4 ms·

Number of displaced people hits record due to war, climate change

34 points by simmerup 3y ago

babelthuap 3y ago
Said every ancient collapsed civilization.
- realworldperson 3y ago
  [dead]
- fortran77 3y ago
  When does one stop being a displaced person. All 4 of my grandparents were kicked out or had to leave the area their families were living in for generations (after being kicked out of other places). Am I a "displaced person?"
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    You might be a Jew or a Gypsy.
    - dmbche 3y ago
      Your second term is considered a racial slur
      - peterfirefly 3y ago
        Might. Anything might. However, if you actually talk to them, it isn't. What would you replace it with? Rom or Roma? In that case, you would be mislabeling a lot of them since the Rom are only one of the Gypsy groups (but it is the largest). You would also be pissing off all Romanians who absolutely, positively do not under any circumstances want to be confused with Gypsies. Would you say "Roma and Sinti"? That's the two largest Gypsy groups (or is it the largest and third-largest?). There are many others. No, just call them Gypsies. Are you done virtue signaling?
        dmbche 3y ago
        https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128696&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128696&page=1 Those sure are a lot of justifications for using slurs against marginalised groups
  - dmbche 3y ago
    I'd assume that when you settle you stop being displaced? There is - I assume - a moment after having been displaced when you decide to live somewhere else and not come back - at that point you're just a resident, i'd guess.
melling 3y ago
“linked to climate change” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods Are we linking every weather event to climate change? Can we tighten up our science a little? Somewhere I read that the Pakistan issue was not related to climate change and more to do with where the people lived. More people are living in flood zones, for example.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  If you look at the insane rise in global sea surface temperatures lately I don’t think we can just fall back to this old assertion. Weather isn’t climate, this is true, but it’s going to be pretty difficult to find weather that isn’t affected but such a rapid change in the climate. In other words, all weather is now weather like we’ve never seen before because we’ve drifted so far from the mean.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    We’ve barely drifted from the mean. Most design codes have only increased storm loading by ~5% for climate change and that is conservative. The parent is right, most increases in storm damage rates are because humans are building more stuff where storms are, changes due to climate change are negligible in comparison.
- momdad420 3y ago
  [dead]
- dmbche 3y ago
  The wiki explains it in the first paragraph - flood liked to heavier monsoons and melting glaciers resulting from climate change. Edit: Removed some phrasing
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Why do you think people choose to live in places that get flooded? Pakistan's population is a bit over 230 million now (or maybe even 240 million). It was around 45 million in 1960 (not including Bangladesh). It was around 23 million in 1900 (not including the rest of British India). The numbers vary a bit depending on source but the overall trend is unmistakable. This increase is not due to "Climate Change" but to increases in public health (cleaner water, better sewers/latrines, soap, plumbing=easier hand washing, cleaner food, vaccinations) and available food (many, many more calories + vitamins). If the Pakistanis choose to spend that wealth increase on a population growth instead of increase in personal wealth, well, that is not our fault. Perhaps they made the right choice, perhaps not. It's up to them. --- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-4624.2013.tb00005.x#:~:text=The%20modern%20expansion%20of%20the,from%2023%20million%20in%201900 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-4624..... Edit: minor copy editing to tighten up the language.
mc32 3y ago
If everything remains constant but the population keeps growing, the amount of population affected by phenomenon Y will also increase every year.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  Most populations geographically are not growing.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    But the Pakistani population is growing. The Bangladeshi population is growing. Pakistani was hit by a big flood that affected lots of people -- not merely because the flood was so big (it really was!), but because there are so many people in Pakistan that many of them have to live in risky places. Bangladesh is regularly hit by floods, which largely affect areas where people didn't use to live, simply because there are so many people in Bangladesh that many of them have to live in risky places. Bangladesh is also flood prone due to misfortunes of geography (nothing at all to do with climate change or population explosion). And then there are the local effects of large populations: felling of mangrove forests in Bangladesh, deforestation in general (Pakistan), people living on former meadows, people putting in barriers that prevent minor local "floods" (really just temporary widening of rivers) which lead to major floods, ... And, yes, there is also climate change => deglaciation, more rainfall, and more extreme weather. But anybody who tries to downplay the role of population growth in the recent disasters in Pakistan and Bangladesh is lying to you and probably trying to sell you something.
- smt88 3y ago
  In percentages, the YoY increases in displacement are far greater than population growth.
dmbche 3y ago
"The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) reached a record 71.1 million worldwide last year due to conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and climate calamities like the monsoon floods in Pakistan, according to data published on Thursday. The Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) said that figure represented a 20% increase since 2021, with an unprecedented number of people fleeing in search of safety and shelter." 20% increase!! For people talking about how this is statistical manipulation, good luck justifying 20%
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I think article is a good example that current events and world news is basically bad for you. What can we say about this article? - it’s alarming, particularly if you already happened to hold the view that it’s all going to hell - it’s not actionable, there’s nothing you can or should do differently as a result of this article - it’s probably not even meaningful, the world is a random event generator and the worse event or piece of news on any given day is terrible! But that says nothing about how things actually are The last point bears repeating. If you read a news article and update your understanding of the world to think “X is more common than I thought” after reading an article on X - you often end up less informed than if you hadn’t read the article at all. Replace X for any rare event that occurs in the news. The availability of the news on a thing is not the rate of the thing happening.
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Defeatism at its worst. What better way to not have to fix a problem than to choose to be unaware of it? The articles that make you uncomfortable first inform you. Then you think. Then you make personal choices to reduce pollution, pick sustainable ways of living and transportation etc. You talk to your relatives and friends about it to spread awareness. If you live in a democracy, effect policy change through your representatives. Etc etc.
  - jacooper 3y ago
    There is no way any individual action will affect climate change. Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Taking the subway or not flying often or not eating mear won't change much if anything at all, its just virtue signaling. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestures-trivialize-the-very-serious-challenge-of-climate-change/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestur...
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      > Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course. It's rather strange that the most ardent Climate Crusaders are against nuclear power, too.
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
This sounds like the old trick of mixing in two buckets into one to make each original bucket appear larger than it actually was.
Proven 3y ago
[dead]

34 points by simmerup 3y ago

babelthuap 3y ago

Said every ancient collapsed civilization.

realworldperson 3y ago
[dead]
fortran77 3y ago
When does one stop being a displaced person. All 4 of my grandparents were kicked out or had to leave the area their families were living in for generations (after being kicked out of other places). Am I a "displaced person?"
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  You might be a Jew or a Gypsy.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    Your second term is considered a racial slur
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      Might. Anything might. However, if you actually talk to them, it isn't. What would you replace it with? Rom or Roma? In that case, you would be mislabeling a lot of them since the Rom are only one of the Gypsy groups (but it is the largest). You would also be pissing off all Romanians who absolutely, positively do not under any circumstances want to be confused with Gypsies. Would you say "Roma and Sinti"? That's the two largest Gypsy groups (or is it the largest and third-largest?). There are many others. No, just call them Gypsies. Are you done virtue signaling?
      - dmbche 3y ago
        https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128696&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128696&page=1 Those sure are a lot of justifications for using slurs against marginalised groups
- dmbche 3y ago
  I'd assume that when you settle you stop being displaced? There is - I assume - a moment after having been displaced when you decide to live somewhere else and not come back - at that point you're just a resident, i'd guess.

melling 3y ago

“linked to climate change” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods Are we linking every weather event to climate change? Can we tighten up our science a little? Somewhere I read that the Pakistan issue was not related to climate change and more to do with where the people lived. More people are living in flood zones, for example.

ChatGTP 3y ago
If you look at the insane rise in global sea surface temperatures lately I don’t think we can just fall back to this old assertion. Weather isn’t climate, this is true, but it’s going to be pretty difficult to find weather that isn’t affected but such a rapid change in the climate. In other words, all weather is now weather like we’ve never seen before because we’ve drifted so far from the mean.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  We’ve barely drifted from the mean. Most design codes have only increased storm loading by ~5% for climate change and that is conservative. The parent is right, most increases in storm damage rates are because humans are building more stuff where storms are, changes due to climate change are negligible in comparison.
momdad420 3y ago
[dead]
dmbche 3y ago
The wiki explains it in the first paragraph - flood liked to heavier monsoons and melting glaciers resulting from climate change. Edit: Removed some phrasing
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  Why do you think people choose to live in places that get flooded? Pakistan's population is a bit over 230 million now (or maybe even 240 million). It was around 45 million in 1960 (not including Bangladesh). It was around 23 million in 1900 (not including the rest of British India). The numbers vary a bit depending on source but the overall trend is unmistakable. This increase is not due to "Climate Change" but to increases in public health (cleaner water, better sewers/latrines, soap, plumbing=easier hand washing, cleaner food, vaccinations) and available food (many, many more calories + vitamins). If the Pakistanis choose to spend that wealth increase on a population growth instead of increase in personal wealth, well, that is not our fault. Perhaps they made the right choice, perhaps not. It's up to them. --- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-4624.2013.tb00005.x#:~:text=The%20modern%20expansion%20of%20the,from%2023%20million%20in%201900 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-4624..... Edit: minor copy editing to tighten up the language.

mc32 3y ago

If everything remains constant but the population keeps growing, the amount of population affected by phenomenon Y will also increase every year.

nostrebored 3y ago
Most populations geographically are not growing.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  But the Pakistani population is growing. The Bangladeshi population is growing. Pakistani was hit by a big flood that affected lots of people -- not merely because the flood was so big (it really was!), but because there are so many people in Pakistan that many of them have to live in risky places. Bangladesh is regularly hit by floods, which largely affect areas where people didn't use to live, simply because there are so many people in Bangladesh that many of them have to live in risky places. Bangladesh is also flood prone due to misfortunes of geography (nothing at all to do with climate change or population explosion). And then there are the local effects of large populations: felling of mangrove forests in Bangladesh, deforestation in general (Pakistan), people living on former meadows, people putting in barriers that prevent minor local "floods" (really just temporary widening of rivers) which lead to major floods, ... And, yes, there is also climate change => deglaciation, more rainfall, and more extreme weather. But anybody who tries to downplay the role of population growth in the recent disasters in Pakistan and Bangladesh is lying to you and probably trying to sell you something.
smt88 3y ago
In percentages, the YoY increases in displacement are far greater than population growth.

dmbche 3y ago

"The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) reached a record 71.1 million worldwide last year due to conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and climate calamities like the monsoon floods in Pakistan, according to data published on Thursday. The Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) said that figure represented a 20% increase since 2021, with an unprecedented number of people fleeing in search of safety and shelter." 20% increase!! For people talking about how this is statistical manipulation, good luck justifying 20%

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

I think article is a good example that current events and world news is basically bad for you. What can we say about this article? - it’s alarming, particularly if you already happened to hold the view that it’s all going to hell - it’s not actionable, there’s nothing you can or should do differently as a result of this article - it’s probably not even meaningful, the world is a random event generator and the worse event or piece of news on any given day is terrible! But that says nothing about how things actually are The last point bears repeating. If you read a news article and update your understanding of the world to think “X is more common than I thought” after reading an article on X - you often end up less informed than if you hadn’t read the article at all. Replace X for any rare event that occurs in the news. The availability of the news on a thing is not the rate of the thing happening.

throwaway290 3y ago
Defeatism at its worst. What better way to not have to fix a problem than to choose to be unaware of it? The articles that make you uncomfortable first inform you. Then you think. Then you make personal choices to reduce pollution, pick sustainable ways of living and transportation etc. You talk to your relatives and friends about it to spread awareness. If you live in a democracy, effect policy change through your representatives. Etc etc.
- jacooper 3y ago
  There is no way any individual action will affect climate change. Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Taking the subway or not flying often or not eating mear won't change much if anything at all, its just virtue signaling. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestures-trivialize-the-very-serious-challenge-of-climate-change/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestur...
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    > Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course. It's rather strange that the most ardent Climate Crusaders are against nuclear power, too.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

This sounds like the old trick of mixing in two buckets into one to make each original bucket appear larger than it actually was.

Proven 3y ago

[dead]