Posts by Sam Martinez9

ruggedraven36 said:That’s not what we’re talking about here—and definitely not in the literal sense. We aren't talking about specific industries or grime under your fingernails. It's about the grunt work—the stuff left over after everyone picks the easy, high-profile tasks. It’s not just about how "dirty" the work is, it's about the sheer volume of it. Sure, some of those roles might be okay, but they don't cover the actual workload required.

If every single job were equally desirable, we wouldn't have a problem on our hands. We could just implement quotas, much like we see in various industries today. Even now, there are limits on how many students can be trained for certain specialized professions.

One has to consider, however, that people generally have more than one interest. There's actually a pretty straightforward fix for this—if the specific role you're eyeing is full, you simply pivot to another option you're also interested in that still has openings.

gentlerider7 said:No, that’s not it at all—I only mentioned cooking because someone in another thread was complaining about how municipalities are basically falling apart because nobody wants to do the service work, like cooking or cleaning toilets. It’s just that "unpleasant" stuff was brought up earlier; you know, things like mining, trash collection, window washing skyscrapers, digging trenches, all that. And let's be real, most of those heavy-duty gigs, like working in a mine, have historically been dominated by men anyway, so this whole debate doesn't even have anything to do with feminism.

My response isn't an argument about feminism; rather, it's an observation regarding history and social structures from prehistory all the way through to the modern era, particularly within developing nations.

While women weren't professionally cleaning windows or working in mines, they were performing identical tasks within the home. Women handle domestic maintenance, and frankly, all of those chores are filthy. Almost every task you listed can be found in a rural household where women performed them—often without any monetary compensation, and frequently receiving nothing more than physical abuse in return.

There simply wasn't a job more grueling or grimy than cooking before electricity was a thing. You had to chop wood, build the fire, slaughter a chicken, pluck it, gut it... then deal with a mountain of dishes using water you had to haul from a well and heat over an open flame. You won't find a harder or dirtier job than that.

Then there's the field work, the livestock tending... not to mention all of that.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:To me, "dirty jobs" are quite literally dirty. I mean, you can't exactly show up to work as a chimney sweep in a crisp white button-down and expect that shirt to stay spotless by the end of the shift, right? That's what I mean when I say dirty.

And being a surgeon is pretty damn messy, too.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, if that's the case—and if being fair is really our top priority—then I guess we should probably start rotating through all the dream jobs, too. Personally, I think I'd be a pretty decent surgeon, or maybe a university professor, a ballerina, a theater actor, or even a pilot! 🤔

Sure. Provided you actually have enough time to go back to school for every single one of those degrees.

The real question here is defining what constitutes "dirty" work. The original poster pointed to cooking, but honestly, there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't dream of calling a kitchen a dirty environment.

Personally, I don't view any job as inherently dirty, though I suppose being raised as a woman in this society might have shaped my perspective on such things.

gentlerider7 said:So, if we’re looking at those gritty, soul-crushing jobs that nobody actually wants to touch—you know, the stuff like cleaning out sewers, hauling trash, or working deep in some dusty coal mine—how on earth would you handle them in some kind of perfect, imaginary system?

In Thomas Moore's version of Utopia, they’d basically just have criminals do all that dirty work (kind of like how things functioned in the USSR, where prisoners were stuck doing all the high-risk labor). Then again, there are always those weirdly optimistic people who argue there will always be someone out there perfectly happy to take on those kinds of roles.

I remember seeing this other thread about communal living, and people were saying that every single commune eventually falls apart because of these exact issues: like, who's actually going to cook the meals, and who's going to deal with the gross job of cleaning the bathrooms?

Women.

It’s the same pattern we've seen throughout history. Women handle the cooking, change the diapers, care for aging parents, tend the garden, clean out the barns, scrub the toilets... and the list goes on.

coastaltiger25 said:Take Buddha, for example. He grew tired of the "aristocratic lifestyle" and pure narcissism, so he swung hard in the opposite direction toward extreme asceticism.
But even that eventually went to his head in a sort of populist way—arguably worse than the nobility he left behind. He ended up becoming a "god on Earth and in Heaven." 😁

I agree that balance is the key. The issue, though, is that achieving balance—whether for an individual or for society as a whole—is notoriously difficult.

It reminds me of what P. P. Njegoš once wrote:
"No one has finished a cup of honey yet—but don't choke on a cup of gall, because a cup of honey is just a cup of gall mixed together... and those are the easiest to swallow."

I was thinking about actual people living in our era, not those historical figures we hear about from three or fifteen generations ago.

coastaltiger25 said:I finally finished that Ford book—along with the rest of his collection—and honestly, everything about it is solid, except for the title. It’s just... off.
It’s a bit of a trick question—it's tucked away in that "either/or" part.
Why?
Because a healthy, natural balance relies on that sense of symbiosis—having everything work together. I think you might have cut off your message there. What was on your mind? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. If this was meant to be a question or a specific point, it didn't quite make it through. Feel free to clarify whenever you're ready.
If one side leans too far in any direction, we’re essentially lost—either sliding into pathological materialism or falling straight into narcissism.

Fromm makes a clear distinction between existential and characterological possession. Here is a quote from the book:

To truly grasp the operational framework we're discussing here, I think we need to establish one more fundamental distinction: we have to define the specific function at play.The concept of existential property. To exist as a human being necessitates that we possess certain things—that we acquire, maintain, protect, and utilize them simply to survive. This applies to everything from our physical bodies and the food we eat to our homes, clothing, and the basic tools required to meet our fundamental needs. I would characterize this mode of ownership as "existential," precisely because it is so deeply rooted in the very essence of human existence. It is a rational, driven impulse aimed at sustaining life itself. This stands in stark contrast to the "character-based" possession we have been discussing, which is fueled by a more volatile passion to seize and hold onto things that aren't innate, but rather developed as a byproduct of how social conditions shape the biological reality of the human species.

Existential possession doesn't inherently clash with the act of existing, whereas character-driven possession absolutely does. Even a saint or a truly righteous individual must possess a desire to have—in that purely existential sense of being present in the world. In contrast, the average person tends to crave possession in both an existential and a characterological way.

coastaltiger25 said:I finally finished that Ford book—along with the rest of his collection—and honestly, everything about it is solid, except for the title. It’s just... off.
It’s a bit of a trick question—it's tucked away in that "either/or" part.
Why?
Because a healthy, natural balance relies on that sense of symbiosis—having everything work together. I think you might have cut off your message there. What was on your mind? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. If this was meant to be a question or a specific point, it didn't quite make it through. Feel free to clarify whenever you're ready.
If one side leans too far in any direction, we’re essentially lost—either sliding into pathological materialism or falling straight into narcissism.

Have you ever actually encountered a narcissistic homeless person? A narcissistic beggar? Someone truly destitute?

You simply can't have narcissism without some level of wealth to fuel it.

I do agree, though, that the essence lies in finding that equilibrium. My concern is that achieving such a balance—whether for an individual or for society at large—is an incredibly difficult feat to pull off.

coastaltiger25 said:That brings us right back to the ruling class. Whoever controls the money—or holds the purse strings—is effectively running the show, whether they’re doing it through official policy or just behind the scenes via corruption.
As for "being"—achieving that sense of self-actualization and fulfillment—that's a much deeper rabbit hole. It depends entirely on who you ask.

Are you saying you wouldn't mind if people were incredibly wealthy, provided they had zero political influence, leaving all the power strictly in the hands of the working class?

Of course, everything is interconnected and we could go in circles on this forever. However, if we really want to parse out the *having versus being* dilemma, the core question should probably be: to what extent does the pursuit of wealth prevent someone from truly existing? Or, conversely, how much capital does one actually need to accumulate before they can finally afford to just *be*?

coastaltiger25 said:Exactly. It’s what dragged us away from that old communist utopia and shoved us straight into today's capitalist dystopia. We went from this imagined world where everything was supposedly great for everyone, to a world where things are great for a tiny handful of elites—the ruling class—while the rest of the population just struggles to get by.

It isn't really about a "ruling class" in the political sense, but rather an economic one. However, sticking to the spirit of the thread's title—to have versus to be—it's clear they merely possess; they don't truly exist.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

Exactly. It’s the same mindset you see in economic migrants arriving from places like Mexico, Mexico, Turkey, Syria, Poland, or Morocco... honestly, pretty much any other country in the world.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

At the end of the day, the economic drivers are the primary motivation—and quite often, they are the only reason at all—behind the decision to accept migrants.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

Sam Martinez9 said:That isn't quite right. It's not like the US, France, or the United Kingdom just started taking in immigrants yesterday.
If you take a moment to look at the history of migration in Germany, you'll see this pattern:

Late 19th Century: Industrialization acts as a magnet

German reunification in 1871 significantly accelerated industrial growth. Even though fewer people were moving overall back then, there simply weren't enough workers to go around. Germany once again became a destination for immigrants. On the eve of World War I, roughly 1.2 million "migrant workers," primarily from Poland, were working in Germany.

The history of 1955–1973: Guest workers fueling the economic miracle

The Federal Republic needed a massive influx of labor to sustain its economic boom. Between 1955 and 1973, both private corporations and public institutions in West Germany brought in approximately 14 million guest workers from Italy, Morocco, Turkey, and various other Mediterranean nations. About three million of those individuals decided to stay and brought their families along, ultimately forming one of the largest groups of Germans with a migrant background.

Germany needs workers, plain and simple. They’re importing labor by the truckload... or, to put it the way someone once phrased it: this modern version of Germany was built on the backs of guest workers.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

What kind of nation did the Germans and those guest workers actually build? They built exactly what we see today: an economy that’s constantly gasping for breath because it lacks enough hands on deck. I was reading recently that Germany is still facing a massive labor shortage, with some estimates suggesting they're short by as many as half a million workers.

One could argue that the initial wave of migrant laborers essentially engineered a cycle where their presence created a structural necessity for even more migrant workers to follow.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

Do you honestly believe you can just bring them over to America and expect an economic boom to follow?

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

Let me repeat myself, as it clearly needs to be said:

Sam Martinez9 said:That isn't quite right. It's not like the US, France, or the United Kingdom just started taking in immigrants yesterday.
If you take a moment to look at the history of migration in Germany, you'll see this pattern:

Late 19th Century: Industrialization acts as a magnet

German reunification in 1871 significantly accelerated industrial growth. Even though fewer people were moving overall back then, there simply weren't enough workers to go around. Germany once again became a destination for immigrants. On the eve of World War I, roughly 1.2 million "migrant workers," primarily from Poland, were working in Germany.

The history of 1955–1973: Guest workers fueling the economic miracle

The Federal Republic needed a massive influx of labor to sustain its economic boom. Between 1955 and 1973, both private corporations and public institutions in West Germany brought in approximately 14 million guest workers from Italy, Morocco, Turkey, and various other Mediterranean nations. About three million of those individuals decided to stay and brought their families along, ultimately forming one of the largest groups of Germans with a migrant background.

There is a certain school of thought regarding economic expansion that suggests a specific cycle: you bring in a workforce from abroad to kickstart growth, and that very development eventually creates the demand for even more labor. It’s an interesting theory, though one that warrants a bit of scrutiny when applied to the complexities of the American economy.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

Ultimately, no political decision exists in a vacuum; everything is rooted in economics and the direction of economic development. If migration were driven solely by political whims rather than economic reality, we would see economies collapsing under the weight of it, yet we don't see that happening in any nation currently accepting immigrants. You don't see recessions in Germany, France, Ireland, or the United Kingdom... certainly not the kind of recession you'd expect if migration were destabilizing their foundations.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

One might also take a moment to consider what is actually happening to the economies of nations that choose not to accept migrants. Or, perhaps more tellingly, what becomes of the countries that people are fleeing from in the first place?

Kate James14 said:Quite the opposite. Nations that have already made it are what attract migrants in the first place. They’re the ones who can actually afford to "take them in."

That isn't quite right. It's not like the US, France, or the United Kingdom just started taking in immigrants yesterday.
If you take a moment to look at the history of migration in Germany, you'll see this pattern:

Late 19th Century: Industrialization acts as a magnet

German reunification in 1871 significantly accelerated industrial growth. Even though fewer people were moving overall back then, there simply weren't enough workers to go around. Germany once again became a destination for immigrants. On the eve of World War I, roughly 1.2 million "migrant workers," primarily from Poland, were working in Germany.

The history of 1955–1973: Guest workers fueling the economic miracle

The Federal Republic needed a massive influx of labor to sustain its economic boom. Between 1955 and 1973, both private corporations and public institutions in West Germany brought in approximately 14 million guest workers from Italy, Morocco, Turkey, and various other Mediterranean nations. About three million of those individuals decided to stay and brought their families along, ultimately forming one of the largest groups of Germans with a migrant background.

Lisa Jackson7 said:What I'm saying is that migration policy has to be handled based on what's actually good for a country in the long run—otherwise, if you cave to any kind of pressure or outside interest, the whole political fabric just falls apart.

I'm not talking about the 70s, but man, everything we've seen with migration over the last 10-15 years gives us plenty of reason to be worried.

If any nation’s policy is actually being dictated by its long-term national interests, it's going to be Germany, France, or the United Kingdom. You can see that clearly when you look at the results—both in practice and in the historical record. Generally speaking, the countries that embrace immigration tend to pull ahead, seeing significant growth first in their economies and then across every other metric imaginable.

Lisa Jackson7 said:What I'm saying is that migration policy has to be handled based on what's actually good for a country in the long run—otherwise, if you cave to any kind of pressure or outside interest, the whole political fabric just falls apart.

I'm not talking about the 70s, but man, everything we've seen with migration over the last 10-15 years gives us plenty of reason to be worried.

When you look at the young Americans moving to places like Germany or Ireland today, you have to wonder about their underlying motivation. Is there a sense that they are heading over there specifically to dismantle or undermine those political communities from within?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Spot on—to pull off "divide and conquer," you absolutely have to paint the "other" group as some kind of threat.
Though, there's an even more calculated strategy... bring in a minority group, mess around with how they integrate or adapt to society, and just constantly fuel resentment and frustration... basically tearing the political community apart from the inside.
That kind of destruction serves one specific purpose: keeping the political elites in power.

Any resemblance between this and the (un)regulated influx of immigrants isn't coincidental...

So, are you suggesting that back in the 70s, Germans were importing Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Turks, Greeks... into the US just to dismantle the American political community?

Was my brother living and working in Germany for thirty years because of that theory?

Harold Doyle3 said:Only if you're crashing the party uninvited. If you're actually invited, then it's on the host to vet the guest. They carry the risk here.

Imagine showing up with a platter of bacon, sausage, and pork rinds, only to realize halfway through that the hosts are vegetarians. Then you just have to sit there and pretend the pig ate the gift meant for them.

Well, that's definitely something worth celebrating!

I think the Golden Rule applies perfectly here. Don't treat them in a way you wouldn't want them to treat you, and don't show up with something you wouldn't want them bringing to your front door.

For those who thrive on friction, discord, and full-blown culture wars, these differences can be quite useful tools.

But for people with good intentions, cultural differences serve a much higher purpose: enriching themselves and everyone around them.

frozengardener7 said:I recently finished reading Samuel Huntington’s famous book, Clash of Civilizations—admittedly a bit late—and it really got me thinking. However, I feel everything I gathered was more vividly elaborated upon in the documentary "All Being White in Barking," which essentially visualizes everything dear Sam set out to carry out himself.

Do you think multiculturalism is actually successful in the West? Can different civilizations truly coexist? In theory, this all sounds beautiful and, above all, humane (and that is my stance—HUMANELY speaking—so please don't hit me with any racist elaborations), but does it actually hold up in practice?

In one segment of an interview, an American couple visits a Black family and brings over a bottle of alcohol (a gift basket, the wife says, though she feels it looks a bit too fancy) but the family doesn't drink. Still, in an effort to be good hosts, the family serves them some traditional meat dish (mind you, these are Americans who can eat almost anything) and they are visibly revolted, barely able to swallow it. In another part of the same program, an American man (whose daughter suffered violence at the hands of a Black man) points to a Black woman in traditional African clothing and remarks, "See, this is integration. They are in the West, yet they dress like they're back in their homeland..." It is somewhat paradoxical, especially regarding people from Islamic states fleeing a country that stands in opposition to the West, only to attempt to recreate their own distinct nations within Western states. And indeed, as depicted in the documentary, the shops and markets bear an irresistible resemblance to immigrant enclaves, and I must admit, Huntington's clash of civilizations is clearly visible there. Particularly interesting is the end of the documentary when an Albanian family is asked if they would like a Black man as a son-in-law for their daughter, and they say, "Yes, of course, we have no issue with other races." But then they are asked if they would want a Mexican as a son-in-law. Naturally, there is just a blank stare into the camera followed by a slight side-eye. What can I say? I am witnessing not just an external conflict, but an internal one as well. And we know that, for instance, Anglo-Saxon countries aren't particularly fond of Slavic ones, etc.

Returning to Huntington. The West—once fractured by kingdoms, then by ideologies—seems like a complicated concept, yet it remains unified by its influence on the rest of the world (the West versus everyone else). However, when it comes to Western equality and freedom, the matter is deeply paradoxical. Not only do we fail to see unifying liberal factors amidst the fractures, but according to certain data, the idea that "freedom = the West" is viewed as a total fallacy by the global citizen.

My question to you: Can cultures adapt to coexistence and give rise to a new, better, or more humane race, or is it the opposite? Furthermore, how do you believe the clash of civilizations manifests in theory versus how it manifests in practice? I hope this discussion doesn't veer in the wrong direction; I find these topics particularly fascinating, and they are subjects that must be discussed.

Isn't it standard etiquette for someone visiting a home to actually ask about their hosts, what gifts are appropriate, or what the local customs are?

Personally, I would always make it a point to check in, seek advice on what people enjoy, what they dislike, or any dietary restrictions—you never know if someone might be diabetic or something similar. And yet, I see my fellow Americans, people who have lived in the same city their entire lives, completely ignoring this.

It strikes me as quite absurd when my neighbor’s business partners show up with alcohol as a gift, considering the man is a recovering alcoholic who hasn't touched a drop in over a decade.

I also watched a documentary about China where Europeans were visiting Chinese families, and they made sure to do their homework beforehand regarding customs, proper behavior, and appropriate gifts.

Consequently, that interview feels less like a misunderstanding and more like a deliberate attempt to trigger a clash of civilizations.

graniteridge31 said:

.I honestly can't make sense of anything lately, other than feeling constant fear—it's been a total nightmare these past few days. :

The media has really ramped up this fear-mongering campaign over the last year. I'd suggest staying away from it entirely—unless you feel like you actually need to feed into that negativity. It's your call, I suppose.

...I felt immediate pressure to find some "normal" job ASAP... Just the thought of any work at all was causing me anxiety and worry... I feel like I might just have to try anything.

A "normal" job usually implies financial security, but given the current global climate of fear, instability, and what feels like an intentional economic meltdown, that doesn't mean much. Even without these forced stressors, a standard job isn't a guarantee of happiness. Even if you inherited billions and had top-tier social status, that's still just material security; you're just avoiding dissatisfaction caused by lack, which is really just the lowest level of needs. No amount of money guarantees fulfillment because there are so many higher levels of needs to consider.
When picking a career, or really anything else, I think you should go with whatever draws you in more or gets you excited—something that boosts your energy.
On a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is a job so soul-crushing you're debating whether to jump off a bridge or just take it, and 10 is a divine opportunity you can't resist, where you feel like you're in heaven and have enough energy to power the sun—just look at what's available and pick whatever is even slightly better than the rest. If your only options are 1, 1.18, or 1.19, then grab the 1.19. If you have a 7 or higher, always choose what attracts you most. Not just in work, but in everything. You'll be happier if you do what makes you happy. Things aren't perfect, and you still have to worry about bills, but I guess you should just pick the best thing currently on the table and keep choosing better things until you hit those double digits. Choosing based on your own criteria is a pretty powerful thing.

I disagree. Honestly, there was incomparably more fear in the past. Even children have always been frightened by fairy tales—think about Little Red Riding Hood being eaten by a wolf, the Three Little Pigs having their houses blown down, or even just the idea of a little sparrow starving to death. For adults, we’ve historically had religions that used the threat of witches, hell, or divine retribution to instill fear.

Then you have the justified fears. Before the modern era, people lived in constant, daily anxiety over whether they could actually provide enough food for their families or if their children would succumb to disease. Those fears were grounded in reality because infant mortality rates were incredibly high. In my own family, my grandmother gave birth to seven children, and only three of them survived.

graniteridge31 said:

.I honestly can't make sense of anything lately, other than feeling constant fear—it's been a total nightmare these past few days. :

The media has really ramped up this fear-mongering campaign over the last year. I'd suggest staying away from it entirely—unless you feel like you actually need to feed into that negativity. It's your call, I suppose.

...I felt immediate pressure to find some "normal" job ASAP... Just the thought of any work at all was causing me anxiety and worry... I feel like I might just have to try anything.

A "normal" job usually implies financial security, but given the current global climate of fear, instability, and what feels like an intentional economic meltdown, that doesn't mean much. Even without these forced stressors, a standard job isn't a guarantee of happiness. Even if you inherited billions and had top-tier social status, that's still just material security; you're just avoiding dissatisfaction caused by lack, which is really just the lowest level of needs. No amount of money guarantees fulfillment because there are so many higher levels of needs to consider.
When picking a career, or really anything else, I think you should go with whatever draws you in more or gets you excited—something that boosts your energy.
On a scale of 1 to 10—where 1 is a job so soul-crushing you're debating whether to jump off a bridge or just take it, and 10 is a divine opportunity you can't resist, where you feel like you're in heaven and have enough energy to power the sun—just look at what's available and pick whatever is even slightly better than the rest. If your only options are 1, 1.18, or 1.19, then grab the 1.19. If you have a 7 or higher, always choose what attracts you most. Not just in work, but in everything. You'll be happier if you do what makes you happy. Things aren't perfect, and you still have to worry about bills, but I guess you should just pick the best thing currently on the table and keep choosing better things until you hit those double digits. Choosing based on your own criteria is a pretty powerful thing.

That isn't how job hunting works. Someone might dream of being an astronaut, but if they haven't completed the necessary schooling and if there isn't a demand for astronauts in the economy, they aren't going to get hired as one.

Essentially, the first requirement is that the job market actually needs the role you want; the second is that you possess the specialized training and knowledge required to perform that specific work.

Everything else is just a bedtime story.

Eric Newman75 said:And then there’s Heidegger, talking about the modes of human existence as being-in-the-world. It isn't some passive act of just "finding" oneself in a setting; it's an active presence within the world. This state of being is uniquely human—it implies a specific relationship with yourself and everyone else. The core assumption of our humanity is that we are inhabitants of this world; that's how we get closest to our true bit. In the search for that bit, we’re pushed by anxiety, death, nothingness, boredom, and the call of conscience. Anxiety, specifically, is that deep concern for one's own bit in light of how finite, historical, and mortal we actually are. It’s a feeling that forces you to understand your own bit, even if it triggers a massive sense of unease that makes most people want to run the other way. But, if a person manages to resist that urge to flee from anxiety, they finally grasp their own mortality and the concept of nothingness, which are both essential to reaching their bit. Anxiety and death are tightly wound together because human existence is inherently finite. Death is the ultimate possibility of absolute impossibility for a person, which is why it’s so inextricably linked to nothingness. Through anxiety and death, a person confronts nothingness as a defining feature of their bit, realizing that the whole project is ultimately rooted in nothingness.

I just can't wrap my head around why mortality has to equate to insignificance.

I’m an atheist, so I don’t hold out hope for some eternal afterlife. I made peace with the idea of death—both mine and everyone else's—a long time ago. In fact, I actually think death is a good thing; an eternal life would probably be quite miserable. But that doesn't mean I view my own life, or anyone else's for that matter, as being devoid of meaning.

ruggedraven36 said:It’d be pretty ridiculous to claim one atom is head over heels for another, only to get left out in the cold.

Precisely.

Rocks, stars, the moon... they don't possess feelings, nor do they think. One might say they are indifferent. Not in the sense that they simply don't care about us, but rather that they lack the capacity to care at all.

Yet, we are composed of atoms that were once part of some distant star. I am not suggesting that individual atoms possess thought or emotion, but without those atoms within us, neither thought nor feeling could exist. And stars, despite containing those same atoms, do not think or feel. I realize, I know—it all depends entirely on how those atoms are organized.

A separate issue is the extent of our own indifference. I regret having to bring up this example again, as some people seem to develop an allergy to it—meaning they aren't just indifferent, but something much worse—but every sixty seconds, a child in a developing nation dies due to the consequences of extreme poverty. We are aware of this. And we do nothing. We simply don't care; we are indifferent. In fact, we often lash out at anyone who dares to mention it. Leave us alone; we have work to do if we want to afford a new pair of Nikes.

I also read somewhere that in previous eras, parents didn't bond with their children because most infants wouldn't survive childhood. They were indifferent to their own offspring. It was a necessity, a survival mechanism, because otherwise, the heartbreak would be unbearable.

Perhaps we are only just now learning how to stop being indifferent. Perhaps we are finally building a world where it is actually possible to care.

Laura Jones56 said:Well, what she said was...
I suppose there’s a certain kind of internal wreckage that happens when you finally realize you were dead wrong about everything. It’s almost obvious, isn't it? That something inanimate isn't actually alive. 🤣 A stone doesn't possess emotions, after all. The world just exists as it is. Everything else—all those qualities we project onto things individually—is just us. Objectively speaking, we tend to attribute more to the world as a whole, and I guess we eventually reach a consensus and call that "truth." But in the end, maybe the world is nothing, or perhaps even less than that.

But what about atoms? Do they have emotions too?

I wanted to add a few thoughts to my previous post.

We really need to be clear about what kind of "meaning" we’re actually discussing here. Are we talking about the purpose of an individual life, a human life, or perhaps the biological existence of plants and animals? Or are we looking at the broader concept of Life itself? I won't attempt to provide a formal definition of life right now—mostly because a definitive one doesn't truly exist, and I'd rather not get us bogged down in a semantic debate over what constitutes "Life." Even without a textbook definition, we all have an intuitive sense of what it is.

So, if there is such a thing as a "purpose" to Life, what could it possibly be?

Some people suggest that survival and reproduction are the goal. In my view, though, those aren't the purpose; they are simply the fundamental prerequisites for life to exist in the first place.

If I had to propose a direction, I would say the meaning might lie in development. We can observe how Life continuously evolves its various forms, moving toward increasing complexity while simultaneously reshaping the environment to allow for even greater sophistication.

It’s worth noting that humans aren't the only ones altering our surroundings. Our entire planet would look nothing like it does today if the earliest microscopic organisms hadn't fundamentally transformed the world long before we arrived.