote, but I would be fine with my fellow citizens voting purely based on personal preference and I would respect the outcome of that vote, whatever it may be. Weighing whether we'd rather preserve our local culture than allow safe, healthy, affluent foreigners maximal freedom of movement is a totally different question from the current state of affairs. Maybe the US splinters, with some states being open-borders and others not. I think it might well happen at an even smaller scale, with whole counties becoming vast gated communities some of which are outsider-hostile and others not. That seems like maybe the stablest equilibrium for Utopia.
But then again, would Americans be found to in fact care that much about immigrants' effect on "the local culture" in a world where "immigrants" aren't synonymous with "criminal underclass"? Where they aren't "taking our jobs"? How about if the native population is now immortal and at no danger of actually being demographically replaced? After all, a post-scarcity world is realistically a post-singularity one as well. And what are we even talking about at this point? It's unknown unknowns all the way down.
More options
Context Copy link