Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 88

Thread: How Liberals can exploit the shit out of global warming

  1. #41
    perpetuus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    664
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    I did not know that.

    What is the (stated) reasoning behind such measures?
    It depends on the locality. There was one town in North Carolina that banned new solar farms and it was widely reported that they did it so because they "suck up all the energy from the sun" however that comment came from one resident and wasn't actually the official reason given by the local government.

    https://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...sucking-up.htm

    Regardless of stated reasons, I think it has to do with powerful utility companies lobbying to keep monopolies on who is allowed to provide electricity.


    In Florida they are allowed on homes but can't be connected to a third party source (i.e. battery) and must be connected to the main power grid.

    https://www.iflscience.com/policy/illegal-power-home-solar-panels-florida/


    It's a case-by-case thing so every locality's government is going to provide different rationales for such measures.



  2. #42
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It's not superior really, since even France is reducing dependency on nuclear, and increasing renewables. And what will France do with its nuclear waste? There's still no solution. And we know what happened with Fukushima and Chernobyl. There's no guarantee that there won't be a nuclear meltdown, which is why nuclear reactors are a huge risk these days. The total cost of the clean-up of Fukushima and Chernobyl are in hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Nuclear power is far more safer nowadays than the past. You don't have to necessarily increase nuclear power, but decreasing it is a mistake because it results in using coal power more to compensate for renewables lack of efficiency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Nothing is "guaranteed to work", even renewables aren't guaranteed to work. And yet Germany took a huge risk with the feed-in-tariff program and shutting down nuclear plants, because they believed that renewables will eventually take over. And I think they were right.
    Germany made a mistake by cutting down their nuclear power plants. One of the links I showed before showed that Germany's CO2 rates are increasing because they were forced to increase their coal power plants to compensate for loss of nuclear power plants that renewables were unable to compensate for:

    Implemented in 2010, Germany’s Energiewende, or “energy transition” is a strategy to develop a low-carbon economy. The plan seeks to increase the use of carbon-free power by promoting wind and solar while simultaneously closing another carbon-free energy source: the nuclear plants that as recently as the early 2000s accounted for nearly 30% of German electricity generation. The result has been clear — more emissions and some of the highest electricity prices in Western Europe. After receiving roughly $220 billion in government incentives since 2010, Germany’s wind and solar generation has increased — just not nearly enough to fill-in the demand gap left by shuttered nuclear plants. Germany has turned to coal plants to keep the lights on, relying primarily on lignite, which is a particularly dirty and energy-inefficient form of coal.

    By essentially replacing zero-carbon nuclear power with coal, German emissions actually increased in 2013, 2015, and 2016. Just last week, German leaders acknowledged that the nation will miss its 2020 emissions target by a wide margin and is several years behind schedule at best. Without the nuclear phase-out, Germany would have likely met or surpassed this target. In the end, Germany sacrificed its climate agenda in order to fulfill its anti-nuclear agenda.
    https://medium.com/third-way/france-...n-85b65090fc96
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  3. #43

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Nuclear power is far more safer nowadays than the past. You don't have to necessarily increase nuclear power, but decreasing it is a mistake because it results in using coal power more to compensate for renewables lack of efficiency.
    The nuclear plants that are shutting down are older power plants. Besides, nuclear isn't really any "safer" than before, since they're all still using the same technology of boiling water from the energy of nuclear fission inside of a nuclear reactor. The nuclear rods will meltdown if something happens to the reactor and can't cool it anymore, simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Germany made a mistake by cutting down their nuclear power plants. One of the links I showed before showed that Germany's CO2 rates are increasing because they were forced to increase their coal power plants to compensate for loss of nuclear power plants that renewables were unable to compensate for:
    The CO2 emission has been decreasing, it's just that they're unlikely to meet the 2020 target:


    Obviously, the shift to renewables is going to be a massive project and it's not going to be an easy ride. But I don't think that you can do it half-heartedly, by trying to have the cake and eat it too. It's going to require a lot of brave and intelligent political will by skilled politicians and bureaucrats.

    But obviously it's going to happen, even France is targeting 100% from renewables by 2050, as older nuclear power plants will have to shut down at that point.

    I mean can you name any other power source that has added so much power production in such a short time:

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you're not pro-nuclear, you're pro-coal. That is the reality of it.


    The nuclear waste scare was inflated by Soviet agents to increase the American public's fear of the technologies in the hopes of stifling nuclear armament back in the day. It is a fact that there's no safe, sustainable way to dispose of the waste; however, the mass of waste being produced is greatly exaggerated and we're already at the point where greenhouse emissions are a much more salient threat. The bad cases like Enewetak all resulted from failed nuclear weapon tests, purposely designed to start a hot fission reaction with the intention of rapidly decaying all the uranium/plutonium to release masses of energy and vaporize targets, rather than slow decay like the rate used to heat nuclear turbines. It's a basic principle of physics that heat and light are the easiest forms of energy to release, so you're going to need a lot less of it to boil some water and turn a generator with it than the amounts necessary to half-detonate the yellow cake rods and release serious levels of poison into the environment.


    Yes, I would absolutely sooner live within range of a fission plant than have to pay an extra fifty cents to my dollar on electric bills every time I downloaded a pic on my cellphone because of flat carbon taxes. There's already BPA and atrazine and god-knows-what-else in the water supplies nicking our sperm counts and giving us third arms as it is; the risk of a reactor leak isn't even guaranteed, and you'll get a higher dosage of radiation from the surrounding granite when you stand in most subway stations than you will near a fission plant. No, the average person's energy consumption in first-world countries is not going to decrease any time soon.


    I've said this to deaf ears more times than I can count, but the dropping fertility of Western countries is a good thing. If anything decelerates our greenhouse gas problems in the foreseeable future, it's going to be lower numbers of individuals in Western countries being born to release all these destructive gases and other substances that are making the world inhospitable for future generations. It's better to have a high-tech but regulated and sustainable country of a million, than one with middle-age or post-apocalyptic technology and a population of a billion.

  5. #45
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The nuclear plants that are shutting down are older power plants. Besides, nuclear isn't really any "safer" than before, since they're all still using the same technology of boiling water from the energy of nuclear fission inside of a nuclear reactor. The nuclear rods will meltdown if something happens to the reactor and can't cool it anymore, simple as that.
    Nuclear power meltdown is mostly hysteria, it has happened before and it can possibly happen again, but we've gotten much better at nuclear safety nowadays compared to the past:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...-reactors.aspx

    http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nucle...nuclear-energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The CO2 emission has been decreasing, it's just that they're unlikely to meet the 2020 target:


    Obviously, the shift to renewables is going to be a massive project and it's not going to be an easy ride. But I don't think that you can do it half-heartedly, by trying to have the cake and eat it too. It's going to require a lot of brave and intelligent political will by skilled politicians and bureaucrats.

    But obviously it's going to happen, even France is targeting 100% from renewables by 2050, as older nuclear power plants will have to shut down at that point.

    I mean can you name any other power source that has added so much power production in such a short time:
    So you acknowledge and prove my point that because of the reduction of nuclear power plants, Germany won't reach its CO2 targets. The problem with Germany is simply this: if you want to reduce CO2 emissions then you have to reduce coal power plants, not increase it by shutting down nuclear power plants. Germany is literally taking one step forward by adding renewables and one step backwards by shutting down nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal power plants. All they had to do was leave the nuclear power plants they already have, add in renewables and shut down coal power plants and voila then they easily meet their targets.

    Instead they're doing the opposite and shutting down nuclear power plants and adding more coal production, which is making their goal of reaching CO2 emissions much more difficult to achieve. I am not saying that Germany has to add more nuclear plants, but at the very least, if they stop building coal power plants and shut them down like the US is doing, keep the nuclear power plants they have and add renewables then they'll reach their targets and reduce CO2 far more efficiently then the are doing now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    If you're not pro-nuclear, you're pro-coal. That is the reality of it.
    Yup, trying to reduce CO2, while shutting down nuclear power plants and adding coal power plants to compensate and adding in renewables at the side is counter productivity at its best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    The nuclear waste scare was inflated by Soviet agents to increase the American public's fear of the technologies in the hopes of stifling nuclear armament back in the day. It is a fact that there's no safe, sustainable way to dispose of the waste; however, the mass of waste being produced is greatly exaggerated and we're already at the point where greenhouse emissions are a much more salient threat. The bad cases like Enewetak all resulted from failed nuclear weapon tests, purposely designed to start a hot fission reaction with the intention of rapidly decaying all the uranium/plutonium to release masses of energy and vaporize targets, rather than slow decay like the rate used to heat nuclear turbines. It's a basic principle of physics that heat and light are the easiest forms of energy to release, so you're going to need a lot less of it to boil some water and turn a generator with it than the amounts necessary to half-detonate the yellow cake rods and release serious levels of poison into the environment.


    Yes, I would absolutely sooner live within range of a fission plant than have to pay an extra fifty cents to my dollar on electric bills every time I downloaded a pic on my cellphone because of flat carbon taxes. There's already BPA and atrazine and god-knows-what-else in the water supplies nicking our sperm counts and giving us third arms as it is; the risk of a reactor leak isn't even guaranteed, and you'll get a higher dosage of radiation from the surrounding granite when you stand in most subway stations than you will near a fission plant. No, the average person's energy consumption in first-world countries is not going to decrease any time soon.


    I've said this to deaf ears more times than I can count, but the dropping fertility of Western countries is a good thing. If anything decelerates our greenhouse gas problems in the foreseeable future, it's going to be lower numbers of individuals in Western countries being born to release all these destructive gases and other substances that are making the world inhospitable for future generations. It's better to have a high-tech but regulated and sustainable country of a million, than one with middle-age or post-apocalyptic technology and a population of a billion.
    I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but unfortunately 1st world nations in North America and Europe are compensating for low birth rates by introducing mass immigration from the 3rd world. This proves that governments and corporations don't care about the environment as much as they pretend to. They're only interested in cheap labor from 3rd world economic migrants to boost the economy and increase tax money at the expense of the environment and native citizens.

    Then add in the fact that automation will likely become a thing in our lifetime. Jobs will grow more scarce over time and these economic migrants will become dead weight rather than boost the economy. It's unfortunate, but our politicians and CEOs seem more interested in short term economic gain and superfluous stats like GDP growth instead of actively trying to improve their nations in ways that actually matter like lifespan, health and wealth equality.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Nuclear power meltdown is mostly hysteria, it has happened before and it can possibly happen again, but we've gotten much better at nuclear safety nowadays compared to the past:

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...-reactors.aspx

    http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nucle...nuclear-energy
    Erm... you do realize that those sites and organizations are basically propaganda for nuclear power, right? They're about as credible as fossil fuel shills saying coal is clean.

    You should see what happened to the workers at Chernobyl. Fukushima is still not contained as radiation is still leaking all over the place. The fact is that there's still no known way to contain radiation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    So you acknowledge and prove my point that because of the reduction of nuclear power plants, Germany won't reach its CO2 targets. The problem with Germany is simply this: if you want to reduce CO2 emissions then you have to reduce coal power plants, not increase it by shutting down nuclear power plants. Germany is literally taking one step forward by adding renewables and one step backwards by shutting down nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal power plants. All they had to do was leave the nuclear power plants they already have, add in renewables and shut down coal power plants and voila then they easily meet their targets.
    It has mostly to do with politics. They can't easily phase out coal and push renewables more aggressively.

    Also if you look at the data, the increase in CO2 have mostly to do with buildings and transports.

    They're going to need a much more aggressive stance in reducing CO2 emission from all sectors of society.

  7. #47
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Erm... you do realize that those sites and organizations are basically propaganda for nuclear power, right? They're about as credible as fossil fuel shills saying coal is clean.

    You should see what happened to the workers at Chernobyl. Fukushima is still not contained as radiation is still leaking all over the place. The fact is that there's still no known way to contain radiation.
    Fair enough, but my point is maybe you can disagree that adding more nuclear power plants is a mistake, but it's clear that shutting down nuclear power plants, while retaining coal power plants to compensate is a mistake and it makes no sense if you want to reduce CO2 emissions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    It has mostly to do with politics. They can't easily phase out coal and push renewables more aggressively.

    Also if you look at the data, the increase in CO2 have mostly to do with buildings and transports.

    They're going to need a much more aggressive stance in reducing CO2 emission from all sectors of society.
    Yes, buildings and transports are an issue that is unrelated to power, but leaving coal power plants to replace nuclear power plants is a counter productive move, which is what Germany is doing despite the good that they are doing with renewables. The way I see it, either you keep the nuclear power you do have and slowly add renewables to allow more coal power plants to shut down or you add nuclear power plants to fast track independence from coal power. Adding renewable energy and replacing nuclear power plants with existing coal power plants makes zero sense, which is what Germany is doing IMO.

    Germany’s nuclear shutdowns might please the electorate but they’re boneheaded from a climate perspective. If advanced economies continue to turn their backs on atomic power and partly fill the gap with fossil fuels, they risk billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide emissions, the International Energy Agency warned last week. Nuclear provides about 10 percent of global electricity generation, but the IEA worries that two-thirds of that could be lost by 2040 as reactors age and wholesale electricity prices fall.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-nuclear-power
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  8. #48
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    alpha NT
    Posts
    1,695
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Speaking of German shut down of nuclear power plants.
    AFAIK there were 2 main reasons to do that.

    Still no clue how to handle the nuclear waste properly. No consensus about long term storage of nuclear waste.
    Ageing of material. Scientists discovered that metal gets brittle more quickly under the influnce of nuclear radiation and it reduces the life expectancy of a lot of components in a nuclear power plant.
    Lot of parts worth of millions have to be replaced after an operational life of 25 to 30 years to maintain safe operation of such a power plant.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,204
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinnieW View Post
    Speaking of German shut down of nuclear power plants.
    AFAIK there were 2 main reasons to do that.

    Still no clue how to handle the nuclear waste properly. No consensus about long term storage of nuclear waste.
    Ageing of material. Scientists discovered that metal gets brittle more quickly under the influnce of nuclear radiation and it reduces the life expectancy of a lot of components in a nuclear power plant.
    Lot of parts worth of millions have to be replaced after an operational life of 25 to 30 years to maintain safe operation of such a power plant.
    Make it into ammo. Shoot it at the "people" who object to nuclear power.

  10. #50
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've really been thinking about this topic lately, and I've moved on to the acceptance of massive disruptions as likely. Notwithstanding some miraculous geoengineering solution, it's going to be difficult to stop global warming at this point.

    The outpouring of migrants -- the United Nations gives a conservative estimate of 200 million -- is going to transform countries, especially those in Europe, into very multicultural societies with huge Muslim and African minorities.

    I think these cultural changes should be wholeheartedly embraced as positive, as they'll force us to come together in ways that only external pressures can. We'll see growing voices to develop economies of scale based on sustainability, as well as a culture of responsibility towards the planet and each other. Why not make this the kick in the pants our species needs to finally get its act together?
    Last edited by xerx; 06-19-2019 at 08:25 PM.

  11. #51
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I've really been thinking about this topic lately, and I've moved on to the acceptance of massive disruptions as likely. Notwithstanding some miraculous geoengineering solution, it's going to be difficult to stop global warming at this point.

    The outpouring of migrants -- the United Nations gives a conservative estimate of 200 million -- is going to transform countries, especially those in Europe, into very multicultural societies with huge Muslim and African minorities.

    I think these cultural changes should be wholeheartedly embraced as positive, as they'll force us to come together in ways that only external pressures can. We'll see growing voices to develop economies of scale based on sustainability, as well as a culture of responsibility towards the planet and each other. Why not make this the kick in the pants our species needs to finally get its act together?
    This is why mass immigration will never be a long term solution for 3rd world poverty, the refugee crisis and global warming:



    Plus with Africa's population reaching new heights by the turn of the century, it will only get worse.





    The real solution is controlling population growth in Africa, which has the highest birth rates in the world and improving Africa's standard of living simultaneously:

    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  12. #52
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    This is why mass immigration will never be a long term solution for 3rd world poverty, the refugee crisis and global warming:

    Plus with Africa's population reaching new heights by the turn of the century, it will only get worse.

    The real solution is controlling population growth in Africa, which has the highest birth rates in the world and improving Africa's standard of living simultaneously:

    You're presenting this stuff as though it was controversial; we all know about it. The point is that migration is going to be unavoidable and unstoppable in the near future thanks to changing climate.

  13. #53
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    You're presenting this stuff as though it was controversial; we all know about it. The point is that migration is going to be unavoidable and unstoppable in the near future thanks to changing climate.
    IMO, it doesn't need climate change to happen, politicians have already proven that mass migration will happen without it and they will use any excuse to make it happen, global warming or not. It's already in overdrive now, global warming migration is either going to be at the same level it is now or it's going to eventually stop. Either global warming will just cause another so called refugee crisis like today, which is more of the same or countries' will have met their quota of economic migrants and halt the immigration because it is no longer economically feasible.

    In the end of the day, politicians and wealthy business interests don't care about refugees at all at a humanitarian level. They're just allowing mass migration to occur for economic reasons. So they'll keep allowing mass migration under the guise of global warming if it puts money in their pocket and they'll put a halt to if it causes them to lose money because of diminishing returns. I don't believe the refugee crisis was ever about helping 3rd world refugees, if it was then they wouldn't of allowed economic migrants to come in, which they already have.
    Last edited by Raver; 06-20-2019 at 01:47 AM.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  14. #54
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    IMO, it doesn't need climate change to happen, politicians have already proven that mass migration will happen without it and they will use any excuse to make it happen, global warming or not. It's already in overdrive now, global warming migration is either going to be at the same level it is now or it's going to eventually stop. Either global warming will just cause another so called refugee crisis like today, which is more of the same or countries' will have met their quota of economic migrants and halt the immigration because it is no longer economically feasible.

    In the end of the day, politicians and wealthy business interests don't care about refugees at all at a humanitarian level. They're just allowing mass migration to occur for economic reasons. So they'll keep allowing mass migration under the guise of global warming if it puts money in their pocket and they'll put a halt to if it causes them to lose money because of diminishing returns. I don't believe the refugee crisis was ever about helping 3rd world impoverished people, if it was then they wouldn't of allowed economic migrants to come in, which they already have.
    Well, drought was partially responsible for the escalation of Syria's civil war. We're already feeling the effects of global warming.

    Supposing for arguments sake that politicians and business interests are indeed acting with impunity to make our lives worse, isn't it wise to switch to a source of energy that they couldn't control -- like solar power?

  15. #55
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Well, drought was partially responsible for the escalation of Syria's civil war. We're already feeling the effects of global warming.

    Supposing for arguments sake that politicians and business interests are indeed acting with impunity to make our lives worse, isn't it wise to switch to a source of energy that they couldn't control -- like solar power?
    Ideally, I'd like to see solar and wind power be used in conjunction with nuclear power while slowly phasing out fossil fuels. However, ideally I'd want nuclear fusion to become a reality. Unfortunately, we'll have to settle with nuclear fission and its possible risks and setbacks until we figure out how to harness nuclear fusion power to replace it.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  16. #56
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    HUNDREDS of millions of unstoppable environmental-refugees are going to make the 2015 refugee crisis look cute by comparison. But most of the habitable zones will be in northern countries, and taking in that many refugees is a win for globalists: they will finally realize their aim of forcing through multicultural reforms with the intent of creating miscegenated societies. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a world of White-on-Muslim fucking - forever.






    I find your choice of words intriguing. You mentioned white on Muslim fucking. What about Muslim on white? Are you aware that there are more white Muslims in America than Arab Muslims? Islam is a religion, tightly associated with the Arabic and Black ethnicities, but it isn't the same thing.

  17. #57
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    I find your choice of words intriguing. You mentioned white on Muslim fucking. What about Muslim on white? Are you aware that there are more white Muslims in America than Arab Muslims? Islam is a religion, tightly associated with the Arabic and Black ethnicities, but it isn't the same thing.
    I know. I was being sarcastic.

  18. #58
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I didn't really look at the infographic before, but I'm kind of glad I live in Canada. xD Also, Western Antarctica becoming habitable never occurred to me, there's your solution for most of the climate refugees, shove the majority of them into there! Perfect place for a new multicultural country, a land where no humans have ever lived. I have faith that humans will adapt to the new climate by taking advantage of land that was previously uninhabitable becoming habitable like Northern Canada, Alaska, Northern Europe, Northern Russia and Western Antarctica. One door closes, another one opens!
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  19. #59
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I didn't really look at the infographic before, but I'm kind of glad I live in Canada. xD Also, Western Antarctica becoming habitable never occurred to me, there's your solution for most of the climate refugees, shove the majority of them into there! Perfect place for a new multicultural country, a land where no humans have ever lived.
    whatever dude. keep ignoring the problem with your flippant attitude.

    i for one would love to see the world embrace multiculturalism, and i hope i live long enough to see pretty white girls enjoying the taste of muslim dick.

  20. #60
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Whatever dude. Keep ignoring the problem with your flippant attitude.

    I for one would love to see the world embrace multiculturalism, and I hope I live long enough to see pretty white girls enjoying the taste of Muslim dick.
    You severely underestimate humanity's ingenuity and resourcefulness as I know we'll adapt and survive under global warming. Our African ancestors survived drought and heat in the heart of Africa and our European ancestors survived an ice age in Europe. We wouldn't be here today if our ancestors weren't ingenious and resourceful enough to survive awful climate changes thousands of years ago.

    Plus add in advanced technology that our ancestors didn't have that we have that can be used to manipulate weather to our advantage in the future and we're ahead of the game. This is why I ignore and mock climate change hysteria propagated by the media any chance I get and I remain optimistic because it assumes humans are only capable of destroying the earth, but not adapting to it and improving it.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  21. #61
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    You severely underestimate humanity's resourcefulness, as I know we'll adapt and survive under global warming. Our African ancestors survived drought in the heart of Africa and our European ancestors survived an ice age in Europe. We wouldn't be here today if our ancestors weren't ingenious and smart enough to survive awful climate changes thousands of years ago.

    Plus add in advanced technology that our ancestors didn't have that we have that can be used to manipulate weather to our advantage in the future and we're ahead of the game. This is why I ignore and mock climate change hysteria propagated by the media any chance I get and I remain optimistic because it thinks humans are only capable of destroying the earth, but not adapting to it and improving it.
    The easiest (and likeliest) way to adapt is to provide shelter and eventual citizenship to tens of millions of refugees; like I said, I've accepted and embraced it, and I'd like to go further: some climate change deniers are so smug and obnoxious that I'm tempted to join any organization with the goal of making societies as multicultural as possible.

  22. #62
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    The easiest (and likeliest) way to adapt is to provide shelter and eventual citizenship to tens of millions of refugees; like I said, I've accepted and embraced it, and I'd like to go further: some climate change deniers are so smug and obnoxious that I'm tempted to join any organization with the goal of making societies as multicultural as possible.
    Well, I'm not sure if I'd fit into the broad "climate change denier" label as someone who believes the earth is warming and believes there's an anthropogenic component that is worsening it. However I guess anyone that doesn't go full chicken little sky is falling mentality with climate change fits into the 'climate change denier' nowadays. As for multiculturalism, it's happening right now without global warming as the excuse so all global warming will do is replace the refugee excuse for economic migrants.

    I live in one of the most multicultural cities in the world and maybe you live in similar circumstances or maybe not. If anyone knows what life under a nearly fully integrated multicultural western society will be like, it's me. What I've witnessed so far is this: Most people keep to their own ethnicity and ignore other ethnicities, they isolate themselves within their own ethnic enclaves in the city and congregate into large groups to shop in large malls. That's what capitalism has brought with its incentive for multiculturalism, to which I'm pretty much indifferent to after being fully exposed to it.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  23. #63
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I've really been thinking about this topic lately, and I've moved on to the acceptance of massive disruptions as likely. Notwithstanding some miraculous geoengineering solution, it's going to be difficult to stop global warming at this point.

    The outpouring of migrants -- the United Nations gives a conservative estimate of 200 million -- is going to transform countries, especially those in Europe, into very multicultural societies with huge Muslim and African minorities.

    I think these cultural changes should be wholeheartedly embraced as positive, as they'll force us to come together in ways that only external pressures can. We'll see growing voices to develop economies of scale based on sustainability, as well as a culture of responsibility towards the planet and each other. Why not make this the kick in the pants our species needs to finally get its act together?
    I'm an advocate of multiculturalism to some extent. Not to where my neighbors are slaughtering goats in their back yard, but rather where people are providing unexpected solutions to problems that aren't being solved. We've solved the problem of putting goat meat on the table without creating a neighborhood health hazard. No one needs to tell me that slitting the throats of animals and draining their blood onto the driveway is a necessary part of their religion.

    I actually don't see an influx of refugees as a likely impetus to get everyone to come together. I don't know of a single incidence of this happening in the past, and I don't see it happening in the near (1000 years) future. In any case, given that there are so many competing interests and competing voices in democracies, it is most likely that nothing will get done to curb global warming, as long as the very rich (not you) can still get power to their air conditioners.

    The times that Democracies have mobilized to overcome a societal threat, as they did in WWII, resulted in serious curbs on social liberties and concrete moves towards dictatorships, because this is the form of government that actually gets things done in an emergency. Will this happen to combat Global Warming? Most likely, No. Too many vested interests will fight tooth and nail to keep things at the status quo, because that's where their money comes from.

    It may be possible to avert a global catastrophe and have a soft landing, if the human population of the earth can be rapidly reduced sufficiently to reduce our global footprint. As things presently stand, we are consuming more than one earth's renewable resources every year, and are generating a huge amount of pollution in doing so. And even assuming that we can reduce our footprint, no living creature has ever been able to live in its own waste products.

    When the Roman Empire ran out of barbarian villages to steal resources from, and couldn't overcome the Persian empire to steal resources from that part of the world, it had to start living within its means, which were meager. The Roman empire was entirely solar-powered. It was hugely overextended at the time, so it retreated from Britain, then from Gaul, and then from Italy itself in favor of moving to Constantinople, which has some truly impressive walls to keep out the barbarian refugees. The Western empire fell apart, but the Eastern empire continued to limp along for another thousand years by radically simplifying. No standing armies, no government services, fewer politicians, and generally less of everything. By radically reducing its footprint, it managed to survive to the time of the Czars (the Caesars, corrupted) when, finally, a source of power that was not dependent on sunshine (oil) was discovered and the human race could start expanding again.

    That might be our best option in the next few centuries.

  24. #64
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Well, I'm not sure if I'd fit into the broad "climate change denier" label as someone who believes the earth is warming and believes there's an anthropogenic component that is worsening it. However I guess anyone that doesn't go full chicken little sky is falling mentality with climate change fits into the 'climate change denier' nowadays. As for multiculturalism, it's happening right now without global warming as the excuse so all global warming will do is replace the refugee excuse for economic migrants.

    I live in one of the most multicultural cities in the world and maybe you live in similar circumstances or maybe not. If anyone knows what life under a nearly fully integrated multicultural western society will be like, it's me. What I've witnessed so far is this: Most people keep to their own ethnicity and ignore other ethnicities, they isolate themselves within their own ethnic enclaves in the city and congregate into large groups to shop in large malls. That's what capitalism has brought with its incentive for multiculturalism, to which I'm pretty much indifferent to after being fully exposed to it.
    Actually, the migrant crisis was exacerbated by global warming. Climate change has already kicked in and is going to get worse.

    Nobody's going full "chicken little." My refugee claim was reliably sourced from UN estimates. Source for the 200 million refugees claim: https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change-0. The most conservative source on that page is 25 million.

    Are we in the process of creating technologies and infrastructure to reduce the impact? You bet. Actually, China and Europe are taking the lead in this respect, and I hope they succeed. Even impoverished India is able to invest more in solar energy than coal. Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...or-first-time/

    I mean, we'll obviously survive as a species because we're very adaptable, but so are isolated tribes that are forced to resort to cannibalism. Maybe we will get through it with only minor to medium damage to our economy and political institutions, but we shouldn't be playing Russian roulette in the first place.

  25. #65
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Actually, the migrant crisis was exacerbated by global warming. Climate change has already kicked in and is going to get worse.

    Nobody's going full "chicken little." My refugee claim was reliably sourced from UN estimates. Source for the 200 million refugees claim: https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change-0. The most conservative source on that page is 25 million.

    Are we in the process of creating technologies and infrastructure to reduce the impact? You bet. Actually, China and Europe are taking the lead in this respect, and I hope they succeed. Even impoverished India is able to invest more in solar energy than coal. Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/...or-first-time/

    I mean, we'll obviously survive as a species because we're very adaptable, but so are isolated tribes that are forced to resort to cannibalism. Maybe we will get through it with only minor to medium damage to our economy and political institutions, but we shouldn't be playing Russian roulette in the first place.
    I was referring to chicken little with the apocalyptic scenario for global warming in that if we don't do something about it then we're all doomed. I'm of the mindset that we'll get through it with only minor to medium damage to our economy and political institutions rather than some apocalyptic scenario. Should we try to mitigate that damage if it's within our power? Of course. However, should we rush like it's apocalyptic? No. I know an apocalyptic scenario is possible because of global warming, but it's highly unlikely IMO.

    As for reaching somewhere in between 25 to 200 million climate refugees, I totally believe it could happen. Maybe not any time in the near future, but some time in the future, it's certainly possible. Present day refugee crisis already showed what is possible with mass migration to a lesser extent. I'm glad more nations are investing into greener technologies because personally I think we should be investing into them even if there was no global warming because cleaner air and environment should be a goal regardless to strive for.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  26. #66
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I'm an advocate of multiculturalism to some extent. Not to where my neighbors are slaughtering goats in their back yard, but rather where people are providing unexpected solutions to problems that aren't being solved. We've solved the problem of putting goat meat on the table without creating a neighborhood health hazard. No one needs to tell me that slitting the throats of animals and draining their blood onto the driveway is a necessary part of their religion.

    I actually don't see an influx of refugees as a likely impetus to get everyone to come together. I don't know of a single incidence of this happening in the past, and I don't see it happening in the near (1000 years) future. In any case, given that there are so many competing interests and competing voices in democracies, it is most likely that nothing will get done to curb global warming, as long as the very rich (not you) can still get power to their air conditioners.

    The times that Democracies have mobilized to overcome a societal threat, as they did in WWII, resulted in serious curbs on social liberties and concrete moves towards dictatorships, because this is the form of government that actually gets things done in an emergency. Will this happen to combat Global Warming? Most likely, No. Too many vested interests will fight tooth and nail to keep things at the status quo, because that's where their money comes from.

    It may be possible to avert a global catastrophe and have a soft landing, if the human population of the earth can be rapidly reduced sufficiently to reduce our global footprint. As things presently stand, we are consuming more than one earth's renewable resources every year, and are generating a huge amount of pollution in doing so. And even assuming that we can reduce our footprint, no living creature has ever been able to live in its own waste products.

    When the Roman Empire ran out of barbarian villages to steal resources from, and couldn't overcome the Persian empire to steal resources from that part of the world, it had to start living within its means, which were meager. The Roman empire was entirely solar-powered. It was hugely overextended at the time, so it retreated from Britain, then from Gaul, and then from Italy itself in favor of moving to Constantinople, which has some truly impressive walls to keep out the barbarian refugees. The Western empire fell apart, but the Eastern empire continued to limp along for another thousand years by radically simplifying. No standing armies, no government services, fewer politicians, and generally less of everything. By radically reducing its footprint, it managed to survive to the time of the Czars (the Caesars, corrupted) when, finally, a source of power that was not dependent on sunshine (oil) was discovered and the human race could start expanding again.

    That might be our best option in the next few centuries.

    I agree that things are only going to get worse unless we take drastic steps, some of which will indeed be a breath of fresh air (I liked your simplification analogy). I don't know the extent to which shit's going to hit the fan, but people killing goats on the street might be the least of our concern if some of the worst predictions come to pass.

    As for multiculturalism, it did work OK in the past when we all lived under despotic monarchies. The nation-state, which is actually a new invention, between 200-300 years old, gave birth to the idea of a unified ethnicity. Even countries like France, which we think of as being very homogeneous, were patchworks of different cultures and mutually incomprehensible dialects. Throughout the industrial age, political and economic force was wielded to force people to assimilate into cultural practices invented or delimited by centralized bureaucracies. Homogeneous societies had to be manufactured.

    Of course, I neither advocate living under a despotic monarchy, nor do I wish to characterize my "Muslim dick" multiculturalism comment as anything other than tongue in cheek. My hope (and that's all it is) is that the crisis will at least allow us to see past our cultural differences in order to work together.
    Last edited by xerx; 06-20-2019 at 08:13 AM.

  27. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    385
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    As for reaching somewhere in between 25 to 200 million climate refugees, I totally believe it could happen. Maybe not any time in the near future, but some time in the future, it's certainly possible. Present day refugee crisis already showed what is possible with mass migration to a lesser extent. I'm glad more nations are investing into greener technologies because personally I think we should be investing into them even if there was no global warming because cleaner air and environment should be a goal regardless to strive for.
    If migration flows become that dire, countries will start closing their borders and watching people die trying to get in.

  28. #68
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    If migration flows become that dire, countries will start closing their borders and watching people die trying to get in.
    Agreed, politicians and wealthy business interests will only allow mass immigration into their countries if they think it will benefit them. If it ever gets to the point of diminishing returns I suspect that is what will happen.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  29. #69
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I was referring to chicken little with the apocalyptic scenario for global warming in that if we don't do something about it then we're all doomed. I'm of the mindset that we'll get through it with only minor to medium damage to our economy and political institutions rather than some apocalyptic scenario. Should we try to mitigate that damage if it's within our power? Of course. However, should we rush like it's apocalyptic? No. I know an apocalyptic scenario is possible because of global warming, but it's highly unlikely IMO.

    As for reaching somewhere in between 25 to 200 million climate refugees, I totally believe it could happen. Maybe not any time in the near future, but some time in the future, it's certainly possible. Present day refugee crisis already showed what is possible with mass migration to a lesser extent. I'm glad more nations are investing into greener technologies because personally I think we should be investing into them even if there was no global warming because cleaner air and environment should be a goal regardless to strive for.
    I agree with most of this but don't quite share your optimism. I guess we should just agree to disagree and move on, then.

  30. #70
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    If migration flows become that dire, countries will start closing their borders and watching people die trying to get in.
    OTOH: suppose you have 200 million refugees. If even 1% of those are willing to take up arms, that's an army of 2 million. There are adversarial governments champing at the bit to destabilize Western Europe, any one of which could supply weapons and ammunition. Russia, in particular, is projected to benefit from global warming and has the capacity to intervene in any future conflict.

    Who's to say that Western countries will even be able to close their borders? If social systems begin to break down, would governments have to contend with rebellions? Would they need to sell off military assets? Like I said, we're playing Russian Roulette.

  31. #71
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Agreed, politicians and wealthy business interests will only allow mass immigration into their countries if they think it will benefit them. If it ever gets to the point of diminishing returns I suspect that is what will happen.
    Why wouldn't a massive refugee crisis benefit wealthy business interests and politicians?

  32. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    385
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Agreed, politicians and wealthy business interests will only allow mass immigration into their countries if they think it will benefit them. If it ever gets to the point of diminishing returns I suspect that is what will happen.
    More or less. Incentives for current migration policies are fiscally driven—i.e., vicious cycle wherein developed countries aren't having enough babies, so the only way to keep their outstanding debts serviceable is to work the best & brightest to death in career striving while replacing them on the sly with enough warm bodies to maintain consumption levels, etc.

  33. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    385
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    OTOH: suppose you have 200 million refugees. If even 1% of those are willing to take up arms, that's an army of 2 million. There are adversarial governments champing at the bit to destabilize Western Europe, any one of which could supply weapons and ammunition. Russia, in particular, is projected to benefit from global warming and has the capacity to intervene in any future conflict.
    No they don't. Russia is a joke with no power projection beyond meddling in regional brushfires like Ukraine.

    Who's to say that Western countries will even be able to close their borders? If social systems begin to break down, would governments have to contend with rebellions? Would they need to sell off military assets? Like I said, we're playing Russian Roulette.
    If social systems breakdown in the West, there won't be much incentive to migrate to Western countries. Nor much logistical support to guide/assist migrant groups in the 1st place. Mass populations on the move aren't exactly self-sustaining.

  34. #74
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    No they don't. Russia is a joke with no power projection beyond meddling in regional brushfires like Ukraine.
    Yeah it does. It can threaten to rocket bomb London and Paris tonight if it wanted to. It can easily send logistical support, transport ships and cheap Kalashnikov rifles to any would-be combatants.

    Russia isn't the only country with resources; China has them too, and while China isn't quite the interventionist power, is its leadership unlikely to act on the opportunity to wring concessions? I don't know but I'd rather not find out. Turkey isn't a weak country either, and they'd surely find some incentive to provide cover for their suffering co-religionists.


    If social systems breakdown in the West, there won't be much incentive to migrate to Western countries. Nor much logistical support to guide/assist migrant groups in the 1st place. Mass populations on the move aren't exactly self-sustaining.
    Of course there will. There will be an incentive to migrate to cooler climates.

  35. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    385
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Yeah it does. It can threaten to rocket bomb London and Paris tonight if it wanted to. It can easily send logistical support, transport ships and cheap Kalashnikov rifles to any would-be combatants.
    Dispatching a few shipping containers of AKs & RPGs wouldn't accomplish a whole lot in the middle of a Paris or London metro. Yes, some guys could wreak fleeting havoc with them. But it wouldn't serve any lasting strategic interest for Russia (at least any I can plausibly conceive). Ergo, their power projection—insofar as their capability to violently attain certain foreign policy ends—is very limited at a distance.

    Russia isn't the only country with resources; China has them too, and while China isn't quite the interventionist power, is its leadership unlikely to act on the opportunity to wring concessions? I don't know but I'd rather not find out. Turkey isn't a weak country either, and they'd surely find some incentive to provide cover for their suffering co-religionists.
    Again, these are countries who only have the military capability to boss around their immediate neighbors. When, say China starts deploying their own supercarrier fleets with global maritime reach to interdict whenever and wherever they want, then it'd be worth considering. They're nowhere near that.

    Of course there will. There will be an incentive to migrate to cooler climates.
    It's not that easy without active organizations to give them food, medicine, shelter, etc. It's not like Roman antiquity when Helvetii or Gaulish barbarians could forage off the land during their attempts to resettle within imperial borders.

  36. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    385
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Suddenly reminded of this book

  37. #77

    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    / / /
    Posts
    1,378
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Turkish guys at least are hot. You don't have to push so hard.

  38. #78
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    OTOH: suppose you have 200 million refugees. If even 1% of those are willing to take up arms, that's an army of 2 million. There are adversarial governments champing at the bit to destabilize Western Europe, any one of which could supply weapons and ammunition. Russia, in particular, is projected to benefit from global warming and has the capacity to intervene in any future conflict.

    Who's to say that Western countries will even be able to close their borders? If social systems begin to break down, would governments have to contend with rebellions? Would they need to sell off military assets? Like I said, we're playing Russian Roulette.
    A prediction, from 1994:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/past/doc...grat/kennf.htm

  39. #79
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    Dispatching a few shipping containers of AKs & RPGs wouldn't accomplish a whole lot in the middle of a Paris or London metro. Yes, some guys could wreak fleeting havoc with them. But it wouldn't serve any lasting strategic interest for Russia (at least any I can plausibly conceive). Ergo, their power projection—insofar as their capability to violently attain certain foreign policy ends—is very limited at a distance.



    Again, these are countries who only have the military capability to boss around their immediate neighbors. When, say China starts deploying their own supercarrier fleets with global maritime reach to interdict whenever and wherever they want, then it'd be worth considering. They're nowhere near that.



    It's not that easy without active organizations to give them food, medicine, shelter, etc. It's not like Roman antiquity when Helvetii or Gaulish barbarians could forage off the land during their attempts to resettle within imperial borders.

    What are you talking about?

    It would be a strategic win in Russia's eyes if Western European countries were forced to handle tens of millions of refugees. Not only would it be a shock to European government budgets, it would likely destabilize European politics by raising the the profile of the far-right in the immediate aftermath.

    Russia doesn't even need to go to war, only provide an air shield and supplies under the guise of humanitarian aid.

    You say that I'm overestimating Russia / China / Turkey's strength; I'd say that you have unexamined assumptions about the defensive capabilities of European countries.
    Last edited by xerx; 06-20-2019 at 03:15 PM.

  40. #80
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Why wouldn't a massive refugee crisis benefit wealthy business interests and politicians?
    It would benefit them like the way it is now, but I believe there is a cut off point where it stops benefitting them and reaches diminishing returns. I don't know the exact cut off point though, but likely when it is no longer financially feasible to bring them in as that is the primary motivation for now.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •