It being a country of foreigners is almost irrelevant to the cause of the problem here. If anything, the massive lack of intimacy and social relationships is what is causing the loss of social cohesion, which then leads to people not caring if their country is overrun by foreigners.
I hate how publicly, nobody acknowledges what led to this: children growing up on mobile devices and social media having all of their attention and desire to grow stolen by handheld drip-fed dopamine devices, and letting contact on social media take the place of real-world contact.
I feel like 30 years ago laws would have been passed on algorithms optimized for engagement to this degree because people actually cared about childhood development factors. Its obviously harmful long-term for societies, and especially their youth, because it pushes everyone into echo chambers, pushing stronger and stronger divides to the point where reasonable discussion is no longer possible, on top of the social and mental deficiencies it drives.
I disagree. Look at all the analysis of the effects of television on people. There's a reason it was called a "boob tube". Boomers are addicted to TV as badly as Zoomers are addicted to their phones. TV was the absolute core of people's lives: culturally, politically, socially, religiously, economically. In the 40's and 50's, people were actually pointing it out how dangerous it was for mass communication to be controlled in such a way, and it couldn't be stopped.
TV does all the same kind of dopamine addiction and mental control, but in a much more centralized way. You can (even now) still see Boomers addicted to the TV.
If the Boomers understood the internet, all internet traffic, social media sites, and emails would be strictly regulated by a government sponsored oligopoly of AT&T, MSNBC Universal, and Facebook.
I don't think you should disagree due to television, but I do agree that television was still likely overall damaging to the collective growth of humanity.
The difference between television and mobile devices is that the dopamine drip is omnipresent. With television, you had significant wasted time/growth, sure, but it was still at the very least on long-form content that required a minor form of irritation in the form of commercials, and it wasn't present while you were doing other constructive things.
Its the instant-gratification, zero-downtime dopamine feed that mobile devices provide that is damaging to growth. People are more impatient than ever, less likely to endure anything educational if it takes more than 2 minutes, etc., etc., etc. Then there's the dopamine burnout that's starting to become apparent in other aspects of peoples' lives.
Even if you increase immigration to mass migration levels, that won't deteriorate the social cohesion of domestic populations. The social damage would come from the undermining of families, and directed efforts at atomitization.
Again, that's not necessarily the case. A domestic population can be displaced, but that doesn't necessitate the deterioration of a a domestic population's social cohesion. That's a failure of the domestic populations social institutions. This is why (actual) refugees from invading armies still have social cohesion. In fact, they may aggressively seek to preserve their social order, even when displaced to other lands by an invading force. This is why we see some populations "cling to religion" when they are displaced.
What you're thinking of is a) failed integration, and b) social institutional failure.
It being a country of foreigners is almost irrelevant to the cause of the problem here. If anything, the massive lack of intimacy and social relationships is what is causing the loss of social cohesion, which then leads to people not caring if their country is overrun by foreigners.
I hate how publicly, nobody acknowledges what led to this: children growing up on mobile devices and social media having all of their attention and desire to grow stolen by handheld drip-fed dopamine devices, and letting contact on social media take the place of real-world contact.
I feel like 30 years ago laws would have been passed on algorithms optimized for engagement to this degree because people actually cared about childhood development factors. Its obviously harmful long-term for societies, and especially their youth, because it pushes everyone into echo chambers, pushing stronger and stronger divides to the point where reasonable discussion is no longer possible, on top of the social and mental deficiencies it drives.
I disagree. Look at all the analysis of the effects of television on people. There's a reason it was called a "boob tube". Boomers are addicted to TV as badly as Zoomers are addicted to their phones. TV was the absolute core of people's lives: culturally, politically, socially, religiously, economically. In the 40's and 50's, people were actually pointing it out how dangerous it was for mass communication to be controlled in such a way, and it couldn't be stopped.
TV does all the same kind of dopamine addiction and mental control, but in a much more centralized way. You can (even now) still see Boomers addicted to the TV.
If the Boomers understood the internet, all internet traffic, social media sites, and emails would be strictly regulated by a government sponsored oligopoly of AT&T, MSNBC Universal, and Facebook.
Never saw this comment, sorry.
I don't think you should disagree due to television, but I do agree that television was still likely overall damaging to the collective growth of humanity.
The difference between television and mobile devices is that the dopamine drip is omnipresent. With television, you had significant wasted time/growth, sure, but it was still at the very least on long-form content that required a minor form of irritation in the form of commercials, and it wasn't present while you were doing other constructive things.
Its the instant-gratification, zero-downtime dopamine feed that mobile devices provide that is damaging to growth. People are more impatient than ever, less likely to endure anything educational if it takes more than 2 minutes, etc., etc., etc. Then there's the dopamine burnout that's starting to become apparent in other aspects of peoples' lives.
Do you disagree with that premise?
There was plenty of social cohesion when the ground work was being laid via Hart-Cellar and other changes.
Even if you increase immigration to mass migration levels, that won't deteriorate the social cohesion of domestic populations. The social damage would come from the undermining of families, and directed efforts at atomitization.
It will if the people coming in are very different from the domestic population. They are so it does.
Again, that's not necessarily the case. A domestic population can be displaced, but that doesn't necessitate the deterioration of a a domestic population's social cohesion. That's a failure of the domestic populations social institutions. This is why (actual) refugees from invading armies still have social cohesion. In fact, they may aggressively seek to preserve their social order, even when displaced to other lands by an invading force. This is why we see some populations "cling to religion" when they are displaced.
What you're thinking of is a) failed integration, and b) social institutional failure.