Page 2 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,406
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

08 Apr 2018, 9:35 pm

Shahunshah wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
The chief economist of the world bank says that by 2050 their as estimated to be around 200 million climate refugees fleeing from what we now know as the arc of instability. And I think it is the IPCC estimated that in that same year, the amount of Carbon dioxide will be the most it has ever been in 24 million years. If that is our future won't we see nationalistic fervor and fear of different cultures be inflamed to a horrific level?


Climate refugees? Just what are they going to be fleeing from? Too much food?

There may be many refugees, but not from climate. It might help to actually look up "arc of instability". From Wikipedia:
Quote:
The Arc of Instability is a proposed, interconnected chain of politically unstable nation states in the Asia-Pacific region. The term came into vogue in the late 1990s, proving especially popular with Australian politicians and journalists. The Arc is also sometimes to referred to as balkanisation in a modern, Asia-Pacific context.

The phrase "Arc of Instability" has been used by the National Intelligence Council to describe "a great arc of instability stretching from Sub-Saharan Africa through North Africa, into the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and South and Central Asia, and parts of Southeast Asia."

Definition and member states

The term is used to suggest that the members of the Arc are interconnected to the point that destabilisation within one country can have major political, military and economic repercussions in neighbouring countries. For example, Australian media and politicians claimed the destabilisation of the Solomon Islands was the result of a copycat or domino effect of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état.

In August 2006 Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson gave a speech to parliament on the topic of the Arc. Along with dropping Indonesia from the list of states in the Arc, he said:

We cannot afford to have failing states in our region. The so-called 'arc of instability', which basically goes from East Timor through to the south-west Pacific states, means that not only does Australia have a responsibility in preventing and indeed assisting with humanitarian and disaster relief, but also that we cannot allow any of these countries to become havens for transnational crime, nor indeed havens for terrorism.

There is no official list of member states in the Arc, however it has traditionally been accepted to include South-East Asian and Oceanic nations such as Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, East Timor, Indonesia and Fiji.


From the Center for Strategic and International Studies:
Quote:
An arc of instability stretching across Africa’s Sahel region, an area of strategic interest for the United States and its allies, is plagued by violent extremist organizations (VEOs). These organizations, including Boko Haram, al Qaeda, and other terror groups, have metastasized and present a serious threat to regional stability. Now these VEOs are transitioning. Under sustained pressure from French and regional security forces, and reeling from the loss of senior leaders, many of these groups feel backed into a corner. Despite setbacks, the groups continue to plague the region. To enhance policymakers’ understanding of these threats and how to respond to them, CSIS experts from the Africa Program and Transnational Threats Project conducted field-based and scholarly research examining the broad range of factors at play in the region. This research provides little ground for optimism. Chronic underdevelopment, political alienation, failed governance and corruption, organized crime, and spillover from Libya help foster and sustain violent extremists throughout the Sahel.


it's about political instability. It's about extremist groups. It's about crime. It isn't about climate.

Sheesh!
I know what you are saying. My argument is that in the future it will become about the climate as sea levels rise and desertification grows.


You might as well be worrying about whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

The sea levels rise and fall. That's what they do. Would you have objected to the start of the Holocene because of concerns of sea levels rising about 100 meters? That's what they did. When we enter the next glacial period, they'll go back down, too.

Will the sea levels rise as it gets warmer? Sure. So what. The rise will be so slow that you'll never notice. We will have plenty of time to adapt.

And warmth is not the cause of deserts. Just because some deserts are hot does not mean that all deserts are hot and it does not mean that heat caused the deserts.

A warmer planet is a more productive planet. It means that people will have food to eat. The real danger is a cooling planet when starvation and death by starvation becomes more and more common. You should rejoice that the Earth seems to be warming.

The sky is not falling.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 2:32 am

NoClearMind53 wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
The west has already given the world so much in the form of technology and medicine that is more than makes up for the negative effects of climate change. If we allow too many from the third world in we will turn into the third world.

This is quite a disgusting way of thinking. The future will be full of anger and bloodshed. It will make the horrors of the 20th century look like a walk in the park. If the world really is full of people like you, i.e. selfish toddlers who cannot and will not cooperate, civilization itself is pretty f****d. Nobody will be safe. I don’t plan on having offspring who will have the misfortune to grow up into this horror show.


How exactly is toddler like? Having self interest is not the same as being self interested. The countries these people are fleeing are terrible. Why is that? Because of their culture. Demography affects democracy.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 2:36 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
The west has already given the world so much in the form of technology and medicine that is more than makes up for the negative effects of climate change.


What about the Native American Genocide?

What about Pinochet?

What about slavery?

It's safe to say that we haven't made up for those things.

Until Afro-Americans and Native Americans are freed from systemic discrimination, we will not have properly atoned for our crimes.

Quote:
If we allow too many from the third world in we will turn into the third world.


As long as we have a social safety net, we won't be like the third world.


What about slavery? It was the western world that lead to slavery being outlawed globally.

If you are talking about African American slavery, well African Americans are far better off than they would have been in Africa.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 2:38 am

Shahunshah wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
The west has already given the world so much in the form of technology and medicine that is more than makes up for the negative effects of climate change. If we allow too many from the third world in we will turn into the third world.

But Daniel, Daniel the life expectancy in the Congo is 59 years. If these advances are by and large only going to support people in the West then no debt has been paid off.

I am not advocating that Britain take on 200 million refugees. I am suggesting that the West should divide the cost amongst each and every nation. If we do that then these people can be catered for in the way in which Germany is catering for over 500,000 migrants.


No its not in our interest to take people in from the Congo the rape capital of the world. What Germany has done has been terrible for its people.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 2:41 am

Shahunshah wrote:
We have to be brave. And fight this kind of nationalism. Many centuries have a defining struggle. In the 14th century, humanity struggled to save itself from the black death whilst in the 20th we struggled and succeeded in defeating the evil that is fascism. I think this is going to be our one.


Nationalism? Fascism? The government is forcing millions of people from incompatible cultures upon us without us asking for it, without us even having a vote on it. We have to compete with these people for jobs, housing and public services. Being against this does not make you some kind of extremist or radical.



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

09 Apr 2018, 3:16 am

Tross wrote:
Well, I'm definitely seeing a lot of butting heads over climate change and immigration. I'm pro-immigration and pro at least trying to reduce our carbon footprint and anything that can unnecessarily harm the environment. I know the latter may be difficult as we have a carbon footprint just by existing in this world, but there's no harm in taking some responsibility and at least trying to reduce our impact on the planet at least a little.


Here's one of the main problems: America has a Green Party, but most Americans don't bother voting for third parties.

It's a self-perpetuating system. Third parties have no chance precisely because people think that they have no chance.

Thus, America is stuck between a corporatist party ... and another corporatist party that also hates women and gays.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 3:27 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Tross wrote:
Well, I'm definitely seeing a lot of butting heads over climate change and immigration. I'm pro-immigration and pro at least trying to reduce our carbon footprint and anything that can unnecessarily harm the environment. I know the latter may be difficult as we have a carbon footprint just by existing in this world, but there's no harm in taking some responsibility and at least trying to reduce our impact on the planet at least a little.


Here's one of the main problems: America has a Green Party, but most Americans don't bother voting for third parties.

It's a self-perpetuating system. Third parties have no chance precisely because people think that they have no chance.

Thus, America is stuck between a corporatist party ... and another corporatist party that also hates women and gays.


America has the same problem we have in the UK a duopoly. The only way to change that is to change the voting system.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Apr 2018, 3:37 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Tross wrote:
Well, I'm definitely seeing a lot of butting heads over climate change and immigration. I'm pro-immigration and pro at least trying to reduce our carbon footprint and anything that can unnecessarily harm the environment. I know the latter may be difficult as we have a carbon footprint just by existing in this world, but there's no harm in taking some responsibility and at least trying to reduce our impact on the planet at least a little.


Here's one of the main problems: America has a Green Party, but most Americans don't bother voting for third parties.

It's a self-perpetuating system. Third parties have no chance precisely because people think that they have no chance.

Thus, America is stuck between a corporatist party ... and another corporatist party that also hates women and gays.


Seems the only option is to be a bernie democrat...meaning you're really a democratic socialist but you vote and/or run as a democrat, because that is the only damn way to actually make the change. Socialists infiltrating the democratic party is the key to vicotry :D


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

09 Apr 2018, 3:40 am

Daniel89 wrote:
If you are talking about African American slavery, well African Americans are far better off than they would have been in Africa.


Actually, a lot of Africans were returning to Africa until recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement

Additionally, the continent of Africa is in bad shape because Western business leaders won't stop meddling in African elections. For example, Cambridge Analytica meddled in the 2017 Kenyan election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/cambridge-analytica-and-its-role-in-kenya-2017-elections.html

Before European colonialists showed up, Africans lived in democratic tribes, people shared everything and the environment was beautiful. Nowadays, African people live in plutocratic "democracies", the environment is being destroyed, and species of rhino are being hunted to extinction one by one.

Golly! Thanks white people! :D


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

09 Apr 2018, 3:42 am

Daniel89 wrote:
No its not in our interest to take people in from the Congo the rape capital of the world. What Germany has done has been terrible for its people.


The rape capital of the world is actually America.

https://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 3:46 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
If you are talking about African American slavery, well African Americans are far better off than they would have been in Africa.


Actually, a lot of Africans were returning to Africa until recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement

Additionally, the continent of Africa is in bad shape because Western business leaders won't stop meddling in African elections. For example, Cambridge Analytica meddled in the 2017 Kenyan election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/cambridge-analytica-and-its-role-in-kenya-2017-elections.html

Before European colonialists showed up, Africans lived in democratic tribes, people shared everything and the environment was beautiful. Nowadays, African people live in plutocratic "democracies", the environment is being destroyed, and species of rhino are being hunted to extinction one by one.

Golly! Thanks white people! :D


This Noble Savage trope just is not true. You know how Africans first became slaves to Whites in the first place? Other Africans sold them. They were not democratic, in order to be a democracy elections need to be fair and private. Africa was a mess before white people even showed up.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 3:47 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
No its not in our interest to take people in from the Congo the rape capital of the world. What Germany has done has been terrible for its people.


The rape capital of the world is actually America.

https://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/


Do you actually believe that? Do you not realise America has a better justice system?



Shahunshah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,225
Location: NZ

09 Apr 2018, 3:49 am

Daniel89 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
We have to be brave. And fight this kind of nationalism. Many centuries have a defining struggle. In the 14th century, humanity struggled to save itself from the black death whilst in the 20th we struggled and succeeded in defeating the evil that is fascism. I think this is going to be our one.


Nationalism? Fascism? The government is forcing millions of people from incompatible cultures upon us without us asking for it, without us even having a vote on it. We have to compete with these people for jobs, housing and public services. Being against this does not make you some kind of extremist or radical.
I know it doesn't. But let's face it the fight we are talking about is either compassion or death. The Western World can either choose to accommodate these refugees or risk seeing their lives fall apart entirely. Judging by the way the world is now, the borders in 20 years and going to be closed with a few outliers. When that day comes, there will almost certainly be millions that need to be catered for in which if our government refuses them, we are paving the way for their demise.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Apr 2018, 3:50 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
If you are talking about African American slavery, well African Americans are far better off than they would have been in Africa.


Actually, a lot of Africans were returning to Africa until recently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement

Additionally, the continent of Africa is in bad shape because Western business leaders won't stop meddling in African elections. For example, Cambridge Analytica meddled in the 2017 Kenyan election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/cambridge-analytica-and-its-role-in-kenya-2017-elections.html

Before European colonialists showed up, Africans lived in democratic tribes, people shared everything and the environment was beautiful. Nowadays, African people live in plutocratic "democracies", the environment is being destroyed, and species of rhino are being hunted to extinction one by one.

Golly! Thanks white people! :D


So much so that there is a guy in africa that has resorted to cutting horns of live rhinos to sell, to try and reduce the amount killed for their horns...but its not ideal, because they shouldn't have to have cut off blunt horns to live. So like I am glad this guy is saving some Rhinos, but is not an ideal way to do it. Its interesting I actually saw that on a documentary about hunting...which isn't typically the kind of thing I watch. But I don't really disagree with hunting, so long as the goal is to use the meat and the whole animal, but the trophey hunting disgusts me...especially people who think its ok to hunt endangered species like lions or elephants...which buy the way trump wants to undo the ban of transporting such trophies to the U.S which will only increase their diminishing numbers by making it easier for these disgusting people to transport their 'prize'.

Lol watch the Ace Ventura Pet Detective that takes place in africa to learn how I feel about that kind of crap, I am on the side of the character played by Jim Carry.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 09 Apr 2018, 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

09 Apr 2018, 3:54 am

Shahunshah wrote:
I know it doesn't. But let's face it the fight we are talking about is either compassion or death. The Western World can either choose to accommodate these refugees or risk seeing their lives fall apart entirely. Judging by the way the world is now, the borders in 20 years and going to be closed with a few outliers. When that day comes, there will almost certainly be millions that need to be catered for in which if our government refuses them, we are paving the way for their demise.


And how many are starving around the world already? If we let them in they will just be replaced by another person having a child they cannot feed. Its not our fault they choose to have children they cannot look after. The best way to help them is to help them in their own countries, through selective foreign aid and free trade.



Shahunshah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,225
Location: NZ

09 Apr 2018, 6:04 am

Daniel89 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
I know it doesn't. But let's face it the fight we are talking about is either compassion or death. The Western World can either choose to accommodate these refugees or risk seeing their lives fall apart entirely. Judging by the way the world is now, the borders in 20 years and going to be closed with a few outliers. When that day comes, there will almost certainly be millions that need to be catered for in which if our government refuses them, we are paving the way for their demise.


And how many are starving around the world already? If we let them in they will just be replaced by another person having a child they cannot feed. Its not our fault they choose to have children they cannot look after. The best way to help them is to help them in their own countries, through selective foreign aid and free trade.
Your analogy over starving children to me seems very bloody weird. Here is the thing when you accept refugees into the western you put them in a place where even for the poorest individuals there is easy access to food. But let's say your twisted analogy which I do not agree with one bit is right. If we let refugees in and they have many children we will be giving them a place where they have easy access to food, security and healthcare as of opposed to letting them stay in outside in say Africa where the continent is likely to face massive massive food shortages and desertification.