Migrant watch (merged topic)

[Little John]

Ha!

It was done in the 70 by Michael R. Rose

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/scien ... .html?_r=0

[clv101]

I don't subscribe to the idea that climate change, nuclear exchange or anything else short of a really big asteroid could actually make the whole planet uninhabitable - humans have to be just about the most adaptable creatures on the planet, small pockets would find a way to eke out a living as long as there was somewhere warmer than -40C and cooler than 40C and the sun was still bright enough to drive photosynthesis.

That is a rational position with which I agree.

So do I.

I which case don't talk about 'human survival coming to an end...'. That kind of hyperbole just gets people's hackles up.

Climate change is super serious, but it's highly unlikely to represent an extinction level event for humans.

[clv101]

Presumably there's an evolutionary advantage to living long enough to have (and in human's case raise) 10 children instead of one. So there is an advantage to living into one's 40s instead of dropping dead as a teenager?

[Little John]

Presumably there's an evolutionary advantage to living long enough to have (and in human's case raise) 10 children instead of one. So there is an advantage to living into one's 40s instead of dropping dead as a teenager?

The advantage of living to 40 instead of 17 (in humans) is simply that any level of reproduction is more likely to have occurred by 40 than, say 17. And the reason a person is far more likely to die at, say, 70 than 40 is because some reproduction is very likely to have already occurred. The specific optimal number of offspring is a secondary question related to the specific ecological niche an organism finds itself in. In other words, all things being equal, one might superficially surmise that 10 offspring is better then 1. But, all things are rarely equal. In rabbits, it's an extremely beneficial thing. In humans, not so beneficial. Though not exclusively so. The most obvious factor governing the above is probably the extent to which an organism is prey or predator (though, there will be others). It also probably goes some way towards explaining the significant variation in fertility between sub-populations within a given species depending on differences (perceived or actual) in a given organism's environment. Arguably, it provides an evolutionary explanation for why relatively poorer people "choose" to have more kids than relatively richer people. It's because they feel more like "prey" than "predator".

[UndercoverElephant]

Presumably there's an evolutionary advantage to living long enough to have (and in human's case raise) 10 children instead of one. So there is an advantage to living into one's 40s instead of dropping dead as a teenager?

Given that humans only reach biological maturity at about the age of 18 and human offspring are incapable of looking after themselves until they are about 10, dropping dead as a teenager is not a good evolutionary strategy. You need to survive into your 30s to have been a succesful link in the human reproductive chain. About the time footballers retire...35ish.

To expand on LJ's answer, yes it is all about your ecological niche. A single Giant Puffball mycelium is capable of producing maybe ten large puffballs a year, for many years, each producing hundreds of billions of spores, any of which could survive to repeat the process. On average, a grand total of ONE actually manages this feat in the entire lifetime of that mycelium. Humans are at the other extreme. Instead of playing the numbers game, we back quality instead of quantity (both biologically and, increasingly, culturally). No harm in playing the numbers game as well (until very recently, maybe), but that's not the strategy our biology backed.

[biffvernon]

I which case don't talk about 'human survival coming to an end...'. That kind of hyperbole just gets people's hackles up.

Climate change is super serious, but it's highly unlikely to represent an extinction level event for humans.

Yeah, I kind of agree. Almost.

"Don't run towards that cliff, dear. If you don't stop in time you'll die!"
"No mummy, of course I'll stop in time. I'm not stupid. Stop nagging!"

The trouble is humanity is running towards the cliff. Being an eternal optimist I think we will stop in time to avoid extinction. I'm not convinced we will stop in time to avoid a massive die-off. A possible tactic is to shout loudly, even when something regarded as hyperbole gets people's hackles up, in the hope that humanity might take notice and change course. It might or might not work but what we've done so far has not worked and there is the idea that continuing with a failed strategy may not be smart.

So what should we do?

[biffvernon]

Here's what one young lad, Findlay Wilde, suggests we should do:
http://markavery.info/2016/04/13/guest- ... lay-wilde/

[AutomaticEarth]

Eurozone crisis pushing migrants to the UK......well, duh!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36029703

[UndercoverElephant]

I which case don't talk about 'human survival coming to an end...'. That kind of hyperbole just gets people's hackles up.

Climate change is super serious, but it's highly unlikely to represent an extinction level event for humans.

Yeah, I kind of agree. Almost.

"Don't run towards that cliff, dear. If you don't stop in time you'll die!"
"No mummy, of course I'll stop in time. I'm not stupid. Stop nagging!"

The trouble is humanity is running towards the cliff. Being an eternal optimist I think we will stop in time to avoid extinction.

Here we go again...

You do not have to be an optimist to think that, for reasons everybody else taking part in this discussion appears to have agreed on. The human race probably couldn't mess this planet up so badly that nowhere at all remained habitable even if we tried.

I'm not convinced we will stop in time to avoid a massive die-off.

In which case you should base your beliefs and proposed policies on this projection.

A possible tactic is to shout loudly, even when something regarded as hyperbole gets people's hackles up, in the hope that humanity might take notice and change course.

The environmental movement has been doing that for the last 60 years. It didn't work.

It might or might not work but what we've done so far has not worked and there is the idea that continuing with a failed strategy may not be smart.

Not smart at all, no.

So what should we do?

LONG ANSWER:

1) Stop telling people "we need to do X before it is too late, we are running out of time." The EM just looks like the boy who cried wolf if it continues with that tactic. Instead we tell people "we warned you, and you didn't listen, and now we're in serious trouble because it is too late to stop X."

2) Work out what to do in a world where X is actually happening. X is a global mass extinction event, the industrial-scale pollution of the oceans and destruction of fisheries, serious irreversible climate change, population overshoot (both globally and regionally in some places), degradation of soil and fresh water quality, and....

Most importantly, from the perspective you normally present - that of an "international socialist", you are going to have accept that we can't save everybody, that some parts of the world are going to become chaotic hell-holes, that people will attempt to escape from those parts of the world to places which are not in such a bad state, and that allowing unlimited migration of people from the bad places to the less bad places is not a viable policy. It is not viable because the end result will be that everywhere turns into a chaotic hell-hole and the native population of the places that aren't already hell-holes will not tolerate their own security being destroyed for no good reason. And making sure we all go down together because "that's only fair" is not a good enough reason.

SHORT ANSWER:

Accept that the world as we know it is going to collapse, or at least change in radical and unwelcome ways, and plan for how we are going to cope with that collapse, always basing our plans on science, rationalism and realism first, and always avoiding irrational idealism.

[AutomaticEarth]

Another post pointing out what I said above:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 81781.html

[AutomaticEarth]

I guess this was going to happen sooner or later.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 86771.html

[Little John]

This is, proximally, the yank ruling class's fault. This is, distally, part of an ongoing underlying existential conflict in the heart of Islam. It is now what it is

It must be contained and this includes civilian spillover in order to not only contain the conflict itself, but also to contain the sectarianism and cultural backwardness of many of these people from screwing up the cultures of other regions.

This means intervening only where it can be absolutely shown to foster peace on any terms necessary. Remember that? That thing that was in place before Assad's regime was mortally wounded by the f***ing Yanks fomenting a revolution by the looniest, bad-ass people in town.

They already pulled this little trick once before with the Taliban. And that went well didn't it......

[AutomaticEarth]

Not really sure whether to laugh or cry with this one......

http://www.therebel.media/unbelivable_r ... tification

[AutomaticEarth]

It's all kicking off at the AfD rally in Stuttgart.....

https://www.rt.com/news/341453-stuttgar ... s-arrests/

[AutomaticEarth]

It's all kicking off at the Austrian-Italian border:

https://www.rt.com/on-air/refugee-demon ... ria-italy/