h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

By nature people are going to one to move to the areas that seem most attractive to them. Chances are places with poor infrastructure such as eastern Europe will end up with insufficient people are thus income to improve it, and places like Western/Central Europe and North America will quickly find their previously adequate infrastructure groaning.

If anyone can go where they like, what do you say when an area is crowded? Can residents that have been there a long time say, "that's it, we're full"? Or will more housing be built, possibly destroying what appeal the place had in the first place. If an area becomes empty, and had insufficient people to fill key roles, can whoever is in charge of this new world say "that's it, no more people can leave, and anyone that went in the last three years has to go back"? In which case, it's not free movement, is it?

The only reason that there are areas which are more desireable than others is due to the continues repression of imperialist or former imperialist states who hold all the money. They loan money to people from less advanced countries and then demand payment at Western rates of interest.

The has kept the former colonies repressed unless they have been lucky enough to find oil or diamonds in the basement. But then the example of the former colonists leads to greed being retained in the leaders of these newly independent coutries and the system repeats itself.

The logisitics isn't two great an issue. The issue is are the wealthy willing to share their excesses. Dispite what people think opening boundaries need not necessarily lead to an overwhleming influx. Other factors come into play such as distance from family, cultural changes etc. Not everyone migrated to America in the early days for example before they limited the incoming numbers.

Mm, I'm afraid not every poor country can blame previous empires. Some areas are devestated by war, famine or disease. Who's going to rebuild these areas if those affected can just sod off next door? It wouldn't be the people's fault, they're just looking for the best for themselves and their families. Why pour money into an area to rebuild it if people have already moved to a better place? Don't tell me people are going to hang around living in tents while their homes are rebuilt- disasters already create large numebrs of refugees.

I hear what you are saying. In a sense I come from a sort of war zone. Belfast was virtually destroyed during the 1970s. People have hung in there. The place was constantly getting rebuilt.

Look at London duting World War II. Vast quantities of that were destroyed by war. It has been rebuilt. One of the worst affected areas of German bombing was docklands. Now the most expensive real estate in London.

The problem is we in teh west don't hel those who are unable to help themselves rebuilt. We penalise them istead. We lend them money and charge them interest which they are in no fit state to repay.

We give emergency aid puit pull out and forget about them after a while.

Since 1945 the World was gearing up for War. I was in the Soviet Union while it still existed just. I saw the impact that spending on egotistical war machinary, space exploration and prestige spending had the average citizen in that country, now Ukraine.

As I said some of the leaders feel that the only way to get ahead is to appear to be keeping up or getting ahead. That is because of the mentality of the Western mindset. We didn't and don't share our innovations. We have drugs which can control the development of AIDS. It copsts money, but we don't supply it as iad to sub-saharan Africa where it is needed most.

We could if we chose to make the world a better place. But we selfish, enjoying our cosy nest egg and choose not to.

<>

Some people did sure, but large numbers didn't - most towns and cities in England now have an Irish community. Obviously those towns were well able to absorb the extra numbers- and indeed probably found them damn useful. Northern Ireland however is a relatively small area- what happens when larger countries are ravaged by war, and people there have a right to move anywhere else in the world? Assuming the country is rebuilt, what persuades them to go back? They will have made lives with themselves else where, have a new home, job, perhaps children born in their new home- why should they then go back?


<>

Because that's the nature of man- the survival and comfort of our own 'tribe'. Any attempt to change that would be artificial, strongly resisted by the general populace, and would likely end up achieving the opposite of what it was meant to- more xenophobia, not less.

Most English cities have an Irish community as a result of the potato famine. Which again was a result of the Westminster community saying 'Let them eat Potatoes'. Yes there is continued migration out of Northern Ireland myself included. Some of this is actually still forced for fear of their lives. Much of it is normal economic migration. However, there are influxes into Northern Ireland as well.

What persuades people to go back, and even stay, in their war-torn and rebuilt country? Desire to see thier country. People do get homesick, even if that home is ruined and needs rebuilding. Providing the regime which at times forced them out they will return when things change. That is something I did learn from Donald Woods. Who had great joy when he realised that South Africa was again a country he could be proud to say he came from. Many people have a national pride look around you in Derby, the ethnic communities retain their ties to their national boundaries. Even the Irish will be having a good old party next month on the 17th. Many want to go back to help out once change happens. Look at the exiles who have returned to Iraq to help to rebuilt respect and democracy there.

The nature of man in inherently greedy for their tribe. I hear what you say. But that is why most people walk past the poor and obressed on the streets. That is why there is an International Development Fund in our Government, why there is a need for UNESCO and WHO, why there are so many charities who help out. Without institutional support which is already ionplace our world would implode even more. Mind you it is at the moment because we do not do enough through these institutions as they are biased by our own world views.

<>

Yes, *now* because people are attached to their countries, their place of origin. They have loyalty to it. If we say "imagine there's no countries", open all the borders, in effect remove the concept of statehood, *then* what ties people to a place?

Without boundaries there are regional allegiences. Someone from Newcastle is associated as Geordie but don't you dare call a Sunderland person one. You have your allegiences to the Midlands. Others are definitely home counties. Without boundaries this will maintain a level of allegience.

I am a Bangorian, from Northern Ireland, British and European. Plus I now feel a affinity to West Lothian where I currenly live and connections to London where I used ot live. However, the strongest ties are to Bangor where I obviouls grew up and had my formative memories.

So much so that I still read the Belfast Telegraph online most days for local news etc.

Surely though that sort of defeats the point of removing national borders- in aiming to make the 'family' we belong to bigger, you're making it smaller- a person's 'tribe' becomes their region.

Ok, I had to register before I could reply to your points, so if I seem to be off at a tangent, that's probably why. All I wanted to say was that while tribalism and community feeling are attributes which have evolved with human society, they are by no means fixed or absolute. Humans evolved with genetic predispositions to eat certain types of food and live in certain ways. The majority of humanity has moved on from living according to the ecological niche we began in. Humans are fully capable of adjusting their lifestyles and cultures to fulfill desires which have superseded our previous evolutionary needs. To say that human nature is unchangeable, and that National borders can never be removed as a result, seems a little unreasonable. In any case, human history has shown a progression from tribes, to city states, to nations, and more recently to bodies such as the European Union and the U.N. (I don't include empires due to the issue of consensual government which all the others have). With all of these developments, the previous boundaries have not disappeared immediately, but have become less important. A world without boundaries sounds to me like a dream that will continue to be a dream in our lifetimes, but one that might eventually become a reality.
As for the idea that certain areas would become overcrowded and overburdened, I would suggest that the problem is caused by the presence of borders. It is a fact that even in a time when the tabloid press condemns immigration, Britain would benefit hugely from an influx of economic migrants. I'm drifting way off my point here, so I'll stop.