Why Borders Matter (or do they?)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2024
- Dive into this thought-provoking analysis of what our world might look like if international borders were eliminated. How would immigration policies change? How might migration patterns shift? And what would it mean for trade and jobs?
Discover the potential implications for international trade, and rethink the very essence of border security.
This video is a must-watch for anyone curious about the intertwined relationships of nations, economies, and cultures. Let's reimagine our global community! 🌐✈️🛃 #noborders #immigrationreform2023 #GlobalTrade #MigrationTrends #BorderSecurity
🔗 Related Links:
Stanford Economics Research: What Would Happen if We Removed Borders? www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights....
🔔 Subscribe for more in-depth analyses on critical global topics and join the conversation in the comments below!
🔗 Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
02:02 - What is a border, anyway?
07:03 - The Human Price of Borders
11:43 - Would we be richer?
14:42 - What is the Brain Drain?
17:50 - Border Security
Episode 125
📷 Follow me on Instagram: / typeashton
🤳🏻 TikTok: / typeashton
🖥 Website: www.blackforestfamily.com
📧 E-mail: typeashton@gmail.com
𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗠𝗘
👑 Patreon: / typeashton - บันเทิง
I have to be honest here: It was the best decision to switch from family vlog to sci-ed. Not to say, that i didn't enjoy watching your family's journey, but this new channel puts you in a line with the likes of Veritasium, Be Smart or Atomic Frontier in my book. Keep it on!
Thank you!
I couldn't agree more.
I came for the fun, stayed for the science.
I totally agree with this. It is nice to have one more female voice in the since communication space.
@@TypeAshton Thank *you*. I appreciate the challenging topics you tackle. As a pseudo-immigrant, I think immigrants can have a perspective that needs to be heard by more people.
Totally agree!
One function of borders is to protect the people, culture, rule of law and institutions of those living inside those borders. Many especially smaller countries are nation states - they are the home for the people, many who have had bitter experiences from other nations in the past. For them borders an independence mean literally life and self determination. Now, borders have been opening and I think it's a natural development when neighboring countries and their people respect each other and develop trusting relationship. It usually needs great deal of shared values, because otherwise trust is difficult to build. However, I don't believe in borderless world. For it to work, it would require all of the people sharing most of their values and beliefs, and that world would have to be free of any hostile parties (ie. gangs, nations with imperialistic aspirations, terrorist groups, extreme ideologies etc), which unfortunately will not happen. Ever. Also, it would mean no social welfare systems for anyone, because in borderless world no nation would be able to finance them.
Exactly, border is the line of culture. In history borders were not strictly given, because most of the time people were bonded to land, they mostly could not travel at all, then it was nearly not possible technically, because most of them were poor. Then there was time of industrial revolution when people were needed everywhere. It ended with preparation of first world war and was cut with great economic crysis. This era was also first era of greater state aid, so states limited who they aid and why. But even in this time the immigration was spontaneous. Today the immigration is on pedestal of human culture as must have. Then it was that you moved, you learned the language and worked wherever you could. And yes, sometimes you got parts of your culture with you and if you had luck, it enriched entire society.
Today it's different, you pay immigrants, they do not work, they gather in "their" neigbourhoods and they want to change the whole country to match the country they originated from. And because of theese leftist idiots, they can roam the streets and shout anti-Jewish and propalestinian bullshit and everybody is even afraid to say anything to not lose his job.
If i move to Japan, i have to learn their language, i have to wear slippers on the toilet, etc. Are they nazi? No, they aren't i can freely move somewhere else, if i do not want to accept Japanese culture. And yes, maybe i will make a small stall and start selling schnitzels, maybe it will be instant hit and i enrich their culture...but this possibility is not reason to accept everyone in masses and get their culture torn to pieces.
@@johnsean100 It's not a worldwide problem, not even the Europe-wide problem. The problem you described is inherent to Germany and their 2000 years old lack of respect to borders regarding poorer nations. Earlier Germans were crossing those borders without thinking about negative consequences, now Germans allow others to cross their borders with no regards to consequences.
Also living in getthos is a Western phenomenon. In Slavic countries migrants live alongside others, mix and assimilliate. If an Armenian, Georgian, Kazakh or Greek comes to Slavic states then he doesn't clunch to exclusive neighbourhoods, because Slavs don't exclude poorer nations from living among other humans like Germans do to eg. Turks and Slavs.
Germans disregard borders, Germans incentivize poorer nations to live in separate places and later Germans complain and suffer from their own, unique policies. ("Germans" here regards to all Germanic peoples including Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Swedes)
On the topic of merging countries I think It works only if the 2 countries already works almost the same. If it's 2 countries with wildly different languages, cultures or a big historical distrust the frictions of the merging will wipe any advantage gained.
Economics always beats cultural issues. Stable economy breaks down tensions and makes social conflicts more trivial. Beating down inequality always reduces aggressive posturing of class.
@@SlickSimulacrumThat's not true, as shown again and again and again…
Even inside Germany, there are tensions between individual countries, despite they have almost same cultural background and they speak same language (at least for now).
@@FalkonNightsdale, Learn to read Cupcake.
For this thought experiment, I could predict what would happen to my small home country of Lithuania with 2.8 million inhabitants. We would be swamped by migrants from russia and from the global south and Lithuanian culture and language would become a minority and struggle to survive.
I think that in today's world, the same borderless countries that we used to have wouldn't work anymore, and that is mostly due to globalization. Back in the day, the vast majority of immigration was from neighbours or at least countries that were close by, simply due to capability, and one countries people are often quite similar to their neighboring countries'. Someone moving from Germany to France would have naturally needed to learn the language as well as to cope with the increased consumption of wine and cheese, but little else would have changed for them. Hell, the French even have decent bread. On the other hand, traveling to faraway lands was hard and expensive, and only those with a good reason did so. Once there, there were no social security systems, so the only way to live in your new home was to work to feed yourself and your family. You also had to assimilate, because almost all the people there were of that culture and spooke that language. If you wanted social interactions, friends, maybe find a wife, you had to become one of them.
Nowadays that isn't the case anymore. People travel vast distances on the vague promise of a better life, usually a completely unrealistic one, then fall into the social security nets, taxing them. Large numbers of foreigners form communities of their own, which removes the need to assimilate into the culture and even learn the language, effectively forming an exclave of their home country. Being incapable of speaking the language and a lack of understanding of the culture, as well as soemtimes resentment over the "false promises" that made them embark on the journey in the first place, make it hard to find a job and build a life for themselves in the new place. Which, in cases like Germany, means that they keep taxing the already bloated social security system.
Borders didn't just appear randomly, they're a symptom of a changing world. You might be able to do without, but for countries like Germany it would require sweeping changes in policy.
There are a couple of topics, that i wanted to expand on:
1. When you can migrate anywhere on the planet, why not choose the country with the best social benefits system? The influx of big numbers of migrants could overburden those systems in countries like France, the scandinavian countries etc..
If you want to prevent this and you exclude a migrant from acess to those systems like social housing, healthcare and unemployment benefits, you quite easily have a rise in homelessness, theft (for getting food and clothing) and you make the divide between rich and poor not a matter of borders between countries, but between neighboorhoods and streets. In theory that could and should lead to more compassion, but when i look at the actual behaviour in countries that have bigger or small wealth divide (US/UK vs Scandinavia), i think the reaction would be to do right now unimaginable things to ensure the economic safety and sucess of your family and friends. There is a reason why private schools are big thing in the UK and the right school district is of upmost importance in the US, but not in scandinavia. Those dynamics are already playing out in Germany, maybe less in Freiburg, but here in North-Rhine Westphalia the trend is really worrying.
2. Housing. We in Germany experience a bit of a migration influx, which at least in parts leads to a housing scarcity even before the inflation. And yes, there are empty houses in parts of Germany, but those are in regions where the migrants due to economic (they are usually poorer) and social reason (no communities of people from your region and migrant infrastructure) don`t want to live in. So unless you force people to live in a certain area, those problems would just increase massivly.
3. Culture. As an American, who defines their identity in large parts as a melting pot, that is not that easy to accept. But there are many people who just refuse to live in a country which becomes a melting pot of different cultures. They see their culture and identity as monolithic. They don´t want their culture changed due to people bringing their customs, norms and culture to their city or village. Especially when those norms, customs etc. are in opposition to each other, conflicts emerge and don´t necessarily will be solved peacefully.
4. You mention the European Union as an example of this borderless society. What is quite often overlooked, is the quite often state like infrastructure around the EU which enables Schengen and the EU Single Market. Rules and Regulations are harmonised (which means national laws become subordinated to EU law) and are surveilled by EU agencies and national agencies in their name. There are quite a lot of problems of getting to a consensus beteween 27 nations in Europe, but worldwide? Would an european be ok with Wladimir Putin being on the table when discussing safety standards?
I can imagine the Americans thinking: Get rid of those rules, they are an hindrance to my freedom! Where as europeans or japanese would have feverish nightmares about the diminished safety in their everyday lifes...
The comment could be read as a slamming critique of your video. I don`t want you to get that impression, but i wanted to elaborate some difficulties in the thought experiment. I really thank you for getting my brains cells working on sunday morning!
Open migration and a public social system doesn't belong together. Even private social systems don't fit, if they are based on homogeneity and cultural/ethnic code like in Germany. The EU is not responsible for less borders, but peace and trust. There was not any time, that Germans could not go to the Netherlands, but the overbearing political years leading up to the forming of the early EU in the 1950's. Also the Red Army and Warsaw Pact did remove travel possibilities...
In other words, a nation cannot have both an open border and a a generous welfare state. You can have one or the other, but cannot sustain both............at least for any length of time. That's the nut that is tough to crack in modern times.
"Open migration and a public social system doesn't belong together." - Exactly!! @@urlauburlaub2222
@@1VaDude No. It's not about generousity, but the principle. And it also doesn't have something to do with a nation, but culture. That's why Statist borders and also non-private fences suck. Only if you liberate this, it will work.
I wasn't speaking about generosity - just pointing out economic reality. It is impossible to sustain both an open border AND a generous welfare state. If two nations share economic, social and cultural parity.........then there is little incentive for masses of people to move one way or the other. Sweden & Norway, Belgium & The Netherlands, Germany & Austria and even Pennsylvania & Ohio are kind of like that.
If there is a huge disparity from Nation A to Nation B, then there will be incentive to 'pull' more people into the better place and a 'push' that repels people from the worse one. Allowing unlimited migration from one place to the other - without the ability to sustain everybody - eventually leads to conquest and collapse.
You mention culture - which is a HUGE part of it. Where there is great cultural difference, it's almost impossible for two different cultures to coexist side by side. One will eventually dominate and devour the other. To put it bluntly, you cannot move everybody from there to here without here becoming there. That's part of the importance of assimilation being important to societal cohesion. It's sort of hard to articulate, though. No society ever gets liberated by collapsing it.
We Europeans have a collective memory of history that differs from that of an American. Our ancestors have seen empires rise and fall, witnessing nations being occupied by their neighbours and seen the horrors that followed, even within the last century. We haven't had the luxury of living in a peaceful neighbourhood until very recently. Borders have helped to maintain the security, national independence and territorial integrity of many nations today. The USA is in a very different position from most of the rest of the world, and it would be naive to think that all of the world today would experience the same conditions as the USA would if borders were erased. I'm sure Ukraine wouldn't want to erase its borders with Russia these days.
Furthermore, borders maintain the stability of the distribution of resources and the building and maintaining of infrastructure around the world. Imagine the strain on resources and infrastructure a sudden influx of millions of immigrants would have on a smaller nation. You might argue that even in a bordeless world there'd be limits on immigration, and in that case you'd be conceding to one of the core reason as to why borders exist in the first place: to limit the flow of immigration. It is simply necessary to regulate the flow of people in order to maintain the systems that are in place. A sudden disruption would cause an imbalance that could, in the worst case, collapse entire nations and destroy the world economy.
You briefly touched on the issue of brain drain, but didn't provide any information on the problems that could poitentially arise from it. Richer countries would invariably become richer while poorer countries would get poorer, due to an outflow of highly motivated, skilled and educated people wanting a better life. We're already seeing this trend today. People in poorer countries opt to leave and settle in a more economically prosperous country, thereby solidifying the divide.
You also briefly touched upon security. As we have seen from the Hamas raids into Israel, not all neighbourhoods are created equally. I support the Palestinians in their creation of a state independent of their Israeli neighbours, but in order to do that you first need a strong and secure border for both parties. Killings and kidnappings aren't conducive to a bordeless coexistence, as I'm sure you'll agree on.
I think cooperation can be a good thing, certainly, but even Schengen has its limits. Not just anyone can travel through Schengen unchallenged, bring whatever they want with them or do whatever they want in the destination country. In a truly borderless world, the Schengen agreement would be too restrictive. Keep in mind, there are people who exploit the Schengen system to commit crime and evade justice too.
Borders are the first thing to be ignored in a war! Belgium declared neutrality in world war one, but the first thing Germany did in that war was to march through Belgium towards France! So neither the Belgian border nor the fortresses near Liège really helped.
@@ralfxx3 Yes, but borders that are enforced and patrolled offer greater protection than borders that aren't ernforced or patrolled.
Saying the first thing that's violated in war is borders as an excuse for a borderless world, is like saying murders happen even if it's illegal, so we might as well make murder legal.
You're not going to create a safer world by removing borders. Nazi Germany in a boderless world wouldn't be a nicer, gentler Nazi Germany. At least I very much doubt it.
@@ralfxx3 You don't know, what neutrality means. Neutrality means, that Belgium didn't attack Germany going through them. It was the UK who took a border of Belgium as their own to declare war on Germany, even though both sides (Germany and UK) promised Belgium neutrality.
Your overall point is not right. Borders were not a driver of peace, and that Europe is peaceful is not the result of the recent time, but of solved reasons. However, many wars did occur internally or created tensions until they explode. Take for example Yugoslavia as an artificial state idea.
Interesting post. Anyway, upholding a welfare state in a small country (like Sweden, for instance) would be totally impossible without borders.
There might be an emotional background to this border business I was never conscious of. As you probably know, there was a rivalry between France and Germany dating back to the days of the sons of Charlemagne. As a German I was unknowingly influenced by this custom that France is in someway "untouchable" or at least strange and better keep off. Beginning in the late 60ies I toured almost al Europe by Camper except France. I was very much accustomed to crossing borders, having to show passport, being checked and experiencing delays. Ostensibly the language was the reason for avoiding France. Then EU with Schengen happened, and I joyfully accepted borders virtually disappearing. By chance I was driving around in the area of Saarbrücken using side streets, and suddenly recognized a change in the custom of decorating gardens and streets by abundant flowers around me. Imperceptibly I happened to to get into France! This way France advanced to become my preferred holiday destination.
So the toughest borders might be inside the heads of people most difficult to overcome!
The French/ German Border is an interesting one, especially for me since I live in an area that changed hands between the two constantly. Funny enough, my favorite cycling trail is one that is called the "Grenzweg" that still has the stone markers delineating between the two from the mid 1700s.
This might not have anything to do with the "rivalry" of France and Germany, but that France was unlike Germany pretty Socialistic and overbearing for most in contrast to Benelux, Austria, Italy or Spain, or Norway. And after 1990 also not Sweden or the Eastern European countries. After 1990 also France became more relaxed.
@@urlauburlaub2222 These are more recent differences only, but think about the Napoleonic wars which are still very present especially in literature. Also look at the "Schloß in Heidelberg" which is in ruins because of French invasion. By visiting "Elsaß" you might see, that not only people, but also architecture are very German, much more than expected.
In my opinion the EU (with Schengen) is the very best what could have happened to us, the differences between France and Germany have disappeared almost completely. However, this is not true in all Europe, e.g. there are very strong reservations in Poland, maybe the people there are afraid of German revisionists, as followers of AFD probably are.
There is still much to learn and to do until we have a truly United Europe!
I was in Germany when the wall fell, before Schengen. I travelled to France regularly enough, but never had issues with borders. I also travelled to Luxembourg, Spain, UK, Ireland and Turkey in this same timeframe. This was all on my military ID, not on a Passport. (except the UK, where I was admitted because I had all my paperwork for the US Embassy and was picking up my first passport)
The borders were not THAT bad even before Schengen. A decade later I was working for a company in Austria on the border - there was a bridge out the back of the town that went over the river that was the border. (Scharding am Inn) I actually did the same thing you did.. wandering the town I hiked over the bridge and suddenly with no mess muss fuss or bother I was in Germany.
Even though borders were not a big deal before Schengen -- they were even less of one after.
Honestly I would like to see a time where borders disappear, and the only "resident" issues are employment and taxation. I mean even with one of the best passports in the world.. I can't stay longer than 90 days even if I still have money to spend.
@@redwolfexr As a sailor owning a sailboat I was planning to cross the Atlantic and visit the Caribbean and USA. I waived this project because the USA has one of the worst borders in the world. Only on arriving by an international carrier it is quite easy, but arriving on your own you have to apply for a visa first, which is a tedious and complicated business. In case you arrive without visa you get heavily fined. No country in the world is that desirable, that I would I would subdue myself to this humiliating process! Even the border between Greece and Turkey, which is one of the more difficult ones, is easier to cross.
BTW Greece is part of Schengen, Turkey is not. If Turkey also could become part of Schengen, the very best sailing area of the world would arise, better than e.g. the Caribbean (I know both). During the longest stretch of written history by far this area including the coasts around was inhabited by the same people with the same language (they had lots of quarrels among themselves, which is somewhat comparable to Germany), and the Ottoman domination is a rather short time (also comparable to Germany). In my opinion the EU would make this borders disappear in the same way, the best possibility for both countries.
Back in the day it was cities, generally speaking that built walls. It was a widespread practice to keep out the bad guys. However the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall were precursors to the modern border walls
And a lot of castles and fortifications were built to protect borders and to get the taxes which went with crossing borders.
I wonder how you manage to publish such a deeply researched and well edited video every week. And having two small boys around. One could think you were head of a numerous team of journalists! Congrats!
I don't think a borderless world would be a great idea. There is a lot more to the economic benefit than it is mentioned here. Yeah maybe if you join 2 countries like France and Germany there would be more advantages than disadvantages but when you bring countries with totally different cultures, principles and traditions, the picture changes. Also you cannot really blame countries for banning people from certain countries. It's called patern recognition and if there is a lot of crimes practiced by people from certain backgrounds you have to be more cautious with those people overall and that is the reality of it. We cannot act like we live in an idealistic world where if you trust people they will surprise you. When it comes to religion it's the same. The vast majority of terror attack were done by muslims and their they have a lot of radical believers that want to impose their beliefs. Obviously we have to watch out for that. No matter how much one says "it is a religion of peace" if their members do not practice said peace on a large scale.
Yes.........being open to newcomers is laudable; but if you bring in one million people from nations where they like to live by 7th century rules, you run the risk of getting quite a few bad apples in with the batch. Separating the wheat from the chaff might prove to be elusive. ( I can think of two countries in Europe which refused to accept migrants from nations that sponsor/harbor terrorists - and they, so far, have not experienced many such religious-based terror attacks that have afflicted other nearby nations. )
Cultural borders are also a topic, a very important one actually. If I was to send millions of Germans into the middle east, these wouldn´t change the culture down there, because they would simply dissappear in that culture and the mass of people there. But If I accept/invite masses out of this area of the world into Germany as it has been done in the last two decades, these changes are dramatic - already heavily manifested in our public life and partially already replacing our culture - and irreversible in the end. A free world without borders can only take place/be build up (?!), if all the problems had been solved that we´re currently have to deal with. That includes also all the wars currently ongoing and the motives/driving forces behind these (also propagandist ones). As long as there is exploitation and its aftereffects, like keeping I don´t know how many millions of people worldwide in poverty and therefore giving them a reason to flee their territory and country (invaders of islamist origin like Boko Haram and Hamas and the ones camoflaging as refugees excluded), this goal cannot be achieved. To make a borderless world possible, we would have to ensure that every culture and people can wealthily live were they actually belong. To avoid conflicts inbetween cultures. But the world leaders would have to want that (with all the economic interests that ain´t going to happen anytime soon). Only when that current state has been overcome and has finally become a part of humanities past, a borderless world is an option. But then, who would govern that borderless world ("Great Reset", "New World Order", I don´t like conspiracy theories that much and I strongly hope that there is no truth in them). Up until then we will be in need for strongly protected physical and cultural borders, paradoxically to save each culture. I hope what I´m saying is not to much gibberish. I always try to correct my comments using deepl before posting.
Your comment was quite accurate and the translation was nearly perfect!
Hi Ashton, I don't need to say how great I think your videos are.
I had my most impressive border experience in the early 80s. My school class went to the GDR, financed by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. These border fortifications were, in reality, prison walls. Watchtower and tank barriers, all facing inward. It was frightening to see, and left a deep impression on me.
Yet borders are really just ideas.🙋♂️
Same here. At my school it was mandatory to have a class trip to Berlin, including the East, and get a first hand education about this part of German history - and at the time, the part of the present state of the two German states. Very impressive.
@@Tinkerbe11 I remember, once the wall fell - at the time I was part of the operators of a slightly-larger-than-German BBS network, we'd had our first East German nodes, and we decided to hold our next yearly meeting in East Germany. We chose a village in a small valley - very nice landscape, at first glance looked a lot like South Germany or even Austria in the less steep parts.
And yet, when we opened the car doors, the first impression wasn't nature - the air _stank._ Turns out, that place was close to Bitterfeld, an industrialized area that had already become infamous for environmental damage. (Also close to Wittenberg, where we had a short tour of Luther's workplace.)
I think I need to add here that I spent my elementary school time mostly living in Essen, where windows had to be cleaned weekly or more often and the snow heaps the city left on the big parking area across the road were mostly black as coal from all the coal dust in the air, and I was sick pretty often - and yet there was less stink in the air.
If you really think deeper about it then the GDR was basically a gigantic concentration camp to lecture a great lot of Germans into submissiveness, which, thank God, didn´t work compared to the submissive western part of Germany which got stupid ideas whispered in its mind by it´s great "ally" (same mechanism as the hammer over the head, called "cold war", in which Germany was permanently threatened with its extinction by both the US and Sowjets). Besides the ones in World War II the former largest before Gaza I guess (unrelated to the islamic terrorists operating there, calling themselves "Hamas"). I currently wouldn´t know about the size of the Uigur-prison camps in China, just saying. And yes, I know that the iron curtain was erected to stop people from fleeing to the west in masses, because America had made demands connected to the marshal aid program, such as that communist/socialist countries are permitted from getting any aid whatsoever. Sowjet russia again could only bind the eastern countries by showing it´s brutal force. I am not in best shape for english today I feel...
A possible interesting topic would be the concerns around Schengen at that time. I remember feeling slightly unsure when the border controls where lifted. But the world did not end. People love where they have been growing up and prefer to live there. Last week i passed the French Border and back to avoid a traffic jam. Only noticing by the slightly different traffic signs. I really don't want this to be reversed.
Schengen gave us a "borderless light" and may provided some data on how that changed Europe.
When you think of it - there is only one race - the Human race. And we are all dependent on each other and have the duty to share and help where ever we can. To be able to break down the borders, the people have to be strong enough, so no one man or organisation can become their only choice of government.
The problem is not the borders, it is the massive poverty in the south, that makes people from the south trying to immigrate to the north.
Yesterday I was at the three lands point, where Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany join and there is no fence or wall at all, there is just the border stone, the flags of the three countries, a tower from where you can look at all three countries and a few restaurants - and a maze. But there is not even a customs office or a police station.
getting rid of borders would be chaos
I cant see how there would be less deaths
Thank you again Ashton. I've grown up near the border between the Netherlands and Belgium. This border was one of the first to open up in Europe, before the Schengen Area came into being, but even before that, it wasn't really a border. There were many border crossings with only "flying border control", meaning your passport could get checked a couple of times a year. In reality I would cross the border multiple times in a day, just going for a bicycle ride, usually without thinking about it. This has formed my view on borders for a big part. For me borders are just administrative divides. That being said, I do realize this was only possible because culture and values are not that different between Belgium and the Netherlands, and really similar enough within a lot of European countries to make the Schengen Area work more or less these days. Opening borders on a global scale is unfortunately impossible in our time. People are too focused on the differences and not the similarities between people and we have the tendency to enforce our point of view on others. I still have the hope that somewhere in the future this might be possible (again), but with the current conflict close to home in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine this seems farther away than ever.
its not possible to open borders globally. The world government would need to represent every corner of world where cultures are different and may clash with other people, american bad food would be free to get imported in EU, australian ecosystem destroyed by imported animals and so on. Police training also would be difficult to keep at a standard. Do you educate them like in europe, or in merica where its shoot first ask later or like in africa etc?
Have you ever heard of Star Trek? It’s a vision of a better future, without borders as we know them now, with high global standards. As it was stated in the first comments, it is not possible right now, but maybe the future will bring this peaceful, border-free life to the people, who come after us.
The European continent has an extremely violent history, full of conflicts and wars for decades. But now we do live in a (nearly) border-free (and up until 2022) very peaceful area. Borders in the EU are more or less no longer borders as many of us knew them growing up, but borders that define administrative areas of responsibility. We (at least most of us) have accepted, that we are more similar than different and that we all want the same. We have similar values and try to get everyone in our big community to adhere to our highest common (or commonly achievable) standards, because it’s best for everyone involved.
@@jennyh4025First of all, Star Trek is a fiction and doesn't have to deal with societal dynamics…
Secondly - in Star Trek, Earth seemingly defaulted towards European style of thinking - reliance on science, zero religiosity, high trust society leading to diminishing use of money in daily lives to minimum…
Which means, that in past there had to be neo-colonialism of the rest of the planet and intensive cultural re-education - particularly in societies that are traditionally "zero-trust" or "low-trust"…
Hi Ashton, thank you for another great topic. I Always enjoy and look forward to your videos which are educational and informative. 👏
You are so welcome! Glad you enjoy them.
The American historian Ada Palmer wrote an SF book sequence named "Terra Ignota" (which I highly recommend), which among other things, paints a world where divisions between human groups are no longer tied to territory. Everyone can go anywhere, and technology makes it easy and cheap for everyone. However, divisions still exist, only along mainly ideological lines, and as a consequence, the impression of almost utopian civility you might get when starting to read proves itself to be an illusion. Those "hives" still have different kinds and amounts of power. One, as a natural consequence of its ideology, gains unequal access to a fairly existential resource - land and housing - and is attacked by others for it. As more and more of the hives' skeletons jump out of their closets, the world descends into war. The series ends on a hopeful note, but among some other philosophical topics, illustrates that borders are just a symptom, not the real problem.
As long as existential resources are limited, I think it will be a constant of the human condition that we organize in groups that compete with each other, and that such competition occasionally gets violent. Borders are one of many possible ways to define those groups, but if we abolished them, this basic condition would not change, we would just compete (and wage war) along different lines. I think we should be open to experimentation, but whether those new lines would be better, is anyone's guess.
I think open borders work well with simillar peoples, but at the moment whole world scale would create a lot of problems. An example is the Nordic countries which have had free movement without passport since 1952. When Finland joined EU, the crime started going up at some point. This was very visible during covid when borders were closed and for example home break-ins flattened to near zero. I wonder how would social support work with open borders, if one country offers more benefits, then more people want to go there and could collapse the economy if everyone is not a net tax payer. This could of course change in future with more robotic society where people just live while robots do the work. Interesting topic!
You can have an open border or a generous welfare state, but it's not possible to sustain both.
The similarities of peoples usual arose from shared cultural experiences, like being subject to the same government for generations.
Having increasing cooperation like trough NAFTA or the EU is a significantly reduced version of that but it's usually shared borders (political, geographic or economic) that made people similar to begin with.
Hi agan Ashton! Once again you are diving right into a snake pit. And make a huge contribution to our understanding of society of today!
Maybe it's easier for me, as being European, rather than for an American in general, to understand the virtues and dangers of a borderless world.
Nation states in Europe are NOT distinct ethnical entities, but rather as you say, political-administrative and geographical things.People have moved into and out of Europe, and around Europe, intermingling, since the dawn of history. That's why at times get so frustrated when people, often Americans, are speaking of "national DNA". For instance what is "Hungarian DNA"? Hungarian borders have shifted wildly throughout the centuries, and while part of the Habsburg empire of course contained a lot of different ethnic groups. Still this is a question which pops up over time.
Likewise with "viking DNA". What on earth is that. "Viking" was an OCCUPATION in my country, Sweden, as well as in Norway and Denmark, at a time when all three were sort of "proto nations". Being viking simply meant that you were part of your king's naval forces - both military and merchant. Raiding was really not their main business.
Equally as well Americans often ask about all those 100 % blonde and blue-eyed Swedes. Which we are not. And some people get thoroughly upset when I tell them that the most common hair colour actually is something we ourselves call "rat blonde" (I belonged in that group myself before my hair turning grey, then white). Quite a few people throughout the years have immigrated here, from the metallurgic geniuses, the Walloons, to wives from the Mediterranean area, brought home by sailors, and contributing to many people with raven-black hair.
The EU is a fantastic thing, even though there still are borders. But no great need for passports except when checking into hotels. In a sense, EU has contributied to a borderless Europe. But then again - the joint efforts by the EU to tackle the migrant waves from the Middle East and Africa has made an ugly phantom from the past to wake up again - nazism in different new forms. More than one EU country has turned to extreme nationalism in the hope of not having to receive those immigrants. Obviously the most extreme example of this is BREXIT, but you find the phenomenon i Poland, Hungary, Germany, even here in Sweden.
And, as you say, this overlooks the facts that most of those immigrants within a few years become contributors to society. One very accomplished colleague I have was a girl from Somalia, getting to Sweden with the help of the Swedish Red Cross when she was 12. And this tiny girl, looking in size like being around 15, has been working exentsively in the field with Médécins sans Frontiers! As well as being a hugely successful gynaecologist and obstetrician.
I pity the young Brits that are excluded from Erasmus program.
@@Mayagick Sadly 52% voted the wrong way.
No defined, drawn borders for regions/countries -> an interesting thought process that leads me to the archaeological site in the Tollense Valley. There were no defined, drawn borders there either and yet others apparently tried to push out those who settled there. Archology sometimes brings out the fact that we humans have changed our "social, economic" attitudes little in the last 5+ millennia. Those who achieve economic success either become victims of the greed of others or become perpetrators because they can't get enough because of their own greed.
Out of fear, greed, hatred, revenge, etc., people tend to exploit and degrade others.
.
So you compare peoples need to protect themselves, from a dogmatic ideology/religion that has stated (and proven on several occasions, through the centuries) it wants the world to subjugate itself to its belief system, nazism?
You Swedes, really are your own worst enemy.
BREXIT was not extreme nationalism. It also happened before the current refugee crisis (if crisis is the right word). At the time the UK debated and then voted to leave the EU the immigration debate focussed largely on the amount of legal migration to the UK from within the EU. But even then whilst the media painted those who voted Leave as racist nationalists the picture was much more nuanced.
If you look back on the interviews at the time the BBC in particular would go to a poor inner city housing estate and find an o overweight badly dressed less than clean person to ask why they voted leave. They would then get the appearance of an uneducated racist fool that they wanted to paint. The next interview would be in a fashionable expensive cafe in the business district of London where a well educated well dressed fashionable person would give a beautifully eloquent reason to stay.
I’m educated, I have a masters degree and a good job and I voted leave. Many of my educated friends also voted leave. Importantly not one of us did so because of ‘extreme nationalism’.
From my (European) perspective the ‘hard border’ doctrine starts with the concept of a nation-state which was deeply rooted in the negotiations on the Paris treaties after WW1. There were several plebiscites deciding on which country people wanted to be a national of. Obviously it was omitted in the case of Hungary and later with the decolonisation of Africa that drew borders regardless of the ethnicity of the area.
They're a bit older.
Think the fall of Napoleon for the beginning of the concept.
And honestly the need started because it became possible with larger and larger empires where that where more and more centrally controlled leading to peoples suffering under the control of people who didn't understand their lives and problems.
I hated writing this comment. This video is the first video from both the Black Forest Family days and now Type Ashton that I thought was a dud. It was too light on real life data and too heavy on academic thought experiments and it certainly hasn’t made me more open to a borderless world. The Overton Window on this topic is far closer to more borders than open borders.
Quite frankly, I suspect uncontrolled migration doesn’t bring the alleged benefits cited when ALL costs are considered. Why should the US, EU, Canada, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway, or even Russia accept unlimited numbers of people on their territory requiring primary school education, medical care, housing, and the myriad other components of life requiring an astronomical increase in the levels of taxation on their current citizens to provide these? Why should the people of mentioned countries have to deal with people leaving countries that overwhelmingly are run by corrupt governments which prioritize the people in power over welfare and well being of the general population? Why isn’t that responsibility put on their country of citizenship and why aren’t the people choosing to leave forcing those changes as an alternative instead of expecting others to provide for them?
As far as the relatively barrier free world trade is concerned that has produced as many loses as wins. Ask, the residents of the so-called US Rust Belt states that supplied the goods and items that built the US infrastructure and into a power house economy, if free trade, never mind open borders, was a great thing. I’d suspect they could have cared less if millions of Chinese were lifted out of abject poverty to live in coastal production centers by producing cheap stuff for those on the US coastal states. Looking back at the pandemic and it’s aftermath, it was quite obvious that a globalized trade system with few barriers created single points of failures or choke points where countries that had hollowed out their manufacturers capabilities found they were not able to supply needed medical supplies and equipment. In my mind, “free trade” overall is a race to the bottom looking for ever lower wages.
Sorry, that my reaction to this video was so negative but this video was unlike any others.
Why borders matter
I'm doing a thought experiment to get away from all the emotions. I leave economics and politics and enter the field of biology.
In a multicellular organism there are more or less specialized cells surrounded by cell membranes. Again, there are boundaries. There are various, sometimes complex processes that manage transport of various substances, into or out of the cell.
This is controlled by a large number of hormones. The aim is for the organism to survive, to absorb energy and to release waste products.
Survival would not be possible without cell membranes, nor with permanently impermeable ones.
Borders have shaped my life in so many ways.
I grew up in a half city surrounded by walls (West-Berlin), lived for years in a country, which back then had an open border to me, but is now somewhat closed (the UK) and for 15 years in a country with a theoretically open border, which made me illegal for screwing up paperwork after a personal and mental health crisis (Switzerland).
So now, I have to move back to the only place, I can just be, without justifying my existence (Germany).
And all this in the very privileged situation of being an EU-citizen.
I find your thought experiment fascinating. It is deeply unjust to hand out privileges to people, just for the fact that they were born in a certain place, though I fear, a borderless world would people make even more jealous in defending what's "theirs" by creating new private borders around their property or area.
Good morning dear Dr Ashton dear Jonathon
Every sunday i am waiting for your videos because i do love smart thoughts. Now beeing german an old german i am used to borders. I was so happy when borders in Europe were basicly open. That means to me there is no problem going to all countries of the EU. AND learn from each others. That is one not the only reason why I do love your channel so much. THANK YOU 👍👍👍👍
Good morning! The border between east and west Germany is another great example, which feels quite timely with German Unity Day not so long ago. ♥️
@@TypeAshtonthe effects of East and West Germany being separated by the Berlin Wall persists to this day. Compare Frankfurt to Dresden and it’s not even close. One seems stuck in the 40s whereas the other is a modern European city
@@j2simpsowhich one is stuck in the 1940s?
There has been quite a bit of research on immigrants and integration. Even if immigrants plan to go back, reality often is that that’s not feasible any more as they assimilated more than they thought. Even ppl that did not properly learn the language.
Research e.g. showed that 2nd generation immigrants from Morocco, despite heavy experiences of feeling not integrated in France and Germany and generally more identifying as Moroccans, realized when they were brought together that eg the French Moroccoans had more in common with their French peers than those Moroccoan immigrants from Germany.
My parents have been part of the german minority in romania. They flew to germany a year before i was born. At that time germany payed money to the romanian dictatorship, to let members of the german minority out of romanian citizenship. So my parents became german citizens fast.
I think i was about 6 years old and we made a summer trip to romania by car, to visit my gandparents, who still were living there. For us kids, crossing borders during that trip was interesting, and somehow fun. It was fascinating, that this part of the road is still one country, the next part is another one.
The fun ended, as we were heading to the romanian border. The tensions of my parents were growing. And i remember my mother telling us kids, that we should always be friendly, whatever happens at that border. That the border patroll will possibly search all of our luggage and that they will not be friendly to us. Mabe they will take away things like our walkmans. If that happens that would be okay, we would get new ones. And that we possibly have to bribe the border patrole for not getting harassed too much. That was frightening. I did not understand, why this border was not like the borders before.
Than we came into the traffic jam on the road to the border. It was a total stop. A few hours earlier romania had closed its borders completly. We had to wait 24 hours in this traffic jam in the summer heat, then romania decided to open the borders again.
It is unbelievable, that that border today is a border inside the EU and EU citizens are free to pass it in any direction whenever they want.
Thanks for your story.
I think we Europeans simply appreciate that, especially those who know it differently.
Dear Ashton, I found you today by chance because one of my daughters thinks of moving to the US. I was quickly hooked on your programme. Starting with your numerous comparisons of the US and Germany and other countries you develop nicely into more profound subjects and issues like talking about borders. It is wonderful to see how you naturally and genuinely develop into even more depth coming from a very pragmatic point of view..being an intelligent woman, wife, a mother.. with a very clear view of looking at things and a wonderful way to invite people for an open discussion concerning the subjects you tackle. Greetings to your husband Jonathan ..I really hope you keep THIS up..This can develop into something really wonderful !!❤ I will keep watching and listening. Thank you for your wonderful work !! Tom from Munich Germany
This was an interesting topic. There is actually a real world example of removing the border between two nations, and that’s Germany. When the wall came down and Germany was reunited in 1990, that meant merging of two very different economies.
Merging two different economies, but not really two ethnicities. So, it's not really a good example.
@lucasfernando4097 Your talk about ethnicities all the time. Europe has been a melting pot for thousands of years.
@@arnodobler1096 Just reminding you that "ethnicity" has a broader meaning than "race", which is the common misconception about the term. You might think I'm talking about racism, etc. I'm not.
Again, Europe kind of proves my point that ethnicity matters. Thousands of years of so-called "melting pot", however, we're watching a war unfold before our eyes.
@@lucasfernando4097 Ethnic groups themselves are rarely the reason for wars. Power and greed from those above do.
@@lucasfernando4097 The overall video also seems to apologize or even favor STATE contracts of capital or people, what is the sheer contrast of original free trade and liberty. This is especially important, because borders were also accepted from the "West", so that their people or capital don't go away into the East! Ashton doesn't say that borders also mean, that capital can't move out. That further means: Borders are unnessary, because "good countries" will always see capital inflow, and not that anybody can plunder STATE public systems. So, the entire thing of why borders are established to fight crime, are only because of the pullfactors of stupid and wrong STATE policies and Socialist Republicanism, that this private thing is something the STATE should care of. It has nothing to do with Capitalism, but Socialism why these borders exist and eventually will be used against their own citizens. Where do American's go, if they want to flee "Commiefornia"? They can just move inside to other US States in mass, where the same "swamp" rules. They are not allowed to help entire Mexico because they help Mexicans in private. You DON'T need STATE contracts for this. This is just NWO and Socialist shit from the day of Roosevelt. So, either you have a good president, so people don't flee and pull factors are removed, or this whole thing backfires while the criminals still find ways to public funds and entry.
Hi Ashton, you have a new sub ✌🏼🇳🇱✌🏼
Awesome thank you!
The Hamas-terrorists and like minded people would love your utopia. I think this video shows a very optimistic, almost naiv liberal view of the world. Sure, it's just a "thought-experiment" Truth is people with different opinions would almost certainly abuse the void between former countries. In the end this would also nullify other concepts like countries, cultures but even language, individualism and property if taken to the logical end. I personally think borders are part of human society and as old as humanity in an uncartiographic way.
This is your best cover for a episode! Great crafted!
Wow, thank you!
Ashton, how do you come up with all these ideas every week? You and your content are awesome.
Thank you! I just like questions that don't have a right or wrong answer. This video seems to be a bit more "controversial" than I thought, but... I like asking questions that make me even question my own prior held ideas. I'm glad you enjoy it too.
@@TypeAshton -- Being "controversial" is not always a bad thing! It might ruffle feathers, but it makes people think.
My thought when you said "What would happen if we'd get rid of oir borders" was that we'd simply create new ones 🤷♀️
The idea of opening all borders reminds me of the idea to decriminalize theft and drug use in Portland, Seattle and California. It's the utopian liberal idea that people are generally good and innocent and will behave themselves. Well. they're not and they don't as we can see first hand in the US. If borders were open, Northern and Central Europe would be overrun in no time, draining resources and plunging into poverty and chaos. That's the reality. And also in the past, borders were different but still existed and they were a lot harsher: You had to pay to cross bridges, pay to enter cities, pay to attend markets...Most people couldn't afford that. And as much as we need immigrants, not everyone is an upstanding citizen...Just look what is done to the Israelis. Protests supporting Hamas! Many bring their home grown hatred and bigotry with them.
Borders are actually crucial in determining who is responsible for anything that happens in the designated area. It will cause a lot of serious issues if hard lines aren't drawn on a map, because if nobody is actually appointed as being responsible for an area, then nobody can actually make decisions as to the allocation of that land.
For example, whenever a city wants to create a new train station, it will have to be connected to a rail network. The neighbouring city might have some serious issues with connecting the train station in the other city, because that city would have to demolish a memorial park in order to connect it to their network. When there are no borders this decision can be forced through, because autonomous decisions of the area aren't guaranteed. This can create a perfect ground for exploitation and misconduct.
Hi Ashton, I have been watching your videos and recommending them for a couple years now. Especially as you research the issue at hand without any significant bias. I just found out that child marriages are legal in lot of states in the US and it really shook me. I would love to see an analysis of the legislation development between US and EU for example. Thank you!
In US just being factual and not believer is considered to be a major bias.
A borderless world would be fantastic if everybody would be educated and kind-hearted like you are. As an extreme example, imagine the mayhem if Israel would unilaterally take down all its external and internal borders. I just doesn't work (yet).
I appreciate the thought process for a peaceful, equitable, and borderless world in the future. We all live on the same planet, and thinking about how to get there is a worthwhile exercise. @user-px9nk8tp7y @TypeAshton, please delve deeper into these complex topics.
I see a lot of people giving examples of how "borderless" their countries are or were. Many of these examples think of border as something that separates two neighboring countries, but the term "border" TODAY has more to do with countries that are not contiguous.
The fact that many European countries are kind of "borderless" is because there is a kind of "continuum" between them in terms of values and ethnicity. Along the borders people are kind of an "in between".
It's also useful to point out how some of the more contentious border conflicts arise when two ethnicities who were separated historically suddenly come into contact with each other.
The US has a problem with the border with Mexico because there was an immediate ethnical clash when the first Americans started making their way to the West.
Mexican identity and culture is WAY stronger than many seem to believe. Very few Mexicans would be open to the idea that their country is a "melting pot" of cultures, and that's ok. Despite the US being historically a "melting pot", ethnicity and national identity eventually start forming inside America, and I would say ignoring this fact by just saying people are biggots is a gross mistake. People tend to overlook the fact that the American immigration was done by a lot of Europeans. This kind of biased the idea of the "melting pot" because Europeans already shared a lot values from common history and common religion, common Western philosophy, etc.
I think language, and to some extent culture, is a stronger border than a political one.
For example: re-joining Germany was a bit problematic, but nothing compared to for example Germany and France merging (though Alsace-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen might find it practical).
Therefor I think it more likely that Korea becomes one nation than the EU still existing in 100 years.
A Nordic/Scandinavian union could be a possiblity, since those borders are and have never been that strong anyway.
But opening high tendion borders just like that, could have disasterous effects…
Humanity still rely on insticts learned on the African savanna.
"Therefor I think it more likely that Korea becomes one nation than the EU still existing in 100 years."
Obviously. Soviet Union. Yugoslavia already fallen apart. In the UK you have Scotland trying to become independent from England. Catalonia and the Basque region in Spain, Flanders in Belgium, the UK already left the EU and there are even talks about a "national divorce" in the US. Imho the trend is more borders than less and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
I don't know if you have come across this, but I would like to add here a - somewhat long-ish - quote from Stefan Zweig: (first the original German, then a translation)
"In der Tat: nichts vielleicht macht den ungeheuren Rückfall sinnlicher, in den die Welt seit dem ersten Weltkrieg geraten ist, als die Einschränkung der persönlichen Bewegungsfreiheit des Menschen und die Verminderung seiner Freiheitsrechte. Vor 1914 hatte die Erde allen Menschen gehört. Jeder ging, wohin er wollte und blieb, solange er wollte. Es gab keine Erlaubnisse, keine Verstattungen, und ich ergötze mich immer wieder neu an dem Staunen junger Menschen, sobald ich ihnen erzähle, daß ich vor 1914 nach Indien und Amerika reiste, ohne einen Paß zu besitzen oder überhaupt je gesehen zu haben. Man stieg ein und stieg aus, ohne zu fragen und gefragt zu werden, man hatte nicht ein einziges von den hundert Papieren auszufüllen, die heute abgefordert werden. Es gab keine Permits, keine Visen, keine Belästigungen; dieselben Grenzen, die heute von Zollbeamten, Polizei, Gendarmerieposten dank des pathologischen Mißtrauens aller gegen alle in einen Drahtverhau verwandelt sind, bedeuteten nichts als symbolische Linien, die man ebenso sorglos überschritt wie den Meridian in Greenwich. Erst nach dem Kriege begann die Weltverstörung durch den Nationalsozialismus, und als erstes sichtbares Phänomen zeitigte diese geistige Epidemie unseres Jahrhunderts die Xenophobie: den Fremdenhaß oder zumindest die Fremdenangst. Überall verteidigte man sich gegen den Ausländer, überall schaltete man ihn aus. All die Erniedrigungen, die man früher ausschließlich für Verbrecher erfunden hatte, wurden jetzt vor und während einer Reise jedem Reisenden auferlegt. Man mußte sich photographieren lassen von rechts und links, im Profil und en face, das Haar so kurz geschnitten, daß man das Ohr sehen konnte, man mußte Fingerabdrücke geben, erst nur den Daumen, dann alle zehn Finger, mußte überdies Zeugnisse, Gesundheitszeugnisse, Impfzeugnisse, polizeiliche Führungszeugnisse, Empfehlungen vorweisen, mußte Einladungen präsentieren können und Adressen von Verwandten, mußte moralische und finanzielle Garantien beibringen, Formulare ausfüllen und unterschreiben in dreifacher, vierfacher Ausfertigung, und wenn nur eines aus diesem Schock Blätter fehlte, war man verloren. "
source: www.sirene.at/archiv/2018-das-totenschiff/die-welt-von-gestern/
my translation of the quote above:
"Indeed, nothing, perhaps, makes the incredible relapse more visible which the world has gotten into since the first world war, than the limitation of the personal freedom of movement of humans and the decrease of their rights of freedom. Before 1914, the world had belonged to all humans. Everyone went where they wanted and stayed as long as they wanted. There were no accreditations and no applications, and again and again, I am amused about the amazement of young people as soon as I tell them that before 1914, I travelled to India and America without owning a passport, even without ever having seen one. You boarded and deboarded without asking or being asked, you didn't have to fill out a single one of those hundred papers which are requisitioned today. There were no permits, no visa, no harrassment. The same boarders that today have now been made into a mess of wires and fences by customs officials, police and constabularies, thanks to the pathological mistrust of everyone against everyone, they meant nothing but symbolic lines that you crossed just as devoid of worries as you do the zero-meridian in Greenwich. Only after the war began the disconcertment of the world through Naziism and the first visible phenomenon of this was this mental epidemic of our century: xenophobia. The hatred of foreigners, or at least the fear of foreigners.
Everywhere one defended oneself against the foreigner, everywhere, the foreigner was got rid of. All the humiliations that had been invented only for criminals were now imposed on every traveller before and during their travels. You had to be taken pictures of from right and left, in profile and in portrait, hair cut short enough for the ears to be seen, you had to give your fingerprint, first only the thumb, then all ten fingers, and in addition you had to show reports, health certificates, vaccination certificates, certificates of conduct, recommendations. You had to present invitations and the addresses of relatives, had to bring moral and financial guarantees, fill in forms and sign them in double and triple copy. And if only one of this bunch of papers was missing, you were lost.
Several thoughts or responses came to mind watching this video.
1) when borders came into existance depends on what you call a boarder. I could be a line on a map reinforced by a steel or concrete barrier and an army, or it could just be the edge of the forest or a farmer's hedgerow. Similarly is pi 3.1 or is it 3.1415926.
2) borders represent at least two human characteristics, fear and aggression. Fear of the "other" and the desire by some to have more power than others. This has to do with the fact that humans have two networks (subjective vs objective) with which to perceive reality and have allowed themselves to be primarily influenced by only one, the subjective.
3) the effects of open borders really depends on the economic, political, and demographic contrasts (or devide - which are themselves forms of borders), between the countries involved. Peer countries would have a net benefit, while borderless non peer countries would suffer a decline in some form depending on the aspects of those contrasts (economic, political, or demographic).
4) if we are to engage in a theoretical experiment, how about asking, what would result if human cultures across the globe learned how to move their perspective at will from the subjective (and ego centered) Default Mode Network to the objective (and more tranquil and egoless) Task Positive Netowork. If serious meditation was as much a cultural routine as learning to read and write, humanity would experience a phenomenal renaissance, which would include a borderless reality.
Pi is neither 3.1 or 3.1415926. It's π.
I would like you to look into how the revolution of transportation has had on the evolution of the borders. Your description about borders being a recent invention coincides with transportation changes.
From the UK (the stupid Brexit country) who deliberately decided to become poorer by leaving the EU (should point out member of European Movement). The immigration argument was used as a major reason to leave the EU (of course project fear). Yet we need immigration not just skilled workers, but unskilled workers - the UK does have a number of people unemployed, these people could do unskilled work, but they consider certain jobs beneath them like picking crops on farms, working in the care homes. Love driving through the EU once in France I cross through Belgium and The Netherlands before arriving in Germany only difference is the occasional EU Country sign, and reduced speed limit in the Netherlands. More Seriously the attitude of the British Government and some EU Governments and the EU as a Whole to the “illegal migration” of people who are not white, we need a solution a method of sharing the wealth, this issue will not go away with the EU and UK being the “Promised Land”
Seeing the photo of by local airport makes me happy because i know I have an upcoming flight to an island to relax 😂
This is probably the most difficult and contentious subject you have addressed to date. Borders, how they operate, came to be and what they are, is an interesting subject, but at the same time sensitive. Even the "borderless" Schengen zone still has national boundaries. Though many things are shared and passing from one country to another is "open", there are still many policies and rules that stop and start at those borders. Countries are in most ways are administrative entities, no matter where they are. The government in that area attempts to administer that area in an orderly fashion based on local desires and needs (mostly, but not always). How a particular area is a separate becomes a "country" has to do with how a group of people see themselves as different from others. This may be based on language, traditions, religion, geography or many other factors. This unfortunately creates a problem with them becoming insular, having a sense of separateness, and worst of all, self righteousness. Many of the border issues today, and their problems, can be laid firmly at the feet of the colonial powers of Europe and how they drew maps. Africa and the middle east are the poster children for this debacle. In the end is comes down to just one thing, people. Human beings come with a lot of baggage including prejudices, predisposed ideas and a lot of xenophobia. So we have borders, both physical and psychological. One item that I disagree with you on is how old the concept of borders is. I think somewhere there was a cave dweller that took a stick and drew a line and announced that what was on one side was his and none of the others could enter. Again, just human (or homosapien) behavior.
A good, thought provoking story. Keep up the good work!
Interesting thought experiment. But I think there is one aspect not included in your video. Borders also define the management of the area they surround. Getting rid of borders would be a great idea, yet I think we don't have the tools to manage that. I mean, just look at the USA. It hardly is able to manage that vast land without making their population unhappy. Or take Russia, China, India, Brasil... the bigger the landmass, the more people, the less people are satisfied with their Government, no matter the system (democratic, pseudo democratic, autocracy and so on). It works very well in small states like Switzerland, yet even there are issues appearing when you look closer. The EU is kind of an experiment, and it gets more and more clear that the people in the EU feel alienated by it or at least irritated. Maybe there is where we should begin, thinking of ways to manage an area where people feel truly as a part of it before we start removing our current borders. Otherwise the result would be a fracture of the whole area in smaller countries with new borders again and the whole thing would return to a mess like the holy roman empire.
But maybe I am simply to pessimistic to truly believe we as humanity could ever achieve that 🙂
Great video, thought provoking.
Funnily enough this morning the BBC interviewed the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party that is looking to reinstate a border that was removed in 1707.
Brexit was a reaction to the aim of ever closer political … union. Right problem now at the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland . Though there is a common travel area between UK and RoI
Consider also German reunification removing the border between East and West Germany.
Open borders make sense between countries with similar levels of economic development and per capita income, but when you have open borders between countries with very different levels of income, say on the order of 10 to 1, there will be massive migration that will be very difficult to manage. One day I believe there will be a convergence in levels of economic development between all countries, but that probably wont happen for at least 100 years, and until then, we will need to control our borders and who gets through.
Go to the head of the class, sir!! "Open borders" only works well when adjacent nations share economic, social and cultural parity. Otherwise, you just hear that 'giant sucking sound' that H. Ross Perot mentioned more than thirty years ago.
The problem is not the physical border but the border in the mind of people.
As you can see an the map Germany is a country that merged from so many little ones and it was for the good. They started to use the same standards and metrics which increased trade and wealth.
But it is quite hard to see what the people were thinking.
Therefor we can look at the reunion of the two German states in 1990. There is still a lot of conflict between both former cititsens, because they followed different ideologys. While merging the former GDR was getting a new system from the scratch. And there were stuff you could keep or even use for the FRG.
People are afraid of losing their heritage, which is also a factor, which makes borderless hard to realise.
Need to have a word with Russia and its UN obligations to respect the borders of neighbour countries.
Ashton, your videos amaze me week by week. Thank you for your exeptionally and extremely well reserched videos. The PHD shows it's worth when reseaching all the interessting topics. Thank you for that. I am very interessted in your your increasingly european perspective in american policical behavior. This is a german point of view on this topic.
Keep this type of videos going on. Thank you😊
Hi Ashton. The problem we face, and have faced in the distant past, is the fundamental differences in Ideaologi and culture between people. I don't have any problem with people immigrating to my country as long as they assimilate and integrate with the existing culture and ideaologi. But today we have a situation in the EU where we have migrants with little to no knowledge of the languages we speak, or even being literate. a mjority of these peopole also want us to adapt new rules in order to accomodate them, not us. There are so many people migrating to the EU that become a burdon to society, and the social system, due to their lack of even beeing able to read and write.
On the other hand, our open borders and free trade within the EU has benefited us all, and show that more open borders in the form of free trade and movement of people benefit us all.
The Sword has two edges.
I personally think that a border less world doesn’t make sense with the high population count we have world wide. Many borders are important because they developed over history and tend to put a group if people with certain broader values and cultural attributes into modules. However, there are borders which are not beneficial because they divide arbitrarily between groups or assign populations to a module which are not part of that shared set of world views. Borders are not set in stone and change over time at best organically when shared value distributions change. Often I feel borders are more than administrative units. I mean there is a cultural difference between let’s say Austria and Germany or between USA and Mexico.
You are in the country with the largest change of borders in the last 50 years. The transformation of West Germany and East Germany into Germany. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on this.
Thank you.
Top-notch production quality, content and presentation, I don't get the low views/thumbs-up ratio.
Much appreciated! I think this video got off on a bad start. The comments from today (and really most of yesterday) have been super positive, but within the first hour it found a lot of... Uh... Well, angry commenters who left me threats. And I think it triggered the algorithm to not show the video to a wider audience. 🤷♀️
I am sorry. I am late to this new amazing channel. black fore fam
its not new
Yeah understood. Was away fromyoutube, so I missed alot@@helfgott1
This was thought provoking. In the two houses I grew up in there were no fences. Kids moved freely through back yards. In the first house I owned there were no fences but there were no houses within 300 meters. The second house I owned was in a historic area and most fences were neighbors. The third house I owned was on a lake. I added a roadside and two partial lot side fences. The side fences were only partial to preserve neighbors and my lake side views. Today I live in a suburban neighborhood and have a complete backyard fence with an access gate. It is great for dogs. Other than that it seems a little closed in. Every house on my block has a backyard.
Well, unlimited immigration will of course mean more diverse societies. And there seems to be considerable academic evidence, which I’m sure you know about, that suggests that more diverse societies are societies with lower levels of trust. It would actually be interesting if you could do a video on that.
I'm not afraid about ordinary immigration at all, but I believe removing borders would lead to an intense anarchy and that in turn would lead to immense loss of lives and probably losing focus and ability to tackle serious global issues like global warming. I think this is quite pointless thought experiment, though I was the video about it was well made by Ashton.
Excellent video! Will have to give topic some more thought, before I comment more. .. but in the meantime: Think of John Lennon's song: Imagine.
Messy map? I think the nordic countries looks quite organized on that 14th century map. :)
Yes, Sweden should give us Jämtland and Härjedalen back 😂
Hi Ashton,
I love your videos, they are great, interesting, interesting topics, well researched, well presented...
I could just go on.
I don't know if I could PN you, but since I don't know how, just a petty note as a Latin teacher: to emigrate has one -m, to immigrate has two.
Sorry for this comment and keep up the good work!!!
What a gigantic topic.. my ihead is steaming right now.
Another great show, Ashton! It is especially appropriate today because of the Gaza - Israel situation. I certainly appreciate my privilege as a US citizen to travel and live elsewhere (like Germany, where I now live thanks to a Visa.) Politicians insure a lot of votes by convincing people that low wages are due to unskilled immigrants taking their jobs instead of the real problems. Today, I'm afraid borders are still a necessity in terms of laws, taxes and government benefits. But in the future I believe people will have to rethink this because of aging populations.
Again, Kudos for your fantastic depth of exploration and research. I have another fascinating topic to explore: Riparian rights and in general, worldwide water supply issues.
But but but but but...without borders how do we show who won? I mean we HAVE to exclude people who don't validate and reinforce our self image. Do we really want to admit the head start that we got? What if one of "them" did well or bought a nicer car? What would that say about me????
Seriously though, you're hitting all the right notes and your presentation of these topics has been superb.
Great work again, Ashton. One aspect you ... underplayed ... is the aspect of social security. A nation with an open border policy also makes itself responsible for those who live and work within it. In the present situation, a few relatively prosperous nations would, in the course of a few short years, be socially responsible for maybe half of the world's present (over-) population - which is a theoretical calculation that speaks volumes against a borderless world. If, however, you live in a prosperous nation that does not assume this social responsibility, then you end up with ... Portland, where the homeless camp on the streets.
Borders work better for cultural and political reasons but not as well for trade. You’re correct, it’s messy.
Your last view videos have really been on an other level! Thanks a lot.
Glad you are enjoying them. Thank you!
Very informative, thank you.
Such a challenging topic, expertly tackled. Kudos to you Ashton, great job.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Smart people will leave or simply stop working, brain-drain but also passive resistance to taxes and regulations, most areas would be full of not-so-smart people. Creativity is pareto distributed among humans.
Todays US is an excellent example.
This then assuming that there would be some sort of borderless democracy,
Also, without borders, whose respoinsibility is it to maintain and develop different pieces of land and infrastructure? Who is responsible for surveillance and policing of the area? If for example critical road is constructed by a private company, they could charge huge tolls for those using the road, and maybe they didn't have any other choice, a monopoly of sorts. You could say, that maybe competition is the key, well if that was the only place road could be made or maybe these companies establish a cartel. Who will police them? They could also build a private army, and soon they would control the area and borders would be created. So borders will occur naturally when humans are involved. Also many animals have territories, which are defined by somewhat arbitary borders.
Very nice and thoughtful video as usual. I grew up in North Africa and I recall that in the 70's and 80's, it was much easier to travel to Europe, for example. My parents and I went there on vacation on a yearly basis and we did not need a Visa. Things have changed dramatically since the late 80's. I understand that immigration and border security are very touchy subjects, but I can tell you from experience, that without immigrants in the US, the US would not be the country that it is today. Most scientists (I am one of them), engineers, construction workers, etc. are immigrants. You also touched on an excellent touchy topic. Should a quota of immigrants only be allowed based on skills? These are all difficult questions.
The US is more a company, Europe is not.
I am from the USA and live in Germany right now. So-called "merit based" immigration is a hot topic right now. To keep an economy growing, it is vital to attract skilled labor. However, no nation will do well by "importing" millions of poor, unskilled and dependent people who will so often be a net drain on the system........regardless of their skin color or country of origin.
@@1VaDude Economies also don't grow, if you just lower wages.
@@urlauburlaub2222 -- Or if you continually just print more money. ( That devalues the wages of most everybody - except for the super wealthy who are far above the pricing system. )
But yes, cutting the same pie into more slices doesn't always work very well.
The main purpose of a border is to define the law in a way that those who lives in the country are happy with. That should not imply any restrictions on travel. However, if the law of country A is incompatible with the law country B, there is a problem as long as both countries are democracies. This could be related to both regulations and taxes (that is why toll exists), or crime.
It's important to note that along with opening up borders within the EU, the EU also puts a lot of money into improving infrastructure into poorer parts of the continent. Despite this, there were huge migration movements across Europe after the countries of Eastern Europe were admitted into the EU. Some countries were faced with a surge in population, putting a strain on infrastructure, whilst others were left with seriously depleted populations consistent mostly of older people. Freedom of movement within the EU has also resulted in greater pressures externally and the tightening of those borders.
You are out bidding yourself with every video it seems. Really great editing, story telling, selling the facts. A nice thought experiment to do while the world is shifting more towards nationalism and populism again.
Thank you ♥️♥️ really appreciate your support.
First, a misconception. Borders are WAAAAAY older than you say. Yea, neat clean lines on the map are new, but even in medieval, heck, in ancient times borders was defined. This city answer to this king, that answer to that. This village pay tax to this knight, that pays to that. You show the map of HRE and point out that it is not a solid state but a colection of lords and nobles answering to the emperor. It look kinda familiar... like modern US, with 50 states answering to federal goverment.
Second, most important point that you omited. Goverment and rules. As you said, borders dictate who rules where. On the border athority of one ruler/goverment ends and second one begine. And each ruler/goverment comes with a set of rules made by it. With no border you kinda cannot have separate goverments, so... you have to made one global one?
Even with this super easy example of Germany and France - there are still big diferences between them. From are around of details, like the way healthcare or education work, some are around principle, like energy (France try to increase use of nuclear when Germany banned nuclear energy). If we go outside Europe... there are democratic countries, "democtaric" ones, there are absolute monarchies and religious states. In some countries gay can marry. In others there are killed. How do you want to abolish border between that.
And there is an issue of people just hating each other. Sometimes they are devided by border, like Arabs and Jews. And it is horrific, but... what happened when two groups that hated each other are not devided? Did you heard about Rwanda?
When peoples are hating each other, bad things will happen. But how often is this hatred not fuelled by politicians ? On a person to person level, it often becomes ridiculous. But we are often swept up in theoretical exaggerated arguments and views, stereotyping 'the other'. And as said, often by politicians or others with an axe to grind or an ulterior motive (land grab, control, etc etc)
Your point about the security made me think. Maybe this is one of the few potential positives of total surveillance: free movement.
"screening security threats would get a lot more complicated" - because the threats come only from outside, don't they? And maybe, just maybe, there would be fewer threats when there is less resentment?
Any additional check allows for screening, meaning additional borders allow for otherwise unacceptable scrutiny
don´t understand me wrong, I do like you much, but, I miss the black forest family a lot, the last thing I saw with your family was the reel where you were biking and stopped to try the schnapps, that was so normal and likeable. I do miss that 😥
There is one big downside of having no borders globaly… that is not based on fear of race transfer (had no other word because in that situation they would not be „foreigners“ no more).
If we would get rid of borders tomorrow, the world would become a looting paradise for resource companies instantly where they now have to negotiate with the individual state (and pay for it) that owns the ressource. It would install hyper capitalism and would devide the poor from the rich far more as it is today already.
I predict that companies would become bigger and bigger and would soon rule the planet (because they could afford to buy any politician… similar to what is going on in the US).
And where politicians today at least pretend to work for the benefit of the people… companies woun´t.
Also… worlds ressources would dry out faster than you could blink.
It´s basicly the scenario of sociaty in cyberpunk… Megacons (Mega-Coorporations) take over and regular people get f***ed.
Could be wrong… it was just my first thought on that topic.
Greetings from cologne (germany)
P.S.
What I forgot… it would not stop having wars. Companies would form privat armies and would start wars over ressources.
A world with no borders does just work in a hyper communistic StarTrek scenario where everybody works for the benefit of the whole sociaty… but mankind in general is not that „good“ (or better said mankind is to evil to get a StarTrek world happen)
According to the wikipedia on Swedish emigration to America, the long period of high emigration to the US from mid 19th to early 20th century forced the Swedish government to liberalise its political system to match the most progressive elements of the US at that time. In other words the famed social democracy of Sweden came about at least in part, due to competition with the US to keep its people. Now, it isn't a scientific phenomenon that emigration would force sending countries to reform and improve - it takes a particular social and political condition to begin with. But the pressure will always be there and I think competition in this sense tends to be a good thing.
Hi Ashton.... Within the EU, people can typically freely travel between countries - but the borders still exists. Another tought experiment - equally interesting would be to remove the concept of nationality. A person would still have to register at a certain government (for tax and other reasons), and that's it... Borders would still exist so governments can manage the territory. And a person may not be able to profit from certain services unless he registers to the local government, but if this is merely a formality that seem a better option than to remove borders, because without borders, the concept of goverment would also dissapear.
Citizenship comes with some rights but also includes obligations.
The right to live and stay in a country, county or municipality is separate from citizenship though comes usually with citizenship. In my country you register one permanent main address, and if requirements are fulfilled, you get public services without having to be a citizen of the country.
But then you also need to pay taxes etc. You also have the right to vote in the local elections.
That is a nation,
So, one could register in USA, live in Germany and work in Switzerland?
Or do you mean one must register where he lives and works and will be automatically under jurisdiction (laws, privileges, taxes, health care, ...) of the country in which borders he is registered, regardless where he is born?
And if he moves, he has to re-register and gets a completely new set of everything mentioned above and a ne jurisdiction?
There are organizations and even nations, which have government type structures without boarders.
Basically these are either old ethic groups like the Sáme people in the northern Europe or they can be organizations like business companies, ideological organizations like religious movements, churches, political parties, sports unions, labor unions..
@@just42tube Let's imagine the german population needs more power and decides a dam needs to be build... without defined borders, they could build the dam in what currently is a swiss valley and flood the houses and swiss cows? Borders are like contracts between governments where their control ends, and I think they are helpful to prevent anarchy.
The European Open Border System is a good compromise. And with more equality in politics and economics you can open up the borders and then benefit from cultural and human diversity.
Like most economic analysis, the environment is ignored. Letting higher numbers of migrants into the developed countries would dramatically increase emissions.
The same thought hit me about the time Russia invaded the Ukraine. The more I think about it the more I like the idea.
Good video as always
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
Oh, and you don't say "The Ukraine". It's just "Ukraine", ok.
When you say "The Ukraine" it's the way ruzzians justify Ukraine not being a country, but just a little region of an alleged "great ruzzia".
@@lucasfernando4097 -- I have heard that before too.
I am from the USA and live in Germany. We have both Russians and Ukrainians living in our city and I have - a few times - spoken with both groups of people. The Russians tend to call it "The Ukraine" and folks from other places just call it Ukraine. I suppose it is good that we Americans don't refer to Deutschland as "The Germany" - as that just wouldn't sound right. Germans and others call my homeland "The USA" instead of "USA" - but that's technically correct since we're a group of fifty states.
What a strange and fascinating world it is in which we live!
It's very bold and even inaccurate in my opinion to say borders are a new thing. Nearly all European cities had a very expensive wall around it, protecting themselves from outsiders, and that not always for military. It may not be a country on a map but it is still a border. People also never traveled at todays levels due to capability or desire. If people were able to move in mass countries like France and Germany would have many different regions with different langauges and cultures.
If we had open borders at this very moment, Social wellfare states would no longer be possible. The main reason people are coming to Europe are for the social protections such as healthcare and well-fare. This standard is in their constitutions and must be given. These refugees would be buying flights to Europe immediately and there would be absolutely no way to handle that many at once. Even now record numbers are coming and that is with extreme difficulty and cost.
I think you have little experience with refugees in Germany. I can say from personal experience of teaching refugees German, a very large portion of them have very little formal education. If you don't have contact with them, I don't see how I can explain it in a small comment. Imagine leaving school in 4th grade, the most basic concepts would be missing. You would be shocked at the level of missing information. my first days of teaching were somehting no one could have prepared me. Things like writing on the line in a notebook. They live in a compeltely different world. I even had someone blame democracy for his contract not being renewed and the Ukraine war a religious war between the west and Orthadox christians. Also wind turbines are for measuring wind and E-vehicles not having exhaust being new information.
The German economy is much different than the American economy. Germany's economy is lacking skilled workers. Most companies require a basic education and understanding of technology and adminastration. The US in contrast has a very strong service based economy, where these skills are not necessary. Drive down mainstreet in America and you will see restaurants, not so in Germany. Having my students navigate a website is nearly impossible, so many of these migrants will not be able to work in an advanced economy with their level of education. Not a single soul in Germany has said " They took our jobs!"
You also have to calculate the cultural cost. We now have Eritreans fighting in the streets about their war back home and the police can only stand and watch. Large Syrian clans fighting Lebanon clans in the streets where the police are helpless to stop it. Riots on New Years country wide by disgrunted migrants. Regular cases of sexual assault from groups of migrants touching women and not realising this is not legal or acceptable (Köln a few months ago) Or lightly dressed women, means they are looking to have sex with anyone would comes by.
Now we have people demonstating in support of Hamas a terrorist group. If these numbers increased drastically these problems would also be amplified.
I could write a book about this stuff. Sometimes the information cant be found in government and private statistics, but one statistic you could look at is how many of htemigrants that came during the Syrian war are currently on social benefits. They have problems finding and keeping jobs, which makes them frustrated and that dissatisfaction quickly turns to blaming the Germans.
Despite having a difference in opinion here, I really enjoy the videos, especially as I myself am an American who moved to Germany.
City walls and castle walls are not the same as borders. Cities and castles could not survive without the surrounding area.
@@arnodobler1096 they serve the same purpose. Protect trade, different taxes, decide who can and cannot trade. keep people out. What tangible difference besides labels are there?
Hi Ashton.
You have absolutely well done analysis of hard data, but it looks like the conclusions is just separate take on the topic and is based on you emotions, rather than anything else.
This is why this video is so "controversial", as you put it.
Borders are interesting from a historical and helpful from a organisational viewpoint. The question is, how much function and/or non-physical meaning you put on them.
It's nice to know and to be able to tell where you're from, but it might be unhealthy to define your very being by a place or region without any further meaning to it.
The cited removal of borders studies looked as if they were mergers of comparative equals (US/Canada; France/Germany), rather than the effects for grossly unequal regions. There has already been the German re-unification where at least both halves spoke the same language and thought of themselves as part of the former whole, but it has taken a while.
When it comes to unifying say Africa with Europe, the differences, especially the ability to communicate (necessary for all those mutual benefits) is grossly unbalanced, and just as social media has fuelled the perceptions of divisions, make the transition difficult. Are the America Indians (..BIA..) happy with their borderless equality?
The natural 'borders' and limitations on travel and exchange matter in the 'not from around here' human society.
What a fabulous idea!
If you ask, whether there should be no border, then you should ask in countries, who split apart in war. Ask the people of former Yugoslavia for example.
And when you mean absolutely no borders, do you mean even no locked front door to your house? That is a border, too.
When there are no borders what so ever, there would be more wars for resources. Because all countries neighboring that resource would claim it to themselves. And more wars in border--areas because it isn't clear, to which group that area belongs. People in this area would be pushed out from the stronger. And then the border-area would shift.
So: I prefer the borders. They are safer.
I was thinking of the idea of no locked front door to our homes, too. Who would leave their door unlocked and allow anyone from anyplace to come in and stay and use your resources? What happens when they don't contribute to maintaining the house? What if they want to make their own rules and override your own wishes in your own house? I think Sweden and Denmark are finding this out unfortunately.
One issue is that countries themselves have different laws and cultures. For example, Canada and the USA may be so similar, but as you yourself have touched on have very different cultures and laws related to weapons and guns. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) stops many Americans who innocently but naively didn't bother to research Canadian law before visiting and suddenly realize that what to them is normal -- carrying a handgun, assault rifle, or pepper spray -- is a very serious crime in Canada. This youtube short shows an example from a TV show a decade ago about Canada's border officers, what is culturally normal for him in Texas gets him handcuffs and a court date in Canada: th-cam.com/video/sXZYCoUyyvw/w-d-xo.html.
To this day, the majority of guns (about 90% or more) used in crime in Canada are smuggled from the USA. So the border is a big deal for Canadian safety and protection.
One thing I want to emphasise..... This theoretical experiment? It has already been done in praxis. 1990, German Reunification. The GDR desolves itself and joins the FRG. And it was a clusterf***. We are still feeling the pain from that.
Borders between similar cultures are somewhat obsolete during these days of globalism indeed, but at the same time I believe in the necessity of the borders and I would even vote for much higher and stricter control and enforcement of borders, especially at the borders of Schengen area. Cultures that do not respect value of life the same as my culture, have no place sharing the same time and space. I know this is not popular and the "modern" opinion, but I will stand by it until some other cultures stop living in middle ages.
Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist who coined the term "virtual reality," described his childhood in his autobiography as just a daily border crossing on a bus to go from El Paso to Juarez to attend school in the 1960's. Older adults around me confirmed how they would go meet their friends in Juarez after getting off work because there was very little concern for a border. Now its heavily guarded and wired, what the heck happened?
I don't have anything to add to the video so ill just say thats one badass looking thumbnail.
Ashton is making the common lefty mistake of thinking that all people are fundamentally good and that (for example) a guy from Somalia and a guy from Norway are basically the same. On October 7th we all got a demonstration at what could happen when you erase borders.