Immigration versus Culture Retention

When I was actively traveling the world in the '70's with the Airforce it was an amazing adventure to visit places that felt so foreign. In fact half the fun was standing out like a sore toe in a place that rarely saw the outside world.

The title of the thread is not entirely the easiest one liner summary for the feedback that I am trying to prompt. A longer version would be:

"Is the movement of people slowly having a negative impact on the culture of an area or a country.?"

I suppose Australia and the US are probably not good examples due to having always had a history of immigration, but if we look at a lot of European and Asian countries that have a unique language and cultures, then the contrast on what is happening is more apparent.

A search in Google produces a lifetime of reading of how immigration is changing the world. It is also very apparent that many are not happy with the changes.

One could argue that having a "Chinatown" in every major city in the world is a great thing, I agree - sort of like the MacDonalds experience, you know what you are going to get no matter where it is.

I'm quite old fashioned in my opinions on this subject and hope that the world retains the individuality of languages, culture, cuisine, religion, racial uniqueness etc.

I am concerned that all this is being eroded through immigration, emigration, refugee displacements etc.

I wonder what others think about the impact of the mixing of cultures at the ever increasing rates that are occurring around the world.

Of course there is the issue of aging populations and the need for immigration as the following excert from the UN Report:

REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO
DECLINING AND AGEING POPULATION?

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/execsum.htm

According to the United Nations population projections (medium variant), Japan and virtually all the countries of Europe are expected to decrease in population size over the next 50 years. For example, the population of Italy, currently 57 million, is projected to decline to 41 million by 2050. The Russian Federation is expected to decrease from 147 million to 121 million between 2000 and 2050. Similarly, the population of Japan, currently 127 million, is projected to decline to 105 million by 2050.

In addition to the decrease in population size, Japan and the countries of Europe are undergoing a relatively rapid ageing process. In Japan, for example, over the next half century the median age of the population is expected to increase by some eight years, i.e., from 41 to 49 years. And the proportion of the Japanese population 65 years or older is expected to increase from its current 17 per cent to 32 per cent. Similarly in Italy, the median age of the population increases from 41 years to 53 years and the proportion of the population 65 years or older goes from 18 per cent to 35 per cent.

Click to expand...

So, on one hand we have a world worried about culture loss, and on the other hand we need world wide immigration to sustain current populations.

roland said:

Of course there is the issue of aging populations and the need for immigration as the following excert from the UN Report:

REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO
DECLINING AND AGEING POPULATION?

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/execsum.htm

So, on one hand we have a world worried about culture loss, and on the other hand we need world wide immigration to sustain current populations.

Click to expand...

Personally, I do not think we need to sustain populations - more than enough of us already. Lower birth rates are required to reduce the population over time. In 50 years, India and China will be fully industrialised countries consuming at American rates. Can the planet sustain that for generations at current population levels. I doubt it. But that is slightly off topic.

I think culture will continue irrespective of immigration

roland said:

REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO
DECLINING AND AGEING POPULATION?

Click to expand...

or perhaps just not tax the hell out of young people (especially if prepared to work 2+ jobs) and make them compete with foreign capital to buy land here, so they can have a reasonable first world lifestyle and afford to raise 3 kids in a capital city.

oh and stop the erosion of moral values by wrapping self-value up in consumerism and sexuality

roland said:

"Is the movement of people slowly having a negative impact on the culture of an area or a country.?"

Click to expand...

It depends what you define as a negative impact. The meeting of two cultures changes both cultures and I believe both cultures benefit so long as each recognises the superior aspects of each other and embraces those aspects. Certain uniqueness' of each culture will be lost and though that may seem a negative the overall effect is positive.

If you define culture as the arts, sciences, philosophies and other intellectual achievements of society, then throughout the history of mankind, these have been at their greatest in those places where many cultures interacted and embraced the better aspects of each other. Cities on the great trade routes of the past always flourished in the arts and sciences and were known for tolerance of each others religions and races. The most tolerant Islamic societies are to be seen along the trade routes. A good example being Istanbul in Turkey.

The USA is a terrific example of a modern society that went from a remote backwater in the early nineteenth century to the world's most influential society in many of the arts and sciences by the end of the twentieth century. This was all due to being able to draw on the rich diversity of cultures of the immigrants that went there.

Islamic societies today are the opposite. The more fundamental closed their societies to other cultures for most of the last millennium and we see the result today. I read recently that there are more foreign books translated into Spanish each year than have been translated into Arabic in the last two hundred years (or something of that order).

Cultures usually remain intact and unchanged due to remoteness and isolation. These cultures will have unique music and painting and languages that may have lasted for hundreds or thousands of years, but they are comparatively primitive. They may have interesting folk music, but they don't have anything that compares to Beethoven, Bernstein or Bach. Their languages can only describe the experiences of that isolated society and not the breadth of experiences that the English language can convey for instance. Their painting may be interesting because of its uniqueness, but it still may not have evolved to include things like perspective, which came to western art in the Middle Ages I think.

The sad thing is that these cultures only survive because of their isolation. When they come into contact with modern society they cannot survive because they have comparatively little to offer the modern culture but a lot to gain from the modern culture. So the interaction between the cultures, what each gives and what each takes, is very much a one way street and it may only take one generation for most aspects of the more primitive culture to be lost.

Interesting thoughts there bellenuit.

Indigenous people were forced to give up most of their culture after being conquered by technologically advanced tribes. What differs in present time is the choice resident people have of whether to adopt a cultural aspect or not. It is this freedom to choose other cultural aspects that determines the wise growth or gradual demise of a modern society.

Islamic societies today are the opposite. The more fundamental closed their societies to other cultures for most of the last millennium and we see the result today.

Click to expand...

The influence a religious belief has on people is incredible.

Excellent post bellenuit, I agree

The most predominant feature of Australian culture is that it is based on our love of booze. To celebrate means to get drunk. Anyone opposed to our culture is a "wowser." This is the feature of our culture that our indigenous people took to with gusto, and to their detriment.

Islam on the other hand, is opposed to alcohol. It is only natural that their culture and ours are not compatible. It will be interesting to see what happens in some countries in Europe when the Moslems reach a majority. It is only a matter of time.

roland said:

Of course there is the issue of aging populations and the need for immigration as the following excert from the UN Report:

REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO
DECLINING AND AGEING POPULATION?

Click to expand...

I wander why we have to replace ageing population?

What’s wrong to drop down to 1 billion we’ve had just the last century?

Especially that such great number never has a square meal, not to mention that it would fix more than 80% of global warming (if we drop from 6 to 1), and not bringing any energy worries as an argument.

Calliope said:

...
Islam on the other hand, is opposed to alcohol. It is only natural that their culture and ours are not compatible. It will be interesting to see what happens in some countries in Europe when the Moslems reach a majority. It is only a matter of time.

Click to expand...

And giving >Baby Bonus< will only fund their religiously ingrained breeding program.

(Kosovo - good example how to outbreed local population, not entirely isolated method. Kind of understand Fiji’s worries too)

Happy said:

I wander why we have to replace ageing population?

Click to expand...

Typical case of assuming today's world is tomorrow's world. My prediction is that in 50 years, we'll be living and working for far longer, and that the issue won't be aging but overpopulation. As much as I hate imposition on personal freedom, I'd support population control, such as regulating breeding (2.1 kids then *snip*).

Mr J said:

Typical case of assuming today's world is tomorrow's world. My prediction is that in 50 years, we'll be living and working for far longer, and that the issue won't be aging but overpopulation. As much as I hate imposition on personal freedom, I'd support population control, such as regulating breeding (2.1 kids then *snip*).

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I don't understand why governments don't see this as the big issue of today. Forget the whole "climate change" issue (of which the science is very very shaky). The world's biggest problem right now is overpopulation. The world cannot sustain 6 billion people. After visiting many parts of Asia recently, I am extremely passionate about this. Asia's big cities are little more than overpopulated, dirty, disease ridden ****holes. We need to cut immigration and get rid of the baby bonus ASAP - 22 million in Australia is more than enough.

Send contraception to Africa rather than food. If they can't afford to feed 6 children, they shouldn't be having any more. Population controls are the best form of green environmental policies possible.

The problem is my views are seen as radical by most. Whenever I suggest this as an idea to family (particularly the baby boomer generation) I get called racist and extreme. However, most people my age (I am 22) agree with me. Interesting trends.

Whenever I suggest this as an idea to family (particularly the baby boomer generation) I get called racist and extreme

Click to expand...

I've noticed a lot of people seem to think anti-immigration is racism . I'm not against immigration for the right reasons, but to increase population for the sake of it is not one of those reasons.

Send contraception to Africa rather than food. If they can't afford to feed 6 children, they shouldn't be having any more.

Click to expand...

I think Africa either needs to be left to its own means, or to be taken over by the developed world. Neither of these will happen though - people care just enough to send some aid, but not enough to send enough, and the cost of invading, occupying and rebuilding a continent is not a job the world is prepared to do. Instead, we'll keep doing what we've been doing - give them a few bucks, some grain and ignore them.

I think the idea that culture is somehow frozen in time is incorrect, culture like everything else changes, it may change more obviously in some places than others but it is always changing. Even Islamic countries will have quite different cultures today from what they had even a hundred years ago.
I watched a very good documentary about Iran the other week and was suprised to see what life is like for many people there who have access to the internet and are obviously influenced by the things they see there, they may not have the freedoms that we have ( to do things and wear things we like in public) but they want too!.
I also wonder what impact Islam will have on Australia over the next century or so, and what Islam will be in a hundred years.

c-unit said:

The world's biggest problem right now is overpopulation. The world cannot sustain 6 billion people. After visiting many parts of Asia recently, I am extremely passionate about this. Asia's big cities are little more than overpopulated, dirty, disease ridden ****holes. We need to cut immigration and get rid of the baby bonus ASAP - 22 million in Australia is more than enough.

Send contraception to Africa rather than food. If they can't afford to feed 6 children, they shouldn't be having any more. Population controls are the best form of green environmental policies possible.

The problem is my views are seen as radical by most. Whenever I suggest this as an idea to family (particularly the baby boomer generation) I get called racist and extreme. However, most people my age (I am 22) agree with me. Interesting trends.

Click to expand...

Could you provide some factual basis for the opinion that the world is overpopulated please?

Those countries are disease ridden dirty places because of the lack of education with respect to the environment and due to corruption.

I support the side of humans for humans not humans for no humans.

Could you provide some factual basis for the opinion that the world is overpopulated please?

Click to expand...

Let's talk about realistic overpopulation, i.e. no global effort to make sure everyone has a reasonable standard of living. Is Africa overpopulated? Yes. It doesn't matter that Africa could potentially sustain its population if it were properly run and developed, the fact is that it can't currently do it.

I support the side of humans for humans not humans for no humans.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about no humans?

The world's biggest problem right now is overpopulation.

Click to expand...

I agree with Snake on this one. The world isn't overpopulated by Homo sapien right now. Evidence would be a depleted, polluted, barren habitat. There are places where this is happening but it is not global. This may be the case in the future though with exponential growth into a habitat not able to sustain increased numbers.

Obviously the depletion of hydrocarbons will have a great impact on the evolution of man-unkind.

Mr J said:

Let's talk about realistic overpopulation, i.e. no global effort to make sure everyone has a reasonable standard of living. Is Africa overpopulated? Yes. It doesn't matter that Africa could potentially sustain its population if it were properly run and developed, the fact is that it can't currently do it.

Who said anything about no humans?

Click to expand...

Mr J,
Yes it is a sad fact that currently poverty reigns. Centralised and corrupt power doesn't help.

It's Snake Pliskin said:

Mr J,
Yes it is a sad fact that currently poverty reigns. Centralised and corrupt power doesn't help.

Click to expand...

Not sure if Singapore could be used as an example and model of centralised and successful Island - country.
If corruption could be stamped out, there is nothing wrong with centralisation.


Good example where we would benefit with cantralisation: > Second Airport in Sydney <

If there was somebody who could just say here is second airport and that's it!
Surely some would not be happy, but as it seems now:
There is no place around Sydney that everybody would be happy with the second airport.
Just crazy and money is ploughed yet into another feasibility study.

Here's an informative article on immigration trends and a variety of stats.

Victoria the place to be
TIM COLEBATCH
February 20, 2010

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-the-place-to-be-20100219-oly9.html

Kiwis migrating here prefer Queensland. The British and South African settlers tend to get off at the first stop, Western Australia.

Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans and Iraqis flock to Sydney and NSW. But for Indians, Malaysians and Sri Lankans, Victoria is the state of choice - or was in 2008-09.