6 ms·

And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place?

And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place? "Sorry, you're not a part of the problem, but you live in the same area as those who are. Off you go!"? There has been attempts at mass re-locations of people before. It usually didn't turn out well.

strogonoff 6y ago
Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature? I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first: 1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and institutions—in some cases, deserved (rogue actors). Who has to leave first, who gets a better view from their new home in a futuristic skyscraper, entry permit fairness and enforcement (there will be long perimeters to protect, albeit it could be a good source of jobs), etc. 2. Ensuring healthy human habitat in dense urban environments (pollution, clean energy, as well as psychology). Many of those hurdles are societal/organizational/psychological, and are not liable to be solved by accelerated technical progress alone. Frustratingly, since the best time to do this is probably ASAP.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  No. Many re-locations were supposedly for the common good, though. The physical part is easy since most people will see cities as cramped nightmare-fuel regardless of who moves there first. The psychosocial part will be a nightmare to handle, though. You won't just be moving people from A to B; you will be erasing countless generations worth of cultural identity, placing people in an unfamiliar environment where their previously acquired skills will be largely irrelevant, so you need to re-educate most of them. And you will be doing it using force, because I guarantee you there will be a lot of opposition. Oh, and you need to get the current urban population to accept that they need to pay for it all, because, you know, you'll be taking everything from the rural population. Furthermore, they need to integrate and intermingle with the recent arrivals to prevent them from becoming a new underclass. I see what you're trying to argue, but we've got several recent waves of migrants facing less problems and which European societies still failed to integrate properly. If we can't do it with a few million immigrants, then I assure you that it can't be done with the 115 million people living on the European countryside.
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like the easy part). Edit: one caveat is that there may be legitimate disagreements about the science, e.g. what probabilities to consider sufficient and what models to use when predicting whether such an expensive effort to revitalise the planet will in fact give the desired effect. Also, there is at least one objective downside to localising human presence to ultra-dense habitats that I have missed: a catastrophic black swan event could suddenly wipe out a much larger percentage of human population at once. This downside theoretically could be thoroughly addressed through technology, but that technology is probably very far out as of now.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      This sums up my position much more eloquently than I could have done it.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, because this isn't the last time someone comes up with ideas like this.
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.

strogonoff 6y ago

Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature? I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first: 1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and institutions—in some cases, deserved (rogue actors). Who has to leave first, who gets a better view from their new home in a futuristic skyscraper, entry permit fairness and enforcement (there will be long perimeters to protect, albeit it could be a good source of jobs), etc. 2. Ensuring healthy human habitat in dense urban environments (pollution, clean energy, as well as psychology). Many of those hurdles are societal/organizational/psychological, and are not liable to be solved by accelerated technical progress alone. Frustratingly, since the best time to do this is probably ASAP.

fogihujy 6y ago
No. Many re-locations were supposedly for the common good, though. The physical part is easy since most people will see cities as cramped nightmare-fuel regardless of who moves there first. The psychosocial part will be a nightmare to handle, though. You won't just be moving people from A to B; you will be erasing countless generations worth of cultural identity, placing people in an unfamiliar environment where their previously acquired skills will be largely irrelevant, so you need to re-educate most of them. And you will be doing it using force, because I guarantee you there will be a lot of opposition. Oh, and you need to get the current urban population to accept that they need to pay for it all, because, you know, you'll be taking everything from the rural population. Furthermore, they need to integrate and intermingle with the recent arrivals to prevent them from becoming a new underclass. I see what you're trying to argue, but we've got several recent waves of migrants facing less problems and which European societies still failed to integrate properly. If we can't do it with a few million immigrants, then I assure you that it can't be done with the 115 million people living on the European countryside.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like the easy part). Edit: one caveat is that there may be legitimate disagreements about the science, e.g. what probabilities to consider sufficient and what models to use when predicting whether such an expensive effort to revitalise the planet will in fact give the desired effect. Also, there is at least one objective downside to localising human presence to ultra-dense habitats that I have missed: a catastrophic black swan event could suddenly wipe out a much larger percentage of human population at once. This downside theoretically could be thoroughly addressed through technology, but that technology is probably very far out as of now.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    This sums up my position much more eloquently than I could have done it.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, because this isn't the last time someone comes up with ideas like this.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.