Quote from acronym:
To an extent, sure-i look at things as a humanist, and a naturalist.
My assesment is that its a natural phenomenon, not something that by and large is being persued, as such.
It is both natural and a policy.
It is natural that people seek to better the material condition of their lives, and natural that they will cross borders and reside in territories inhabited by racial and cultural aliens to do it.
It is
policy that allows such people to. It is
policy, based on flawed assumptions about human nature, that cons us into believing that welcoming 3rd world hordes into our homes is beneficial to us. It is
policy that rolls out the welcome mat.
Theres no benifit, no advantage, its just a natural phenomena when a species (in this instance, race if you like) competes aggresively for resources.
Simply because a phenomenon is "natural" does not make that phenomenon
desirable. What could be more "natural" than killing a man and taking his resources -- his wife, his horse, his gold, for example? The act being "natural" does not mean we permit it or encourage it.
The only reason to bow to natural phenomena is when there is nothing we can do about them. We might not look favorably on our mortality, but since there is nothing we can do avoid it, we come to accept it. However, immigration is hardly such an unstoppable force of nature.
The odd one out, in any natural history, is people. From papuan natives nearly killing of their sacred emblems, ( various species of bird of paradies) to the maori wiping out the moa, their is little particularly good about humanity, i cant think of any logical reason a seperation of the human species should be either worthwhile overall, or particularly commendable.
The first part of your paragraph has nothing to do with the second. Whether humanity, in toto, is good, bad, ugly or purple has no bearing on the question of whether separation or integration is the better idea.
Since I'm not interested in discussing the value of humankind from the point of view of water fowl, I'll just address the second point.
You admit that different groups of human beings when thrust into the same living space will compete, as groups, for scarce resources but then go on to claim that you can see no reason why separation of such groups might be worthwhile? How about simply because it avoids the inevitable problems that arise from the cohabitation of differing human "species" (your word)?
But then, my philosophy is somewhat malthusian.
The human race, is doing everything it possibly can to exterminate itself.
I don't see that at all. If we were truly doing everything
possible we would have all committed suicide by now, since there are countless readily employable methods for doing so.
Why should we take every other species along with us? Even a clouded leopard?
Are we really that damn marvellous?
I gather from your tone a pervasive sort of hopelessness. Things are going so badly, you seem to be saying, that who cares about the fate of humanity? What does it matter whether Europeans are displaced from their native lands? Who has time for such considerations when the fate of marine life is at stake?
All I can think to say in response to that line of reasoning is that you'd better start caring about the fate of Europeans then, because it's Europeans, by and large, who are concerned about saving whales; the Japanese are more interested in eating them.
