Fusion v. Poverty – gumballs

[Rezwan]

Have been requested to post this ‘Gumballs‘ Video which “Refutes the Argument That U.S. Must Double Immigration To Show Compassion to Rest of World”

Per requestor: “I’m not sure where to put this. But it certainly emphasizes the notion that lifting all boats, as it were, is the only way to help the world’s impoverished.”

That would be the fusion argument – abundant energy to end poverty and put a dent in all those destitute gumballs.

The video does a good job of giving you an idea of the scale of poverty and unintentionally shows how little the US is doing to help immigrants in greatest need. It shows up the US – they have very strict immigration rules and they aren’t really taking in the poor – for the most part they’re siphoning off the skilled – “aliens of exceptional ability” (except for migrant labor – although that is an exceptional ability, too, I guess).

That’s the same problem with the sciences, why Americans don’t bother studying science, because we’ve set it up to import cheaper scientists from abroad (Discuss in this thread).

But the problem isn’t the immigration. It’s the deeper, underlying stuff – the disappearing jobs because of being under-bid and machines are killing us all, and many other factors. Just getting rid of other people doesn’t address the real problem. Doesn’t even identify it.

The argument put forth in the vid sounds logical,

“We may be really hurting the impoverished people of the world because the million that we do take are among the most energetic — often the better educated, certainly the most the dissatisfied — people who if they did not immigrate would be the agents for change to improve the lot of all the people in these (impoverished) countries.”

but there’s another way to look at this:

But then again, these energetic people are usually fleeing places where their energy is wasted. Take Iran. Major site of brain drain (and brain GAIN for other countries). But does the current regime deserve those brains? And do those brains deserve to be trapped there? In the long run, it’s best for brains to move where they can and want to. You get them out here, they develop relationships and businesses and so forth. When the regime back home, now bereft of skilled people, finally rolls over and transforms, you have all these well trained, integrated people ready to head back and set up shop, much more effective at connecting their home culture and practices with global culture and practice.

So, the time spent abroad is very valuable and can be later leveraged to help improve the lot of the folks back home in a much more effective, rapid way – as well as jump start business connections with the host country.

This is how India skipped a step in development and is moving forward out of poverty much faster than anyone expected. The emigration/re-immigration/connection experience.

I feel that if you believe in a market system, then market barriers are ill advised. People move to markets. Why just let big capital move production offshore to cheap labor? They don’t help develop people as much as exploit them. Immigrants, on the other hand, are the quintessential people who are trying to self-improve and many will go back and help their home country, or send money back, or otherwise network for the greater good of the planet.

It’s win win. This guy is overwhelming us with atomized gumballs, I wonder how he could show the networks. Chew some of the gum and it helps the rest stick together?

[Aeronaut]

The world can’t get better until the idea leaders and or sufficient numbers of the masses are led to the questions of “What do I know?” and “How do I know this?”. In other words, the basis of scientific thought and experiment design. The path must then flow effortlessly back into the self-reliant frontier cultures’ “How do I/we profit from applying this refined information?”

Without sustained problem solving on all three of these questions, average people of all abilities are going to blindly do what marketers sell them to do which fits their hidden assumptions concerning what can and can’t be done. They can’t help themselves. Following is just civilized human nature.

[emmetb]

The argument put forth in the vid sounds logical

Sure but it is utter bullocks of course. In fact I’m so sick of people swallowing that populist b*&^^%$t. There they sit in the audience, nodding their heads in surprised concurrence to find out that so much of this internal struggle between their sefish greed and their christian duty that they were experiencing was actually wholy unnescesary! How convenient: mass immigration can never solve our problems!

Well, the guy is right about that fact; where he takes the argument from there is just self-serving retorics. And his presentation technique is not even original:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

In the antropocene the main evolutionary pressure will be on the level of social systems, not the individual. It will be about the ability of societies to channel human potential into doing the things nescesary for our survival while avoiding wasteful conflict and, yes, also in managing the population pressure better. In the real world, there are roughly 3 possible outcomes to consider:
1. we will innovate ourselves out of this mess in some, as yet unforseen, way;
2. we slowly give up more and more of our dignity in other, as yet unforeseen, ways;
3. we cancel the playingfield with an all-out thermonuclear war.
Personally I would place my betting money somewhere halfway between 1 and 2, but that’s partly because i don’t expect to be around to collect my winnings when the dust settles on option 3.

Oh, and here’s a thought: if mass immigration won’t work why not have a lottery and mix a significant part of these gumballs. We might call that “mass alternation”. It would definitely help, because a healthy dosis of setbacks builds character, resourcefulness and hardens the individual whereas living inside a cocoon where populists tell you what you so desperately want to hear spells disaster. If we keep on allowing populists like that to spread their venomous ideas we are rotting the society from the inside out as we slowly turn people into complacent fools. We don’t need complacent fools! We need decent, hardworking folk, men and women that understand what is at stake and are willing to bring the sacrifices necessary to win a place for their children to carry on. Now if you ban immigration these people will stop coming altogether.

Ask not what your society can do for you, ask why you, as a mere individual, have earned the godforsaken right to burn your societies’ precious resources.

I know: I wouldn’t make it very far as a politician 🙂

[Aeronaut]

Ask not what your society can do for you, ask why you, as a mere individual, have earned the godforsaken right to burn your societies’ precious resources.

I’d rephrase the JFK quote along the lines of “Ask not what your society can do for you, ask what you, as a mere individual, can do to lead it in a saner direction.” Right up there with something else one of his speechwriters wrote: “Some men see things as they are and ask ‘why?’. I see things as they are not and ask ‘why not?’.

About your political chances, Micheal Bloomburg in NYC, and the California Governor’s race are showcasing a move away from career politicians, at least in this election cycle. Who knows what’s possible or impossible?

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: Ask not what your society can do for you, ask why you, as a mere individual, have earned the godforsaken right to burn your societies’ precious resources.
…

Uh, who else? Does “society” create/own resources? Does it exist distinct from the individuals it comprises? People who ask and phrase questions like this are presuming to speak for society, and implicitly claim the right to make decisions on its behalf. Arrogance excelsior!

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Ask not what your society can do for you, ask why you, as a mere individual, have earned the godforsaken right to burn your societies’ precious resources.
…

Uh, who else? Does “society” create/own resources? Does it exist distinct from the individuals it comprises? People who ask and phrase questions like this are presuming to speak for society, and implicitly claim the right to make decisions on its behalf. Arrogance excelsior!

And who’s to say that a person has to be a citizen OR an industrialist? The honestly blended person will design organizations for the least amount of effort expended, not just the least amount of capital OR the least amount of energy, and other metrics. The us-vs-them mentality wastes a lot of energy moving (too much) ammunition, ferinstance.

[Author]

Posts