Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ummm no. For starters, the First World is a designation for countries that are part of NATO. Racial build-up is irrelevant to this membership.
After the Cold War, the categorisation of nations in First, Second and Third was more or less ditched. After all, the Warsaw pact collapsed. The only people using it are using it incorrectly.
So no, the First World will not end once minorities are set to become majority. If NATO collapsed, the First world would end.
Say, you did the popular thing and mistook First World for a developed country. This development won't stop. After all, development in universities, companies and so forth won't just stop once the threshold of 50% minority has been reached. The demographics in most countries are also including a larger percentage of non-white people, yet the first world is doing extraordinarily well in many ways.
So the countries won't stop being a developed country as well if minorities were to become majority.
No, the First World won't come to an end.
It won’t stop but it may be greatly stunted. Okay, First World/developed nation you get the idea.
I don't think it would be greatly stunted. Minorities are more and more enrolling into university where I live, achieving higher standards of living than ever and contribute in all levels of society.
A lot of people who can’t speak or write eloquent English can still excel in academia. That’s kind of a masked issue.
I don't live in an English speaking country. To actually enroll in university you need to have passed a certain level (which is quite high) of said language. So there is always a certain standard of fluency.
Not true. I’m an academic I know.
The standard is definitely not high enough to produce workers who could uphold the country’s inherent structure through its official language that is English.
As far as I'm aware, the level needed to enroll into university is relatively high. If you're from the States, might be a difference of country. But here people who are good at school are separated at 12 and are the only ones eligible to enroll into uni.
I don't know how that all works in the USA though, and I have never heard anything about supposed low level of fluency in Dutch of university graduates.
It’s probably less multicultural where you are so there would be stricter standards to preserve the primary language spoken in your country. Not so much here.
Around 20-25% has a non-Dutch ethnicity so it still is significant. Virtually everything is in Dutch in schools and everywhere so that might be different
Foreign language tax. No one's saying you can't speak Chinese or Indian or Mexican if you want to, but, you should pay $20 a week for the priveledge.
Not really. If the third world comes up to the first world.
Just to be clear many Caucasians live in the third world or at least don't live in the first world. Remember North Africa, the middle East, the Indian sub continent, Asia minor, South America, central America, North America, southern Europe, northern Europe, scandanavia, eastern Europe.
Whiteness is racial theory invented by slave owners in America, to be white you had to be of Anglo Saxon, Germanic or Nordic stock and be protestant which meant a lot of Europeans were not included in what it is to be "white" or a "WASP".
That’s not the focus of the question. This has less to do with the often interchanged terms ‘white/Caucasian’ and more to do with how certain demographics have been shaped emotionally and mentally that have led them to the progressions in life they now acquire.
Again North Africa, the middle East, the Indian sub continent, Asia minor, South America, central America, North America, southern Europe, northern Europe, scandanavia, eastern Europe are all full of Caucasian people. Mexicans and Hispanics are mostly Caucasian, Caucasians aren't going to become a minority they are going to gain a larger majority.
Caucasian isn't a race. It isn't even a designation for current human beings.
Multi-ethnic and non-white "first world" countries already exist, and have pretty much always existed. In fact, almost all countries are already multi-ethnic.
Doesn't seem to have killed off the human race yet, or made it worse to live in a first world country comparatively.
What does seem to happen is that empires eventually crumble, but that has to do with imperialism, not multi-ethnicism.
... no one said anything about race lol
Um, it is not outdated. Just as Hispanics for instance classify themselves as such.
I'm certain you do not actually mean only people who are descended of the Caucus mountains, because they aren't the single point of origin for light complected Europeans. That's what I mean by outdated. The term does not mean what you think it means, and you are using it as a stand-in for white because you want to make it sound like you are not racist.
America was created and founded by white people?
Ma'am... please.
You make it seem like the world would fall to pieces without "Caucasians" as the majority. y'all don't make the world go round. I'm pretty sure nothing would change.
Please explain what you mean by end of the first world? A first world country refers to a "developed, capitalist and industrial country", it has nothing to do with race let alone the fate of caucasians.
.. again no one said anything about race...
@MlleCake Why are you so triggered by the concept of race? No one is attacking anyone.
Caucasians are already the minority. They make up less than a third of the global population.
Opinion
13Opinion
Four thousand years of world history teach us that a civilisation lives or dies depending on the racial make-up of the population. If you replace the people of a specific civilisation with people from a complete foreign civilisation then it is the latter civilisation that will dominate. So no, there is not a human race. There are different races that dominate each other.
In the short term, what you call the First World will cease to exist very soon. It already began. In the long term, the only hope for survival will be in eastern Europe. Between Russia and Germany. Once the Afro-Asian barbarians will starve to death it will be the time for Europeans to re-create was destroyed by the suicidal Left wing ideologies that allowed this destruction in the first place.
Is Russia more developed than Japan?
Not insulting Russia here - I personally work with a bunch of extremely smart and well educated Russians. But I’m not worried about your concern. My city is already close or perhaps beyond the 50% non white line and is doing well (in spite of our government).
Let’s put it this way. The extent of a person’s ability to absorb sunlight is dependent upon the colour of their skin, which means the fairer it is the more it is taken in. Sunlight is shown to affect mood. Mood, as we all know, influences a person’s state of mind as well as feelings. More simply, sunlight increases endorphins in the body, which leads to happier moods. Happy people have been proven to be more successful. Competent individuals are more likely to be capable of creating societies that will flourish.
But white people hide indoors now so they don't get skin cancer. And most poor countries are close to the equator and get lots. In fact it seems like crappy conditions almost pushed technological development. But what exactly are you even hinting? That dark skinned people are going to be less successful because they take in less sunlight? Don't you think it's a little more complicated then that given the inuit aren't white? Are you aware that depression rates are higher in the southern U. S. then in colder northern states?
If you have Neanderthal Dna you are prone to depression.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVOGsr-fMwo
They’re higher in the southern US maybe because it’s closer to Mexico. Joke aside, I’m speaking more in general terms—take Scandinavia for instance vs the African colonies. The more developed nations are predominantly white, which is why we are attracting refugees and invaders worldwide. Nobody ever flees to Mexico for instance unless they’ve done something immoral or have broken the law in the First World. “Poor countries get lots”: quantity doesn’t equate to quality. In the same time span someone with fairer skin would be mor capable of absorbing more thus proving their productiveness in the above mentioned. “Crappy conditions ‘almost’ pushed technological development”: if that seemed to be the case it didn’t happen without white people putting the pieces together to produce the final result. Plus the most creative individuals were bred in the western world which up to this point were mainly white.
“Dark skinned people are less successful”: I presume they would rather smuggle out of their impoverished nations that comprise mainly of dark skinned people to America than resume their never ending tribal warfares that seem to be ever incessant in nations inhabited by them due to the lack of what I previously stated to offer a more solid debate point. Depression rates are actually more prevalent in colder climates due to the lack of sun ie. Finland.
People leave poor places and go to wealthier ones. That's how it works. That's why poles flood into the UK, why south east Asians flood into the U. S., why Japanese -don't- flood into the U. S. Immigrants are always going to be going towards opportunity. But some white countries are a mess, some non-white countries are not.
@Margillard I skimmed over the topic covering the relationship between Neanderthal DNA and depression and stuies have shown because there’s a link between the two doesn’t mean they were depressed. Apparently it still remains unclear exactly how these genes affected Neanderthals. I’m not a geneticist but what is certain is that Neanderthals currently prevail in today’s society in terms of quality of life.
@0112358 Having an average higher IQ based primarily on standardized tests is by far not the most effective means of assessing true intelligence not to mention wisdom that is an even more crucial trait to have than being smart or cunning.
Creativity is the highest form of intelligence. Creativity is your intelligence having fun.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. -Albert Einstien
Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education.
First of all the term Caucasian is a wrong term used to cover all native europeans. By the other hand the people of the Caucasus don't even look like what the KKK consider as "real caucasian". To make things clear, NO, white people won't dissapear. Populations have been mixing from a long time.
That’s not the focus of the question. This has less to do with the terms often used interchangeably ‘white/Caucasian’ and more to do with how certain demographics have been shaped emotionally and mentally that have led them to the progressions in life they now acquire.
Ok, you wanna know why Europe become a powerful continent? I am gonna show you some history. The Romans defeated the Carthaginians, then they took all the Mediterranean under their control, including parts of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, spreading death and fear across the continent. When the Roman Empire fall, others wanted to imitate their brutality and the dark age began, then.. Muslims came in the party and decided to conquer the 90% of Spain, and they did it for 200 years. Ironically they gave Europe the knowledge they lost (knowledge they had thanks to commercial trades with other parts of the world).
When the Muslim were finally push away, a feeling of superiority empowered Europeans to see people outside their continent as inferiors (it was more a feeling of fear to don't be conquer again by foreigners). As a result of that Christopher Columbus tried to reach India, without knowing he discovered The Americas ( another reason for the explorations was the decay and fall.
... Of Constantinople).
As you know the European Empires took their part of the pie and The Americas get sliced, not without first exterminating the local population and steeling their natural resources.
That's really the history of humanity but Europe and those countries who decided to follow the way that continent works, learned to live with riches out of the misery of others.
“Learning to live with riches out of misery of others” is even worst in non-white societies.
Hey, you've still got some Asian countries at least. I could see the US regressing once white people are gone. Government and police get too corrupt, crime spreads, economy starts to fail, etc.
I'm white... Not caucasian... I'm not from the caucasus... Just like most of the white people in Europe..
Caucasian is used in this context given thats the option given for ethnic classifications in official documents.
@ok285 it’s a term used to classify people who belong to certain demographics. For instance, if the Japan’s mixed with the Chinese and Koreans and produced babies there would be another name and category for that new breed.
Caucaisians will become extinct shortly just like the Neanderthal, the mass population will absorb the race through interbreeding, just like modern man did when they migrated to Europe.
The sub Saharan Africans do not have any Neanderthal dna... blacks are the pure Homo Sapiens.
And no the First world will not end, it will probably be better.
For one thing, women won't complain of dick being too small when the human genepool is freshened up.
Very offensive.
Neanderthal dna? The Neaderthal are the first people of Europe. All White European have Neanderthal dna in their genome, which was interbred and diluted by modern man migrating into Europe from Africa.
Why does tha offend you?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FbAptAnrwN8
The Aegyptians, the Greek, the Romans, the Caucasians - I see a trend in history.
How does that make it the end of the "First World"
It's still a first world country regardless of what people look like...
She's saying "Will it fall apart?"
@Celtero
lmfao fuck no
@dropkicknj13
Uh, no. It wouldn't fall apart. Why would anyone even think that
Well cause Celtero's comment is true, except for 3 countries I think? So I don't know, maybe the OP thinks it wouldn't be maintained without them
@dropkicknj13
hmmmm
So, if I show up to your house... burn it down and kill your whole family... then force your neighbors to build me a mansion on top of the ashes and live there forever... that means I created and sustained that place?
Damn I gotta try that sometime then...
Well yeah, cause my neighbors didn't know how to build it so you used them like tools for you to build it. And then while your living there forever your obviously maintaining it.
You should try it, it seems to have been quite sucessful for everyone who has lol
@Celtero
Here's the thing:
1. Showing up to a place uninvited and "influencing" things aka forcing people to do things your way and then defining the term "first world country" and applying it in your own favor to basically suite places that are doing things your way... isn't really a good look... and that is basically what the "global European influence" was.
2. You can't say white people created and sustained countries that non-white people have created things in and contributed to... so...
@dropkicknj13 lol wait wait you think they didn't know how? And of course I wouldn't maintain it myself I'd just force the neighbors to take care of any repairs.
@Celtero That’s precisely what I was getting at.
@dropkicknj13 I agree with you. Actually the less competent ones were less capable of maintaining them but that’s not the case with America.
I think a hell of a lot of those people of color who slaved or worked shitty labor to build the riches of those white countries would like you to know they did the hard work and the support and are just as much a reason for European Imperialist success as Europeans are.
The Belgians enslaved the people of the Congo to get rich. England pilfered the riches of India, the Americas, parts of Africa. It has taken the blood sweat and tears of many, many people of color to make European nations rich, and the US. People of color just never got thanked, recognized or rewarded. Even Japan enslaved Chinese in the last century, and in China, they are building themselves prosperity by literally poisoning the poor.
@MlleCake We are talking about how it would affect the advancement of society at the present into the future. The past cannot be changed. If people are so discontent with the way things were then they should leave.
@Asker, you're literally proposing that no one but Caucasians can keep this world afloat. But by Caucasian, you mean white people, because I am sure you don't mean only people who are of the Caucus mountains because very few people live in the caucus mountains, and they aren't considered an origin of white Europeans anymore anyway.
If you want to have an intelligent debate on how changes in the ethnic make-up of a society can effect it, then drop your racist terms, learn the vocabulary actually used in the study of such things, and get serious about it.
Right now you're just spouting racially biased rhetoric, even if you think you aren't.
Mexicans are as ethnically *white* European as anyone else who mixed with indigenous people during the colonial era. In fact, Hispanic people that are mostly of European descent are considered "white". (Or, to use your term, Caucasian). part of this is because race is not even really an actual thing in modern human beings. We're all hopelessly mixed ethnically, over millennia, but some stayed in one place an isolated enough in the ancient world to develop lighter complexions, but even since then, people have always been mixing through all times in the history of man, and it has taken all of the civilizations of man to make the world what it is now. You just think it's all "Caucasians" who did it. It never was only the "Caucasians". We just took ALL the credit in the past 500 or so years.
@MlleCake Nothing has been stated with the intent to undermine another ethnicity in the question. We’re discussing the progression of civilization from the present. America was created and founded by white people (English speakers) just as Mexico for instance is predominantly Mexican (Spanish primarily spoken). To clarify there is only one race, and that is the human race.
America was not created and founded by white people. There were already people here that weren't white. And in terms of colonization of what is now know as the American continent, it hasn't only been white people that came here, or labored here to create what we now have. Remember, Italians, Spaniards and Jews have not always been considered white, but Italians and Spaniards were colonizing the Americas before the English did. And very quickly after the English settled in the Americas, they brought slave labor to build the economy and create the nation that declared independence in 1776. There have always been poeple of color on this continent, building up the societies and contributing to what the continent has become.
You just THINK it's because of some superior thing that whites did. But whites didn't do it. They always had help, some of it unwilling help, but still help. They didn't even survive the early colonial years without the support of the people already here.
@MlleCake... no one said anything about superiority. Anyway, it is an English speaking country and if those who speak it become a minority structure may be adversely affected but in what ways remains hugely uncertain.
Yes, I am sure that would change things a lot. But learning English is pretty much what naturally happens to people who come as children or have their whole childhoods here, even if parents or grandparents don't speak English. It only takes one or two generations for most immigrant groups to largely stop using their original languages. English is the language of world commerce, it's one of the most commonly studied second languages for people from all over the world. I think you have very little to worry about.
@MlleCake While colonialism was often hard on the host country's people I think you'd have to ask this: would they be better off today without it?
Often times colonialism brought in a lot of advances in technology, medicine, and had infrastructure built.
You're just using the main talking points of "white man's guilt" rhetoric. If slavery makes a country prosperous, how come Africa or the Middle East isn't advanced even though slavery was prolific long before any Europeans came?
Same goes with the Native Americans. They're often romanticized, but before we got here they spent their free time warring, raping, and enslaving each other. They've found mass graves with many skeletal remains of women and children.
It's not like we've completely stripped Africa of it's natural resources during the colonial period. Still plenty of raw materials to create value. Countries whites left are back to tribal warfare. Countries with whites are trying to expel them with brutal rape and murder.
@Celtero Oh, because contries that are colonized, like every contry in Africa, tend to have their native prosperity taken away from them, and replaced with a colonial rule that marginalizes indigenous people, denies them equal opportunity and education.
But we're looking at a country like India and we're seeing, despite extreme levels of poverty and lack of infrastructure (because the Brits never did see to it that everyone had clean water, electricity, roads and phones in their day), that they can make themselves significant in the world economy, in world politics, and in technology.
We can't unring the bell of colonialism in the Southern Hemisphere, and we can't ever know what these nations would have become had we not had colonialism. We can talk about how so much of it led to very undignified and unpleasant lives for the peoples of the lands that were colonized.
You think I am saying something I am not and arguing a point I never made.
@Celtero That's why I asked the Asker and not you. You didn't say you thought that "it is an English speaking country and if those who speak it become a minority structure may be adversely affected but in what ways remains hugely uncertain."
That honestly implies that either they think only white people speak English... since white people are the ones becoming the minority. OR She legitimately thinks English speaking people as a whole are becoming a minority... which is incorrect.
Yes, no black majority country or hispanic majority or whatever is developed normally.
The 'first world' ? What's this? It looks like a plain stupid concept.
Picking apart the question doesn’t help to answer the premise of it.
More succinctly the premise of the question could be refuted with sound analysis.
With the rise of Islamic law outside of the middle east, there could be dark days ahead
That’s what I’m kind of getting at it. What those dark days would encompass is what I’m wondering will occur.
What the fuck is this?
If you’re going to write offensively don’t post.
@MlleCake Very inappropriate. I just reported you.
For what? You can say fuck on here.
I just can't attack you and keep coming after you or harrass you.
But I certainly can tell you your racism is fucked. You can pretend you didn't mention race, but you did. And this is a question based in racism.
Your question is literally more offensive than saying the f-word.
@VonDamme Remaining Anonymous is an option provided by the site because discussing ideas doesn’t require knowing who the other person is. Diverting the topic doesn’t help to properly answer the question.
@MlleCake Ethnicity not race. The focus is on the accomplishments of certain groups of people and how it affects the society they created once they become the minority of the country with their official language.
Yeah
Yeah and it's a good thing
Now that’s racist.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions