Citizenship Privilege Harms Science | Hacker News Reader

Citizenship Privilege Harms Science

nature.com

29 pointsrntn76 comments

A decent article until it devolves into skin-colour based racism at the end (the UK is predominantly white, so of course professors are too - and skin colour has nothing do with the national discrimination anyway).

But really more of the world should follow the great example of Nayib Bukele in just offering full citizenship to productive scientists and engineers.

Also surprised it didn't mention when Chinese nationals were banned from the 2nd Kepler Science Conference.

It devolved the minute they used the term "Global South".

What do Singapore, Argentina, Dubai, China, and South Africa have in common? Literally nothing, except the racist implication that paints half of the planet with a single brush. As "third world country" isn't politically correct in 2024 we have to make up new vocabulary which is less descriptive and even more offensive.

Every country is America.

There's "developing" and "underdeveloped". Those quite good enough for the article.

Global south and third world are different concepts, and cover a different set of countries. Brazil and Chile, for instance, were first world countries that are members of the global south. Here's a summary of differences between the terms:

Third World countries were countries not aligned with the first world (NATO) or second world (Warsaw Pact). The idea that third world nations were developing nations is a sort of neologism. (There were plenty of first and second world developing nations as well.)

Global South was a term used in the Vietnam war era largely academically, then introduced by the UN in the 2010s to avoid judgement around "developing" nations. (What is a developing nation? We sort of understand the term, but it's not self describing. Developing what, exactly?)

The global south is definitely a phenomena that shows in data, in general, the global south is much less wealthy, less politically stable, and there is less individual freedom. That much is demonstrably true, but the reasons for this are a subject of much debate. You might also debate the merit of using the term.

But if the set of countries exists, what do you name that set? Developing nations? That's probably not quite right, as several members of the set are developed. Third world? Also definitely wrong. Historically confusing to boot. I don't know what else to name that set, and I've settled on global south for no other reason than that's what others seem to use. It's an imperfect name.

There's quite a bit of overrepresentation of engineers in terrorist groups. Simply being a scientist or engineer doesn't make you a good addition to a country, which are more than just profitable economic zones.

I'd argue the terrorist engineers enjoy their jobs more than the average FAANG SWE.

Upvoted.

What's funny to me is they could have just come out and said 'Hey, we need to reform our visa process for academics' and I would have nodded along and said 'yep, that sounds reasonable', but no they had to wrap it in identity politics which automatically makes the reader more skeptical of their point.

I'm just so used to the word 'privilege' being used in bad faith.

Maybe it’s my low expectations, but I don’t expect a US organization that primarily serves the US to start holding conferences outside the US.

The article mentions the availability of short-term postdoctoral fellowships from three European institutions to the “global south”. But they’re in Europe. Of course they’re biased toward Europe because that’s who they’re serving.

The actual issue seems that for whatever reason incumbent US and European institutions look down on peer institutions in other counties (the part about the gatekeepers). Everything else is a hack around that.

Is there a list or database of countries, ranked by how easy it is to get into from other countries? Something that can be used as a reference when organizing a global conference.

The opposite of the "Henley Passport index", if you will.

https://visalist.io/visa/ranking but you will need to exercise your own judgement, as it doesn't cover conference infrastructure or anything else that might be a challenge in getting to or operating inside a region!

I wonder if someone actually did a long-term study to generate evidence for a causal link that not being able to go to specific conference(s) actually "harmed" science?

On a side note, the same citizenship privilege would also "harm" any other industry market. E.g., there are tons of talented engineers and programmers in "global south" (or insert a more PC term for the under-developed countries) who face years of waiting time to get their work-visa. In extreme cases, there are some companies who do not have a proper visa-support team so they prefer not to hire people such countries.

It shouldn't surpise anyone that being born in the wrong part of the world plays a monumental role in terms of the oppprtunities to which one is exposed.

> I wonder if someone actually did a long-term study to generate evidence for a causal link that not being able to go to specific conference(s) actually "harmed" science?

Back up a step. Is there any evidence that specific conferences help science?

A -> B is same as ~B -> ~A

Sigh, academic politics. you first lay some unreasonable foundation. such as an extremely stressful environment where you don't know who pays you next paycheck and you have to move away from your friends and family o stay competitive.

then you work up. from that unreasonable environment and assign privilege to those who are able to even be a part of it.

the last thing you'd want for researcher is a calm environment to work...

I suggest Nature change its name into Nurture given the way they have been on a politicised bent for a long time now. Among the damage done by Critical Theory spin-offs like Identity Politics (which is the 'praxis' of Critical Identity Theories) and related attempts at ideological subterfuge the devaluation of the concept of 'science' and the devaluation of the scientific method is probably the most damaging to society. What Nature publishes here is agitprop, not scientific debate. This happens all too frequent and it devalues the publication as well as taints its contents.

Thank ${deity} for open-access network-based journals and other alternative publication venues.

People overusing the term “privilege” harm their cause celebre.

Privilege absolutely exists. And overuse of the term privilege absolutely dilutes the impact of the concept, imo.

But people are going to attach themselves to a term they like, that's just human nature, unfortunately. So I think it's best to just be like, "yeah, this term is going to get bandied about, let's make sure not to get too attached to every instance it is used."

Who comes up with this shit? “The global south?” The folks affected by this are mainly Chinese, which is at the same latitude as the US. All of India likewise is in the northern hemisphere. What’s the term “south” even meant to euphemistically reference? If you mean poor countries just say that.

Regarding the definition, they use the one Wikipedia mentions [1], namely, "the Global North consists of the world's developed countries, whereas the Global South consists of the world's developing countries and least developed countries". So the answer to "who comes up with this" would be "the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development". Both China and India are considered Global South.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South

Including China in the definition, given that by some measures they are the top economy in the world with very restrictive visas is… illuminating.

The alternative is the Global North (i.e., Western hegemony) admits that China is doing well or at least competitively.

I'm not sure there are any serious people who would contend that. They may be seen as a pariah of sorts due to many of their policies but no one doubts their economic and military prowess.

For one conference I attend regularly which is generally held in a different country each year, the year it was held in China was I think the only time where almost every attendee needed to get an actual visa and visit a consulate.

> The terms are not strictly geographical, and are not "an image of the world divided by the equator, separating richer countries from their poorer counterparts." Rather, geography should be more readily understood as economic and migratory, the world understood through the "wider context of globalization or global capitalism."

Sounds like a poorly considered label that is more divisive and confusing than helpful, which should be replaced with something better before it has a chance to do more damage.

> the Global North consists of the world's developed countries, whereas the Global South consists of the world's developing countries and least developed countries"

So China is in the “south” while Taiwan and Singapore are in the “north?” And you’re saying it’s not stupid?

Precisely this and China nor India are considered "poor".

The thing is, there are already pathways in place for "exceptional talent" visas that make entry simple of you are getting sponsored for a visa.

A lot of theese academics are coming from dubious institutions and most likely have dubious credentials. I don't have qualms having these hoops in place to qualify who is coming through the border.

But this whole system is a joke when it's easier to get a semi legal status by illegally crossing than by entering legally. That's a different discussion.

I'll take the downd00ts for an otherwise good discussion on this topic.

The terms Global South and North have been around since the 1960s, and they denote the country's socioeconomic position, not geographic location. It's jargon used by organizations working on developmental economics, and as with any jargon it is more precisely defined than "poor country".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_Sout...

While it's jargon, I'd have thought it was a fairly common and well understood jargon. Even if you haven't encountered these terms before, I'm not sure why you find them offensive. Are you opposed to fields of study adopting jargon to aid communication?

> The terms Global South and North have been around since the 1960s, and they denote the country's socioeconomic position, not geographic location. It's jargon used by organizations working on developmental economics, and as with any jargon it is more precisely defined than "poor country".

To me, the jargon term "Global South" seems inferior to in all respects to the much more common term "3rd World." Whatever minor confusion is caused by the latter term's origin in Cold War geopolitics [1], is far less than the obvious prejudice and nonsense baked into the former [2].

[1] 3rd world pretty much means poor now, and no one's going to be tripped up by its original meaning of "non-aligned."

[2] Australia and New Zealand are in the South, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia are in the North. Is the former populated by poors and latter rich, wealthy and developed?

To you, sure, the term is not as useful. But to the people involved in academia and politics, the jargon is useful.

You can keep using words you prefer, language is adaptable like that. But the jargon used in those circles developed for a reason, which may not be obvious to those outside or who don't follow as closely.

And yes, Cold War geopolitics and confusion around non aligned were a factor in the evolution of the language here. First world implies something about the relationship with the U.S. even to this day. The Cold War wasn't that long ago, and the political alliances haven't drifted that much since then. An old first world country like Chile might also be developing.

> To you, sure, the term is not as useful. But to the people involved in academia and politics, the jargon is useful.

In what way exactly is "Global South" more useful than "3rd World" to "people involved in academia and politics"?

Sometimes jargon is necessary, but sometimes it's just fashion.

Also, in no way is jargon fixed. If I recall correctly, hundreds of bird species are slated to be officially renamed for political reasons. And just look at how many jargon terms there have been "in academia and politics" for Americans descended from Africans: negro, black, African-American, Black, etc. I see no good reason why a foolish term like "Global South" can't be abolished as well, for reasons of clarity.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's not the same as "developing" or "third world". It's a set of countries with a unique set of characteristics that happen to mostly fall into the south. If you've got a better name, I'm sure folks would love to hear one.

My dad works in international development. Our thanksgivings were 95% USAID people and the like. I never ran across the term until recently. Your link confirms that it’s not technical jargon, but rather a political activist euphemism that’s crossed over only recently:

> Carl Oglesby used the term "global south" in 1969, writing in Catholic journal Commonweal in a special issue on the Vietnam War. Oglesby argued that centuries of northern "dominance over the global south […] [has] converged […] to produce an intolerable social order.” … It appeared in fewer than two dozen publications in 2004, but in hundreds of publications by 2013.

> Are you opposed to fields of study adopting jargon to aid communication?

“LDC” is jargon, established for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_developed_countries. It’s precise and connotes the thing it’s talking about: economic development. “Global south” is an activist trick to take a neutral economic label and inject the notion of political struggle between geographic areas.

I for one happen to think that current immigration laws are fine and must necessarily be strict to account for fraud and scams. While it would be nice to have everyone attend any conference they want in person with zero oversight, it is not essential for scientific progress. This article is unnecessarily divisive and whiney, and infused with politics.

Cool, now do security clearances, i.e. the real citizenship now.

The unfortunate irony is that if you enter a country illegally you'll get easier access to some form of a legality status than if you enter a country legally which you then have to jump through hoops of bureaucracy to make happen.

I'll take the downd00ts for an otherwise good discussion on this topic.

Abolish the borders. Anyone who can pass a criminal background check gets in, no more questions asked. Immigration is our #1 competitive advantage in the US, as the entire rest of the industrialized world slips into a demographic abyss.

A criminal background check is more investigation than is currently done. That’s usually only done for multi-year visas.

Immigration isn’t a competitive advantage; it’s a symptom not a cause. America was already the richest country in the world per capita in the early days of the republic. That wealth attracted immigration, not the other way around.

Immigrants bring their “deep culture” with them to their new countries: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-culture-transplant-review-i.... Even generations later, Americans originating from different parts of Europe depict the same differences in basic cultural attitudes like social trust as their counterparts in Europe. (E.g. German Americans are much more trusting than Italian Americans, as are Germans versus Italians in Europe.) Eliminating the border would be a great way to turn the US into Mexico.

Ah, education, scarcity of resources, and common culture (at least respect for democracy and our history) mean nothing.

Would Turkey, Ukraine, Iran, Israel and China, be receptive to the proposal of abolishing borders? I’m a bit doubtful given the active hostilities going on on some regions…

It is pretty ironic that americans can grow up broke in west virginia and freely chase economic prospects around the continental US with little trouble. But be born in mexico and now you have this entire byzantine process to do the same thing just because of where the hospital was located in. It is pretty stupid. People are fungible. Arguments for borders are arguments for irrational xenophobia when you distill them, since they never seem to use these same arguments to contain poor americans in poor states.

> People are fungible.

People are anything but.

People are brainpower and labor. They are fungible. Its politics and religion that tries to make you think this person with a brain and two hands is fundamentally different than this other person with a brain and two hands.

That's the Kang and Kodos Theory of Humans.

Actual humans have ideas, values, beliefs, religions, obligations, loyalties, desires, etc...

And they also differ a lot in brainpower and ability (and desire) to work!

Sure, theres a distribution for everytbing. But on the whole I dont believe these distributions are much different. If anything its the born american in the coddled middle class suburban upbringing thats likely to slack off and not ever have learned what hard work actually means. They are playing roblox and pushing the average age to start driving back by the year, while a kid their age half the world away might be laying brick 12 hours a day knowing if they don’t they don’t eat that night.

> Abolish the borders.

> Anyone who can pass a criminal background check gets in

"In" to what? You have to have borders for there to be anything to get in to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com