Slashdot Mirror
Faced With Rising Temperatures, People May Seek Asylum (axios.com)
Europe is already struggling to absorb an influx of refugees from war-torn Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. Germany alone has taken in more than a million people since 2015. This wave of immigration has led to political upheaval, with the rise of right-wing political parties in Germany, Poland, Austria, and Hungary, among others. Now a new study, published in the journal Science, shows that the current surge in refugees may just be a preview of what's to come due in large part to global warming. From a report: At an average growing season temperature of about 68 Fahrenheit, which is the optimum one for agriculture, the number of applications for asylum was lowest. As the average temperature rose, so did the number of people from Somalia, Bangladesh and other warmer climate countries seeking asylum. But when cooler countries -- such as Serbia and Peru -- got warmer, fewer applications were received. The acceptance rate for asylum application to the EU is less than 10%. But when there was a spike in applications tied to weather fluctuations, the admittance rate rose to about 30%, suggesting agencies who evaluate the applicants find their cause worthy.
Is it really climate that drives people from Somalia or Bangladesh? Or is it instead the fact those countries are pretty unstable and people want to get to a more stable area?
Especially if you are talking refugees, and not simply immigration requests. "Refugee" implies something catastrophic they are fleeing, not slightly warmer weather.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real problem here is that the populations in places like Africa, the Middle East and India, among others, are skyrocketing far beyond reasonable levels.
These are regions that were already lacking the necessary resources to support even small populations at the most basic of levels. We're talking about areas that have literally no suitable agricultural land, little water, and few other resources.
The solution is not to move these people to Europe, or Japan, or North America, or other civilized places.
The solution is for the people in these nations to stop reproducing.
When you're living in a UN "refugee" camp, with all of your food and water coming from UN handouts, you shouldn't be bringing children into the mix.
When you're living in a war zone like Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen, you shouldn't be bringing children into the mix.
When the parents can't even sustain themselves in any reasonable way, it's asinine for them to reproduce.
The most absurd part of all of this is how the political left in Western nations view the situation, and even contribute to making it far worse.
The same people who claim to be the most concerned about the environment and sustainability are the same people who push the hardest to send more and more foreign aid to places like Africa and the Middle East.
Of course, as decades of evidence now shows us, this sort of aid only serves to make the problem much, much, much worse in the short term. It enables people who shouldn't be reproducing due to a lack of resources the ability to reproduce.
In the long term it will be a disaster beyond anything imaginable. If the West is ever not able to provide this aid, for whatever reason, the humanitarian disaster will be immense.
What's worse is how the political left tries to use "political correctness" and false accusations of "racism" to try to shut down any discussion regarding this extremely important issue. Or they come up with lies like, "they need to reproduce so they can have more farm workers", despite these regions not having anything resembling agriculture, and despite nearly everyone in these regions requiring handouts from the UN or other aid organizations.
The only solution to these problems is a significant decrease in the birth rates in places like Africa, the Middle East, and India. And it can't happen later. It has to happen immediately. The reproduction rate needs to be brought down to 0% in order for the situation to stabilize, and perhaps eventually improve.
Actually this is a good point, but you're presupposing that these two causes of refugee flight are mutually exclusive. In fact they work synergistically. Environmental stress creates economic disruption, creating political unrest, encouraging people predisposed to fight oppressive governments rebel. That in turn prompting oppressive responses which exacerbate the underlying crisis and further erode the regime's credibility. This takes resources and focus away from the response to the underlying disaster, and in any case the inevitable favoritism and corruption push the regime to the brink of collapse.
Take Syria, a perfect storm scenario. It's had a horrifically brutal, but *stable* regime for decades. A multi-year drought depopulated the countryside, further reducing its own agricultural output and creating large urban concentrations of unemployed young men ripe for radicalization. Then a transient spike in global wheat prices created shortages of subsidized bread and huge price spikes in market prices. This was
It's hard to say how much better an honest and generally popular Syrian government would have weathered the crisis, but this much is clear: while oppressive governments *can* produce refugees on their own, they don't necessarily do so. But put a country where people hate and fear their government under stress, and you'll get refugees.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
2) To return to their origin as soon as it is safe to do so.
My next-door-neighbours arrived here in Canada as refugees from Vietnam in the 70s. They got jobs, became citizens, and raised children. 40 years later, Vietnam is now 'safe' but they have no interest in returning there. They're Canadians now. The mother of the household vacations there every few years to visit friends and family, but that's it.
The Syrian refugees across the street from me will likely follow the same pattern - They are integrating themselves into our community. If, a decade from now, Syria is 'safe,' the pull to go back there will likely be weak.
So they don't integrate with the host society.
If course they do. Canada is full of refugees, all very happy to be here, and the majority of whom are working hard to integrate into Canadian society.
My next door neighbours are refugees. The whole family works freaking hard and all manner of scut jobs.
Good advice to those people.
Now, let's talk about everyone else, the people who don't live in those places. Let's say someone over there ignores your advice and brings children into the mix. What should you do about it?
Kill them? That would fix the problem.
Leave them alone, but kill them if they come to our, more-inhabitable area?
Let them migrate with all the same freedom that we have to migrate, and compete with them in a free market? (e.g. Me and my children might lose out and suffer the consequences of living in an uninhabitable area, because someone over there came and "took my job" so I have to move. But that's fair, because I had no more rights to this region of the world than anyone else, and my terms from birth were always "may the best man win" and I just happened to not measure up.)
Dump money into technological development and/or military force, to try to cause those less habitable places to become more habitable? (Thereby relieving the pressure on the people over there, to move over here.)
Fight against mysticism and anything else that persuades people to eschew birth control?
Something else? There are people over there with incentive to come here. They shouldn't make more people, but for whatever reason they do and we have to deal with the consequences that has on us. You can't just give "don't have kids" advice and then pretend that you magically got people to follow it. If they ignore your advice, you can blame them but that doesn't solve anything. You have to do something, or else accept the consequences of not doing something. You can't get out of it.
Republicans and Democrats have both shown they don't have a clue what to do. Do you?
There is no evidence that these "political left" people that you're talking about, have successfully made any credible move to shut down any discussion. If you are convinced that they have really tried to do this, then you must be laughing your ass off right now, since you know for sure that they definitely failed and didn't achieve even 1% of their goal. Because here we are, talking about it. Complete mission failure, "political left"!!
Therefore, what you just said is completely irrelevent. That's like someone is attacking an enemy infantry position with howitzers and the guy in charge of the artillery says "they are trying to train mosquitos to block the incoming artillery shells." It's a hilarious thing to say, but that's what you're saying. If someone is doing what you're saying they're doing, every single person knows that plan wouldn't ever have a chance of working even a little bit.
Maybe just stop worrying about it, and learn to enjoy their utterly futile attempts. Or accept that maybe you're wrong, and nobody is really trying to stop discussion, precisely because attempting to stop it is so futile. As you can see above, they didn't stop me. And I don't have some kind of magic keyboard. They didn't stop you, either.
Ok, here's the problem. We know for sure, without any speculation or guesswork or mysticism, that asking people to decrease their birth rates has failed. Past perfect tense, got it? This isn't something you're suggesting we try; it is a think we have tried but for some reason, we didn't get the result we wanted. They didn't take your "don't reproduce"