When I read “Opening our borders will solve just about everything,” I was 100% on board on a theoretical level. I haven’t commented yet, because I need to think and research some more to have something valuable to add. But now that I read this article, I see how little would change if countries competed for citizens.
As you point out, the green countries could “purchase” the red countries, but that’s not too different from what we have now. It even seems like a type of colonization.
In many cases, colonization brought improvements in healthcare, education, and agricultural practices, but also exploitative labor practices, the brutal suppression of uprisings, the systemic racial discrimination, and the displacement of indigenous populations. In a world where countries have to compete for citizens, what would stop a green country from exploiting red countries, so that they can gain more wealth and remain attractive?
China isn’t a green country in this article, but obviously, the country is attractive for businesses and, as a result, people. Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Republic of Congo, and Sudan have all borrowed money from China. I don’t see this scenario changing under countries competing for citizens.
Another example would be with the United States. You mention “We export our government and police force, eliminating corruption, eradicating crime.” I’m sure some people thought the same thing when: 1. The U.S. provided support to Pinochet’s regime, including economic aid and military assistance .2. The military junta led by General Jorge Rafael Videla took power in Argentina after a coup in 1976. The U.S. provided the junta with military training, intelligence cooperation, and economic assistance. 3: The U.S. supported the authoritarian regime of the Somoza family in Nicaragua for several decades, until the Sandinista revolution overthrew the regime in 1979. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to the Somoza government. We could list some more examples when the USA funded atrocious regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador.
Also, when we look at Nordic countries, yes, they have some of the best social democracies in the world. But their cultures are rather homogenous, especially for Western ones. Will they behave the same way if they get a greater influx of immigration? Here in Europe, I’ve noticed an increase in populist ideologies and parties everywhere—Norway and Denmark are definitely no expection.
I’d love a world with open borders, and understand all the humanitarian and economic benefits, but if it results in countries purchasing others, I see it going full circle.
Is there something we can do to create more “green countries” without exploiting “orange countries?” Something that doesn’t involve cultural imperialism, but still spreads equilateral values?
You bring up a lot of good comments, and I was very aware when I wrote this that one country "purchasing" another might not sit right. At the same time, in this case it would always be a choice. People could choose to live wherever they'd like, at home or somewhere else. And countries could choose to become a better place to live and not sell. It wouldn't be the same as US occupying places militarily. It would be like the Cook Islands being part of New Zealand, or Greenland being part of Denmark.
And maybe it's sad, but I just don't see a future where we all preserve our cultures in our preserved countries. At some point I do think the world will become more homogenius as it mingles. It already has. Even with borders closed many countries have become "westernized or "easternized" and, in the EU, where there are somewhat open borders among themselves Eastern Europe has almost emptied out into Western Europe. I recently met someone from Slovenia and he said there's no such thing as Slovenian culture anymore because they all moved away. In the US, if Puerto Rico decides to become a state, many will move to the mainland and maybe they will lost their culture. Most of us who live in the US have probably already lost whatever culture we might have had once. I feel like the cat's out of the bag there?
As for countries going more populist-well that might happen. But in a world of open borders I wonder if they would all move to each other? And the people who are not populist would move away? I'm sure we don't know. But it's definitely interesting to think about!
There's definitely lots to think about there. With people moving around more, we have a greater mix of people, which means we should have more heterogenous cultures, but with American cultural imperialism, we can also say that things are more homogenous. And what will happen to populists? I'd take Europe as an example. We have relatively open borders, but when there's an economic downturn, populist thought spreads. If we want more open borders, we have to think of ways that it doesn't backfire and increase populist movements.
This may be dark, but sometimes I wonder if populism will win out. Just because countries like Russia are willing to go to war to spread their idealogy. And countries like the Nordic countries aren't. Which movements are more likely to spread?
As for "American cultural imperialism" - maybe it was intentional at first but I think now it's largely accidental. When cultures mingle they just become something different. But anyway, you inspired me to think about this more and I wound up writing an essay about it this morning.. be prepared to see yourself mentioned in a couple of weeks. And hopefully you'll chime in on the comments and let me know your thoughts!
If countries are now incentivized to treat their citizens well, does that go hand-in-hand with countries no longer being able to interfere and cause each other misery?
For a lot of countries, making life better for their citizens would also entail kicking U.S./Canada/France out of their economic and political affairs. No more U.S. military bases scattered everywhere, no more Nestle water plants sucking up local resources.
Which is why I think those green places wouldn’t stay green for very long - they are green because they, currently, have power. After maybe a while of this experiment, that power would be gone. What does migration look like then? When people are no longer running from political and economic upheaval, will they stop moving? Or will they go back to their “original” homes (assuming this all takes place over a single generation), to enjoy a peace they didn’t think was possible?
Yes, it's highly theoretical for sure. I imagine that, at first there would be a mass migration. But then as countries become better places to live, people will either come back, or be enticed to move there from somewhere else. But whether you stay or go is highly dependent on whether you find one place to live better than another. So I imagine a lot factors go into that!
Gosh can you imagine how quickly the U.S. healthcare system would change if we really had to compete for citizens!? That alone makes the experiment worth doing. *blows air horn at Congress*
Right? I think the US would be in a very interesting position considering they’d lose a lot of the left to Canada and Europe, but they’d gain a lot of Latin America (while keeping a lot of the right). Could you imagine that US?
Exactly! But the thing is I don’t know how many of those Latin American immigrants would stay for long. If they’re coming to the U.S. to do essential labor, there are suddenly a lot of places that also need that essential labor. Because the borders are open and everyone’s had a huge population shift.
So why stay in the U.S. at all if there are countries with better worker protections, the same ease of migration, higher quality of life and slightly fewer racists?
This theoretical world is one where the U.S. faces consequences for the “it’s hard to become rich but super super SUPER easy to become homeless” economic model it’s been pushing. I think it would either pivot toward improvement (which takes a while) or...just become an agricultural hub, honestly.
But I think a lot of people would up and leave. And I don’t know if the people who stayed would make the changes that entice people back.
Right. The US would have to pivot. If not, there would be no workers for all the business run by the right, and they would lose money. It would be in their best interest to be more welcoming!
I get all these great book recommendations from you, Elle! Just bought and downloaded 'The Nordic View of Everything' -- looks like a fantastic read.
There's a story Warren Buffett tells that your post reminds me of. I heard him say it when I went to his Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting once, years ago.
He says, imagine what you would design the world you were about to be born into to look like if you could, in any way you wanted. But there's a catch. You *don't* get to decide whether you'll be born male or female, Black or white, in the United States or in a country like Bangladesh, neurotypical or neurodivergent, healthy or with a serious illness, etc.
He calls it the "ovarian lottery," the most important decision that will ever be made about your life and you get *no* say in it. It's purely luck. So, if you don't know where, how or to whom you'll be born, what kind of world would you design then? Gets you thinking, doesn't it?
Very powerful ideas, and Elle's open borders/sales tax combo idea is definitely an interesting example where the idea of original position would be very relevant. If the underpinnings of your social structures have to serve to attract as many people as possible, you almost have to adopt the veil of ignorance by design.
I've heard Obama use that quote before too. It's a very interesting thought exercise, makes you realize how much of life is determined by where you are born. (Hence the need to focus globally, not nationally!)
I love all these thoughts. The Nordic View of Everything is one of my favorite books - it inspired my move to Europe, and I even got Anu Partanen to come on my podcast, which you might enjoy: https://www.secretlibrarypodcast.com/episodes/anu-partanen
In addition, having to compete for citizens is such a brilliant idea. A while back, I read Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer, a book I think you would so love if I haven't yet recommended it- in this novel we are several thousand years in the future and self-driving pods mean you can travel anywhere on earth in half a day or less. So people can live wherever they want as they can work somewhere else without too much difficulty. As a result, nationality is no longer geographic, rather it's a membership you choose based on values and you pay taxes accordingly. You may not have the same citizenship as your neighbor, and you're allowed to change. So clever! Ada Palmer is a real visionary - I sound like a broken record, my apologies, but she was also a genius podcast guest should you be interested: https://www.secretlibrarypodcast.com/episodes/ada-palmer
Oooooh, thank you so much for sharing all of these resources! I'm definitely adding that novel to my list. (And I love Partanen! So cool you interviewed her!)
She's fantastic (Partanen). I honestly thought you'd read Ada Palmer's novels already, based on your thoughts on citizenship in recent posts. You will LOVE her work- big and juicy and I can't wait to hear what you think when you dive in. (I'm sure you have quite a stack going already)
When I read “Opening our borders will solve just about everything,” I was 100% on board on a theoretical level. I haven’t commented yet, because I need to think and research some more to have something valuable to add. But now that I read this article, I see how little would change if countries competed for citizens.
As you point out, the green countries could “purchase” the red countries, but that’s not too different from what we have now. It even seems like a type of colonization.
In many cases, colonization brought improvements in healthcare, education, and agricultural practices, but also exploitative labor practices, the brutal suppression of uprisings, the systemic racial discrimination, and the displacement of indigenous populations. In a world where countries have to compete for citizens, what would stop a green country from exploiting red countries, so that they can gain more wealth and remain attractive?
China isn’t a green country in this article, but obviously, the country is attractive for businesses and, as a result, people. Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Republic of Congo, and Sudan have all borrowed money from China. I don’t see this scenario changing under countries competing for citizens.
Another example would be with the United States. You mention “We export our government and police force, eliminating corruption, eradicating crime.” I’m sure some people thought the same thing when: 1. The U.S. provided support to Pinochet’s regime, including economic aid and military assistance .2. The military junta led by General Jorge Rafael Videla took power in Argentina after a coup in 1976. The U.S. provided the junta with military training, intelligence cooperation, and economic assistance. 3: The U.S. supported the authoritarian regime of the Somoza family in Nicaragua for several decades, until the Sandinista revolution overthrew the regime in 1979. The U.S. provided military aid and economic support to the Somoza government. We could list some more examples when the USA funded atrocious regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador.
Also, when we look at Nordic countries, yes, they have some of the best social democracies in the world. But their cultures are rather homogenous, especially for Western ones. Will they behave the same way if they get a greater influx of immigration? Here in Europe, I’ve noticed an increase in populist ideologies and parties everywhere—Norway and Denmark are definitely no expection.
I’d love a world with open borders, and understand all the humanitarian and economic benefits, but if it results in countries purchasing others, I see it going full circle.
Is there something we can do to create more “green countries” without exploiting “orange countries?” Something that doesn’t involve cultural imperialism, but still spreads equilateral values?
You bring up a lot of good comments, and I was very aware when I wrote this that one country "purchasing" another might not sit right. At the same time, in this case it would always be a choice. People could choose to live wherever they'd like, at home or somewhere else. And countries could choose to become a better place to live and not sell. It wouldn't be the same as US occupying places militarily. It would be like the Cook Islands being part of New Zealand, or Greenland being part of Denmark.
And maybe it's sad, but I just don't see a future where we all preserve our cultures in our preserved countries. At some point I do think the world will become more homogenius as it mingles. It already has. Even with borders closed many countries have become "westernized or "easternized" and, in the EU, where there are somewhat open borders among themselves Eastern Europe has almost emptied out into Western Europe. I recently met someone from Slovenia and he said there's no such thing as Slovenian culture anymore because they all moved away. In the US, if Puerto Rico decides to become a state, many will move to the mainland and maybe they will lost their culture. Most of us who live in the US have probably already lost whatever culture we might have had once. I feel like the cat's out of the bag there?
As for countries going more populist-well that might happen. But in a world of open borders I wonder if they would all move to each other? And the people who are not populist would move away? I'm sure we don't know. But it's definitely interesting to think about!
There's definitely lots to think about there. With people moving around more, we have a greater mix of people, which means we should have more heterogenous cultures, but with American cultural imperialism, we can also say that things are more homogenous. And what will happen to populists? I'd take Europe as an example. We have relatively open borders, but when there's an economic downturn, populist thought spreads. If we want more open borders, we have to think of ways that it doesn't backfire and increase populist movements.
This may be dark, but sometimes I wonder if populism will win out. Just because countries like Russia are willing to go to war to spread their idealogy. And countries like the Nordic countries aren't. Which movements are more likely to spread?
As for "American cultural imperialism" - maybe it was intentional at first but I think now it's largely accidental. When cultures mingle they just become something different. But anyway, you inspired me to think about this more and I wound up writing an essay about it this morning.. be prepared to see yourself mentioned in a couple of weeks. And hopefully you'll chime in on the comments and let me know your thoughts!
Thank you, Elle! I'll definitely chime in. I'm looking forward to it.
I like your thinking. You're thinking.
If countries are now incentivized to treat their citizens well, does that go hand-in-hand with countries no longer being able to interfere and cause each other misery?
For a lot of countries, making life better for their citizens would also entail kicking U.S./Canada/France out of their economic and political affairs. No more U.S. military bases scattered everywhere, no more Nestle water plants sucking up local resources.
Which is why I think those green places wouldn’t stay green for very long - they are green because they, currently, have power. After maybe a while of this experiment, that power would be gone. What does migration look like then? When people are no longer running from political and economic upheaval, will they stop moving? Or will they go back to their “original” homes (assuming this all takes place over a single generation), to enjoy a peace they didn’t think was possible?
It’s an interesting thought experiment, for sure!
Yes, it's highly theoretical for sure. I imagine that, at first there would be a mass migration. But then as countries become better places to live, people will either come back, or be enticed to move there from somewhere else. But whether you stay or go is highly dependent on whether you find one place to live better than another. So I imagine a lot factors go into that!
Gosh can you imagine how quickly the U.S. healthcare system would change if we really had to compete for citizens!? That alone makes the experiment worth doing. *blows air horn at Congress*
Right? I think the US would be in a very interesting position considering they’d lose a lot of the left to Canada and Europe, but they’d gain a lot of Latin America (while keeping a lot of the right). Could you imagine that US?
Exactly! But the thing is I don’t know how many of those Latin American immigrants would stay for long. If they’re coming to the U.S. to do essential labor, there are suddenly a lot of places that also need that essential labor. Because the borders are open and everyone’s had a huge population shift.
So why stay in the U.S. at all if there are countries with better worker protections, the same ease of migration, higher quality of life and slightly fewer racists?
This theoretical world is one where the U.S. faces consequences for the “it’s hard to become rich but super super SUPER easy to become homeless” economic model it’s been pushing. I think it would either pivot toward improvement (which takes a while) or...just become an agricultural hub, honestly.
But I think a lot of people would up and leave. And I don’t know if the people who stayed would make the changes that entice people back.
Right. The US would have to pivot. If not, there would be no workers for all the business run by the right, and they would lose money. It would be in their best interest to be more welcoming!
I get all these great book recommendations from you, Elle! Just bought and downloaded 'The Nordic View of Everything' -- looks like a fantastic read.
There's a story Warren Buffett tells that your post reminds me of. I heard him say it when I went to his Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting once, years ago.
He says, imagine what you would design the world you were about to be born into to look like if you could, in any way you wanted. But there's a catch. You *don't* get to decide whether you'll be born male or female, Black or white, in the United States or in a country like Bangladesh, neurotypical or neurodivergent, healthy or with a serious illness, etc.
He calls it the "ovarian lottery," the most important decision that will ever be made about your life and you get *no* say in it. It's purely luck. So, if you don't know where, how or to whom you'll be born, what kind of world would you design then? Gets you thinking, doesn't it?
Sounds like the idea of 'original position' that John Rawls formulated in his "Theory of Justice":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
Very powerful ideas, and Elle's open borders/sales tax combo idea is definitely an interesting example where the idea of original position would be very relevant. If the underpinnings of your social structures have to serve to attract as many people as possible, you almost have to adopt the veil of ignorance by design.
I've heard Obama use that quote before too. It's a very interesting thought exercise, makes you realize how much of life is determined by where you are born. (Hence the need to focus globally, not nationally!)
I love all these thoughts. The Nordic View of Everything is one of my favorite books - it inspired my move to Europe, and I even got Anu Partanen to come on my podcast, which you might enjoy: https://www.secretlibrarypodcast.com/episodes/anu-partanen
In addition, having to compete for citizens is such a brilliant idea. A while back, I read Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer, a book I think you would so love if I haven't yet recommended it- in this novel we are several thousand years in the future and self-driving pods mean you can travel anywhere on earth in half a day or less. So people can live wherever they want as they can work somewhere else without too much difficulty. As a result, nationality is no longer geographic, rather it's a membership you choose based on values and you pay taxes accordingly. You may not have the same citizenship as your neighbor, and you're allowed to change. So clever! Ada Palmer is a real visionary - I sound like a broken record, my apologies, but she was also a genius podcast guest should you be interested: https://www.secretlibrarypodcast.com/episodes/ada-palmer
Have an excellent holiday!
Oooooh, thank you so much for sharing all of these resources! I'm definitely adding that novel to my list. (And I love Partanen! So cool you interviewed her!)
She's fantastic (Partanen). I honestly thought you'd read Ada Palmer's novels already, based on your thoughts on citizenship in recent posts. You will LOVE her work- big and juicy and I can't wait to hear what you think when you dive in. (I'm sure you have quite a stack going already)
My reading list really is getting crazy. But I’m off until my new job starts in January so I have plenty of reading time!