Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7563591" data-attributes="member: 177">There is a fine line between &quot;refugee&quot; and &quot;people suffering economic dislocation&quot;.&nbsp; For example, as climate shifts, weather patterns shift.&nbsp; That means the temperature and rainfall shifts - that means where you can grow various crops will move.&nbsp; Much of the heartland of America, currently devoted to agriculture, may become untenable for that purpose.&nbsp; All the farmers, and the people who support the farmers, will need to move.&nbsp; These aren't foreign refugees, they're our own citizens.As another, only partly related branch of discussion, we were talking about how immoral it is to restrict breeding rights - we have 7.5 billion people on the planet, and that number is growing.&nbsp; The planet does have a limit on its carrying capacity.&nbsp; That limit is apt to drop as the climate warms.&nbsp; As we get close to it, we need to ask ourselves what is more moral:1) Instituting broadly distributed population controls.2) Letting people starve.3) Having wars that end up reducing the population in a host of unpleasant ways.If you don't do 1, you eventually end up with a mix of (2) and (3).&nbsp; Choose your poison - a limit on reproductive freedom, or nasty population losses.&nbsp; Suddenly, controlling population growth through planning and contraception doesn't sound so ugly, now does it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7563591, member: 177"] There is a fine line between "refugee" and "people suffering economic dislocation". For example, as climate shifts, weather patterns shift. That means the temperature and rainfall shifts - that means where you can grow various crops will move. Much of the heartland of America, currently devoted to agriculture, may become untenable for that purpose. All the farmers, and the people who support the farmers, will need to move. These aren't foreign refugees, they're our own citizens. As another, only partly related branch of discussion, we were talking about how immoral it is to restrict breeding rights - we have 7.5 billion people on the planet, and that number is growing. The planet does have a limit on its carrying capacity. That limit is apt to drop as the climate warms. As we get close to it, we need to ask ourselves what is more moral: 1) Instituting broadly distributed population controls. 2) Letting people starve. 3) Having wars that end up reducing the population in a host of unpleasant ways. If you don't do 1, you eventually end up with a mix of (2) and (3). Choose your poison - a limit on reproductive freedom, or nasty population losses. Suddenly, controlling population growth through planning and contraception doesn't sound so ugly, now does it? [/QUOTE]

Verification