4 ms·

It seems a bit biased to only list the places that will become uninhabitable due to say high temperature (the losses), without also listing the places that will

by csdvrx 5y ago

It seems a bit biased to only list the places that will become uninhabitable due to say high temperature (the losses), without also listing the places that will become inhabitable thanks to the exact same thing (the gains) It's not clear to me that say an expansion of the Sahara or the desertic part of Australia won't be more than mitigated by the large amount of land currently covered by permafrost in Eurasia. A proper accounting of the phenomenon would show both, if only to refute my naive take.

eropple 5y ago
Given that few people currently live in those places and national borders are unlikely to go away in the next hundred years (while there's a pretty clear path to ecofascist isolationism if we screw this up), perhaps "it's not optimistic enough" is a little bit of a reach of a criticism.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > perhaps "it's not optimistic enough" is a little bit of a reach of a criticism. It's not about optimism, but being factual. > national borders are unlikely to go away in the next hundred years That's a strange take, because an argument often raised is that ecological migrants must be accommodated if entire countries become uninhabitable. As borders are just imaginary lines in the ground, if there is indeed a climate emergency, I do not see why say people from the Indian subcontinent (shown preeminently in the interactive map) would have no rights to settle in the empty eurasian steppes. Human lives matter more than imaginary lines caused by historical circumstances.
  - eropple 5y ago
    > an argument often raised is that ecological migrants must be accommodated if entire countries become uninhabitable Yes. That is the argument. It is a just and reasonable argument. It does not mean that they will be accomodated. > if there is indeed a climate emergency, I do not see why say people from the Indian subcontinent, I do not see why say people from the Indian subcontinent (shown preeminently in the interactive map) would have no rights to settle in the empty eurasian steppes You don't see why? OK. Tell me: who is going to roll tanks into Russia on their behalf when Russia says no? An ecologically perilous future is one of harder borders and angrier international affairs and is yet another reason to avert it instead of leaping for the quick dopamine pings of "well, actually".
  - cwmoreiras 5y ago
    Your idea that climate change is going to disappear borders is very optimistic. It would be nice, but let's not forget all of human history...
tomrod 5y ago
> inhabitable thanks to the exact same thing (the gains) A big gap will be soil quality, I reckon, as native microorganisms, fungi, and plants don't traverse north/south axes well But yeah, there might be water and amenable temperature in areas.

by csdvrx 5y ago

eropple 5y ago

Given that few people currently live in those places and national borders are unlikely to go away in the next hundred years (while there's a pretty clear path to ecofascist isolationism if we screw this up), perhaps "it's not optimistic enough" is a little bit of a reach of a criticism.

csdvrx 5y ago
> perhaps "it's not optimistic enough" is a little bit of a reach of a criticism. It's not about optimism, but being factual. > national borders are unlikely to go away in the next hundred years That's a strange take, because an argument often raised is that ecological migrants must be accommodated if entire countries become uninhabitable. As borders are just imaginary lines in the ground, if there is indeed a climate emergency, I do not see why say people from the Indian subcontinent (shown preeminently in the interactive map) would have no rights to settle in the empty eurasian steppes. Human lives matter more than imaginary lines caused by historical circumstances.
- eropple 5y ago
  > an argument often raised is that ecological migrants must be accommodated if entire countries become uninhabitable Yes. That is the argument. It is a just and reasonable argument. It does not mean that they will be accomodated. > if there is indeed a climate emergency, I do not see why say people from the Indian subcontinent, I do not see why say people from the Indian subcontinent (shown preeminently in the interactive map) would have no rights to settle in the empty eurasian steppes You don't see why? OK. Tell me: who is going to roll tanks into Russia on their behalf when Russia says no? An ecologically perilous future is one of harder borders and angrier international affairs and is yet another reason to avert it instead of leaping for the quick dopamine pings of "well, actually".
- cwmoreiras 5y ago
  Your idea that climate change is going to disappear borders is very optimistic. It would be nice, but let's not forget all of human history...

tomrod 5y ago

> inhabitable thanks to the exact same thing (the gains) A big gap will be soil quality, I reckon, as native microorganisms, fungi, and plants don't traverse north/south axes well But yeah, there might be water and amenable temperature in areas.