Europeans — especially Germans — are increasingly keen on curbing immigration and are less focused on climate change, according to a study by a Danish-based think tank.
You do know that not very many people live in those places, right? It wouldn’t be sustainable. India has over a billion people and the Himalayan glaciers they depend on for water are not getting replenished.
I’m pretty sure moving from a place that has no water to a place that has water does, in fact, fix the problem. Maybe you would prefer them to just die?
Okay, so the plan is move tye entirity of china here then? All 1.4 billion people?
Thats not a reasonable goal. Even you moved in 10 percent of china, youd overwhelm every social service and everything else for that matter. And youd be leaving 90% of china to die while destroying the west’s ability to function.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. And you’ve moved them more than once already.
First you claimed that it would be sustainable for the over a billion people in India to stay where they were because it’s possible to survive in tundras and deserts.
Then you said that moving them to a place where water exists wouldn’t fix the problem of them dying due to a lack of a water.
Then you asked why water would exist in the new place, which was just a silly question for anyone who understands basic geography.
Now you’re talking about moving all of China, when China wasn’t even discussed.
And at each step, you haven’t gone back to the previous one and acknowledged it was a silly thing to say.
I never said India, this is the first comment india was uttered. Youre the one that brought up glaciers. And China is largely watered by glaciers, its the logical next part in the discussion. And even it was India, they also have over a billion people and you face the same problem with simply too many people.
You do know that not very many people live in those places, right? It wouldn’t be sustainable. India has over a billion people and the Himalayan glaciers they depend on for water are not getting replenished.
And moving them here doesnt fix the sustainability problem either. It just moves sustainability problems here.
I’m pretty sure moving from a place that has no water to a place that has water does, in fact, fix the problem. Maybe you would prefer them to just die?
Who says therell be water here?
If there isn’t, enjoy dying of thirst.
But generally, places that don’t rely on glaciers for their water do better than places that do in a warming world.
Okay, so the plan is move tye entirity of china here then? All 1.4 billion people?
Thats not a reasonable goal. Even you moved in 10 percent of china, youd overwhelm every social service and everything else for that matter. And youd be leaving 90% of china to die while destroying the west’s ability to function.
Migration is not a solution.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. And you’ve moved them more than once already.
First you claimed that it would be sustainable for the over a billion people in India to stay where they were because it’s possible to survive in tundras and deserts.
Then you said that moving them to a place where water exists wouldn’t fix the problem of them dying due to a lack of a water.
Then you asked why water would exist in the new place, which was just a silly question for anyone who understands basic geography.
Now you’re talking about moving all of China, when China wasn’t even discussed.
And at each step, you haven’t gone back to the previous one and acknowledged it was a silly thing to say.
I never said India, this is the first comment india was uttered. Youre the one that brought up glaciers. And China is largely watered by glaciers, its the logical next part in the discussion. And even it was India, they also have over a billion people and you face the same problem with simply too many people.
Immigration is not a solution.
So you’re not going to acknowledge anything else you said. I guess there’s no point in this conversation continuing.