[hackernews1134]

Immigration != colonization

One is implemented with the will of the people (in a functioning democracy) and the other is not.

Equating the two and then correlating that to dog whistle terms like “genetic extermination” which has no scientific basis (except in terms of pest control) is disingeuous.

Edit: formatting

[carlosjobim]

I assure you that there is nothing disingenuous in my comment, and not everything is a "dog whistle". A dog whistle for what, if you mind?

No people has ever willed to be colonised (and that was the proposal in the comment I replied to). Immigration is a different matter. The people in history who welcomed being colonised were very sorry for it afterwards.

Genetic extermination is the same as genocide, and it has happened countless times, it is happening right now, and it will continue to happen as long as humans are faulty beings.

[hackernews1134]

You have yet to explain why genetic extermination (whatever you mean by that) is undesirable.

Naming a natural evolutionary occurrence (and I mean genetic mixing, not colonization) a pejorative doesn’t make it so.

There is plenty of genetic mixing happening in the world in the last single generation without any colonization. Go back in time far enough and you can draw a line from any major event to a calamity that came after it. It’s quite easy to see through your veiled prejudice for inter-racial breeding.

[jstarfish]

> Genetic extermination is the same as genocide

No, it isn't. Nobody is "exterminating" the Japanese. They're culturally unsustainable.

It's not fucking Genocide when you're doing it to yourself. There's no Panda Holocaust either.

[carlosjobim]

Nobody has said that, try reading my comment better:

"Colonisation always goes hand in hand with genetic extermination of the natives"

I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows.

Edit: I think I see what confused you. I wrote "it's happening right now" not referring to Japan, but referring to humanity at large.

[jstarfish]

> I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows.

And I don't disagree with you.

What I'm objecting to is your hyperbole; on further thought I don't care much for your throwing around of this "genetic extermination" term either.

"Extermination" implies a third party is involved and has a hand on the gas valve. A more appropriate euphemism would be "genetic extinction."

Genocide is explicitly defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The immigrants are not arriving onshore and butchering the natives.

Words have meaning and this one does not invite ambiguity. A genetic clique disappearing because of cross-breeding is not goddamn Genocide. It's just Nature.

And again, I'd argue they're doing it to themselves. They just handed the title of Miss Japan to a Ukie. Now this. Nobody's making them sell out to foreigners. They could just as easily halve their pointlessly-bureaucratic workweek and subsidize childcare.

[carlosjobim]

> Genocide is explicitly defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The immigrants are not arriving onshore and butchering the natives.

No, but when immigrant/coloniser diaspora becomes large enough in numbers they rise up against the natives and start displacing them, most often violently. As seen almost always throughout history, or in the news tonight.

> It's just Nature.

Nature is nature, and human policy is separate from that. Displacing enormous amounts of people to "fix" some imaginary GDP number is as far from nature as can be, unless we argue that war and genocide is a natural behaviour among human beings. Which unfortunately I think we can. Then again if it's "just nature", then why do people here argue for organising mass migration to Japan. Let nature have it's course then?

As for the rest of your comment, you are arguing automatically based on what you have imagined that I wrote, even though I tried to clarify to you. I don't know how I can get my point through, so you can understand that I connected organised foreign colonisation / mass migration to Japan with genocide. Because one usually follows the other.

Even an outright military invasion can be less of a threat to a nation, since some conquerors only want to extract resources and tributes without taking over the land by putting their own population there.