thousand times as numerous as the British!nThis is ridiculous, of course, this conclusion to whichnmere algebra has led us. Present trends will not continue, fornmany reasons. If present trends in the world as a whole werento continue for 290 years the total population would bensome 900 billion people. Not even the most “optimistic”ngrowth-promoters say the world population will ever be thatnlarge. (The space now occupied by one person would thennhave to accommodate 170 persons.) But even thoughngrowth trends cannot be that long maintained, comparativentrends are important because they reveal the pressuresncreated by reproductive differences between cultures.nIf two cultures compete for the same bit of “turf”n(environment), and if one of the populations increases fasternthan the other, then year by year the population that isnreproducing faster will increasingly outnumber the slowernone. If, “other things being equal,” there are advantages tonbeing numerous, then in time the slowly reproducingnpopulation will be displaced by the fast one. This is passivengenocide. It may be that no one is ever killed; but the genesnof one group replace the genes of the other. That’sngenocide.nIf the competition between groups were governed by ancompletely laissez-faire philosophy, genocide might pose nondanger, because great fertility can produce great poverty.nPoverty greatly increases infant mortality. In laissez-fairendemographic competition, a fluctuating balance betweenncompeting populations might be reached.nBut one of the implications of a “spaceship” world withn22/CHRONICLESnNumber Onenby Richard MoorenAll day that great man sits and thinks.nWell, as they say, still water stinks.nThough it shines, thickens,neveryone sickensnwho fills his cup with it and drinks.nWhy so? It’s witty, often quotable.nO, in its proper views it’s notable,nneverthelessnthe whole vile messnis all self, self and — yes! — impotable.nnnits ideal of universal brotherhood is that nice people don’tnallow children to die of malnutrition and disease anywherenin the wodd. Practicing conspicuous benevolence, the richnsend food to the poor, never having the nerve to ask thenfertile poor to mitigate their reproductive extravagance.nAlternatively, the rich may dismantle their national bordersnand invite the poor and fertile in to enjoy their greaternriches.nAt first, spokesmen for immigrants may demand nothingnmore than a tolerance of other ways of doing things, but asntheir numbers increase the immigrants may demand thatnanything that they forbid should be forbidden to all ofnsociety. (Thus did the Muslims behave in England in thenRushdie case.) The fertile immigrants will put pressure onnthe diminishing proportion of the rich and less fertile tonchange their culture. What is blasphemy to the immigrantsnmust become blasphemy to all. As for that much toutednvirtue of “diversity,” it is clear that great diversity can lead tongreat repression.nThe Rushdie affair has shown us that freedom of religionnand freedom of speech are not necessarily compatible.nParadoxical as it may sound, the virtue of tolerance does notninclude tolerance of intolerance. Diversity within the bordersnof a single state can become too great for the survival ofnall the competing ethnic groups. But, if borders are keptnintact, diversity among nations is tolerable. We can, withnequanimity, observe the working out of different ideals,ndifferent images of the good life in other countries. Fromntime to time we may conclude that their ways are superior tonours, and set about changing our ways. (Alternatively, theynmay learn from us.)nStill, any separation of nations rightly worries thoughtfulnpeople. They remember what strict separation cost thenJapanese during the Tokugawa regime. From 1603 to 1868nJapan was virtually closed to the outside world. Whateverninternal stability this may have fostered, it came at a highnprice: Japan fell behind the rest of the world in science andntechnology. When the doors were finally opened again itntook nearly a century — until after the Second WorldnWar—for Japan to catch up.nBut closing the doors to immigrants does not meannclosing the doors to ideas. Visits can be encouraged bothnways, and it is possible to see to it that most visits do notnchange into permanent residence. Study abroad encouragesnthe exchange of ideas, particularly because so much of thenvisiting is done by young adults who are most open to newnideas. The ideal wodd is one that is differentiated into manynseparate cultures, spatially separated from each other bynsecure national boundaries so that each group is free tondevelop its own peculiar qualities, free of the stress thatncomes from forcing incompatible cultures to live cheek bynjowl. Diversity is maximized between nations, minimizednwithin nations. Borders can be permeable to ideas evennwhen they are almost completely impermeable to would-benpermanent immigrants.nThere’s an old folk saying that covers all this: Good fencesnmake good neighbors. Robert Frost mocked this aphorism inna well-known poem, but his own life was largely governed bynthis principle. A peaceful, borderless global village is annimpossibility. But a globe of villages can, if we keep ournfences in repair, endure and enrich our lives. n