Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluthru | Hacker News Reader

>These are all modern economies

They aren't the only modern economies. Demographics plays a role.

>most of which operate immigration-friendly regimes

Recent policy and current demographics are two different things. These are still homogenous countries for the most part, especially Iceland which is exceedingly safe. Where demographics have shifted drastically away from the native population, the quality of life has reduced. (Look at Malmo, for example.)

>That happiness boost is nowhere to be seen when looking at real world examples.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...

Here's a list of countries ranked by diversity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et...

Doesn't look like a happy list.

View on HN

I'm not advancing the claim that high levels of diversity bring about happiness, I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition. It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.

>I'm scrutinizing the belief that populations are happier because they get to be homogeneous in composition.

Read Robert Putnam. People love a sense of belonging and it's embedded in our genes.

http://time.com/5095903/genetic-similarities-friends-study/

http://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/04/07/married-couples-with-common...

>It's been my observation that the people who push back against the idea of diversity the most tend to be quite miserable even when living in homogeneous communities.

There can definitely be miserable people who are looking for a scapegoat. It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo.

On the other hand there are people like me: anonymous, have traveled the world, lived in rural areas and cities, have a masters from a top 10, have a good job, etc. who look at the data and go: "Oh, the data is indicating that this recent configuration of humans isn't as good as it could be." You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm--were they all miserable?

Portraying people who are against diversity as ignorant or miserable doesn't disprove the fact that if you take a homogenous, high-performing population and flood it with diverse, lower-IQ, culturally-incomptable, more violent, less-productive people the nation will become worse.

Simple question: would Europe be better or worse today if there were only Europeans in it?

> It also takes a certain level of desperation to be vocal about it today because it's so taboo.

It's not taboo though is it. People go on and on about immigration and there are entire media outfits that are devoted to casting foreigners as threats while promoting the idea that 'these people are not as good natives, have lower IQ, are more violent and less productive', which is typically based on outright lies and prejudice. Beliefs about immigrants are entirely warped to cater to a smaller subset of the population which has a hard time dealing with change while they grip with tremendous entitlement to mythical constructions of the past.

> You only have to go back 2-3 generations for homogeneity to be the overwhelming norm

A very curious statement. Europe's history is one characterised by migration and constant changes in demographics. There have always been groups of people at odds with one another because they were different enough to be seen as a threat. Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good and bad results.

>It's not taboo though is it.

Very much so. Anyone could be fired for writing what I've written. Diversity is the new state religion.

Trump voters knew what they were voting for, even if it was dressed up as "economic anxiety" (although low-skilled immigrant workers devaluing labor right before automation is the last thing we need).

>which is typically based on outright lies

Absolutely not. Pick any metric for latinos in the US and compare them to whites. Fun fact, when you read "immigrants commit less crime than natives" it's due to existing blacks and latinos. They commit more crimes than whites and asians.

>which has a hard time dealing with change

Does it even register with you that change and immigration can be bad? It's not some force of nature. Again, we literally never voted for our immigration policy to change and it was promised that the ethnic makeup would not be upset in 1965.

>Every generation has struggled accepting new groups of people with both good and bad results.

So why are you advocating against nature and causing avoidable strife? Diversity is a failed experiment that leads to problems. http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/01/the-violent-legacy-of-afr...

I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Europe would be better in every meaningful way if there were only Europeans in it. How many thousands of British girls are you fine with being raped in the UK from grooming gangs? How much is enough? Why should a tiny minority in the world (whites) subsidize their own displacement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com