[jhowell]

I wonder if I am an outlier here (physically the US) and think society is not collapsing, but diversifying. Also, given the state of the environment, national debt, employment prospects for many in the generations proceding me, and civic unrest, it seems prudent that we evaluate our socioeconomic activities.

[betwixthewires]

Immigration is addressed in the article as a potential cause of societal collapse.

I do think we (the US in particular, and the western world in general) are undergoing a process that, if it continues to fruition, is societal collapse. That said, I don't think it is imminent or unavoidable.

I do think there's a gray area between immigration generating diversity and immigration serving the same ultimate purpose as invasion. At some point you go from becoming diverse to being supplanted. Immigration rates high enough to drastically change the culture of a society within the lifespan of one human being can be catastrophic. It naturally creates division and strife.

It really doesn't matter if the cultures are both equally advanced, good, if one is being mean to the other, etc. There will be friction. When this happens slow enough, over a few generations, newcomers adopt prevailing norms, and the incumbent culture adopts some newcomer customs. Also, the stronger the incumbent group hold to their customs and take pride in them, the more immigration they can handle, because this creates peer pressure on the newcomer group to assimilate.

The combination of massive immigration and social pressure to view our own customs as unimportant or even inferior is potentially a bad combination for the survival of our society. I hope to see it survive, I do like it, I wouldn't want an entirely homogenous society.

[jhowell]

> I do think there's a gray area between immigration generating diversity and immigration serving the same ultimate purpose as invasion.

At what point did you stop being the invader and become the invaded? Conceivably, someone could have held the same sentiment about someone more vunerable in your lineage whose efforts leave you where you sit today. I favor giving that person a chance and not labeling them an invader. I believe that's what's outlined in the rulebook here (the United States for me).

> At some point you go from becoming diverse to being supplanted. Immigration rates high enough to drastically change the culture of a society within the lifespan of one human being can be catastrophic. It naturally creates division and strife.

This line of thinking, positioning and labeling I consistently find troubling as it leads to violence against minorities justified by often false, purposeful anecdotes without consideration of the policies and practices that cause inequality. That's catastrophic.

[betwixthewires]

>At what point did you stop being the invader and become the invaded? Conceivably, someone could have held the same sentiment about someone more vulnerable in your lineage whose efforts leave you where you sit today.

Yes. There are those in the US that still regard the mass migration onto the continent of the European settlers as an invasion.

>This line of thinking, positioning and labeling I consistently find troubling

I agree, but 1) this line of thinking will always occur, and has occurred in native populations in every instance of mass immigration, and 2) whether troubling or not, in at least some scenarios is the correct analysis of the state of affairs.

You cannot decide what people think no matter how hard you try, and you cannot ignore something if it might very well be true just because you find it troubling.

[BuckRogers]

We don’t have this problem in the US, most of our immigration is from fellow western and Christian nations like Mexico and similar in central America. Maybe what you describe is an actual risk in Europe.

[pgcj_poster]

> I do think there's a gray area between immigration generating diversity and immigration serving the same ultimate purpose as invasion

Sure. For example, historians debate the extent to which the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was a migration vs an invasion. However, we know the Anglo-Saxons at least did things like set up their own kingdoms and cause some of the Celtic Britons to flee to Wales and Brittany. It seems to me like immigrants in present-day western countries are really, really far away from doing anything like that.

[iridium_core]

And the nations which are overtaking us - Taiwan, Korea, Japan, China - are the complete opposite of diverse. Perhaps diversity is not our strength?

[fermienrico]

Good side effect of that is strong culture. It doesn't get diluted by diversity.

I can only imagine what it would have been like to travel to another country many decades ago before globalization and travel. Here is Tokyo 100 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQAmZ_kR8S8

The simplest of things - a tunic or a shirt is commoditized by the entire globe. Everyone on the whole globe just wears a shirt/pants. Each nation had their own attire and it was just normal to wear skirts in Scotland and suits in England, and kimonos in Japan. This was erased by globalism and diversity. It may be that shirt/pant combo is actually superior attire due to some particular measurable quantity, but I suspect it was because of English imperialism.

[imbnwa]

> Good side effect of that is strong culture. It doesn't get diluted by diversity.

Yeah, CCP is kinda working on that whole eliminating cultural diversity thing as we speak

[fermienrico]

I was thinking more on the lighter side - huge fan of Civilization, the game! Cultures are cool.

[yongjik]

The ironic thing is that people who view East Asia's "non-diversity" positively also tend to be the same people who are vehemently against East Asian-style policy, such as: covid lockdown and mask mandates, more money on public education, single-payer healthcare, and no guns. In other words, if anyone strongly believes that there's any cultural advantage to East Asian countries (very debatable), America can be in a better position to compete by giving more power to minority voices.

[imbnwa]

You mean places that had the least to offer to any kind of migrant from the West during the period of European imperialism are also the least diverse? Setting aside the complicating factor of the West African slave trade as a factor of population displacement, color me surprised. This whole diversity thing just fell out of the sky over here.

[ikt]

How are they overtaking us again?

[tuatoru]

In depopulation. All have fertility well below replacement rate and negligible immigration.

[CMCDragonkai]

China is very diverse place.

[denimnerd42]

new zealand successfully contained the virus. they have extremely strict immigration policies..

[betwixthewires]

They also have no land borders. Very easy to close borders when all it involves is closing airports and turning ships away. That's doubly true when you have no exports that are vital to the world economy.

[fermienrico]

Also, a country of the size of New Zealand is easier to control like a speed boat vs. US like a huge tanker. Ofcourse, if you put an authoritarian boosters on the tanker (China), its possible.

Just to put things in perspective, New Zealand's population is half of Silicon Valley / SF Bay Area.

[tasogare]

Roman empire didn’t collapsed, it became diversified by the Lombards, Franks and Wisigoths.

[AlotOfReading]

It's not clear to me whether your point is intended sarcastically, but for those who don't know, the Roman Empire was incredibly diverse throughout all of its history. Rome itself was a cosmopolitan urban center for centuries. Even after the split and collapse of the WRE, the east remained hugely diverse.

[imbnwa]

Not so much Rome as the entire Mediterranean has swapped genes and cultures a hundredfold for thousands of years being the trade hub between Europe, West Asia, and Africa.

I also feel like I'm reading a bunch of coded statements with some of these comments in here.

[mercer]

Oh yeah, I've found 'the reason why Rome collapsed' type arguments to be at this point mostly a kind of 'Rorschach Test' for the ideology of whoever is promoting it.

[AlotOfReading]

Honestly, I'd rather deal with the coded language visible thus far than have to explain why Diamond's Collapse is utter garbage for the hundredth time.

[mercer]

Both are exhausting, honestly.

[tathougies]

Rome didn't collapse, it just diversified into several other smaller states. The Aztec empire wasn't overthrown by the Spanish, but just fractured. The empire of Genghis Khan didn't collapse, it just got successfully split until what remained resembled nothing of what it once was.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather pointing out that -- in the grand scheme of history -- every collapse can be recast as a 'diversifying' of the original society, even if the end state of the society has little in resemblance to the original.

For example, the Roman empire lasted -- in the form of the byzantines -- until 1453, only a few decades before Columbus discovered America, but the Byzantines were not really Roman in the way we think of ancient Rome, despite having every claim to being one and the same with the Roman empire.

[StanislavPetrov]

>every collapse can be recast as a 'diversifying' of the original society, even if the end state of the society has little in resemblance to the original.

The folks from Easter Island would beg to differ if they were still around!

[tathougies]

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Easter Island is yet another example of my general premise. The people who colonized it originally -- the rapa nui -- are still around, even if their current culture is very different from the civilization that erected the moai?