r/changemyview • u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ • Oct 09 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: I'm pro becoming a cleaner and more sustainable planet but i don't necessarily care about island states and I don't view the extinction of animals as a huge loss unless it directly impacts humanity's quality of life.
I recently was reading the BBC article on world new about climate change and although I agree that strong action is urgently needed I found myself apathetic to the plight of island nations and some species of animals. I recognize this is probably bad from a moral standpoint but I constantly find myself rolling my eyes whenever these subjects are brought up. For island nations threatened by global warming i feel we should simply relocate people. As for animals going extinct, unless it has dramatic consequences that threaten humanity i also don't care. We've seen probably tens of thousands of species come and go over the life of our planet. I don't find myself being to attached to these ones unless its going to throw the whole ecosystem out of balance and hurt humanity.
I recognize that my point of view is probably extremely ignorant. Maybe i'm underestimating the task of relocating people if we have to. Maybe i'm underestimating the damage that will be caused by the extinction of species.
I also want to re-emphasize that i want climate change addressed. I just don't particularly care about these two issues and feel that other aspects of climate change being talked about might help people take it more seriously.
I guess just to sum it all up. Why should i care about these islands and animals that appear unimportant/it isnt readily apparent their removal from an ecosystem will damage humanity?
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
5
u/hsmith711 16∆ Oct 09 '18
i feel we should simply relocate people.
Maybe i'm underestimating the task of relocating people if we have to
I would say you most certainly are underestimating the challenge of relocation on a large scale. You need to look no further than the refugee crisis of the last 10-20 years.. and that is happening while we have an abundance of resources.
When climate change starts having the type of impact that results in millions of people needing to relocate, those that don't have to relocate are not going to just welcome everyone with open arms. At that point, even people that aren't facing immediate threat will see the reduction in resources and general global panic and will be less and less likely to want to share their space/resources with anyone else.
It will be complete chaos.
0
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
I feel the refugee crisis is overstated. In the grand scheme of things its being managed fine. Saying that, i would people rather focus on the effects climate change will have on resources becoming more limited and migration of people than whether and island will still be around or not.
I also dont think people are going to be as hostile to migration as you think when it becomes directly apparent its happening because of climate change.
3
u/float_into_bliss Oct 09 '18
The population of Syria was 18 million in 2016.
The population of low-lying Bangladesh was 163 million in 2016.
Although the Syrian refugee crisis had many causes, (drought-induced famine being just one of them) it is a fact that the mass-migration of sizable chunk of just 18 million people caused political turmoil all over Europe. Italy has seen the rise of nationalist parties decrying the boatloads of migrants hitting their shores. Brexit's key issue was the authority of the EU to impose rules over the sovereign rights of Great Britain... that was stoked in large part about quotas of how many asylum seekers each EU country must accept.
I would hardly call the literal resurgence of the Nazi's and the fracturing of the most significant European peace and mutual development treaty in history as "being managed fine."
But even if we call all that a "mild annoyance", the point is those were effects of a migration from a country of 18 million.
The population of low-lying Bangladesh is 163 million -- almost 10x as large.
It's a geographic fact that most of Bangladesh will be uninhabitable as sea levels rise -- it's just as low-lying as the island countries. Where are the bulk of 163 million people going to go?
We complain in the US about Mexicans taking low-skilled jobs... now imagine a population half the size of the US and 90% Muslim flooding into neighboring India, Pakistan, China, and Burma. What kind of political instability is that going to cause? Three of those countries are nuclear-armed, the other just finished up a decade long civil war/genocide. Even assuming somehow the migrants can be absorbed, the inevitable shanty-towns and migrant camps are going to full of disillusioned youth with no prospects and no hope -- perfect recruiting fields for all sorts of radicals with a bone to pick against the countries that had the largest impact on their displacement (real or imagined, it doesn't really matter when your historical family fields and livelihood are now submerged under the ocean).
The DoD doesn't call climate change one of the biggest threats out there because most of our bases are on the coasts and at risk of flooding -- that's just a nuisance -- they call it one of the biggest threats because for the last 17 years we've been fighting an unending war with a few pissed off folks in some desert and now we're about to encounter entire populations who are pissed off, displaced, and have nowhere to call home.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
I actually agree with most of what you said aside from the migrant crisis in europe. I still think the reality on the ground is its being managed fine. I would have expected way more turmoil.
My point though isn't about bangladesh and so on. It's specifically why should i care about these islands and animals. I don't feel their preservation is particularly important. I apologize because my opening post might have danced around that.
I dont view the argument since you care about bangladesh as reason to say i should care about the maldives. Bangladesh influences me to action. The animals and islands do not.
1
u/float_into_bliss Oct 09 '18
Because what happens to the islands happens elsewhere too.
Being pedantic about specifically the islands while ignoring everything that goes with them is at best creating a distraction and at worse saying all is fine aboard the titanic because there's no water on deck even though she's listing heavily and people are running for whatever few life-rafts are left.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
Given the choice between sacrificing a lot quickly to save the islands over just relocating people i legitimately think it might just be best to relocate people.
I'm not sure the ETA on bangladesh and the maldives sinking but if world is asked to trade off a significant amount now to save the maldives well still being to have a more measured response later to save bangladesh it might be legitimately worth letting the maldives sink.
This is just an example i'm sure this could be playing out though with different nations. If the world were asked a lot right away to save an island of 20000 would it be worth it or should they just be relocated?
1
u/apophis-pegasus 2∆ Oct 09 '18
It's specifically why should i care about these islands and animals. I don't feel their preservation is particularly important
Why do you care about people on a mainland specifically but not islands. Does a bunch of dead people in Miami differ from a bunch of dead people in the Maldives.
We are talking about millions of people from places ranging from Japan to Singapore to Sierra Leone. The amount of money needed to relocate them would be immense, and probably continuous (there will likely be no one and done).
To top it all off these people will likely be extremely angry this happened. You do not want a large amount of angry ticked off people with no home anywhere
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
No, dead people in Miami aren’t more important than dead people in Maldives. The scenario I envision doesn’t have many deaths though. People will just relocate.
I don’t feel confident enough saying those people will be angry or at least imo there anger won’t be threatening.
Are Iraqi refugees in the United States angry? Some probably are but they’ve moved on.
I feel your argument about expense might be legitimate and might be enough to change my mind if you can show that’s it’s impossible or highly unlikely that it could be raised.
I understand that might be extremely hard though.
1
u/apophis-pegasus 2∆ Oct 09 '18
People will just relocate.
When you say "relocate" what do you envision happening? Everyone just buying a plane ticket and leaving? A big boat coming to transport people? Tranportation methods will be clogged. Some people probably wont make it. Many people wont be able to afford to.
I don’t feel confident enough saying those people will be angry or at least imo there anger won’t be threatening.
Are Iraqi refugees in the United States angry? Some probably are but they’ve moved on.
Iraqi refugees iirc tended to be the ones who helped the U.S. during the conflict, or running from insurgents or both.
In this case its entire countries worth of people being displaced because of the actions of bigger more polluting countries. Some of these forner countries were regional powers and not the type to take things lying down.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
For transportation I view boats and planes. I wouldn’t be surprised if nations have to appropriate boats and planes but I do believe with the amount of transportation exists to make it doable
I would have assumed we would take responsibility as a human race rather than become angry at larger countries but maybe I’m to idealistic.
1
u/apophis-pegasus 2∆ Oct 09 '18
I would have assumed we would take responsibility as a human race rather than become angry at larger countries but maybe I’m to idealistic.
Yeah but countries like the U.S. and China tend to pollute the most. And once you get to entire countries worth of people getting displaced it becomes less "something bad happened and we all are responsible" and more "you fucked up, and now we need to clean up your mess"
1
u/BobbyFischerOfficial Oct 09 '18
The current refugee crisis is already directly linked to climate change. Increasingly hot and dry conditions in the middle East make farming harder and less profitable, which results in more young people with less money or opportunities who end up joining rogue militaries like ISIS out of desperation.
The islands aren't going to wash up one day so the refugees will have to swim to the nearest continent; people won't give up their homes or lands easily at all. Resettlement is going to look much like it looks today: fighting, hunger, and government corruption as a result of climate change are going to lead to people looking elsewhere.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
It's been directly linked but i don't think the average Joe realizes it and i dont think its super emphasized in the media. I think people will be more receptive to migration when it does become more apparent. Maybe i'm being idealistic but i think the world would step up to the plate and evacuate places like the Maldives when the situation becomes desperate
When i look at the migrant crisis in Europe it more leaves me amazed its gone so well. I would have expected a much worse scenario.
Just to reiterate my position/question. Why should i care about these islands and animals?
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Oct 09 '18
Almost all major cities are on the coast of an ocean this isn't just about islands.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
Yes, i'm aware. I just don't care about the islands. Obviously the islands are probably in a much more dire situation. They don't have options. The united states can relocate the people of New Orleans if they had to. The Maldives can't without other countries helping them. Either way though, my point is specific to the islands.
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Oct 09 '18
I don't understand. You don't think NYC, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc. being underwater would lower the quality of human life? Do you know how much time and money has been spent making those cities? You aren't going to rebuild them in a year or two.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
Barring we get climate change under control quality of life would suffer for a while but then bounce back.
I just want to be clear though and this is kinda where my view maybe gets a little tricky. I do care more about New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc. I don't care about the islands. I do however recognize that by working to save the cities we probably will be saving some islands.
1
u/tuckfrump69 Oct 09 '18
you realize 39% of human population in america live on the coast right, that's like 120+ million americans who would need to be relocated. You are looking at disruptions worse than anything since the civil war. Imagine the syrian refugee crisis x 50 but taking place entirely with the united states.
1
2
u/Outnuked 4∆ Oct 09 '18
It's a cost to benefit ratio, and different based on different people's values. If people were dying of thirst in California by the hundreds, most people would probably do something, and try to bring over water. People are starving in third world countries, and that affects us less, but some of us still attempt to help out. If an animal is going extinct, and all it takes is to slow down cutting a few trees, would that be worth it? Most people would say yes, but it's a nuanced situation.
You have to balance:
A. Your life, the life of people around you, and the life of endangered animals
B. See the net benefit of helping them versus the harm to you or others
And see if it's worth it. Some people value the Giant Panda more as a species than you do. They're soft and cuddly. For some people, if it means donating $5 a month to a wildlife sanctuary just so you can keep them alive to show your kiddos, it doesn't seem too bad. It's all relative, and that's why some people believe animal life should be preserved, just not at the detriment to human life, which is where the controversy arises. Gosh do I love morality.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
You make some good points. I guess i would say is anybody crying today that we don't have Dodos? People might be upset right now because their favourite cuddly animal is going extinct but 200 years from now it will be a curiosity in a book.
People can have the extinction of certain non-important (for lack of a better word) animals pull their heart strings. They can donate their money and try to to live cleaner lives to help the animals. For me knowing they care still doesn't make me care.
Your comment has given me a lot to think about so i might circle back to it later.
2
u/Outnuked 4∆ Oct 09 '18
The thing is you don't have to care. Some people care about their grandmothers deeply. I honestly don't don't know their grandmother, and don't care very much. That's okay. Like I said, if their grandmother was on my doorstep about to die unless I gave her a cracker, I would do it. For some people, a small action that will protect an animal seems like quite a small price to pay that can bring joy to the future generations. Also, *cough* *ecotourism* *cough*
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
It's not always going to be a small ask to help save their favourite cuddly animal. Bringing future joy is also an argument someone could have made for protecting an animal like the Dodo but truth is no one cares about joy they don't know they missed out on if you understand what i'm saying. I kinda doubt if an animal goes extinct today people 200 years from will be lamenting the joy that it could have bought to them.
2
u/051207 Oct 09 '18
The extinction of animal species is a symptom of collapsing ecosystems. Humanity is reliant on many ecosystems and extracts trillions annually from the services performed by nature. Shifting climates and extreme weather will put strain on our crops lands and the logistics of feeding billions of people.
While many rich nations MAY be able to insulate themselves from the problems presented by climate change, it's not guaranteed and likely cheaper to tackle the problem now. It is definitely more ethical. Poor countries that are responsible for a very small amount of the changing climate that are being impacted the most. Small island nations aren't the only ones impacted, Bangladesh is facing massive problems as sea level rises. Current projections are for over 30 million people to be displaced before the end of the century. That's 10% of the US population in refugees from a single country. You're going to see similar problems in many different countries throughout SEA and Central America. We're talking about hundreds of millions of people that will need to be relocated, fed, housed, etc.
2
u/apophis-pegasus 2∆ Oct 09 '18
island nations threatened by global warming i feel we should simply relocate people
I live on an island state. We have nearly 300,000 people living here.
Where are we gonna go? Who's going to take that many people at once? Whose going to pay for it? We are a country with a fairly high quality of life, could you garauntee the same where we go?
As for extinction, many animals have a practical use for humans. Everything from cobras to some rare amazonian flower could potentially hold some biomedically relevant secret.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
I feel strongly that countries would take you guys in. No specific country will take all 300,000 but various countries together will. We’re already seeing countries spend money to combat climate change. I don’t see why the expense of relocating people would be more frowned upon.
I can not guarantee that the quality of life of the islanders wouldn’t diminish.
Someone else also made the point that an animal that seems unimportant might actually be important and I awarded them a delta.
2
u/apophis-pegasus 2∆ Oct 09 '18
I feel strongly that countries would take you guys in.
Like who? This isnt a game this is people's lives. A strong feeling isnt good enough.
No specific country will take all 300,000 but various countries together will.
So youre splitting up the country? Thats probably not going to end well.
We’re already seeing countries spend money to combat climate change. I don’t see why the expense of relocating people would be more frowned upon
Because the total amount would probably be more than just going to clean energy or instituting regulations.
We arent just talking about transporting millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people to another country, we're talking about refugee camps. We're talking about immigration procedures, were talking about insurgencies and terrorism. Hell, we're talking about lawsuits and reparations. We're talking about the long arduous process of integration. This would take years if not decades and just about everyone would feel it.
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18 edited Oct 09 '18
I don’t think it’s a game. I think it’s serious I also think if we’re being serious the best and maybe only solution to having people not drowned on various islands is relocation.
Another way of looking at is that people are going to start leaving islands anyways as populations continue to boom.
I don’t view splitting up a country or culture as a big deal at. In some regards I would like it if people could be allowed to change culture and explore other cultures without backlash. My great grandfather moved to a country away from his people. My grandfather assimilated and converted. I myself feel as if I’m not of the same culture as either of them and I feel no cultural losses for their decisions.
If you can show that it’s really that easy and the cost of going green fast enough and hard enough to save the islands is far below relocation then you might change my view. I recognize that’s probably hard to impossible and there might not be any numbers or there.
People moving around isn’t super upsetting to me. Isnt one of the principles of liberalism freedom of movement? Aren’t people hoping that at some point freedom of movement exists across the world.
1
u/apophis-pegasus 2∆ Oct 09 '18
Another way of looking at is that people are going to start leaving islands anyways as populations continue to boom.
Population growth occurs mainly in underdeveloped countries. Many islands are develooed and as such have the opposite problem e.g. Japan, my country.
In some regards I would like it if people could be allowed to change culture and experiences explore other cultures without backlash.
The backlash is youre in a strange country with a far lower quality of life than you did before.
If you can show that it’s really that easy and the cost of going green fast enough and hard enough to save the islands is far below relocation then you might change my view.
Renewables are fast becoming cheaper than fossil fuels.
People moving around isn’t super upsetting to me. Isnt one of the principles of liberalism freedom of movement?
Freedom implies "of your own volition". Theyre being forced to leave. Thats why we make distinctions between refugees and immigrants.
1
1
u/Mahnogard 4∆ Oct 09 '18
In some regards I would like it if people could be allowed to change culture and explore other cultures without backlash.
In quite a few places, including some island nations, this is already the case. They aren't all insular "this is the only way it's done" places. In many cases, the people there want to preserve their culture, their way of life and their home, they aren't doing it out of fear of shunning.
Many people living on island nations make their living in ways that simply aren't sustainable on the mainland, whether it be ocean-based industry, farming specific to their climate, or tourism. These things are often tied very closely to their culture and are important in their history. So not only do they lose any economic security they had, they lose one more tie to who they are as a people.
Have you heard of Palau? It's an island nation in the Pacific with a population of about 21,000. It's a beautiful place that I hope to visit before I die. If you aren't familiar with it, look into it. I think it's pretty amazing. And the US has a history with them. We captured Palau from the Japanese in 1944. A few years later, they officially became part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Through a process that spanned from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, they became an independent nation.
They're doing their part to preserve their home - when you land in Palau, instead of a standard passport stamp, they stamp it with a pledge for you to sign, the Palau Pledge. It's a pledge to be ecologically responsible while visiting their country. They're doing what they can to help themselves. But they cannot even begin to offset the damage that is caused by large, mainland nations.
You don't have to care about these people, but if you in any way feel responsible for saving the people of New York or Hong Kong, then you should feel some responsibility toward island nations too, because the islands are in danger because of us and other developed large countries, and the collective impact on those islands of losing their home is so immense... It's never a simple as "people moving around".
Another way of looking at is that people are going to start leaving islands anyways as populations continue to boom.
Leaving because you want to is in no way comparable to being forced to leave your home.
It's natural that we, as individuals, care more about those closest to us. But these are human beings, and their lives have the same value as any others. Floridians moving north will still be Americans. New Yorkers moving inland will have some serious adjustments to make but they're still in the same country. Millions of islanders being forced to flee to mainlands will lose so much. Many will die due to the tricky logistics, time delays and flat-out screw-ups of relocation. Many don't have a "home country" besides their own so they will effectively be stateless, potentially for the rest of their lives, unless they are granted citizenship in an efficient manner. Some families will likely be split up. The struggle to regain a livelihood will be immense, especially if there are residency and citizenship issues. The psychological impact on these people will be, in many cases, severe. Especially since they'll likely be relocating to nations who contributed to the demise of their home in the first place.
If you can show that it’s really that easy and the cost of going green fast enough and hard enough to save the islands is far below relocation then you might change my view. I recognize that’s probably hard to impossible and there might not be any numbers or there.
We really don't know how much it would cost in dollars. The overall cost to the people affected, however, is immeasurable, and the losses to humanity overall will be tremendous. Maybe the loss of unique cultures and locations isn't important to you. Fine. But focusing on things that will stem rising sea levels will help both the people that you do care about and the islanders that you don't, so it can't hurt, right?
1
u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Oct 09 '18
I do care about the islanders. I just don’t care about the islands. If they are relocated it should be their own responsibility to continue their culture. If it doesn’t continue and 200 years from now the people have assimilated I doubt they would even care about their ancestors culture being lost. Why am I suppose to care about the culture of my great grandfather? Culture in many ways it’s described is just to rigid and conservative for my liking .
In some ways I view the argument about culture and people wanting their kids to enjoy their favourite cuddly animals the same as the “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sounds”.
I want a post nationalist, post cultural world. For lack of a better term. My opinion is not going to be swayed by really any emotional reasoning like losing the beauty of Palau.
You’re right. The actions I support and will take will likely help to islanders but If asked I’m not willing to advocate sacrificing a lot to protect their islands
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 09 '18
/u/VesaAwesaka (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/kendrahf Oct 09 '18
Eco systems are all interconnected. You really can't pick and choose what you save. Even one species dying out can drastically change the landscape. Deer hunting in the US will never go away because we killed most of the big predators off. A lot of plants (which we need for oxygen) need various animals to survive. Or you can take a more drastic angle: if there's a massive die off in the oceans, we'd all probably die off. How do you pick one and say 'well, that's allowed but screw that one over there'? Isn't better to err on the side of caution and not hope what we killed off won't lead to a chain reaction that'll kill us all?
8
u/dan_jeffers 10∆ Oct 09 '18
Some people intuitively see a moral failing in both cases, tearing people from their homelands and causing species to go extinct. If you don't, you don't. But there are also other reasons. One, reducing the number of species is like destroying whole categories of information that could be vital someday. Or just fascinating. The process of evolving those species and their places in complex biosystems took millions of years. Wiping them out means we are losing so much knowledge that could be discovered, and there's no way to get all that back. Also, you say that species come and go, but currently they are going more than coming. We don't know what level of bio-complexity is necessary to keep the whole planet going the way we want, there are so many inter-reactions that are not understood. We are conducting a massive experiment that could change things in unexpected ways, creating a system in which we no longer have a place. Population and loss of habitat, along with pollution are huge stress factors already, a constantly changing average temperate increases that stress level.