3 ms·

I would just say in response to your post: the start of Syria's troubles are considered by some to begin with an unseasonable and sustained drought. That's one

I would just say in response to your post: the start of Syria's troubles are considered by some to begin with an unseasonable and sustained drought. That's one country's population sudden injection into the rich Western world you consider to be facing limited fallout, and we've witnessed the results and the reactions. I don't think most people can picture the real effects of sustained and mass migration, even if you're fortunate enough to enjoy the perks of Western life.

ryanwaggoner 10y ago
I agree, but look at the backlash in Europe and the US. Does it seem likely that a 10x increase in the turmoil that caused Syria will result in more migrants and refugees to western countries? I highly doubt it. Unfortunately, I think it highly likely that rich western democracies will turn their backs on developing nations and their tens of millions of refugees. North America, Japan, Australia, and NZ are particularly well suited for this geographically, but Europe will isolate itself as much as possible as well.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I think you're going to find that as huge parts of Africa and the Middle East cease to be capable of supporting the large number of people who live there, you will see migration like never before. You think people fleeing from absolute misery are going to care that their welcome will be less than warm? For now it's a relative trickle, but given time and a lack of care and you'll see floods. As you say, look at the backlash... imagine what a 10x or 100x backlash will look like. Now remember that we all have nuclear weapons on a hair trigger.
int_19h 10y ago
The ability to isolate yourself comes with its own costs. Turning away refugees is one thing; but what happens when people are sufficiently desperate that they will be willing to take up arms to secure a place under the sun for themselves and their kin?
- M_Grey 10y ago
  ...And then, after slaughtering those people and years of insularity, nationalism, and populism... what's going to be left, but for those insular nations to fight over remaining resources? I can't see a nuclear nation shrugging and saying, "Well I guess we're conquered! Here are the keys..."
  - chongli 10y ago
    Using a nuke to fight off a tide of refugees is like bringing a grenade to a fist fight. Do you think the people who are already here are going to tolerate the wholesale slaughter of their family members who are trying to rejoin them? What about all of their friends? No. If we don't find some way to rescue everybody we will be torn apart by civil war.
    - lmz 10y ago
      Sounds like a good argument to not let even one of them in.
      - chongli 10y ago
        You must must've missed the part where I mentioned that they are already here. They are us. We aren't going to be able to pull up the ladder. People will try, though, and it will get very ugly, very fast.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Exactly, and then there will be war.
        lmz 10y ago
        If by "here" you mean North America and Western Europe then yes, they will pay the price for their diversity. Places like Japan and China that people say are "xenophobic" might turn out to have the better survival strategy.
    - 10y ago

ryanwaggoner 10y ago

I agree, but look at the backlash in Europe and the US. Does it seem likely that a 10x increase in the turmoil that caused Syria will result in more migrants and refugees to western countries? I highly doubt it. Unfortunately, I think it highly likely that rich western democracies will turn their backs on developing nations and their tens of millions of refugees. North America, Japan, Australia, and NZ are particularly well suited for this geographically, but Europe will isolate itself as much as possible as well.

M_Grey 10y ago
I think you're going to find that as huge parts of Africa and the Middle East cease to be capable of supporting the large number of people who live there, you will see migration like never before. You think people fleeing from absolute misery are going to care that their welcome will be less than warm? For now it's a relative trickle, but given time and a lack of care and you'll see floods. As you say, look at the backlash... imagine what a 10x or 100x backlash will look like. Now remember that we all have nuclear weapons on a hair trigger.

int_19h 10y ago

The ability to isolate yourself comes with its own costs. Turning away refugees is one thing; but what happens when people are sufficiently desperate that they will be willing to take up arms to secure a place under the sun for themselves and their kin?

M_Grey 10y ago
...And then, after slaughtering those people and years of insularity, nationalism, and populism... what's going to be left, but for those insular nations to fight over remaining resources? I can't see a nuclear nation shrugging and saying, "Well I guess we're conquered! Here are the keys..."
- chongli 10y ago
  Using a nuke to fight off a tide of refugees is like bringing a grenade to a fist fight. Do you think the people who are already here are going to tolerate the wholesale slaughter of their family members who are trying to rejoin them? What about all of their friends? No. If we don't find some way to rescue everybody we will be torn apart by civil war.
  - lmz 10y ago
    Sounds like a good argument to not let even one of them in.
    - chongli 10y ago
      You must must've missed the part where I mentioned that they are already here. They are us. We aren't going to be able to pull up the ladder. People will try, though, and it will get very ugly, very fast.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Exactly, and then there will be war.
      - lmz 10y ago
        If by "here" you mean North America and Western Europe then yes, they will pay the price for their diversity. Places like Japan and China that people say are "xenophobic" might turn out to have the better survival strategy.
  - 10y ago