Migration and Development in the Space Age
(The best teachers will lead the Planet)
by Adriano Autino
In Italy each day, since some time, the media and the politicians comment the phenomena of the immigration that, from the so-called Developing Countries, reach the post-industrial countries. The right wings serves us a stale soup, of closure, racism and egoism. The left wings re-propose a targeted to itself welfarism, in the name of a solidarity neither more motivated by collectivist idealism.
As we aren't tired to repeat, since time, even this phenomenon should be observed with analytic aim, to try defining reasonable and useful goals for all the participating to the game.
Human rights and justice for everybody
First of all, we should analyse, in impartial and objective way, even putting ourselves on the side of the migrants (this should not be too difficult for us Italians) the rationales of the ones who face travels in very bad and inhuman conditions to reach the European Countries. People travel the world with different aims: the ones which goes through the world military organised, in order to rob and colonise on large scale, usually are never treated as criminals. Instead who migrates as a poor arouses contempt or, at the most, compassion. Curds, Kosovars, Albanians, Africans reach our countries with an attitude in which several conditions and feelings are mixed: a big ignorance (and in the most part of cases it could only be so), an extreme poverty, and even a certain pride. This last feeling is often more abundant quite in presence of ignorance and poverty. It is a very explosive mixture, that can very easily take the poor people to claim everything as a right; just because we are decently dressed and we eat (even too much) everyday, while they are dressed in rags, they eat once in a while and don't know where to take care of their person. The ignorance can bring to believe that was enough to be well dressed and well groomed, and to eat everyday (the outward appearance of the welfare society), to be "developed". This is the old illusion that having coincides with being (in which, BTW, we "developed" are teachers) or is even more important. It is easy that who doesn't hold the welfare saw the owners of the welfare (and not always wrongly) as the main cause of their own poverty. We can anyway observe that, in the attitude of the ones that leave their (underdeveloped) birth ground to venture, as a needy, in "developed" regions, there is, aware or not, a call for help. And there is also, aware or not, a demand of cultural growing, where culture means, in a very wide concept, the best survival know-how. There's something of very critical in this approach: if the help demand is not acknowledged (or if it is not correctly interpreted, by the most "developed" ones), it is not accepted, it is not reciprocated with serious and reasonable proposals, the pride can easily turn in arrogance. From this last feeling to commit crimes to pursue at any cost a dream of welfare the step is short, in an alternation of hopes, disappointments and desperation that is not difficult to image. The "culturally developed" society has thus, surely, its part of responsibility when the social alienation becomes criminality. It missed its task, that is the one to propose and undertake for the common development. But all the above cannot, anyway, to constitute an alibi for anybody. We can analyse and understand the social causes, but the choice to rob or to kill is always an individual one, whatever the ethnic group or nationality of the criminal. The justice, the freedom and the human rights must be safeguarded always and before all, both the rights belonging to immigrates and to the since longer time resident ones. The justice should then work very attentively, with analytic aim, to ascertain the true responsibilities, without bending to socio-political short cuts. They should never run the risk to punish the first immigrate on which they get their hands, or to punish random "to educate", or to punish a guilty immigrate more than a guilty resident. And nobody (immigrate or resident) should be punished without proofing with high precision his guilt. And they shouldn't make discounts to a guilty immigrate, as if his condition was, by itself, a justification. Too many times such simplifications occurred, resulting in social imbalance and returning racisms, instead of smoothing away the problems.
The education, a key to transform the solidarity in investment
But I said "proposals", and I add "education", because I maintain that these are the keys for the solution of the long-term problem, not only to limit the damages, but also to get a profit from what many see as a misfortune. I already said that the right wing maintains an attitude of closure and refuse, totally unable to see the opportunities. I don't understand how those gentlemen could, for so many time, to claim themselves as leaders of the entrepreneurial ranks: maybe the entrepreneurial ranks of once upon a time, elitist and authoritarian, which ruled by terror and repression. The right wing seems to be genetically unable to conjugate the liberalism (of which they speak a lot during last times) with the opening and co-operation. I say that even the left wing showed itself, to date, fully unable to turn into account the best opportunity of the history. Though having in its genes the emancipation of the individuals and the enhancement of the value of human resources, the left wing was to date unable (due to its incorruptible centralist and bureaucratise vocation) to appreciate the enormous heritage constituted by 6 billions of intelligences. The left wing thus still indulges in welfarism policies, aimed to the mere conservation of the existent. In both the attitudes of the left and right wings, we can observe a pragmatic identity, worth of better aim. The right aims "genetically" to protect the interests of the powerful figures, and thus to defend the barriers of any kind (market barriers, national frontiers, cultural and social barriers). The left aims, due to bureaucratic vocation, to defend, though by different means, the same fences. Both has terror of the new, because they anyway always reason in terms of existent resources to be shared, instead of new resources to be developed. How could we expect that, on the problem of the immigration, they could reason in another way? They see in any case -- angry closing the door or opening it with Christian resignation -- the immigrates and all the people of the Third World as "mouths to be fed", as if they were all animals, unable to understand, reason and act. The immigrates should not be criminalized, but neither pitied: they are not idiots, nor handicapped persons. If I went anywhere, with a cardboard suitcase, the last thing I'd wish it would be the pity. I would instead to be considered for what I can do, as a person, perfectly able to learn and to negotiate, though with the unavoidable naivety of whom is new. Of course we should have, instead, for sure, pity for the ills, the children and everyone not in conditions to do or to deal.
What is lacking, to a person equipped with a brain, an imagination and hands with opposable thumbs, to be, in all respects, a resource, first of all for him/her-self? Simple: the education and the information.
Then, let's try to see the problem of the immigration in terms of investment and return of investment, what to date nobody asked us to do. Let's compare the different expenses that we should anyway to face. We will see that the possible choice is, in fact, only one. Let's see the essential socio-economic terms:
Does it suit to us, then, to close the door on the face of the immigrants and to neglect the Third World Countries? Absolutely no. Does it suit to us "to undergo" the immigration, providing mere welfare measures? Absolutely no.
The best teachers will lead the Planet
We ought to reflect very attentively, and to design the answer that the West should give to the immigrant fluxes and to the Third World. Lets try to think that the ones reaching us here are, likely, the most enterprising and brave persons. Among their social unity, they are maybe the most intelligent and generous: they risk their life, trying to get a better life for their families. Such a people deserve, at least, to be taken into account, and a serious proposal.
Furthermore, they come here at their own expenses. From a certain point of view, they avoid to us expensive and dangerous travels in their countries (once we accepted that we ought to take care of those realities). Last but not least, they offer their manpower at low cost. I dont aim to invite anybody to the exploitation or to accept any unfair competition. But lets remember that, vs. the mud hovels, any industrial regime of a somewhat exploitation it is anyway a progress. And we all grew up even through the trade-unions struggles: nothing bad if they will make their part of gavetta, lets hope without fully repeat all our errors and naiveties. They would be anyway available to accept any job proposal: surely they will accept a serious and well-designed proposal.
How much would it cost to us (even in terms of cultural backing) to empower the defence of the coasts and frontiers, to build up lagers, to militarise our countries?
Even here, like in the case of the space enterprise (to which any development project in the next 30 50 years shall be connected), we need new credit tools, in order to manage long term investments. How many years does it take to grow up a first generation of graduates? 10, 15 years? Well, lets create, even with the contribution of the State, some investment funds targeted to develop the Greater Earth University. Such University will be skilled in disciplines functional to the development of depressed areas, out of our current inhabited world (desert areas, cold regions, impervious zones, the Moon, the orbiting platforms): Agriculture of the Frontier, Geology and Ground Government, Terraforming, Physics, Astronomy and Astronautics, Frontier Architecture, just to make some examples.
Lets offer a scholarship to all the immigrants that accept to subscribe to an educational plan. We could even discover that many of them, welcomed in a high cultural context, would surprise us by insights and bright ideas. Of course, in exchange for the education they will get, our immigrant-students (but nothing prevents to open such schools even to the residents) could start making part-time jobs, inside the college. Or they could make works of public utility, within co-operatives or companies cleverly made by entrepreneurs able to see, by now, this kind of opportunity.
Only by means of such a project, with a solid educational system, with clear strategic goals, it will be possible to hold the migrant wave and, after a couple of generations, to start reversing the process, and "to reap" the Return of Investment.
Constituting societies and joint ventures with the immigrant-graduates, some entrepreneurs, equipped by good eyesight, could go to the origin countries (of the immigrants). There they could build together companies and industries, able to change the reality of those countries, to finally start the development, to create new markets, opportunities of work and further development for everybody!
What will be the big power of such graduates? The one to be able to speak to languages, and the one to be able to exchange confidence and to share goals both in the industrial world and in the pre-industrial one. Often the entrepreneurs, going alone in the Third World, only succeed to rob, paying bribes to the local mafias, or to pass over the head of the people, by projects incomprehensible and impossible to be pursued on site. In both cases they dont really modify the local social conditions, they dont create new economy and new market, neither they contribute to open the market to the ones which are excluded from it.
The new generation, formed on technologies of frontier, instead, will be able to operate such a miracle, because they would be able to understand their compatriots and to make their compatriots understand themselves.
As we can see, with a few analyses, the migration flux in input, if faced and managed in time and in the proper way, is the minor bad. Rather it can be transformed in a big opportunity and return of investment, at four layers, at least: (i) less social conflicts, (ii) possibility to create enterprises here, using a little cheaper (at least in the first times) manpower (iii) possibility to develop important researches, and to be first and more advanced in the development disciplines of the frontiers of our world (iv) possibility to create enterprises that will have a primary position on the new emerging markets.
To develop this project, as well as to allow the entrance of private investors in the space enterprise, we need to create new credit tools, able to manage long term investments, a somewhat international Treasury Bond at 10-20 years at least, commerciable and able to create a new economy. But, on this theme, we will come back with future articles.