Europeans — especially Germans — are increasingly keen on curbing immigration and are less focused on climate change, according to a study by a Danish-based think tank.
It doesn't, but we're all humans and if some of us wreck another person's country it feels unjust to leave that person stateless.
There might be a basic misunderstanding here... at the rate climate change is going some areas of the earth that are currently inhabitable are becoming uninhabitable. There are farms being swallowed up by desert and the people who were fed by that farm have no where to go.
Do you know what the word sustainability means, though?
Or are you just piling us all into one stereotype and now I have to starve along with everyone else while the rich that caused the problem are the only ones that can afford to live?
This is xmunk's secret plan for cleansing migrants and low socioeconomic majorities off the planet. Put them all in areas that can't logistically support them until only those that could afford to survive remain. The same that ruined the climate.
Yup, I'm an evil villain. In actuality I just don't believe in borders or nationalities - being born into a western country is an extreme advantage and it's a matter of fucking chance. I dislike discriminating based on country of origin and I think we should strive to ensure everyone gets as equitable a chance at success as we can.
Also, our climate isn't under pressure because we're at the population limit for earth - climate change is happening because of greed. In theory we can fucking fix it if we work together.
There are people who live in the artic and those who live in deserts. People even farm in the desert. It might not be great, but itll be more than inhabitable.
You do know that not very many people live in those places, right? It wouldn't be sustainable. India has over a billion people and the Himalayan glaciers they depend on for water are not getting replenished.
I'm pretty sure moving from a place that has no water to a place that has water does, in fact, fix the problem. Maybe you would prefer them to just die?
Okay, so the plan is move tye entirity of china here then? All 1.4 billion people?
Thats not a reasonable goal. Even you moved in 10 percent of china, youd overwhelm every social service and everything else for that matter. And youd be leaving 90% of china to die while destroying the west's ability to function.
Now you're moving the goalposts. And you've moved them more than once already.
First you claimed that it would be sustainable for the over a billion people in India to stay where they were because it's possible to survive in tundras and deserts.
Then you said that moving them to a place where water exists wouldn't fix the problem of them dying due to a lack of a water.
Then you asked why water would exist in the new place, which was just a silly question for anyone who understands basic geography.
Now you're talking about moving all of China, when China wasn't even discussed.
And at each step, you haven't gone back to the previous one and acknowledged it was a silly thing to say.
I never said India, this is the first comment india was uttered. Youre the one that brought up glaciers. And China is largely watered by glaciers, its the logical next part in the discussion. And even it was India, they also have over a billion people and you face the same problem with simply too many people.