The vast majority in any given colonial nation neither partook nor benefited much if at all.

For the vast crimes of leopold and subsequently to lesser extent the belgian state in congo the biggest chunk of money got invested in the brazilian rail network to make one family very rich for example. My great grandparents being subsistence farmers didn't see shit and you'd punish not just them but me for it.

Typically the people moving in are from countries which given fair comparison are similarly not owed an opinion given their sins of the father and many a nation is not allowed it's borders likely also yours lest you live in Buthan or so.

Here in my area of Belgium it's become very popular to build modern cube buildings. Flat roof, featureless. No longer brick but a flat white, grey or black outside. i find it absolutely disgusting.

We're really just reinventing brutalism but without much of the commendable outcrops like the barbican or whatever.

The only reason The Barbican (London) works is because wealthy people moved in. In my opinion, it's still a very ugly estate but it is a well maintained estate. So people can still admire its design.

Whereas other examples were left to deteriorate because wealthy people moved elsewhere. And thus all people see is dilapidated, ugly concrete.

While we are on the topic of brutalism, one of my most disliked Sci-Fi tropes is concrete buildings used as "futuristic" buildings. I honestly think the only reason they do this is because concrete is featureless so it could be from any era. If they used Victorian-style architecture or Germanic Gothic buildings then all you'd see is historic-looking architecture which would pull you out of the moment. But I, personally, cannot "unsee" concrete buildings in Sci-Fi. Everytime I see that I just see lazy set design. Plus I'd hope in a few hundred years we'd have found a better building material than concrete.

Flat roofs are good for greenery and solar panels.

Greenery on it is incredibly impractical. Solar panels you seem more often on the angled south facing roofs.

Not keeping population increasing for as long as you can with migration helps too People will buffer their prices up often even trough stagnating purchasing power or dips due to construction when land isn't made anymore and the gov will make sure demand keeps growing lest it affect the lines.

Japan does not. But it's also the place that didn't (fully) decide to try to keep it's population growing into perpetuity with migration and also has some other more unique market and monetary conditions.

I don't think that should be the be-all and end-all overriding the natives qualms but regardless.....Is it increasing productivity? In nearby mainland European countries that doesn't appear the case.

Well if they are you're probably getting a greater amount of other selfish, unpatriotic people to replace them so idk if it's a net gain from your pov.

I doubt that's the case; people who want to live in a country are usually more patriotic than those who don't want to live in it, in my experience.

Depends on why they are there. Refugees tend to care about the country they came from more and the one they landed in they view as a temporary shelter.

Yes, that's what he said.

>the socio-economic system we all willingly subscribe to

Do we subscribe to it willingly? I dare say there's been plenty of scenarios and places where the population would favour protectionism of some form but find their desire subverted by capital.

The luddites or at least some of them threatened employers, factories and/or machinery with physical aggression. They lived in the locations where these industries for a long time remained tho automation certainly made the industry more mobile. Like unions they used collective bargaining power in part derived from their geographic location and presence among each other.

A Guatemalan or Indian can write code for my boss today...instead of me. Software engineers despite the cliff in employment and the like are still rather well paid and there's plenty of room to undercut and for people to disregard principles. If this is perceived to be an issue to them at all. If you talk to many irl... Well it is not in the slightest.

> it's the environmental impact of MINDLESSLY using one.

Isn't much of that environmental impact currently from the training of the model rather than the usage? Something you could arguably one day just stop doing if you're satisfied with the progress on that front (People won't be any time soon admittedly)

I'm no expert on this front. It's a genuine question based on what i've heard and read.