Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: I'm Back, Some Thoughts (Mexico)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Shortly after I joined the forum my computer died utterly, and I was without computer for almost a month. I've been slowly recovering old accounts and stuff where I had the pass autosaved on the computer, and just came back yesterday.

Before I'd left I'd been very into the whole homeland idea, and I'm amazed how much progress has been made in about three months.  I've read most of the threads since I've left, and here's my response.

I've been gone so long that I've pretty much forgotten what I'd planned to say original line of reasoning behind proposing Latin America, Indonesia, or New Guinea for the project (which were the three I was interested in proposing), but I have a new idea that I want to bring out.'

Color coded by section for convenience.

First, some issues I have with the Island idea:


1. An island has a finite and limited land area.  
The islands that I've seen proposed are almost all about the size of a family farm where I live, far to small to support any significant population.
2. An island is isolated geographically.
This point has already been brought up several times it seems.  Suffice to say, it'd be rather a pain.
3. An island is isolated culturally.
I've noticed that most people think that's a good idea.  That said, I think that the issue is less with neurology than it is intelligence.  I've come to realize that too many people simply cannot get their minds around "not my business" "people are different" or a number of socio-historical and scientific contexts.  The issues we have with neurotypicals are their intolerance, self-righteousness, and stubborness.  There are many (a small fraction of the overall population, but the overall population is quite large) where I am who are accepting of AS, and many more who are after a few months of working on them.  Banning NTs on the basis of neurology would lower ourselves to the level of the majority of them.  Come on.
4. An island has limited potential.
How many strictly small island nations (Fiji or smaller) can you think of that are successful on any basis other than tourism? Singapore, but it has an autocratic goverment.  All the rest are backwaters, bananna republics, or tourist areas, and a good many mid-size islands too.
5. An island is monotonous.
I also for one do not like coastal areas, where I burn up unless I wear heavy clothes and a broad brimmed hat, or else apply SPF fifty every hour or two.  Big pain.  Of course, we could get an island off Anctartica of Greenland, but those areas are simply not meant to support large population densities.  And because of point 2, food is not easily shipped in.


Also Note:

Secondly, I've noticed that a lot of people have been looking at areas in developed countries such as Britain, Canada, UAE, Japan, or Eco-Paradises like Costa Rica.  Both types of countries will have stict building codes, and the former is going to have a lot of other moralistic regulations besides.  Somebody pointed out the homsexuality laws of the Emirate of Dubai I noticed?  All of these countries have laws that, if not regulating morality, can be equally painful for US.  And Britain's one of the worst places in the world to start an enterprise.  If we want to start a technological center, the stagnant world of Western Europe is not the place to do it.

Oh, and you guys aren't seriously thinking we'd seal ourselves off in a hernetic commune and only reproduce with each other the old fashioned way did you?

At least for my part I really like traveling and the concept of "mine," if I marry it'll probably be a foreigner, and if I have children I intend to adopt.


Considering all this, and considering what I noticed talking to citizens, residents, and an American landowner on my last trip there, I'm going to propose something which you can consider or ignore, but which I fully intend to take seriously:

The Benefits of Mexico


Mexico may seem like an odd country to propose.  It's densly populated, mostly desert, partially developed, and large but not powerful.  Here, however is my reasoning on proposing it.

1. Mexico has a federal system.
Like the US, Canada, and Australia, Mexico, in theory, has a large number of powers retained to the states.  How much they wield in practice is not entirely clear, but most of them(outside the very center of the country) seem to be from my observations at least as strong as the US states.  Which isn't saying all that much, but different states with different laws provides some advantage.
2. Mexico likes immigrants.
I mean Mexico really likes immigrants if they contribute to the country's economic development.  They invited Americans into Texas and Europeans into California to colonize those territories, and even after losing them to us as a result they've continued to allow groups like the Mennonites to settle in their provinces if it means development.  You have large communities of foreigners in colonial towns like S.M.Allende and Cuernavaca, fishing towns like Mazatlan and San Luis Cabo, and business people in the major cities like the Federal District and Monterrey.  All are welcomed because they contribute to the contry's economic development.
3. Mexico like tourists.
The country bends over backwards to cater to tourists.  They don't translate all the musem exhibits into English, I suspect because most people don't go to Acapulco to see the Fort or what have you, but otherwise, they're really eager to help.  The government has offices in every city to help tourists get places, advice and information free of charge, and everywhere there's a tourist industry the residents' English far surpasses my three years of Spanish.
4. Much of it is rural.
A large chunk of the population lives in a few major cities.  This means that you can ride for hours through the country side, and at most see a shack or two surrounded by goats and agave.  Easily we could found a large city comfortably in one of the nicer mostly unpopulated areas.  That's what the Spanish did after all.
5. Land and property prices are cheap.
This has to be a big plus, compared with the developed world.  Not, of course, as cheap as, say Amazonia, but in Mexico we'd be better assured of transactions being legit.
6. Labor is cheap, and the workforce is well-educated.
If we want to found technology companies, Mexico has great potential.  Even $1 an hour is good pay there for unskilled jobs.  Not as good as say in China or Bangledesh, but who'd want to live there.  And though we'd be hiring skilled labor it'd still be cheaper than the United States.  India, of course is better both in terms of training and cost of labor, but again, who'd want to live there?  Mexico is poor, but not destitute, and easy harbors the potential to become more desitutute if there weren't so many taxes on companies owned by cities.  Because Mexico tends to give breaks to rich foreigners, we might stand to gain a lot by setting up in that country.
7. Mexico has a wide range of eco-zones.
Even in a single state you can find coastline (including undeveloped sections), mountains, semi-arid rainforest, desert, and a variety of other habitats.  Even with most Americans living near the water there is still a lot of free space there, even more in the country as more and more people migrate to the cities.
8. Mexico is central.
If we can figure out how to properly manipulate NAFTA (dammit, but I wish we had a real free trade agreement instead of a convoluted pact that does nothing for real  enterprise and free interchange) we have access to the economies of the US and Canada.  Mexico is in touch with Latin America and the Carribean, and with even countries like Brazil developing ties with China, the potential for the Pacific is there as well.  In short, all of the world's growing and vibrant economies, except for a few in Europe are easily accessed from Mexico.

I'm sure that there are more advantages that I've overlooked.  This is just from observing Mexico and contantly reading the Americas section in The Economist.


Any rate,
Here's what I propose


1. Different regions of Mexico are looked at for A. Low taxes and lax regulations B. Lots of availible land C. A diverse local economy with a number of resources and skills to draw on.
2. Several people buy land in one or more of these selected locations, and establish houses and enterprises.  Many of these can be small, tallers, tienditas, restaurants, and B&Bs.
3. More people move in.  Some people with land construct more houses to sell to newcomers, some new people buy land.  More enterprises founded.
4. An "Enterprise Trust Fund" (working name) is established, basically a non-profit bank that gives loans to new Aspies, and some locals (for the PR and gooodwill) and buys land for development and/or conservation.
5. Charities are sestablished to support very-low functioning Autistics, AS/Autistic children whose parents don't want them (adoption agency), and genuinely disabled children, as well as locally disadvantaged children.
6. With a PAN or other pro-market/practical government in power in the state, further exemptions are worked out for the area, an attempt is made to incorporate a municipalit(ies) out of the land we control.
&tc.
Keep the cycle going upwards.


Far fetched and long term, obviously if others like it we'd have to change and develop things as individual situations arise.  At this point I'm thiniking that I'd like to move to Mexico for many of the reasons described, thought I'd propose it here though.

Peace, Truth, Liberty, and Justice,
Luke
Nice text colours.
Now that's definitely something I can support!  It would certainly be nice to have access to the desert, better than being surrounded by so much moisture it condenses onto your flesh.  My question: where's the good climbing?  :razz:

leemcd56 Wrote:
Does this mean I'm gonna have to learn Spanish?

Probably not, provided you don't mind going through somebody who does speak Spanish for a year or two.
English is the path to economic advancement wherever there are English speakers, so a lot of Mexicans learn it.

Even if we move to an area without any Americans yet there probably the best thing), get a few dozen of us down there and within a couple years you can expect that there will be plenty of English-speaking Mexicans in the area.

ConLang Wrote:
Now that's definitely something I can support!  It would certainly be nice to have access to the desert, better than being surrounded by so much moisture it condenses onto your flesh.  My question: where's the good climbing?  :razz:

Entire Altiplano is bascially flat, shrubby tableland interspersed with mountain ranges.

I must admit mexico does seam like a promicing place to begin for all the reasons you state, and the fact that it is semi-developed, not too much that it makes it difficult for anything to start up there, and not so little that it would be unpleasant in those ways and as you say is sufficiantly large enough to allow us near infinite expansion from one central location unlike an island which is never going to get any larger this way we could buy more land as we grow to expand into in the unpopulated areas.

Quintucket Wrote:
1. An island has a finite and limited land area.  
The islands that I've seen proposed are almost all about the size of a family farm where I live, far to small to support any significant population.

Autfinity is not, i think, meant to be a homeland per-say rather a holiday resort.

Quintucket Wrote:
Banning NTs on the basis of neurology would lower ourselves to the level of the majority of them.  Come on.

I agree but for different reasons:

  1. It adds a whole layer of red tape for a person to prove that they are AS or NT.
  2. It's completly unessesary. Lets face it how many NT's, given the common stereotypes of autism, would want to vaction with 300+ autistics? not many I bet. Simply lableling it a place for Autistics is enough to keep most NT's away. And the others are probably the kind that would be welcome.

Quintucket Wrote:
5. An island is monotonous.
I also for one do not like coastal areas, where I burn up unless I wear heavy clothes and a broad brimmed hat, or else apply SPF fifty every hour or two.  Big pain.  Of course, we could get an island off Anctartica of Greenland, but those areas are simply not meant to support large population densities.  And because of point 2, food is not easily shipped in.

Believe it or not your probably going to need sunscreen more there that in the tropics due to the thin ozone layer near the poles.

I like your mexico idea. The only thing that worries me about Mexico are these:

Heh, I just realized that the way I phrased it sounds like I live on a farm (I wish).  Should have put "around where I live."

Anywhen. . .

Yeah, I have a number of reasons why banning NTs would be a bad idea, just put what I thought was the best and simplest argument.

Admittedly, neither of the ones that you mentioned occured to me.

Now that you mention it, those maps that my environmental science teacher showed us came vidily back to my mind.  You're quite right on that.

Are scorpions really that much of a problem outside of the Sonoran Desert?

I thought that the dangerous ones in the US were primarily in the Arizonan Desert, which is actually the Sonoran.

The part of Mexico that I think would be best for this project would be the Altiplano or the Sierras (for those who don't know the Sierra Madres are a high mountain range seperating the Altiplano tableland from the coasts).

Quintucket Wrote:
The part of Mexico that I think would be best for this project would be the Altiplano or the Sierras (for those who don't know the Sierra Madres are a high mountain range seperating the Altiplano tableland from the coasts).


I am looking at a map, this area is very inland. would there be enough local water.  and there seems to be a lot of people in that area.

I was only half-serious about the scorpions.

Drifter Wrote:

Quintucket Wrote:
The part of Mexico that I think would be best for this project would be the Altiplano or the Sierras (for those who don't know the Sierra Madres are a high mountain range seperating the Altiplano tableland from the coasts).


I am looking at a map, this area is very inland. would there be enough local water.  and there seems to be a lot of people in that area.

I was only half-serious about the scorpions.

I've considered both those things because those have been concerns that people have voiced to me about moving to Mexico.

Having seen it myself, I'll tell you what I know.

Mexico has a serious water shortage in an around the capital(but I was hardly proposing that), and it's supposedly somewhat tight in the rest of the country, but we've never had trouble, even in Mexico City.

Supposedly all of Mexico has a high population density, but it seems to be all concentrated in the towns.  We'll ride through large swaths of the country and at most see a hut or a small shop, in some cases nothing, and yet to go by the maps there should have been a lot of people.  I think it's because the maps do it by region or state, and it averages out when you have a few big cities and then nothing.

Parts of the country are ecological or mineral preserves and off limits, but much of it is simply farmland, and the land's too dry to support a many people by agriculture.

So they're moving more and more to the cities.

Keep in mind that Mexico west of the Isthmus is mostly desert and scrubland (very picturesque, but not especially good farming soil), and unlike Arizona, Vegas, Colorado, and SoCal (all much the same naturally) they don't drain whole rivers to irrigate.

We could, of course, make multiple colonies, including one on the coast, which as I said is much of it still undeveloped (everybody goes to a few resort cities, and there are gaps between them). The advantage of the altitude is that you can go from the sub-tropics to the Altiplano in a couple hours driving or a 20 minute plane flight (plane tickets are cheap in Mexico), which is why I stated in the outline "one or more"  locations.  Some people probably like the tropical coasts, I personally can't stand the heat and humidity.

We ought to at least look at Chiapas and Tabasco and the Yucatan, which have plenty of water, but these regions are many of them somewhat politically unstable, and aside from Chiapas, mostly hut, humid lowlands besides.  It may likely be wiser to build in Oaxaca, Guerrero, Michoacan, Jalisco, Nayarit, Veracruz, etc, but it's best to take a look.

Building colonies in Mexico involves gooing to look at potential sites to determine advantages and disadvantages, (expansion potentiontial means that unlike an island we'd have to get a lay of the nieghborhood), but that's not too difficult, once one gets in the country, transportation is relatively cheap, and information can easily be gotten by asking.

Did you read my proposal abouta solar powered water desalinizer.

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/phpBB2/v...3880#46849

perhaps if we tried it ourselves we could sell the idea to the mexican goverment. they would love us then.

Quintucket Wrote:
Hmm.
Considering that a similar apparatus is already used for electricity in parts of the desert, I'm surprised nobody's thought of using it for water before.

It'd probably work quite nicely, given a sufficient number of them and a decent temperature.

Made a prototype yet?


No! All I have is a theory right now. I am not even sure if it could be made practical. and besides this thing is a little big for me the make by myself. also The isn't any seawater near by to test it on.

I hate to rain on anyones parade, however although the concept itself is sound as I pointed out in the other thread its efficiancy can be raised by a significant magnitude beyond this basic design, however the more efficiant designs are already patented, and these simpler more rudementery ones probably are also, probably prior to the more refined versions, of course would have to check with all the patent offices around the worlf to be sure (patents unlike copyright are often nation rarther than world wide)

MttJocy Wrote:
I hate to rain on anyones parade, however although the concept itself is sound as I pointed out in the other thread its efficiancy can be raised by a significant magnitude beyond this basic design, however the more efficiant designs are already patented, and these simpler more rudementery ones probably are also, probably prior to the more refined versions, of course would have to check with all the patent offices around the worlf to be sure (patents unlike copyright are often nation rarther than world wide)


your right it's been done. I just checked google and it's all patented globally.

http://www.zonnewater.net/

Sorry man, as I say didn't want to rain on your parade so to speak, also did not wish you to waste your time on a project to discover someone else did it before lol.

MttJocy Wrote:
Sorry man, as I say didn't want to rain on your parade so to speak, also did not wish you to waste your time on a project to discover someone else did it before lol.


No I overreacted.  That's just a water sill. That is where I got the idea. I misread there desdign what I thought was a refractor was a wind blocker!

But I don't really care anymore.

Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's