What makes rich countries rich and poor countries poor?

This is the most important question when it comes to the immigration debate.

The right-wing thinks that "culture" (or even genetics in the case of the alt-right) is what determines the wealth of a country. If they are right then immigration from poor countries is ultimately bad for the future of the country.

But of course, they are wrong. It has long been understood in the social sciences how access to natural resources, western imperialism, and just plain out luck have allowed some cultures to get decades ahead of others when it comes to wealth and technology. There is nothing to fear from immigration, because we're basically all the same.

In this way, I would argue being against lots of immigration is anti-science.

AtlantaAdonis said:

This is the most important question when it comes to the immigration debate.

The right-wing thinks that "culture" (or even genetics in the case of the alt-right) is what determines the wealth of a country. If they are right then immigration from poor countries is ultimately bad for the future of the country.

But of course, they are wrong. It has long been understood in the social sciences how access to natural resources, western imperialism, and just plain out luck have allowed some cultures to get decades ahead of others when it comes to wealth and technology. There is nothing to fear from immigration, because we're basically all the same.

In this way, I would argue being against lots of immigration is anti-science.

Click to expand...

Japan is very rich yet they have little immigration into their country.

AtlantaAdonis said:

In this way, I would argue being against lots of immigration is anti-science.

Click to expand...

Yeah... no.

While I favor increased immigration, this isn't a scientific question. It's about economics, politics, history, culture and tribalism.

AtlantaAdonis said:

This is the most important question when it comes to the immigration debate.

The right-wing thinks that "culture" (or even genetics in the case of the alt-right) is what determines the wealth of a country. If they are right then immigration from poor countries is ultimately bad for the future of the country.

But of course, they are wrong. It has long been understood in the social sciences how access to natural resources, western imperialism, and just plain out luck have allowed some cultures to get decades ahead of others when it comes to wealth and technology. There is nothing to fear from immigration, because we're basically all the same.

In this way, I would argue being against lots of immigration is anti-science.

Click to expand...

Your misstatement of arguments and jumps to conclusions make your constant quest to declare everything you disagree with "anti-science" all the more hilarious.

Are there drugs involved in this somehow? I think someone has had an epiphany along the lines of: Oxygen is a poisonous gas. We all breathe oxygen. Therefore, we have ponies.

AtlantaAdonis said:

But of course, they are wrong. It has long been understood in the social sciences how access to natural resources, western imperialism, and just plain out luck have allowed some cultures to get decades ahead of others when it comes to wealth and technology. There is nothing to fear from immigration, because we're basically all the same.

Click to expand...

You mean like how African countries are rich in natural resources and yet are still poor?

Oh and btw, explaining the world by saying some people are just lucky is super helpful.

One trait that rich countries seem to have is trust in their fellow citizens. Denmark, for example, normally ranks as #1 in trust with stories such as mothers leaving their babies in strollers outside while shopping. This leads to high level of confidence in commercial decisions. This is science.
Science, specifically Hamiltonian evolution, tells us that people tend to trust people like "us" and are more altruistic with "our kind". Science tells us that shared values facilitate society as people are not as prone to do things for themselves.
I view science more in favor of strong social customs, shared values, trust in neighbors etc. which help facilitate financial growth.

One problem with progressives is they discount the value of these shared values, rather than using nuance to change values and accepting more gradual change so that social customs can keep up. Moving too fast leads to thermidorean reactions. And that seems to be science.

AtlantaAdonis said:

This is the most important question when it comes to the immigration debate.

The right-wing thinks that "culture" (or even genetics in the case of the alt-right) is what determines the wealth of a country. If they are right then immigration from poor countries is ultimately bad for the future of the country.

But of course, they are wrong. It has long been understood in the social sciences how access to natural resources, western imperialism, and just plain out luck have allowed some cultures to get decades ahead of others when it comes to wealth and technology. There is nothing to fear from immigration, because we're basically all the same.

In this way, I would argue being against lots of immigration is anti-science.

Click to expand...

Why is it obvious that culture plays no role?

Harshaw said:

Your misstatement of arguments and jumps to conclusions make your constant quest to declare everything you disagree with "anti-science" all the more hilarious.

Click to expand...

Which part was misstated?

AtlantaAdonis said:

This is the most important question when it comes to the immigration debate.

The right-wing thinks that "culture" (or even genetics in the case of the alt-right) is what determines the wealth of a country. If they are right then immigration from poor countries is ultimately bad for the future of the country.

But of course, they are wrong. It has long been understood in the social sciences how access to natural resources, western imperialism, and just plain out luck have allowed some cultures to get decades ahead of others when it comes to wealth and technology. There is nothing to fear from immigration, because we're basically all the same.

In this way, I would argue being against lots of immigration is anti-science.

Click to expand...

Your question is answered here:

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-S...eywords=guns+germs+and+steel+by+jared+diamond

Your statement, "Nothing to fear from immigration," is answered every day in the news as reports of cultures clashing do come in daily.

Kipling said, "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet."

He was right.

Dissonant cultures do not fit in.......they clash and violence is always a part of it.

:2usflag:

AtlantaAdonis said:

Which part was misstated?

Click to expand...

:roll: All of it. The "right-wing" doesn't argue that "culture" does any such thing, nor do those you claim so attribute economic success merely to availability of resources and "imperialism."

Never mind that "western imperialism" would be what you think the "right wing" considers to be "culture," and you yourself are attributing economic success to, so you self-own by doing so.