Now, it’s no secret that my opinion on immigration into the United States is “the more, the merrier.” We’re really defined by the Enlightenment-era values we commonly possess than by any racial or tribal connection. We go for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, the Canadians go for “peace, order and good government.” So certainly the freedom of the individual is an important defining characteristic.

What I’m not so sure about is immigration in places like Europe. There’s something about the UK or Sweden or Holland or Moscow that is dependent on the people and their unique culture. Let me hit you with some knowledge: 20% of Muscovites are Moslem. 45% of Amsterdam residents are foreign born. Chicken tikka masala is now the most popular dish in England. When we go to Stockholm, we want to go to Stockholm, not “unnamed multicultural city” that could be LA, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore or wherever else.

But…I kind of see the same problem with that argument that I see in the “undeveloped third-world countries should stay that way because it’s more interesting to visit them.” A travelogue post by Kate Harris (more on her in a second) notes that

This kora took us through both a wilderness and a cultural landscape, and through it all I couldn’t help but marvel at how disconnected we were, they were. Not for long though, with the framework for roads being established everywhere - at least a few kilometers of the kora have been widened and paved with gravel in anticipation of building a road. While I must admit that I’m an incurable romantic, and that side of me deplores the dissolution of traditional ways of living in close communion with the land, the realist in me recognizes I’m among the minority in thinking that having to hike for six days to reach the nearest excuse for a road is pretty damn cool. It’s fine to lead a simple, defined life so long as you are content within those definitions - when such a life is sought, not imposed. The kids we met in these villages hunger for Britney and Backstreet and blue jeans, for neatly paved roads leading directly to cities, where all their dreams can surely come true. And even if I don’t share their longings, I am in no position to blame them.

(Incidentally, the girl that wrote that…whew. I saw a link to her site at a travel blog I read, and she’d just got back from a four month bike trip through Xinjiang, Tajikistan and Tibet. Mind you, this was after biking coast-to-coast here in the States, and doing research for a semester in Antarctica. She’s also pretty cute. Oh, and she’s off to Oxford, because she has a Rhodes Scholarship. I gotta get down to Carolina for these girls more often, right?)

This idea is related to what we mean by diversity. There’s diversity in place, a diversity that exists only for travelers. There’s no question that, strictly for those of us rich enough to be able to travel, this diversity is very important. Which Middle East would you rather go: the Dubai of Hiltons and Sheratons, or the Kuwait of Wilfred Thesiger (this was in 1949, not 1749!)?

The diversity we ought care about, though, is the diversity seen from the perspective of the individual.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?   In Kuwait in 1949, the potential hobbies, potential careers and potential experiences of an individual Kuwaiti were very limited.  The very same process that makes places around the world more alike has also vastly expanded the diversity of possibilities open to each individual.  Should I be worrying that Europe’s “national” cultures are disappearing, then?