Is your country willing to make the hard choice?

[Machismo]

Imagine being packed into a concrete jungle with thousands/millions of people that don't trust each other, don't have the same values, don't speak the same language, and don't wish to adapt to the people who were already there. Sounds like a nightmare.

The same issue would happen in rural areas.

Not only that, people would fan out to where the resources are, if the means to move those resources is eliminated. This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to sell fearmongering and xenophobia.

[Kraenen]

Shh, you will get banned for mentioning it.

Has he been banned yet?

Anyway, yeah. The entire premise of this thread is poorly contrived bait to justify anti-immigrant sentiment, and by extension racism and ethnic superiority beliefs. It is postulating a future in which things somehow work fundamentally different then they do now, which is a very irrational position in the first place. The idea that nations are routinely destroyed by immigrant hordes is a common one in White Nationalist fan-fiction, but strangely absent from the historical record.

This actually isn't the narrative I've seen, although I'd have to wonder where you're reading this and why you read it so often. I've never seen any racist claim that nations are "routinely destroyed by immigrant hordes". They usually focus on national solidarity and population growth rates in modern immigration.

In fact, history shows quite the opposite, countries that are attracting large numbers of opportunistic immigrants are typically flourishing, and the waves of cheap labor and new talent feed that surge of prosperity.

Under the neoliberal paradigm, borderline slave-labor is encouraged and negative externalities like the decay of cultural cohesion is ignored. The phrasing of your first sentence should tell you everything. The countries that attract immigrants are already flourishing. Large amounts of immigrants cause cultural divisions by its nature - they are people from different cultures and supplant the natives with their own. Can you show any cases in the historical literature where mass immigration from Africa, the Middle East, or South America made the country better off?

They like painting some bleak future where these dangerous foreigners must be turned away for the good of society, but they already want to do that, when these conditions do not exist. They are contriving a scenario to fit their agenda, and it still doesn't make sense. Even in crisis we are going to want the additional brain and muscle power that comes with immigration.

To me it's all about the source of the immigrants and the characteristics they've already shown (i.e. going off the evidence). Typically West European and East Asian immigrants provide more economic/brain power with other countries scoring lower if not ending up below the net benefit line. In the context of climate change, we could expect many from Africa to flee. If you're talking about them - the IQ scores of various African countries are what, on average? If you have another measure of a country's brain power, provide it as a counterargument. Otherwise the claim that brain power comes with [any and all]immigration is unfounded. Alternatively we could measure 'starting a new successful business' . In most cases you're placing the argument in the opposite order, as often entrepreneurs are immigrants, but this connection is made due to selection bias. People who are entrepreneurial want to go to new countries, start a new business, etc. Most people aren't like that, and the cause of the immigration in question does not line up with anything typically seen in history matching the pro-immigrant literature.

In the future (even as it is) with automation, just having more bodies on the supply line isn't really what runs the economy; innovation, efficiency, and sustainability is.

- - - Updated - - -

The same issue would happen in rural areas.

Not only that, people would fan out to where the resources are, if the means to move those resources is eliminated. .

It would be much more destructive to rural areas. Those communities are high-trust and highly homogeneous, built on common values and solidarity. A massive influx of foreign colonists would destroy that (which I assume is what you are okay with).

This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to sell fearmongering and xenophobia

Where's the evidence that there's absolutely nothing to fear? (I'm talking about your use of "nothing more than").

[Acidbaron]

Unrealistic to expect any nation to take in all refugees that sentiment and despite fear mongering attempts of the alt right aka the stupid branch of the right wing politics.
Has no actual political platform large enough to carry it on, even on the left side the sentiment to aid them is there till you tell them a refugee center ends up in -their town- and that sympathy is all but gone. We are also preventing this from happening by financing regimes in African nations that terrorize people through violence from rape to torture to murder, that's the inconvenient truth people don't like to know.

What impact refugees have on communities is something in the middle of what both sides are saying. I am however completely opposed to opening up refugee centers in small towns, that is just a bad idea on so many levels.

Regarding your bonus question, the world as a whole is already looking at CO2 emissions differently as in ranking what is produce in a development country and what is produced in a developed country differently.

Also India an China arent the prime agents of climate change, the western world are the ones who have been producing tons of emissions for decades. That's why these other nations find it unfair that they are held to the same standard now not the standard of when the countries were growing their industries.

[Machismo]

Has he been banned yet?



This actually isn't the narrative I've seen, although I'd have to wonder where you're reading this and why you read it so often. I've never seen any racist claim that nations are "routinely destroyed by immigrant hordes". They usually focus on national solidarity and population growth rates in modern immigration.



Under the neoliberal paradigm, borderline slave-labor is encouraged and negative externalities like the decay of cultural cohesion is ignored. The phrasing of your first sentence should tell you everything. The countries that attract immigrants are already flourishing. Large amounts of immigrants cause cultural divisions by its nature - they are people from different cultures and supplant the natives with their own. Can you show any cases in the historical literature where mass immigration from Africa, the Middle East, or South America made the country better off?



To me it's all about the source of the immigrants and the characteristics they've already shown (i.e. going off the evidence). Typically West European and East Asian immigrants provide more economic/brain power with other countries scoring lower if not ending up below the net benefit line. In the context of climate change, we could expect many from Africa to flee. If you're talking about them - the IQ scores of various African countries are what, on average? If you have another measure of a country's brain power, provide it as a counterargument. Otherwise the claim that brain power comes with [any and all]immigration is unfounded. Alternatively we could measure 'starting a new successful business' . In most cases you're placing the argument in the opposite order, as often entrepreneurs are immigrants, but this connection is made due to selection bias. People who are entrepreneurial want to go to new countries, start a new business, etc. Most people aren't like that, and the cause of the immigration in question does not line up with anything typically seen in history matching the pro-immigrant literature.

In the future (even as it is) with automation, just having more bodies on the supply line isn't really what runs the economy; innovation, efficiency, and sustainability is.

- - - Updated - - -



It would be much more destructive to rural areas. Those communities are high-trust and highly homogeneous, built on common values and solidarity. A massive influx of foreign colonists would destroy that (which I assume is what you are okay with).



Where's the evidence that there's absolutely nothing to fear? (I'm talking about your use of "nothing more than").

And in the case of such a catastrophic event, all of that goes out the window. That "homogenization" and the fear of losing it is racism, it is xenophobia.

You are making my case for me, thanks.

[Kiri]

To me it's all about the source of the immigrants and the characteristics they've already shown (i.e. going off the evidence). Typically West European and East Asian immigrants provide more economic/brain power with other countries scoring lower if not ending up below the net benefit line. In the context of climate change, we could expect many from Africa to flee. If you're talking about them - the IQ scores of various African countries are what, on average? If you have another measure of a country's brain power, provide it as a counterargument. Otherwise the claim that brain power comes with [any and all]immigration is unfounded. Alternatively we could measure 'starting a new successful business' . In most cases you're placing the argument in the opposite order, as often entrepreneurs are immigrants, but this connection is made due to selection bias. People who are entrepreneurial want to go to new countries, start a new business, etc. Most people aren't like that, and the cause of the immigration in question does not line up with anything typically seen in history matching the pro-immigrant literature.

Where's the evidence that there's absolutely nothing to fear? (I'm talking about your use of "nothing more than").

First off, IQ as it is usually tested, is not really the best indicator for intelligence. It's a measure made by West Europeans for West Europeans. There is a bit of a debate as to how adequate it really is to measure the intelligence of people who have different ways of thinking, a different culture, etc. It's not a good idea to just apply it to everyone.

Besides, for economic immigrants, current systems look more at the educational background than IQ scores anyway. That is by and large why immigrants from countries that have stronger educational systems are preferred. However, that also means that especially young migrants can often be brought up to the level of others by the receiving state by giving them a better education and living standards that are more conductive to learning. My country actively sought immigration of low-skilled labour for decades and is still doing fine overall. If not those immigrants, their children did receive a good enough education to become more valuable economically. Sure, there are always issues with integration, but even according to the IQ averages you seem to like, we are still among the top performers.
Usually, the country of origin is not as important for immigration as the integration policies of the receiving country. People can adapt. People can improve on themselves if given the opportunity - but they can also stagnate if they are not.

Of course, the origin is also important, as it can cause issues for integration. However, I think it would not be adequate to focus entirely on that. Two immigration waves from the same country can have completely different outcomes depending on the reception. Accepting immigrants in an orderly fashion with help can be a boon, begrudgingly accepting refugees and dumping them in ghettos can bring you down. That's why a categorical stances on immigration can be self-perpetuating and, incidentally, hard to understand from an outside perspective. It also means that historical examples have to be scrutinized on both ends. Did an immigration wave for country X from country Y cause issues because of something inherent to the people of X, or was it because of how Y handled it? It's a very complicated topic, probably too heavy to properly deal with on a forum like this one. It's probably a myriad of factors, really.

I still stick to the stance I had when writing my last term paper on the topic: Any absolute stance of immigration is foolish. It's neither always bad, nor always good. But I do believe that, if handled correctly, any wave of immigration can have positive impacts.
The problem is usually getting the political capital to achieve that. It would be true for the topic of this thread as well. A massive immigration wave due to large swathes of Africa becoming inhabitable could probably be handled by the international community with concerted effort. It would probably require taking action before the situation grows too dire, but it's probably possible if everyone capable pitched in. But that kind of political capital just isn't there. Heck, we can't even agree that the underlying potential problem even exists, so there's no chance we will be able to properly handle the fallout.

[Katie N]

First off, IQ as it is usually tested, is not really the best indicator for intelligence. It's a measure made by West Europeans for West Europeans.

If it was made for them, shouldn't they excel at it and not others be at top?

[Kiri]

If it was made for them, shouldn't they excel at it and not others be at top?

Probably because they both have similar ways of thinking with regards to what IQ tests are looking for. Plus, the level of development in a country also plays a role, since most of the high scorers are also among the more developed countries. Naturally, that has a bit of a correlation-causation issue as well. But if you look at what those tests ask for, some things become easily apparent.
For example, a large part of IQ tests, especially standardized ones, put quite a bit of emphasis on math. While that does make some sense, since math is fairly universal in language and is used everywhere. But that also means that children growing up in more math-heavy environments will score better in those parts, along with those who already experienced more or better education in that regard. A kid growing up in a big city will probably have a better grasp at math than one living in a poor, rural area, where knowledge of plants might be much more important. We do not have yet have tests that really only test 'intelligence', while being agnostic to 'knowledge'.
That poses a bit of an issue if you want intelligence to more or less represent the capacity for knowledge. At least once you start making world-wide comparisons. If you just want to make comparisons between developed countries? It is usually fine. We value stuff like math highly and see it as a mark of intelligence, so that isn't too bad. Still tests for something that is of great interest, after all. The issue really is only when we then try to use that measure on people who have - or often, have to - think differently, have different priorities and values, then circle back and say they don't have the potential.

Basically, just because a test is designed for Europeans doesn't mean it won't work for others as well. But it also doesn't mean that it is automatically a good test for everyone.

Though I reckon this is veering a bit off-topic, so I rather cut the post short.

[Deletedaccount1]

There aren't going to be climate refugees.

[Xarkan]

https://ourworldindata.org/renewable...rgy-investment

The entire page is a good source of information. China invests more than Europe and US combined, and we didn't even include India.

There is a guilt part of the equation

The consumer that ends up consuming is the only reason anything is produced and if it was not there would be no CO2

Which means the chart that should be made should be based on where the goods are consumed.. because Europe and North America consume a lot of those goods produced in China and India making Europe and North America responsible for it happening

At least imo

[Jessicka]

Of course not. If they did, we wouldn't see SUV sales flying. People are selfish, they'll do what they can to mitigate impact on themselves, and everyone else can go fuck themselves.

[tumppu]

Finland doesnt excist *just joined the ''finland-does-not-excist meme'' *

True, we do not exist.

Also, if you are from russia or another hostile country, a non-existing finn is exactly what you don't want to fight against.

On topic, I'd say more countries will turn to REASONABLE immigration over the bullshit that happened in 2015. If both germany and sweden are already abandoning the "open borders for all" policy, there is good chance we will never see a similar surge as back then. If one threatens, it can be combated. Looking at you, turkey. You are in dire need of a good ass kicking, tbh.

[smityx]

Asia/Africa? This is more a problem for Europa. We here in the US will need to be dealing with S. America. Mexico is somewhat starting to get it's shit together and will eventually block it's southern borders for it's own well being i'm sure which fill provide a filter/barrier from them reaching El Norte.

[Heran]

It would probably lead to armed conflict.

[Xarkan]

The year is 2050. Your country is facing an unprecedented wave of climate refugees from Africa and Asia. Everyone knows that accommodating all of them would be completely unsustainable and would result in the same ruin for your country as befell their countries of origin. Yet human decency dictates that you let them in.

What does your country do? Does it prioritize human rights and values over its duty to its own citizens? Or does it reinforce its borders and turn the flood of refugees away?

As a bonus question:
Everyone knew that this would happen. Yet India and China, as Putin noted, prioritized raw economic growth over sustainable development. Do people from those countries deserve a second chance even though they were some of the prime agents of manmade climate change?

I think climate-conscientious people should totally be let in. But it would require very strict vetting at the border and many bleeding-heart liberals would be uncomfortable with it. But the alternative is much, much worse.

My country will eventually join the flood of refugees in a hopeless attempt at safety in Sweden.. where we will be turned away since they will never forget november 1520

[Heran]

The far right is already doing mass shootings and executions.
So it wouldn't probably lead to it, it already has.

Link, please? I'd like to know which individuals or groups would dare do something like that with the leaders here.

[Heran]

For which example?
Christchurch, that German major or the British MP?

Is patong in either of those countries?

[jeezusisacasual]

There aren't going to be climate refugees.

I mean the Maldives is literally vanishing.

[Shadowferal]

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion

Isle de Jean Charles Resettlement

Once encompassing more than 22,000 acres, only 320 acres of Isle de Jean Charles remain. The sole connecting road to the mainland—Island Road, built in 1953—is often impassable due to high winds, tides, sea level rise or storm surge. This effectively blocks residents from school, work and essential goods and services.

The Quinault Indian Nation, whose small village lies at the mouth of the Quinault River on the outer coast of Washington's Olympic Peninsula, now relies on a 2,000-foot-long sea wall to protect it from the encroaching Pacific Ocean.

Sea rise is threatening the way of life for a Panamanian indigenous group that lives on islands off the Caribbean coast. They're now pondering moving back to the mainland and abandoning their way of life.

That sinking feeling

[Deletedaccount1]

I mean the Maldives is literally vanishing.

Just because you can't find a country on a map doesn't mean it's vanishing.

[Shadowferal]

Is your country willing to make hard choices?

It needs to first realize that there's a problem.
Then it needs the intelligence to address the problem, not deny it's a problem to begin with.