To put immigration on climate change is a far stretch, the relationship is more of a butterfly effect. To completely ignore climate change as a factor would be a mistake. Climate change can drive significant agricultural changes. Significant change to crop yield, be it negative or lateral disrupts a lot of families and individuals. By lateral crop yield change, I mean the change from one crop to another. Ex: A farmer, who has invested to grow wheat, may fail and his farmland may be acquired by a company that farms potatoes. The company is better suited to handle the changing market and growing dynamics than the individual farmer, so the company capitalizes on it and the farmer is displaced. Cumulative individual disruption leads to unrest.
You can't reasonable quantify how much climate change contributed, If climate change didn't happen, perhaps issues would not have compounded and things would have gotten better. Or perhaps it would have happened anyway. Thus the butterfly affect. Unless you're in a time paradox, you'll never know.
I think the point most people miss is that cumulative individual disruption leads to unrest. The rate and the severity of that disruption affects the severity of the unrest. People adjust to disruption, but when the rate of disruption is too fast and too severe, society reaches a tipping point and falls off a cliff.
In Brazil they are using genetically-modified mosquitoes.
FTA - "Using lab-grown mosquitoes to kill mosquito pests has been tested extensively in Brazil in recent years. The country has allowed large-scale releases of such mosquitoes in response to an epidemic of the Zika virus that began in 2015. Zika is a mosquito-borne virus that has been linked to severe birth defects, such as abnormally small heads — a condition known as microcephaly. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are thought to be the primary vector for the virus.
One type of mosquito being tested in Brazil is a genetically modified variety of A. aegypti developed by Oxitec in Milton, UK. When the modified male mosquitoes mate with wild females, they pass a lethal gene on to any progeny."
The Guardian made the ice claim. Not sure were the Guardian got it, but straight from the Guardian article - "The chasm, 50km (31 miles) long and 100 metres wide, appears to be structurally sound and its rocks may contain ice or water deposits that could be turned into fuel, according to data sent back by the orbiter, nicknamed Kaguya after the moon princess in a Japanese fairytale."
I hate this argument. I don't know the history of coral, but surviving is a poor measuring stick. Just cause it survives doesn't mean that a major die off wouldn't have significant impact to oceanic life and subsequently to humans.
If a disease came about that killed all but 1000 chickens, chickens would survive. Since they survive as a species, we should ignore the potential impact of a major population decline?
The rule is simple: if you have proper competition & market, in long rung private companies tend to be much better than state/government. However if you don't have competition, private is much worse than state where you have at least some control by some institutions if your democratic system work.
Maybe I'm simple too, but I agree with this. Thanks AC.
Assuming you're right, a 5-10 year spike in unemployment is not going to be a big deal, people will find new jobs. I don't necessarily agree that they will. But for arguments sake, lets agree that they will For those people months and years of unemployment and ongoing lower compensation will have a significant impact. These individuals collectively a large portion of the American demographic that his high debt ratios and typical lives paycheck to paycheck. When this group start defaulting on car loans, then mortgages, etc. it will create a negative ripple through out the global economy.
Slashdot Mirror
To put immigration on climate change is a far stretch, the relationship is more of a butterfly effect. To completely ignore climate change as a factor would be a mistake. Climate change can drive significant agricultural changes. Significant change to crop yield, be it negative or lateral disrupts a lot of families and individuals. By lateral crop yield change, I mean the change from one crop to another. Ex: A farmer, who has invested to grow wheat, may fail and his farmland may be acquired by a company that farms potatoes. The company is better suited to handle the changing market and growing dynamics than the individual farmer, so the company capitalizes on it and the farmer is displaced. Cumulative individual disruption leads to unrest. You can't reasonable quantify how much climate change contributed, If climate change didn't happen, perhaps issues would not have compounded and things would have gotten better. Or perhaps it would have happened anyway. Thus the butterfly affect. Unless you're in a time paradox, you'll never know. I think the point most people miss is that cumulative individual disruption leads to unrest. The rate and the severity of that disruption affects the severity of the unrest. People adjust to disruption, but when the rate of disruption is too fast and too severe, society reaches a tipping point and falls off a cliff.
By the time a good fake video is shown to be fake, people would have moved on. Damage done.
In Brazil they are using genetically-modified mosquitoes. FTA - "Using lab-grown mosquitoes to kill mosquito pests has been tested extensively in Brazil in recent years. The country has allowed large-scale releases of such mosquitoes in response to an epidemic of the Zika virus that began in 2015. Zika is a mosquito-borne virus that has been linked to severe birth defects, such as abnormally small heads — a condition known as microcephaly. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are thought to be the primary vector for the virus. One type of mosquito being tested in Brazil is a genetically modified variety of A. aegypti developed by Oxitec in Milton, UK. When the modified male mosquitoes mate with wild females, they pass a lethal gene on to any progeny."
The Guardian made the ice claim. Not sure were the Guardian got it, but straight from the Guardian article - "The chasm, 50km (31 miles) long and 100 metres wide, appears to be structurally sound and its rocks may contain ice or water deposits that could be turned into fuel, according to data sent back by the orbiter, nicknamed Kaguya after the moon princess in a Japanese fairytale."
I hate this argument. I don't know the history of coral, but surviving is a poor measuring stick. Just cause it survives doesn't mean that a major die off wouldn't have significant impact to oceanic life and subsequently to humans. If a disease came about that killed all but 1000 chickens, chickens would survive. Since they survive as a species, we should ignore the potential impact of a major population decline?
The rule is simple: if you have proper competition & market, in long rung private companies tend to be much better than state/government. However if you don't have competition, private is much worse than state where you have at least some control by some institutions if your democratic system work.
Maybe I'm simple too, but I agree with this. Thanks AC.
Assuming you're right, a 5-10 year spike in unemployment is not going to be a big deal, people will find new jobs. I don't necessarily agree that they will. But for arguments sake, lets agree that they will For those people months and years of unemployment and ongoing lower compensation will have a significant impact. These individuals collectively a large portion of the American demographic that his high debt ratios and typical lives paycheck to paycheck. When this group start defaulting on car loans, then mortgages, etc. it will create a negative ripple through out the global economy.