On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Udhay Shankar N <ud...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Encourage immigration. >>> Encourage education. >>> Encourage risk-taking. >> >> Does this lead to "Get re-elected?" > > While I understand what you're asking, and concede the point - this is > still a marketing question. I am (and the OP is) talking about > something that is more in the R&D and Product Dev spheres (to put in > in terms that are more immediately familiar).
Not disagreeing with you, but in part as devil's advocate, and in part because it puzzles me - let me ask a few questions. Why is economic growth the most important direction for a society? Let's assume that there are societies that: a) prefer living within their prejudices and hate immigration for it breaks down the solidarity of the tribe b) dislike the cultural upheavals that come with education, they cherish the good old life and rituals c) don't encourage risk taking because it upsets the status quo Most of us will agree that sooner or later these tribes or societies are doomed because their practices aren't very efficient. However, isn't that the fate of all societies, even the most efficient? All of us die, sooner or later. Whether it is the ancient Indus Valley civilization, or today's Switzerland and Japan, there are always examples of societies that like their status quo and work very hard to mostly keep out outsiders and boat rockers and new ideas for as long as possible. The Indus Valley civilization sank without a trace after a couple of thousand years of glorious living - but that may well have been an acceptable trade off - to live like a lion for a day rather than like a jackal for a year and all that macho thinking. When you open the flood gates to immigration, risk taking and strange new practices, what's left? What does that decision do for the society making it? It alters the very nature of the society. Almost no one making that decision is personally guaranteed to benefit from it - they may well rise with the collective rising economic tide, but there's no guarantee that they or their progeny will continue to remain at the helm of affairs. There is a distinct sense of satisfaction that humans get from being at the apex, or at least in the above average half of their society. If foreigners take over my society and make it more prosperous resulting in a net increase in my wealth, but a possible reduction in my status in society, that doesn't make me happy. As an individual decision maker acting in rude self interest this proposal has no upsides. Incidentally this reminds me of my previous writing on the subject http://cheeni.posterous.com/whats-the-role-of-consumerism-in-the-modern-w
