Do you think traveling to Japan would slow its globalization? Do you think Japan is not globalized already? I am curious why you think that globalization would hurt Japan (you used the word: ruined).

You could substitute the word gentrify for globalization. I think the commentor just means that there's a cost when enough immigrants come to a place. I wouldn't call it ruined like they did but it definitely does cause change and some things are lost to the mixture.

I think the word gentrify makes a lot more sense, good point.

I think mixing human cultures can be very complex (human social culture is certainly some form of a complex system) and you're correct that it can cause a lot of change and possibly danger like culture getting erased. When cultural integration is done well, it can cause a lot of beautiful things to happen: appreciation and love of the culture(s), sharing the culture, and fusions of culture. Please note: The above is a lot harder said than done.

>When cultural integration is done well, it can cause a lot of beautiful things to happen: appreciation and love of the culture(s), sharing the culture, and fusions of culture.

Where on earth is this actually happening? It's a pipe dream. It's absurd.

Because from where I'm sitting, with this current global trend of mass immigration, we are seeing - in every single case - the loss of high-trust cooperating populations of ethnically homogeneous people to ruinous hellscapes of filth, violence, conflict, etc. Lowered quality of life in almost all areas. The destruction of ancient homelands of indigenous peoples to temporarily prop up GDP.

I'm sick of pretending otherwise. Does anyone seriously think that Japan would be the same place if every ethnically Japanese person died out to be replaced by millions of Indian or Sudanese immigrants?

All throughout history, when multiple ethnic groups converge in the same place it ends in violent conflict. No exceptions. Not ever, evidently not today.

> with this current global trend of mass immigration, we are seeing - in every single case - the loss of high-trust cooperating populations of ethnically homogeneous people to ruinous hellscapes of filth, violence, conflict, etc.

You really think this is a modern “problem” (if a problem at all)?All empires throughout history (Egyptian, Persian, Roman) left deep cultural changes that still can be felt today. Thinking that only an “economic globalization” without people moving to more prosperous lands could occur is the pipe dream.

it's not hidden that globalization and all that it entails squelches out common local culture facets.

there is a long list of long-dead languages that attests to this. coca-cola is the number one drink globally because of these kind of implications.

>Do you think traveling to Japan would slow its globalization?

I think the implication is that one should experience it now before it inevitably changes to be more homogeneous with the rest of the world.

> there is a long list of long-dead languages that attests to this.

Look up Ainu and Okinawan languages - Japanese is the dominant language that drove its neighbors' cultures to extinct. It has more native speakers than French, German, or Italian. The Japanese culture is not going anywhere.

Most of the time, those "globalization is ruining beautiful Japanese culture" arguments sound like a mixture of orientalism and xenophobic dog-whistle, i.e., "Isn't it nice that there's a country where only its one native ethnic group is considered the true members and all else are at best second-class citizens?"

Japan already has the four horsemen of globalization though: coca cola, mcdonalds, kfc, and pizza hut. There's a certain point where it stops doing anything however. Go to the pizza hut in Giza with the pyramid view. It's still very much Egypt on the street.

It seems like some folks in this thread are conflating globalization with ultra-powerful organizations using their capital and influence to spread to the rest of the world. Other countries are simply untapped resources in their eyes. More folks to consume their products & services.

I think the two can be the same, however, that does not mean they are the same.

If oligarchs in one country spread to another its only because the other country already has power structures for an oligarchy in place. For the people on the ground living under an oligarchy it hardly matters what the nationality is of this oligarchy, they all read the same material.

Sad. I can't think of anything more anti-diversity than this "diversify all the things" fad! Soon you will go to Asia or South America, only to find little america...

Can you elaborate? How does it fall due to globalization. You also mentioned “as well” like there a re other examples.

That line of reasoning is that countries are only for the people born to them, so if you allow other cultures into a country it will destroy the country. It is an easy way to deflect blame for your country's problems onto an already marginalized minority.

> countries are only for the people born to them

Who are countries for, if not the people, then? The "international community"? America, as the global hegemon[0]?

> easy way to deflect blame for your country's problems onto an already marginalized minority.

Ultimately, the blame for allowing minorities into a country is on the people of the country for letting it happen.

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4q4tm7/every_country...

Countries are for the people living in them, regardless of where they were born.

> Countries are for the people living in them, regardless of where they were born.

If the country is composed of people who don't want to give up their culture or ethnic majority to foreign migrants, then shutting down foreign migration is completely justified. Thank you for admitting that.