reply to post by jazz10
for an idealistic (and to a certain extent, i share those ideals) 'live and let live' policy to work, ALL participants in the grand game of living
must be equal in status and access to resources and standards of living.
If our whole planet's population had a more or less even shake of the stick, in terms of basics, luxuries opportunities etc, idealistic views would
be absolutely workable and natural.
But our world isn't like that is it mate.
The poor would flock to where they stood the best chance of not being poor.
Where their children stood a chance to live a life without the suffering and lack of life opportunities they experience in their homelands.
Where they stood a chance to taste the comparative Nirvana enjoyed by us in wealthy countries.
If they did that, our systems would grind to a screeching halt, and we'd all be dragged downward.
Is it fair? NO way is it fair! Is it moral? Nope again. Will it change for the better? I seriously doubt it.
The answer as i see it, to achieving the idealist society you speak of, is to raise the poorer populations up to an equal standing to those societies
they aspire to flock towards.
Only when everyone has a roughly similar standard of living, similar life chances and opportunities, will a borderless world be possible where we have
a single people, a united human species.
As i say though...the power people running our planet seriously don't want this to happen, for if they did, we'd have it already.
For Gaddafi to act as border control for the EU, should he not seek funding to uphold those controls? Are we to expect his country to finance our
While 4.2 billion quid seems wholly excessive, is this figure representative of, and a not so subtle clue to the extent of the immigration problems
the EU faces? Or simply capitalizing and attempting to profit on the immigration fears of the EU?
Probably a bit of both.
[edit on 2/9/2010 by spikey]