@alex Butterflies are pretty and they hang out for a bit then leave of their own accord without coercion. If human guests would behave the same way, I'm sure most would agree with you.
@alex We can’t do it without a passport because we’re so good. We are the apex predators, and need some level of restraint.
You might think it’s dumb since for you it’s just a formality and you aren’t planning on doing anything (substantively) illegal in your host country, so the population doesn’t need to be protected from you.
But they definitely need to be protected from some people, who are predators that don’t intend to abide by the host country’s laws.
@alex@dave poster boy for postmodernist chemical castration
when you're saying it's the same existential value to being a dog versus a human you're saying there's no particular value in life itself. that it's just as well to be a tree or even a rock. or worse, you're taking a hedonistic view of things-- "well a dog is having fun and doesn't need to know about taxes!"
I'm not saying you're "wrong" in particular, I'm saying you debase yourself with your ideology.
@bot@dave Right, humans are animals and we have varying traits different from and in common with other species, to varying degrees. This supports my worldview. Birds can fly, monkeys can jump, and butterflies can travel to Mexico without a passport.
@alex@dave it's ok for a dog to like being a dog, or a tree to find intrinsic value in being a tree. I love all forms of life because they have this primal energy, this will-to-flourishing-- what you're saying is inherently demeaning. It's steeped in straight up self-hatred. You don't want to be the best man you can be, you seem to not even want to be at all.
@alex@dave Basically, in order to say "my life has no meaning that couldn't be expressed in the life of a cat" as a HUMAN, you have to feel like there's no value in being human. It takes a base, especial loathing for humanity.
Your op implied humans are somehow inferior for having borders. Animals also have and maintain borders to protect their in group and access to resources. Maybe not retard animals like bugs, but that’s irrelevant.
But yes, I support communities banding together to form organisations that control access and exclude potentially malicious or predatory individuals.
@bot@JAJAX@alex@dave Social insects wage war to defend the territory they select as their own. These wars are both internal to a species, and external with other species. All social animals recognize territory. It is a complex behavior. Many non-social animals also recognize it. Even Corals & plants will fight for real estate.
@JAJAX@dave Absolutely. I value these things about being human. But I also see value in other species and don't think we're inherently superior to other species on every axis.
Believing you're not superior to others based on innate characteristics does not mean you have self-hatred. I'm very much confident with my place in the world.
@alex@dave I understand that those things are parts of a system that exists for a REASON, in this case a good reason.
You know there are a lot of species of animals that just kill others who just haplessly wander into their territory, right? There's no process, no authority to appeal to, no lawyer getting in front a jury arguing "my client shouldn't be killed because you didn't post clear warnings that this was your turf!" No. You just die and that's the end of it.
Right, and it’s just an extension of self defence. I don’t know as much as you do about animal behaviour, but I would bet even migratory species are territorial.
@bot@JAJAX@alex@dave They tend to dislike the presence of competitors within their "personal space". The reason that territory is so important is that when you have a higher population, you strain the available food within your evolutionary niche. It also threatens your capacity to spread your genetics.
Evolution has hard baked into you an understanding that Tom from down the road, who has the same ancestors as you if you go back ~2000 years is more closely related to you than Tamagotchi Anime, 37, resident of Japan, whose closest common ancestor with you was Grungo McGrungunugus, Warlord of Gomaggo, 39,000 BC. You are hard coded to prefer things more closely related to you out of survival interest for your genes. You can't be divorced from that instinct. Anyone who says they are, is lying.
@KitlerIs6@SpaceElf@alex@bot@dave Also some of big bird's direct progeny were kind of useless, and didn't compete so well. It's not noted if they died or just didn't thrive and reproduce, but the ones that did well persisted and turned into that new species.
It's not something you want to do willy nilly, knowing that the price of failure is death for the offspring of the experiment that turn out to not work so well. This insensitivity to death that is brought along with openness, IMO, explains why extreme progressives don't have a strong revulsion to things like pedophilia and can entertain ideas like child sex changes etc.
But still, we don't want to become completely closed, because it hamstrings our ability to evolve. We need to take it slowly, to try things in very small increments, to change gradually while making sure we're not doing something that's going to end up killing us.
@KitlerIs6@alex@dave@SpaceElf@bot This isn't an ironclad rule, though. Out-group favoritism DOES, in some situations, have benefits. It is exemplified in humans by the trait of openness (you can think of it as progressiveism). It's a way to accelerate evolution in unstable environments, or environments with newly available niches to exploit. Any individual probably has a worse chance of producing long-term surviving offspring, but one of the out-breeders has a very good chance of eventually hitting upon a good combination that exploits the new niche better than others and can be the foundation of a new species (or in the case of humans, tribe, nation, or civilization).
I can illustrate it in lower organisms with things we've observed. For example, there was a population of birds on a small isolated rocky island in the galopagos that was unable to eat tough opuntia cactus seeds because they didn't have a strong beak, but the persisted in the environment because they had an instinct to build nests on the ground. (I may have details of this story wrong but the basic idea is intact) During a storm, a bird the researchers named "big bird" blew in from another island, and he had a strong beak and could eat cactus seeds. He wasn't closely related to the native finches, but he eventually convinced a couple of females from species that were native to the island to mate with him, and his hybrid offspring that could both nest in rocks AND eat cactus seeds expanded into the previously unexploited niche on the island.
Anyway, this all loops back around to the closely related favoritism-- the newly created species and the native species on the island wouldn't mate with each other. Even in such a new (sub)species, they had an instinct to only mate with their own kind -- makes sense, because any shuffling of the genes when you're already in a stable environment runs the risk of deleterious combinations of traits. Don't mess with something that works, and all that.
@alex@dave@bot Yes, some animals don't care about borders, other animals with sophisticated brains and social structures do. Some animals are territorial even with members of its own species, so what they do? They avoid each other's territory.
Adding to that, illegal immigrants are a danger to our citizens. I remember hearing about a case where this woman got abducted, most likely into sex trafficking, and all signs pointed to it being by the workers her landlord had hired for renovations on her apartment. These workers were illegal and disappeared without a trace though. No identity, no accountability. Anyone who is for open borders is a moron. I don't know if Alex was saying that though, I hope his post was just surface level differences between butterflies and humans (and why more complex brains creates a NEED for more structure).
@alex It’s not just the border though. We used to get clouds of monarchs in the California desert north of the border, then they tore up the milkweed for condos and golf.
@TheLocoBandito@judgedread@Youngblood@KitlerIs6 You want to know what I actually think, I think borders are necessary. It's you, with your head so far up your political compass quiz, that politicized my lighthearted post. My post was inspired by not being able to obtain a passport due to government bureaucracy. Why does my opinion even matter? You seem to think it does, even though you just told me that it doesn't.