6 ms·

This is probably the wrong way to be thinking about this, admittedly, but... would investing in land in Greenland be pretty smart. Well, I suppose if you knew y

This is probably the wrong way to be thinking about this, admittedly, but... would investing in land in Greenland be pretty smart. Well, I suppose if you knew you would live to be 100. But still... https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-do-you-think-it-would-take-for-Denmark-to-sell-Greenland https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-do-you-think-it-would-t... $100M, Some billionaire (Musk, Bezos, Gat etc.) could buy it maybe. I some guy like Peter Theil waved $1B in Denmark's nose, just an interesting thought.

coenhyde 8y ago
Buy future farmland in Russia or Canada instead. If I was Russia I'd be doing everything I could to undermine climate change prevention. They have a lot to gain. On top of an increase in farmland, they'll also get access to currently inaccessible oil and gas. As a bonus their enemies will reap the negative impacts of climate change.
- crispinb 8y ago
  > If I was Russia I'd be doing everything I could to undermine climate change prevention Honestly? You would? You want to see vast amounts of suffering for your own gain? > They have a lot to gain. Well possibly if they want to live as survivalists. Perhaps some Russians do, but I've only known a couple of Muscovites who would barely know a potato from a turnip. The international order (such as it is) isn't remotely in the ballpark of being resilient enough to survive the convulsions climate change is going to cause.
  - coenhyde 8y ago
    > Honestly? You would? You want to see vast amounts of suffering for your own gain? No. But I'm not a nation state who wants to reclaim its former glory as a world super power. Hence, "if I was Russia". I didn't say "if I was myself"... > Well possibly if they want to live as survivalists. Perhaps some Russians do, but I've only known a couple of Muscovites who would barely know a potato from a turnip. The international order (such as it is) isn't remotely in the ballpark of being resilient enough to survive the convulsions climate change is going to cause. They wont live as survivalists if they have the worlds most productive farmland. Anyway I doubt climate change is going to render the world inhabitable to humans or decimate the global economy. We'll adapt we always do. There'll just be winners and losers. Most will lose and there will be hardships. The natural ecosystems will be fucked but in the end we'll still be here doing just fine.
    - crispinb 8y ago
      > No. But I'm not a nation state .. Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. > We'll adapt we always do. If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens - true so far, but then again modern humans are very recent, so there's little history to go on. If by 'we' you mean our specific civilisation - shakier ground. Many have ended. So can ours. Based on how small edge fluctuations have been shown to create huge perturbations (eg. the 2015 European crisis resultant on a tiny influx of refugees), it's clear our global civilisation's range of dynamic stability is very narrow. It's certainly unlikely to survive ecosystem collapses, the death of the oceans (already well advanced), and the breakdown of a stable climate. Multiple overlapping wars consequent on this chaos are the most likely proximate cause of the final global collapse.
      - coenhyde 8y ago
        > Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. I was just providing a potentially more lucrative investment than Greenland. That said I would by future farmland if i had the kind of money that could wait for 50 years for a return. > If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens I was referring to homo sapiens global civilization, not a specific civilization. This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past. I agree that its range of dynamic stability is very narrow for optimal performance. But disagree that falling outside that range triggers collapse. I think it is a much more adaptive and fault tolerant system than you believe it is. It may be damaged by easily but it fixes things relatively quickly. By the way i didn't down vote you. I'm enjoying the banter. And I am very much in support of curbing emissions to prevent further warming.
        crispinb 8y ago
        > This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past While that's true, I don't think any past war is remotely comparable to a 7-12 billion-strong human population fighting to maintain unrealistic material consumption levels whilst ecosystems continue to collapse. Only time will tell. The one thing we can be sure about re predictions on this scale is that our likelihood estimates are wrong. > By the way i didn't down vote you No worries - I actually wouldn't have noticed as I don't use the voting system on comments. The 'sociopathic' word might have merited it. Perhaps a bit sharp. Or maybe not - I think our 'civilisation' promotes much sociopathy as mainstream. Few of us can in practise be free of that.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    You missed the biggest problem for Russia which is the threat of being a landlocked country. Global warming would change this for them. They do have a lot to gain. I can guarantee you, when it comes down to it politicians represent a plutocracy who does not give a shit about you. This is the reason for alarmism and urgency on global warming. World power.
- KnightOfWords 8y ago
  Tundra will not make very productive farmland due to poor soil quality.
flukus 8y ago
> This is probably the wrong way to be thinking about this, admittedly, but... would investing in land in Greenland be pretty smart Probably not. It won't be completely ice free for at least a century and probably several, so you'll be dead by the time you see the results. After that the land will be bedrock and probably not much use to anyone. Even a poorly performing indexed fund would probably be a better investment.
porpoisely 8y ago
The international community isn't going to let denmark sell land they essentially stole from the natives. The time for denmark to have sold greenland was after ww2 when we offered to buy it from them. Now, most people view greenland as an independent country ( though greenland is still part of the danish kingdom ). Greenland will continue to be a quasi-independent protectorate of the US. Also, about 63% of the earth's landmass ( 70% if we ignore antarctica ) is located in the northern hemisphere. Much of that is siberia, alaska and canada. If you are looking to buy land, it'll be far smarter to buy in these areas or the frigid upper midwest. These areas are going to be habitable and farmable far before greenland will ever be.
sys_64738 8y ago
Well, land around the Greenland coast where existing Greenland towns are will sink beneath the waves as they're not that high in elevation. I also recall reading that the center of Greenland has sunk hundreds of feet below sea level too.
simonebrunozzi 8y ago
I didn't know that "The USA Virgin Islands, that was bought from Denmark in 1917..." - the US has a long history of buying land from other countries.
- devereaux 8y ago
  A good business move ever since land is no longer made!
  - joecool1029 8y ago
    Don't be so sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation
- BigJono 8y ago
  Huh. Suddenly America's ability to buy land in Civilization V makes a whole lot more sense.
  - rangibaby 8y ago
    US bought Louisiana (look it up, it was a huge tract of land), Florida, Alaska, etc

coenhyde 8y ago

Buy future farmland in Russia or Canada instead. If I was Russia I'd be doing everything I could to undermine climate change prevention. They have a lot to gain. On top of an increase in farmland, they'll also get access to currently inaccessible oil and gas. As a bonus their enemies will reap the negative impacts of climate change.

crispinb 8y ago
> If I was Russia I'd be doing everything I could to undermine climate change prevention Honestly? You would? You want to see vast amounts of suffering for your own gain? > They have a lot to gain. Well possibly if they want to live as survivalists. Perhaps some Russians do, but I've only known a couple of Muscovites who would barely know a potato from a turnip. The international order (such as it is) isn't remotely in the ballpark of being resilient enough to survive the convulsions climate change is going to cause.
- coenhyde 8y ago
  > Honestly? You would? You want to see vast amounts of suffering for your own gain? No. But I'm not a nation state who wants to reclaim its former glory as a world super power. Hence, "if I was Russia". I didn't say "if I was myself"... > Well possibly if they want to live as survivalists. Perhaps some Russians do, but I've only known a couple of Muscovites who would barely know a potato from a turnip. The international order (such as it is) isn't remotely in the ballpark of being resilient enough to survive the convulsions climate change is going to cause. They wont live as survivalists if they have the worlds most productive farmland. Anyway I doubt climate change is going to render the world inhabitable to humans or decimate the global economy. We'll adapt we always do. There'll just be winners and losers. Most will lose and there will be hardships. The natural ecosystems will be fucked but in the end we'll still be here doing just fine.
  - crispinb 8y ago
    > No. But I'm not a nation state .. Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. > We'll adapt we always do. If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens - true so far, but then again modern humans are very recent, so there's little history to go on. If by 'we' you mean our specific civilisation - shakier ground. Many have ended. So can ours. Based on how small edge fluctuations have been shown to create huge perturbations (eg. the 2015 European crisis resultant on a tiny influx of refugees), it's clear our global civilisation's range of dynamic stability is very narrow. It's certainly unlikely to survive ecosystem collapses, the death of the oceans (already well advanced), and the breakdown of a stable climate. Multiple overlapping wars consequent on this chaos are the most likely proximate cause of the final global collapse.
    - coenhyde 8y ago
      > Fair enough. Though in context you do seem to be promoting it as an investment strategy, which still seems a tad sociopathic to me. I was just providing a potentially more lucrative investment than Greenland. That said I would by future farmland if i had the kind of money that could wait for 50 years for a return. > If by 'we' you mean H Sapiens I was referring to homo sapiens global civilization, not a specific civilization. This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past. I agree that its range of dynamic stability is very narrow for optimal performance. But disagree that falling outside that range triggers collapse. I think it is a much more adaptive and fault tolerant system than you believe it is. It may be damaged by easily but it fixes things relatively quickly. By the way i didn't down vote you. I'm enjoying the banter. And I am very much in support of curbing emissions to prevent further warming.
      - crispinb 8y ago
        > This civilization has survived terrible wars in the past While that's true, I don't think any past war is remotely comparable to a 7-12 billion-strong human population fighting to maintain unrealistic material consumption levels whilst ecosystems continue to collapse. Only time will tell. The one thing we can be sure about re predictions on this scale is that our likelihood estimates are wrong. > By the way i didn't down vote you No worries - I actually wouldn't have noticed as I don't use the voting system on comments. The 'sociopathic' word might have merited it. Perhaps a bit sharp. Or maybe not - I think our 'civilisation' promotes much sociopathy as mainstream. Few of us can in practise be free of that.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  You missed the biggest problem for Russia which is the threat of being a landlocked country. Global warming would change this for them. They do have a lot to gain. I can guarantee you, when it comes down to it politicians represent a plutocracy who does not give a shit about you. This is the reason for alarmism and urgency on global warming. World power.
KnightOfWords 8y ago
Tundra will not make very productive farmland due to poor soil quality.

flukus 8y ago

> This is probably the wrong way to be thinking about this, admittedly, but... would investing in land in Greenland be pretty smart Probably not. It won't be completely ice free for at least a century and probably several, so you'll be dead by the time you see the results. After that the land will be bedrock and probably not much use to anyone. Even a poorly performing indexed fund would probably be a better investment.

porpoisely 8y ago

The international community isn't going to let denmark sell land they essentially stole from the natives. The time for denmark to have sold greenland was after ww2 when we offered to buy it from them. Now, most people view greenland as an independent country ( though greenland is still part of the danish kingdom ). Greenland will continue to be a quasi-independent protectorate of the US. Also, about 63% of the earth's landmass ( 70% if we ignore antarctica ) is located in the northern hemisphere. Much of that is siberia, alaska and canada. If you are looking to buy land, it'll be far smarter to buy in these areas or the frigid upper midwest. These areas are going to be habitable and farmable far before greenland will ever be.

sys_64738 8y ago

Well, land around the Greenland coast where existing Greenland towns are will sink beneath the waves as they're not that high in elevation. I also recall reading that the center of Greenland has sunk hundreds of feet below sea level too.

simonebrunozzi 8y ago

I didn't know that "The USA Virgin Islands, that was bought from Denmark in 1917..." - the US has a long history of buying land from other countries.

devereaux 8y ago
A good business move ever since land is no longer made!
- joecool1029 8y ago
  Don't be so sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation
BigJono 8y ago
Huh. Suddenly America's ability to buy land in Civilization V makes a whole lot more sense.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  US bought Louisiana (look it up, it was a huge tract of land), Florida, Alaska, etc