• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Europe take in 200 million climate refugees?

buddhist

Well-Known Member
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 ... 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.
No, we don't know the same effects. You expect specific effects from certain choices. I might perhaps expect different or even opposite effects given the same choices. We should each choose to organize our individual circumstances accordingly. Future generations will do likewise.

Are you saying it's a good thing that I should impose my future expectations, by compelling you and your behavior, through the hammer of government and law?
 
Last edited:

illykitty

RF's pet cat
It's a difficult question, not because of racism but because things aren't always black and white (no pun intended).

Practically, if we're not prepared, taking in 200 million refugees could be a disaster. It would affect everything, from housing, to food, to the economy, to healthcare... Just take what happened with Syria, how many countries were unprepared to take in that amount? Imagine that but with a LOT more people.

On an ethical level though, of course it would be horrible to turn a blind eye to others. We screwed them over in so many ways, including with climate change. We're responsible for most of it.

Ideally, I feel we should do all we can to reduce climate change, help those countries get clean energy too (plus a lot of these places have abundant sunlight), implement things like desalination and alternative farming methods that rely less on lots of resources such as vertical farming... And also prepare for some refugees, because although I do think we *can* curb a huge increase in temperature, I'm not convinced we're doing enough. It's sad because I care deeply and do quite a bit to try to push the government to do more, but often it's dismissed. You have no idea how many times I emailed my MP just to get a dismissive answer back. I never voted for him and wish he could get out, since he clearly care about nothing or ignores science.

There's some real repercussions which often are overlooked because people are afraid to be branded as "racist". This is a tough question, simple answers don't cut it.
 

MD

qualiaphile
It's a difficult question, not because of racism but because things aren't always black and white (no pun intended).

Practically, if we're not prepared, taking in 200 million refugees could be a disaster. It would affect everything, from housing, to food, to the economy, to healthcare... Just take what happened with Syria, how many countries were unprepared to take in that amount? Imagine that but with a LOT more people.

On an ethical level though, of course it would be horrible to turn a blind eye to others. We screwed them over in so many ways, including with climate change. We're responsible for most of it.

Ideally, I feel we should do all we can to reduce climate change, help those countries get clean energy too (plus a lot of these places have abundant sunlight), implement things like desalination and alternative farming methods that rely less on lots of resources such as vertical farming... And also prepare for some refugees, because although I do think we *can* curb a huge increase in temperature, I'm not convinced we're doing enough. It's sad because I care deeply and do quite a bit to try to push the government to do more, but often it's dismissed. You have no idea how many times I emailed my MP just to get a dismissive answer back. I never voted for him and wish he could get out, since he clearly care about nothing or ignores science.

There's some real repercussions which often are overlooked because people are afraid to be branded as "racist". This is a tough question, simple answers don't cut it.

Well written, this is an answer I agree with. Taking in 200 million could completely destroy European society if not done properly. Even 100 million would destabilize the continent. Given the low birth rates, Europe is looking at a very significant collapse this coming century. And unlike North America, who takes highly skilled immigrants and whose illegals have a similar culture, the people coming to Europe are poor, uneducated and from vastly different cultures and societies.
 

Servant_of_the_One1

Well-Known Member
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?

Europe can take in billion people.
 
Top