Should Europe take in 200 million climate refugees?

[MD]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...crisis-london-city-airport-black-lives-matter

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/n...se-200-million-climate-refugees-by-2050/39998

BLM-UK claims that climate change is racist. There will be 200 million climate change refugees by 2050, the majority of which will be from Sub Saharan Africa. They will most likely migrate to Europe. America and China are too far and are far more hostile to outsiders.

Does Europe have a responsibility to take in these 200 million people? Can the continent survive such an influx? Is Black Liver Matter-UK justified in calling climate change racist?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is unlikely that Europe could take, house and feed 200 million additional people, especially if climate change disrupts agriculture in both Africa and Europe.

 

[Father Heathen]

Climate change...is racist?

Okay, racism is now officially a meaningless term.

 

[Laika]

Hey Africa, you remember all the slavery, wars, colonialism and segregation we white Europeans did?

You'll be remembering that as the good old days as For our next trick, we are going to make your entire continent uninhabitable!

.....And Only the White Man can save you!

I'm Joking- but you get my point.

[Yeah, its pretty racist. It reflects global institutional inequalities in the distribution of wealth, power and resources. The less developed countries are also those most vulnerable to climate change. But while climate change could kill us all- it will kill non-whites quicker for living round the equator. we could end up living in Canada and Russia if we keep heading to a four degree change in global temperatures. So After the wars, famines, epidemics and billions of people moving and probably dying round the planet it just gets even worse. ]

 

[MD]

Hey Africa, you remember all the slavery, wars, colonialism and segregation we white Europeans did?

You'll be remembering that as the good old days as For our next trick, we are going to make your entire continent uninhabitable!

.....And Only the White Man can save you!

I'm Joking- but you get my point.

[Yeah, its pretty racist. It reflects global institutional inequalities in the distribution of wealth, power and resources. The less developed countries are also those most vulnerable to climate change. But while climate change could kill us all- it will kill non-whites quicker for living round the equator. we could end up living in Canada and Russia if we keep heading to a four degree change in global temperatures. So After the wars, famines, epidemics and billions of people moving and probably dying round the planet it just gets even worse. ]

Do you think Europe has a moral obligation to take in hundreds of millions of Climate refugees (spaced out over many years of course)?

 

[Laika]

Do you think Europe has a moral obligation to take in hundreds of millions of Climate refugees (spaced out over many years of course)?

When 200 million people knock on your door, you either let them in or they break the door down. Over the course of the current century, We should let them in if only as that's a better way to try and manage the problem and absorb its impacts. Controlled is better than uncontrolled. Whatever is "moral" may be almost irrelevant- the question is whether we would have the power to do anything other than let them in?

The effects of climate change means this is going to be the easily largest mass movement of people in world history: China and India have about 2.5 billion people between them now- it will be even bigger by 2050. a large number of them will have to move as the Himalayas melt due to temperature rises and they loose their source of fresh water causing droughts and famines. Many will die- and it will probably be measured in millions- and there's nothing we can do about that. We left it too late to prevent it. But do we have the right to say we should let them all die? I hope not.

The way I look at climate change is as a potentially apocalyptic event that will have an existential crisis as it stretches our ability to cope. We have no choice but to try and meet the challange so that something will be left standing. I'm not optimistic but what else is there other than to try and keep going? We have to adapt to survive and reverting to nationalism will only ruin us as we wage wars over ever diminishing resources. I don't know what we should do- morality doesn't make much sense in the kind of world we are creating beyond the impulse to survive and thrive as a species. Human nature means we want to live. If that's all we have in common, that's something we can work with.

 

[Godobeyer]

Do you think Europe has a moral obligation to take in hundreds of millions of Climate refugees (spaced out over many years of course)?

If that happened I think it's Yes it's moral obligation.

I am from Algeria, if the same happened to Europe, we have no problem to receive refugees.

 

[Maponos]

That's far more than most of Europe's population (by country).

 

[GoodbyeDave]

When 200 million people knock on your door, you either let them in or they break the door down.

Or you shoot them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Climate change refugees?

Roflmao!

 

[Laika]

Or you shoot them.

The Nazis killed 11 million people in the holocaust and Communists killed approximately 50-100 million. The colonisation of the Americas killed between 138 million people at the highest estimate. All the officially recognised genocides combined add up to killing 51 million people at most.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...s_by_death_toll#Individual_battles_and_sieges

Killing 200 million people means you just became the greatest mass murderer in human history by a wide margin. If you try "shooting them" as a solution for other regional conflicts caused by climate change, that number will only get bigger. MUCH bigger.

To kill that many people your probably going to have to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. So, it's literally the "nuclear option".

there is one person who may agree with you if you want to eliminate the "surplus" population:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

 

[buddhist]

No one should have any obligation forced upon them, without prior consent.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No one should have any obligation forced upon them, without prior consent.

Should future persons, including ourselves in the future, and our descendants, be forced to deal with climate change caused or made worse through the activities of persons living now (or in the past)? That is the imposition of an obligation without prior consent.

 

[MD]

When 200 million people knock on your door, you either let them in or they break the door down. Over the course of the current century, We should let them in if only as that's a better way to try and manage the problem and absorb its impacts. Controlled is better than uncontrolled. Whatever is "moral" may be almost irrelevant- the question is whether we would have the power to do anything other than let them in?

The effects of climate change means this is going to be the easily largest mass movement of people in world history: China and India have about 2.5 billion people between them now- it will be even bigger by 2050. a large number of them will have to move as the Himalayas melt due to temperature rises and they loose their source of fresh water causing droughts and famines. Many will die- and it will probably be measured in millions- and there's nothing we can do about that. We left it too late to prevent it. But do we have the right to say we should let them all die? I hope not.

The way I look at climate change is as a potentially apocalyptic event that will have an existential crisis as it stretches our ability to cope. We have no choice but to try and meet the challange so that something will be left standing. I'm not optimistic but what else is there other than to try and keep going? We have to adapt to survive and reverting to nationalism will only ruin us as we wage wars over ever diminishing resources. I don't know what we should do- morality doesn't make much sense in the kind of world we are creating beyond the impulse to survive and thrive as a species. Human nature means we want to live. If that's all we have in common, that's something we can work with.

Interesting, would you say such views are common where you're from?

 

[Laika]

Interesting, would you say such views are common where you're from?

No. definitely not. The area of the U.K. I live in is extremely rural and conservative. It's a UKIP and BNP stronghold that 70% of people who turned out voted "leave" in the EU referendum.

I remember looking it up but only 3% of my area are non-White. That includes the Chinese family running the best local takeaway in the area and not many others.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

there is one person who may agree with you if you want to eliminate the "surplus" population:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

I agree with much of what he says and am a misanthrope as well, but I'm not comfortable with mass killings.

 

[Laika]

I agree with much of what he says and am a misanthrope as well, but I'm not comfortable with mass killings.

Agreed. He has a point, but the UN bombing large cities with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to reduce the worlds population by 90% is a future I'd rather not contemplate.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Agreed. He has a point, but the UN bombing large cities with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to reduce the worlds population by 90% is a future I'd rather not contemplate.

Yeah, and for a so-called "environmentalist" that's just an extremely bizarre and insane thing to say. I think his hatred for humanity outweighs his care for the environment and biodiversity. No one who cares about those things would ever support NBC weaponry. Even nuclear power is very iffy, from an environmentalist standpoint.

 

[buddhist]

Should future persons, including ourselves in the future, and our descendants, be forced to deal with climate change caused or made worse through the activities of persons living now (or in the past)? That is the imposition of an obligation without prior consent.

Justice is only properly administered after the fact, after absolutely measurable proof is presented that a wrong has been done in the past. Not before the fact.

Nobody can predict all future consequences of the totality of all current actions done by all individuals. Imposition of a policy to (possibly) "prevent" future events is essentially the imposition of one perspective on everyone else and those who wish to impose their singular perspective is claiming god-like, infallable vision, and I find that extremely offensive.

Perhaps climate change will be a good thing. Perhaps it will be a bad thing. Perhaps it will be a mix of both. Who can predict with 100% certainty? Every individual should live according to their personal belief.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The point I'm making is that humans have a heavy propensity (and our current economic and political system actually encourages and rewards) discounting of the value of the future to zero, so that we can choose to do whatever we want NOW, regardless of the future consequences. True, we don't know what the future will bring, but increasingly we find that, as we understand more about the world, we do see how humans in the past have affected their environment, and how we might in the future. Because we do understand, even if imperfectly, I believe we are under a moral obligation to consider how we affect the future residents of our world.

WE do not pay the future costs of any of our decisions (nor receive any future benefits), so it's easy to take the attitude that it is just fine for everyone to "live according to their personal belief." But we know the cause and potential effects that those in the future may encounter because of our choices.

You stated "No one should have any obligation forced upon them, without prior consent." But that is EXACTLY what we are doing...Maybe the consequences won't be 200 million refugees in Europe--but maybe the consequences will be worse. My question is, how will future generations, knowing that we knew what the effects might be, chose to respond to the obligations that our actions are imposing on them...to take in and house refugees, or to turn them away, or to kill them...

The future--including you and I perhaps, in the next few decades, but everyone's descendants in the decades coming after--do NOT get a voice in the choices made now, do not get to have justice done upon us, AFTER we have done what we've knowingly done. But, we get to freely impose consequences on the future; and that, to me, is immoral.