Thread Rating:
Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
Allegories about in-group preference
08-12-2017, 02:34 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-12-2017, 02:40 AM by Nuke.)
Post: #1
Allegories about in-group preference
There was once a software project. This software project was open source, and had very many users. Its license exhibited in-group preference -- prohibiting those who didn't use the same license from using its code unless they paid for it.

Thus, a split occurred. Someone founded a new project based on the original, and its contributors were forced to use the same license, but unlike the original, their permission would be needed to change the license to something that didn't exhibit in-group preference.

Then, one day, the original project abandoned in-group preference, and the splinter project got some corporate backing. Those who had paid to create their own closed-source versions contributed to the original project -- but without in-group preference, the splinter project just assimilated all of its changes, but without allowing the original to implement changes from the splinter projects. Realizing the futility in competition with the splinter project that had an in-group preference, the developers of the original project left and joined the splinter project, killing the original project.

Millions of users no longer receive updates on their software.

All they did was stop protecting themselves -- no competition was necessary for the splinter project to destroy the original project.

Elsewhere, an open-source project with a similar license that exhibited no in-group preference destroyed a project that had a license that had in-group preference prohibiting derivatives from not using the same license by overwhelming them with a persistent, decade-long campaign, using their lack of in-group preference to obtain immense corporate support, creating a much better program in the process by not getting demoralized.

Now, let's apply this to politics...

A country of people with average natural fertility stops reproducing at replacement levels because of abortion (and contraception, but often abortion puts it over the top), and uses its wealth and welfare programs to lure in immigrants who produce lots of kids naturally to replace the aborted. The immigrants produce way more children because they don't use contraception and are biologically more fertile. The original inhabitants of the country feel that it is hopeless, and don't believe they can keep up. Not only are they being flooded with immigrants -- but they don't even produce enough children without contraception and abortion to keep up with a people who are more biologically fertile. They let their country be taken over because they're demoralized, and within a few generations, they go extinct by not having enough children.

Elsewhere, a group of people decides to resolve their subreplacement fertility problem by banning abortion and restricting immigration. And another country passes laws to encourage expatriates to come home and incentivizing having children. These countries want to actually help their people -- not just fix a problem on a sheet of paper.
If you like my posts, the best way to show your appreciation is to post on Ekunia.
Blogging on a Forum Everyday
Add Thank You Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Homepage | Return to Top | | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication