[extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration

[Anders Sandberg]

Lee Corbin wrote:
> It depends on perspective: as a *group* this could be disastrous:
> What if the Romans had opened their borders in 220 B.C.? They
> shortly would have ceased to exist as a distinct culture or as a
> distinct people. Latin would have been swamped.

You mean like how Chinese culture got swamped by Mongolian? :-) In fact,
had the romans opened their borders (and loosened the archaic citizenship
rules) I think we would be living in a far more latinate world. If you
look at the culture of the "barbarians" that moved in at the end of the
empire you will see that they quite quickly adopted a great deal of roman
culture. It was just that the empire itself had broken, and the loss of
complexity set things back centuries. One of the core reasons for the
roman problems was the privileges given to citizens, requiring a vast
number of non-citizens to supply them.

(I actually did an alternate history based on this idea for a roleplaying
game, producing a Celtic-Roman Europe
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~asa/Game/Fukuyama/aquincorum.html )

Overall, I don't see any particular value in a culture per se beyond the
good of human diversity. It is not obvious to me that I would be worse off
if my home culture was mixed with other cultures. Sure, it requires a bit
more tolerance and adaptability, but the benefits of a wider toolkit of
ideas, connections and approaches to life seem far greater.


> But why Russians? The Swedish government should issue invitations to
> the most needy and prolific people it can find, e.g. Moslems from
> several places in the world, or Mexicans. Why shouldn't the Swedish
> government feel a moral obligation to do what I suggest? After all,
> *economically* it'll quite possibly help Sweden, but even if not,
> it will certainly help whatever country the newcomers arrive from.

Exactly. I love to point out how hypocritical our left is with its
traditional promotion of international solidarity and heavy protectionism.
It should applaud when Swedish jobs go to Portugal or China, since from a
utilitarian point of view they do much more good there. And why try to
limit "social tourism" (not that it occurs to any great extent) when they
claim having heavy social security nets are good for individual growth and
productivity? At least some parts of the Swedish right have hidden racism
as an excuse.

And I honestly believe Sweden would become a better place if it was
"invaded" by a lot more people. It would likely become messier, less
stable and not the Sweden we are used to. But melting pots are usually
where new ideas are created. Of course, the key problem with integration
in Europe is that everybody is obsessed with nationality and culture and
hance preventing immigrants from integrating well. So I seriously doubt my
ideas would ever get a chance.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University