Ethics: migration and self-preservation.

[vtsnowedin]

It is unfortunate that my words are taken out of context and re-interpreted to mean pretty much the opposite of what I intended.

"When Biff said he didn't think that many people would want to come" he meant (and had previously explained this) that most people do not want to migrate, preferring to be buried with their ancestors, but when their homeland is devastated by war or by climate catastrophe or when their economic situation is unbearable, and they see an opportunity for survival and betterment by migrating, the only rational course will be to up sticks and travel if they are able.

It's not that they want to come here; it's that the alternative of staying put is worse.

If we want to reduce migration (and I certainly do wish that) then we must reduce the push factors. We must stop making bombs, fighting wars, encouraging and enabling others to fight wars, we must stop the theft of natural resources and the exploitation of labour, we must mitigate climate change and we must pay for climate change adaptation and we must begin a massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

The object of the exercise is to create a global system in which 7 billion people can be fed sustainably and have other basic needs met so that we can all live securely in the region and culture of our birth and also have the right and freedom to move elsewhere and live with new people if we so chose. (Though we'd probably have to walk or ride a bike rather than fly.)

Those who see fences and borders as useful tools are heading in a direction I wish to have no part of.

If you achieved a "massive transfer of wealth" and fed seven billion people (sustainably or not) you would soon have fourteen billion people that would then want to migrate to your neighborhood.
We do not need to stop making bombs and wars. They need to stop making babies.

[biffvernon]

It's the poorest people that tend to have the most babies. Equalising global wealth will tend to reduce overall birth rates. Japan now has a TFR of 1.4, most of Europe and North America is below TFR = 2

[vtsnowedin]

It's the poorest people that tend to have the most babies. Equalising global wealth will tend to reduce overall birth rates. Japan now has a TFR of 1.4, most of Europe and North America is below TFR = 2

I'm aware of that but these poor overcrowded countries do not have time to elevate the poor to a point where they voluntarily reduce their birth rate.
The crisis is upon them and they need to act decisively before war and famine makes the decisions for them.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is unfortunate that my words are taken out of context and re-interpreted to mean pretty much the opposite of what I intended.

"When Biff said he didn't think that many people would want to come" he meant (and had previously explained this) that most people do not want to migrate, preferring to be buried with their ancestors,

What planet are you living on, Biff?

Hundreds of millions of people would very much like to come to Europe, regardless of where their ancestors are buried. Their ancestors are dead. It is their children they are more concerened about.

but when their homeland is devastated by war or by climate catastrophe or when their economic situation is unbearable, and they see an opportunity for survival and betterment by migrating, the only rational course will be to up sticks and travel if they are able.

Compared to life in northern Europe, most people in the world live in an "unbearable economic situation." Welcome to reality, Biff.

It only becomes rational when Merkel opens her stupid trap and says "everybody come to Germany!" If they think they are going to have trouble being accepted, they will stay where they are unless their situation becomes impossible. If they think they have a free pass into northern Europe, they will migrate.

This is not rocket science.

It's not that they want to come here; it's that the alternative of staying put is worse.

It's both.

If we want to reduce migration (and I certainly do wish that) then we must reduce the push factors.

Nice theory. How's it going to work out in practice?

The problem with your theory is that the whole world is heading towards The Great Catastrophe, and that means that any attempt to "reduce the push factors" is doomed to failure. More reality, Biff.

We must stop making bombs, fighting wars...

Jesus wept.

Yes, fewer wars would be nice. However, given that the whole of human history is the history of warfare, and given that we are heading towards a period of overpopulation, depleted resources and environmental degradation, all of which have historically led to an increase in warfare, this plan isn't likely to work, is it?

The object of the exercise is to create a global system in which 7 billion people can be fed sustainably and have other basic needs met so that we can all live securely in the region and culture of our birth and also have the right and freedom to move elsewhere and live with new people if we so chose. (Though we'd probably have to walk or ride a bike rather than fly.)

But Biff...

It isn't going to happen, is it? I know that, you know that, everybody reading this knows that. SO WHY THE F*** ARE YOU BOTHERING TO SAY IT?

I'll tell you why: it is so you can continue to avoid coming to conclusions you don't want to come to. It is you can continue to deny reality.

Those who see fences and borders as useful tools are heading in a direction I wish to have no part of.

They are part of the reality of the world we live in, Biff. They are not merely "useful tools". They are absolute neccesities, as is being demonstrated in Europe right now.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you achieved a "massive transfer of wealth" and fed seven billion people (sustainably or not) you would soon have fourteen billion people that would then want to migrate to your neighborhood.

We do not need to stop making bombs and wars. They need to stop making babies.

Yep.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's the poorest people that tend to have the most babies. Equalising global wealth will tend to reduce overall birth rates. Japan now has a TFR of 1.4, most of Europe and North America is below TFR = 2

Too late Biff. Far too late. This is not 1965. It is 2016.

[kenneal - lagger]

It's the poorest people that tend to have the most babies. Equalising global wealth will tend to reduce overall birth rates. Japan now has a TFR of 1.4, most of Europe and North America is below TFR = 2

You don't even have to equalise the wealth. It has been shown in sub Saharan Africa and elsewhere that just by educating women and giving them more control over their lives that the birth rate is reduced. The problem with that is that in much of the Moslem world Moslem men would never countenance that; it is a complete anathema to them that their women should have any say in how their lives are conduced!

[biffvernon]

You don't even have to equalise the wealth.

You are quite correct. I was thinking, when I wrote 'equalising' of the process rather than the end point, which need not ever actually be achieved in the real world. I should have written: A move towards equalising global wealth...

I have little sympathy for the Muslim (or any other) religion but I do think it a mistake to generalise. Iran is an example of a predominantly Muslim country where the birth rate has dropped precipitously and now has a TFR of 1.75

On the other hand, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania all have TFRs over 5, but are not predominantly Muslim. Certain branches of the Christian religions are famously opposed to birth control, though their influence is diminishing.

As for the ongoing fears that people will 'want' to migrate while there are economic disparities, I think it's possible to exaggerate the effect (I don't want to migrate to Luxembourg despite knowing that it is a wealthier place than Lincolnshire) but my point is that global wealth differences should be reduced to the point that there is no longer the push factor for mass migration. That may raise the fear in some people's minds that their wealth is threatened and so they are likely to react by calls for border fences and the defence of their wealth even with violence.

Our task is to make global wealth equal enough to stop mass migration (and cut birth rates), reduce global resource consumption to planetary sustainable levels, while protecting the quality of life of those who are currently rich and consume at unsustainable levels.

How we do this should be the subject of debate and would be more productive than fighting over fences.

[Automaton]

Our task is to make global wealth equal enough to stop mass migration (and cut birth rates), reduce global resource consumption to planetary sustainable levels, while protecting the quality of life of those who are currently rich and consume at unsustainable levels.

Are you saying you really believe this is something that could be achieved Biff?
I think it would take many centuries of change in human behaviour if it was ever to be possible, and unfortunately, we don't have anything like that long. I know you are well aware of the problems we face; don't you think catastrophe is inevitable, given the depth of human stupidity?

Look at our 'leaders' and their short-term selfish agendas, look at their followers and the reasons they make decisions. Even if there are a percentage of people like you (and once me) who hope to make a better world, how can they stand against the force of that selfishness, and the brutality that maintains it? There only needs to be a small number of 'takers' to take everything the many 'givers' would give. Look around... where in the world are the self-sufficient communities, living in peace and harmony with their environment, free from the 'evils' of modernity? They are all dead, everything they had is 'taken', destroyed by the same drives that are now touching global levels.

It's like a juggernaut that's spent thousands of years getting up to speed; do you really believe it can be stopped (and I mean 'believe', not just hope)?

[biffvernon]

Our task is to make global wealth equal enough to stop mass migration (and cut birth rates), reduce global resource consumption to planetary sustainable levels, while protecting the quality of life of those who are currently rich and consume at unsustainable levels.

Are you saying you really believe this is something that could be achieved Biff?

Did I say that? Nope.

I think it would take many centuries of change in human behaviour if it was ever to be possible, and unfortunately, we don't have anything like that long. I know you are well aware of the problems we face; don't you think catastrophe is inevitable, given the depth of human stupidity?

Let's say almost inevitable. The optimist in me likes to keep open a chink of light.

Look at our 'leaders' and their short-term selfish agendas, look at their followers and the reasons they make decisions. Even if there are a percentage of people like you (and once me) who hope to make a better world, how can they stand against the force of that selfishness, and the brutality that maintains it? There only needs to be a small number of 'takers' to take everything the many 'givers' would give. Look around... where in the world are the self-sufficient communities, living in peace and harmony with their environment, free from the 'evils' of modernity? They are all dead, everything they had is 'taken', destroyed by the same drives that are now touching global levels.

Indeed, it does not leave much room for optimism.

It's like a juggernaut that's spent thousands of years getting up to speed; do you really believe it can be stopped (and I mean 'believe', not just hope)?

No, I don't 'believe' it can, but I do hope it can. I don't think 'belief' is a very helpful concept. Maybe that's why I turn to science rather than religion, but in both fields history has been littered with people who have struggled to realise their hopes, despite the outlook.
I find it pleasanter to be in the company of folk who care about others, who work to aid the poor and oppressed, the refugees and migrants, the outcasts. Despite being an atheist I find the words ascribed to the person known as Jesus Christ to be largely spot on as a guide to living.
I am fairly confident that civilisation will last me out and I'd like to be able to say to my grandchildren that I tried fairly hard to secure them a future.

I've just been doing some work on my grandfather's diary for somebody researching H.G.Wells, a science fiction writer, utopian dreamer and international socialist. Their meeting during the dark days of the First World War may not have held out too much hope and optimism, but a century on and we're still able to dream and to work. Of course, Wells and Grandfather didn't know about global warming then.

[UndercoverElephant]

Let's say almost inevitable. The optimist in me likes to keep open a chink of light.

That's OK until you start basing ethical judgements and policy decisions on it.

Your hope that the Great Catastrophe can be avoided is really just a psychological mechanism you are using to stop yourself going mad, I suspect. It serves no other purpose. And that's fine - if it helps you to function and staves of depression then that is not a problem.

Most of the people on this board either do not want/need that psychological mechanism, or it isn't available to them.

It's not available to me. I gave up hope that this juggernaut could be turned around nearly 30 years ago.

The point is this: when we are discussing what is morally acceptable/required and what policies we should implement regarding everything from immigration to climate change, we have to disregard your slim chink of hope. It's not just irrelevant, but actually gets in the way of progress and causes massive arguments. We have to plan for what is actually going to happen, and all of us, including you, know that what's going to happen is major climate change, continuing environmental degradation, resource depletion, wars, famine, disease, mass-migration and lots of humans dying of something other than old age.

This unrealistic "hope" is a major problem, not just when the topic is immigration. I also believe we should be facing up to the fact that we aren't going to stop climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and start thinking seriously about geo-engineering solutions. This is fiercely resisted by people who say it is "negative thinking" and "will just encourage the polluters to do nothing". Its actually just facing up to the stark reality and suggesting we act accordingly instead of clinging on to false hope and potentially missing the last chance we have to prevent major climate change.

[Automaton]

... I'd like to be able to say to my grandchildren that I tried fairly hard to secure them a future.

Given that you've said the chance of avoiding catastrophe is almost nil, I think that's an admirable, if suicidal, desire. It's the stance of the doomed samurai, or of someone who says 'the odds are almost certainly unbeatable, but I would rather die standing up for what I believe in, than stand aside'. (I know you don't think it's about belief, but you clearly do believe in fairness, helping others, etc, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion here. I'm not talking about religion here (for once ).

I think UndercoverElephants concern is that taking such a stance makes it difficult for others to take the hard and potentially brutal steps 'necessary' to attempt to save the situation: in his eyes it's like you have a belief that a gangrenous hand shouldn't be cut off because it will hopefully recover, when it's obvious the delay will cost the whole arm.

But it's not clear to me how the consequences of the increasingly right-wing attitude of the West will help at all, when we look at the bigger picture; short term gains, perhaps, but in the longer term.... not so clear.
Personally, I think we're screwed no matter what. As I watch what's happening, powerless to intervene, I feel like a spectator at a global-scale Shakespearean tragedy.

But then, I guess they don't call me a doomer for nothing

[Little John]

I agree about the hopelessness of a rise of right wing, short-termist politics. Which is why it is so desperately important for the Left to wake up and face up to the hard realities of what has already started. If it does not, then the future is being handed to the far right on a plate and they will definitely F--k it up

[clv101]

Reading back at your last few posts UndercoverElephant I'm struck by your confidence. The reality is that you don't know how the next few decades are going to pan out. No one does. Your argument would be strengthened in my view if you were less absolutist and more open to the uncertainties in the future.

Your view of reality (other views are available!) strikes me as pessimistic. Now I expect you to think my 'pessimism' is your reality. But this strikes at the nub of the issue.

biffvernon also just said 'catastrophe is almost inevitable'. I think this is a more realistic view than to see it as inevitable, full stop.

There have been many occasions over the centuries where folk held extremely pessimistic views of the future; I expect the future looked pretty bleak as the Black Death took hold... as millions died in WW1, the early years of WW2, the Cold War, 70's energy shocks, the naughties peak oil fears etc... and yet the worst fears were not realised. Of course this time might be different, I'm certainly of the opinion that 'catastrophe is almost inevitable' but we must acknowledge that whilst we can't see it, there may be an acceptable path though this mass. Denying the possibility of it's existence, makes its discovery far less likely.

[Little John]

Assuming there is some small hope that the kind of catastrophes implied by climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation are not as terrible as we might imagine them to be or, at least, that they might not so deleteriously affect some parts of the world as compared to others, in what way does it then logically or morally follow that we should merrily embark on policies that increase the likelihood of those worst outcomes here?