> Is Japan of 1950 also Japan of 2050? Its a sort of ship-of-Theseus issue
Is a house the same house if your tear it down and build a factory?
> but when we recognize that cultures evolve, grow, mix, adapt, and continually become something wonderful, it's less of a concern in my mind.
It should be noted that's the opinion of Western liberals, who are pretty culturally imperialistic and expect and demand that other cultures adopt their values and adapt to their preferences.
The house argument is silly when applied to Japan of all places, which is known for frequently doing demolish-and-rebuild for wooden construction. Even one of the famous castles.
>> Is a house the same house if your tear it down and build a factory?
> The house argument is silly when applied to Japan of all places, which is known for frequently doing demolish-and-rebuild for wooden construction. Even one of the famous castles.
You misunderstood what I said, read it again. Is a factory the same house, if it was built on the same plot of land? It's an entirely different thing, and it's just nonsensical to bring up ship-of-Theseus in a case like that.
> It should be noted that's the opinion of Western liberals
No, it's my personal opinion and observation.
Synthesis of external influence is unavoidable -- people being people -- and paradoxically faster when formally made verboten. Else why does China have a Great Firewall (proves external influence is attempted to be avoided) to prevent cultural intrusion and a massive flow of graduate students expatriating (evidence of the paradox)?
A culture can avoid or embrace. It's not a normative "Western Liberal" value called out, it's a positive acknowledgement of human behavior.
> Synthesis of external influence is unavoidable -- people being people
Yeah, but that's not what's being discussed here, which is the importation of literal foreign people (immigration) in order to keep declining population numbers up, which is quite different. Immigration is a solution that strongly reflects Western liberal ideas and priorities.
> which is the importation of literal foreign people (immigration) in order to keep declining population numbers up, which is quite different.
I disagree. Especially in modern times, immigrants moving somewhere else (i.e. exercising their natural right and freedom to move elsewhere) is a difference of degree of external influence, not a difference of kind.
If it is, you're being too fuzzy about it in a way that makes claims that are simply not true. Specifically, some "synthesis of external influence" may be "unavoidable," but that does not mean immigration, especially legal immigration, is unavoidable. Embracing immigration is a policy choice the Japanese can decide not to make, even if Western liberals really disagree with the choice.
I'm confused why you are describing a Venn diagram where Japan is in one circle and the vaguely defined "Western liberals" are the complement.
Yes, the current administrators of Japan can set a governance policy on who it attempts to allow to go through "approved" channels. Enforcing it, and especially attempting to enforce it to prevent, what I believe would be fair to summarize your prior comments, cultural contamination, won't work for the cause I've already mentioned: synthesis of external influence.
Nations also have the right to self-determination and may opt to not subsidize population growth deficits through the importation of a population. Japan gets to decide. They may decide then want to assimilate with China (or Philippines), or they may decide they want to remain natively Japanese. That's their call.
It’s not might makes right. The people who form a government and have jurisdiction through democratic government have the right to govern and be governed according to the rules they agree upon democratically.
They’re not pulling up any ladder. They made the country for themselves. Others can make their own to their own liking as well.
W/re Japan, it would be overwhelmed by Chinese, if they just let anyone in. China is big and strong enough for them to take care of their own people without needing to colonize Japan.
> The people who form a government and have jurisdiction through democratic government have the right to govern and be governed according to the rules they agree upon democratically.
Which attempts to abrogate the right to free association and movement. "People vote with their feet" is a truism that applies here as well, in my view.
> They made the country for themselves.
When did Japan first incorporate? Long before the lifetime of the current population.
> Others can make their own to their own liking as well.
Where? What if three or four Japanese people want to declare an open border, making their own to their own liking? This principle falls apart.
> W/re Japan, it would be overwhelmed by Chinese, if they just let anyone in. China is big and strong enough for them to take care of their own people without needing to colonize Japan.
You specifically said you don't think people should have a right to protect their own land or have any kind of self-determination, and that outsiders should be forced upon them whether they like it or not. Therefore, you're opposed to democracy and are in favor of authoritarianism. Interesting times indeed.
Is a house the same house if your tear it down and build a factory?
> but when we recognize that cultures evolve, grow, mix, adapt, and continually become something wonderful, it's less of a concern in my mind.
It should be noted that's the opinion of Western liberals, who are pretty culturally imperialistic and expect and demand that other cultures adopt their values and adapt to their preferences.