One, maybe obvious, lesson the last few years has shown me is that there is a strong correlation between immigration and xenophobia.
There is a certain rate of change that society is willing to tolerate before there is significant backlash.
Maybe those of us who are, generally, in favor of migration should try to determine that threshold rate of change and take steps to ensure we don't surpass it.
The opposing argument is that maybe these times of upheaval are necessary for drastic change. And that we should be reaching for drastic change instead of doing just as much as society is currently willing to bare.
During much of the magnificent Nina Simone's "Mississippi Goddamn" there are people chanting "too slow" in the background. I think of that whenever I am having these sorts of arguments with myself.
All the people suffering in the background because I'm too afraid of upsetting the status quo and inconveniencing those in power.
Am I working to protect the powerless against the powerful, or the opposite?
@zacharius It's less about powerful and powerless, and more about different kinds of power.
Fast change incentivizes simple plans and motivated mass action. The focus is on critical mass of force (military or political).
Slow change emphasizes effective resource use, and setting up resilient cultural or technical systems.
One objectifies the powerless, the other weaponizes them.
@machado @zacharius the increasing lack of diversity due to technology is also at play I feel. Lack of diversity means centralization of win conditions and a hierarchy to squeeze upwards into. If that single direction is the only thing deemed worth living for then power and domination desires are the only thing that can “win”.
Yep, it's definitely a delicate balance. Move too fast and you get a counter-revolution that can make things even worse.