Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium: To have or have not

[emordnilap]

Yes. And those that want to and can change their behaviour for the good of the biosphere will only do so if they are confident they'll actually be better off as individuals when doing so.

Better off, yes, but not necessarily in strict material terms. For example, a RenewableCandy who hasn't got a full-time job is "better off" than one who has to work 40 hours a week, because there are lots of other pleasant/interesting things to do that don't cost much, whereas Time is irreplaceable, and that delightful feeling of waking up and not having to be a blue-arsed fly all day is beyond price.

Yes, one good example there RC. I'm reminded of a friend who got a better-paying job but had to buy a car to get there, having been in walking distance of her old job.

[clv101]

Better off, yes, but not necessarily in strict material terms. For example, a RenewableCandy who hasn't got a full-time job is "better off" than one who has to work 40 hours a week, because there are lots of other pleasant/interesting things to do that don't cost much, whereas Time is irreplaceable, and that delightful feeling of waking up and not having to be a blue-arsed fly all day is beyond price.

Indeed. However you'd be surprised how many people honestly believe they are better off earning £30k a year for 40 hours a week of blue-arsed flying compared to £8k a year for part time / self employed, lower intensity working.

[UndercoverElephant]

LOL

[UndercoverElephant]

...it is also something that the BiffVernon's of this world cannot... In other words, it's not just idealistic BiffVernon's who are

Here we go, once again ascribing to me views that I don't hold.

You ask for it, Biff. However, I am willing to wipe the slate clean and start again with you. If you can resist the temptation to come out with holier-than-thou statements about immigration, which make the realists among us look like the baddies then I won't make any more comments criticising you for it. You can't seriously believe we should just let anyone who wants to come to the UK come here. We do have to have border controls. I will, for now, assume you agree with this.

But if you must, at least don't add apostrophes in the wrong places.

Oop's.

[emordnilap]

We do have to have border controls. I will, for now, assume you agree with this.

[clv101]

You ask for it, Biff. However, I am willing to wipe the slate clean and start again with you. If you can resist the temptation to come out with holier-than-thou statements about immigration, which make the realists among us look like the baddies then I won't make any more comments criticising you for it. You can't seriously believe we should just let anyone who wants to come to the UK come here. We do have to have border controls. I will, for now, assume you agree with this.

I think there's a huge difference between what's a practical thing to do next week and what's an idealistic, long term, global aspiration. It seems a lot of the aggro in this discussion comes from confusing these two.

biffvernon's position looks perfectly reasonable as a long term, global aspiration and perfectly hopeless as a policy suggestion to be enacted in Dover next week.

If the realists can't see that things could be done in a far better way, they are the "baddies". The the idealists what their vision enforced next week it's fair to suggest they are "holier-than-thou".

[UndercoverElephant]

You ask for it, Biff. However, I am willing to wipe the slate clean and start again with you. If you can resist the temptation to come out with holier-than-thou statements about immigration, which make the realists among us look like the baddies then I won't make any more comments criticising you for it. You can't seriously believe we should just let anyone who wants to come to the UK come here. We do have to have border controls. I will, for now, assume you agree with this.

I think there's a huge difference between what's a practical thing to do next week and what's an idealistic, long term, global aspiration. It seems a lot of the aggro in this discussion comes from confusing these two.

biffvernon's position looks perfectly reasonable as a long term, global aspiration and perfectly hopeless as a policy suggestion to be enacted in Dover next week.

If the realists can't see that things could be done in a far better way, they are the "baddies". The the idealists what their vision enforced next week it's fair to suggest they are "holier-than-thou".

Yes, that is fair enough. But if there's confusion about Biff's position being long-term rather than a comment on current policy, then he's got nobody to blame but himself. All I see is the idealistic aspiration, and it makes people on the genuine political left (what's left of it, anyway), like Steve and myself, look like people on the right, such as our friend Jonny.

[clv101]

Surely us on the political left support the general principle of no-borders. The useful debate is about time-scales, reciprocity, controls, compensation etc. It saddens me when a bunch of people whose views are broadly aligned fall out, sometimes more dramatically than people of sharply opposing views.

[jonny2mad]

Borders protect cultures, I think being anti borders makes as much sense as being anti breathing because humans are a animal that make borders they are territorial.

Saying your anti borders is basically saying your anti diversity you just want humans to be a certain way most likely your way, your totalitarian. Look at America the most mixed country on earth and what do people do form gangs and have borders, even down to walk on this street be the wrong colour or wear the wrong colour get shot

And have no borders and one culture will try to oppress all others and take over all the territory

[jonny2mad]

http://chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_MAP_SOUTH

you can click on the coloured areas of these maps to see the streets at present controlled by which street gang



http://www.wbez.org/programs/afternoon- ... hey-102612

http://www.wbez.org/node/102612#gangmap

[clv101]

Borders protect cultures, I think being anti borders makes as much sense as being anti breathing because humans are a animal that make borders they are territorial.

Saying your anti borders is basically saying your anti diversity you just want humans to be a certain way most likely your way, your totalitarian. Look at America the most mixed country on earth and what do people do form gangs and have borders, even down to walk on this street be the wrong colour or wear the wrong colour get shot

And have no borders and one culture will try to oppress all others and take over all the territory

Indeed, I appreciate this point of view. I happen to disagree with it though. There's no reason in principle why different cultures can't coexist. In my opinion the problems arise not due to the lack of borders between cultures, but when inequality and unfairness is correlated with different cultures. If we had a more equal society, there'd be less need for borders to keep us apart. I think this is why we don't have meaningful boarders between Yorkshire and Lincolnshire but we do have borders between Yorkshire and Senegal. The problems a lack of borders would cause are more about inequality than culture.

[UndercoverElephant]

Surely us on the political left support the general principle of no-borders.

Not neccesarily or completely. And not historically either.

The useful debate is about time-scales, reciprocity, controls, compensation etc. It saddens me when a bunch of people whose views are broadly aligned fall out, sometimes more dramatically than people of sharply opposing views.

Biff certainly isn't an example of the sort of person I normally fall out with, no. But this isn't an ordinary context. It's a rather unusual internet forum and we are debating very difficult and complex topics, which matter to all of us (or we wouldn't be here in the first place), in public.

It's more than that. I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I think you are leaving something important out. I'm afraid all cultures are not equal. Most of them having something to offer - something good to hold on to - but most also have some negative aspects and in some cases they are very negative indeed. I do not believe, for example, that all of the attitudes we'd describe as "islamophobia" are driven by small-minded, right-wing xenophobia. There's some of that, but there are also genuine reasons to be fearful of Islam, or at least large segments of it. It's very dangerous, and requires reform if it is to deserve any place in the future of civilisation. And yet large segments are both fiercely resistant to any sort of reform, AND intent on spreading themselves to non-Islamic parts of the world and attempting either to Islamify those places, or to establish "bridgeheads" - little islands of Islam within the alien culture. I'm sorry, but if people want to come here and bring that culture with them, then I don't want those people to come here. If they want to come here then they must adopt our cultural values (i.e. moderate their religion, at least in the ways it affects other people).

We have fought a very long and hard battle to establish certain freedoms - certain ways of doing things - in this country. We must not allow these things to be eroded or threatened by an aggressive, invasive and fundamentally backwards alien culture.

[jonny2mad]

Borders protect cultures, I think being anti borders makes as much sense as being anti breathing because humans are a animal that make borders they are territorial.

Saying your anti borders is basically saying your anti diversity you just want humans to be a certain way most likely your way, your totalitarian. Look at America the most mixed country on earth and what do people do form gangs and have borders, even down to walk on this street be the wrong colour or wear the wrong colour get shot

And have no borders and one culture will try to oppress all others and take over all the territory

Indeed, I appreciate this point of view. I happen to disagree with it though. There's no reason in principle why different cultures can't coexist. In my opinion the problems arise not due to the lack of borders between cultures, but when inequality and unfairness is correlated with different cultures. If we had a more equal society, there'd be less need for borders to keep us apart. I think this is why we don't have meaningful boarders between Yorkshire and Lincolnshire but we do have borders between Yorkshire and Senegal. The problems a lack of borders would cause are more about inequality than culture.

if you look at those gang borders mostly they are between different groups in the same overall ghetto its folks being territorial not that the latinos and rich and the blacks are poor .

Really I dont see the benefit of trying to force people to be together when they clearly dont want to be .

Please tell some of the people in bosnia about cultures co-existing, at what point after lots of wars do you finally get that they don't

[clv101]

Really I dont see the benefit of trying to force people to be together when they clearly dont want to be.

I'm fairly sure the "no borders" movement isn't trying to force people together. In fact ,it's the physical borders that prevent people (by force) from living together.

[jonny2mad]

How exactly can a person legally avoid living with people they dont want to be in a community with, I suppose they can leave and hope the people that have been brought in dont follow them .

Last night on facebook I commented on a link about vinnie jones saying immigration had destroyed where he grew up and so he had moved to the states, and everyone was calling him a bastard and what a hypocrit, but when john cleese said the same thing about london and he had moved to bath because he felt a stranger in london they called him a bastard too .

620,000 whites left london in ten years they were not high profile and most of them didnt make statements to the press if they had done they would have been called names by left wing twits too. Yet if they were aborigines or a rainforest tribe who had moved because they felt their community had been destroyed their views would count and be valid, hell they would be victims .

Please don't tell me that the no borders crowd dont want to force people who dont want to live together to live together because they do