[Timo]

Reading several of the other threads here, scattered about in different topic forums, i started to wonder if we're getting a pretty clear glimpse of our future, and that future combines several factors that the world is experiencing now, but in isolated contexts.

Let's starts in the European Union, specifically in Turkey and Greece. Those two countries are being overwhelmed with political refugees from Syria/Libya, Yemen, and a few other war-torn nations scattered around the Mediterranean and Middle East. Clearly, neither Turkey nor Greece can single-handedly manage the current, ongoing refugee crisis, and so the European Union has stepped in to help out. This help has resulted in domestic turmoil in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, England, France, and every other European nation that's been called upon by its leaders to do the right thing by humanitarian standards. Apparently, people's willingness to lend humanitarian assistance has limits when that assistance infringes on their own personal well-being in their daily lives. Here in the US, several Red-States have flat-out banned the acceptance of any refugees. Period. This ban was originally targeted toward Muslims, but to be PC about it, they just said to no everyone worldwide. A few Presidential candidates aren't being so PC about their refusal to allow Muslim refugees into the US. They're bragging about what they'd do to people seeking our help.

Now, throw in the impending flood of refugees from sea-level rise, drought, famine, rising temperatures, lack of water, etc........ on top of the religious refugees, the political refugees, the economic refugees, and the refugees fleeing war-torn areas, all on top of our presently demonstrated inability to humanely manage the volume of refugees the world is experiencing now, and what have you got?

The US has real problems accepting political refugees if those refugees are Muslim. We place political and religious caveats on our willingness to help others survive wars in their own countries, and those caveats will not go away if you substitute any other cause for the refugees in place of war. If their home country has no water, sorry. They're Muslim, so we won't offer them refugee status in our country. Instead, we'll just force the problems onto other countries that are smaller with less capacity to handle the problems.

Suppose ISIL starts using chemical weapons in different nations throughout the ME. The same limitations on our willingness to help apply. Of course, we would start bombing those nations to high heaven if that were to happen, but that only causes more refugees to flee those countries, and the same religious limitations on our willingness to accept those refugees remain in place.

Everyone here realizes the pending calamities of AGW. Most of us realize that a big part of AGW will result in the massive relocation of billions of people to other, more hospitable parts of the planet. Some of us realize that when push comes to shove, when those climatic refugees start showing up at our borders, we'll shut them down. A few of us realize that the reasons we refuse humanitarian aide to those in greatest need are based on irrational fears, and selfish inhumane behaviors to protect our own resources, lest they be used up sooner with more people depending on and using those already limited resources.

What does the world look like under those circumstances? We're getting a glimpse right now, based on only one factor among many other factors to come. Throw in larger wars, greater effects from AGW, and greater desperation for billions of people, all seeking assistance and the chance to live in a better world, i'm not sure the rest of us with the capacity to help those others in need will be willing to do so. The future may well become a test of survival of the fittest, and the fittest just happens to coincide with the locations of the resources in the greatest abundance. It will become the greatest test of humanitarian compassion the world has ever seen.

Are we up for it? Will we survive the challenges ahead of us? Will the fittest of humans become the OP and refuse assistance to the weakest, just to preserve our own resources and safety, and religious sanctimony?

And in case anyone thinks i'm picking only on western and European countries, i'm not. Religious sanctimony applies to most nations in the ME, as well, perhaps even more so than in the western world. No one is immune from self-interest. That principle applies to those who don't give a f*ck about religious sanctimony, and only want a chance at a better life. Whatever anyone's religion is, it makes no difference to others with the capacity to offer assistance who don't share that religion. Substitute Communism for religion, and we'd be more than happy to accept refugees from China, or N. Korea. We'd even gladly accept Christian refugees from Syria, but not Muslims. Our humanity has religious limits.

How will we handle the flow of migrants under all of the circumstances that lie ahead? Refugees will not stop being produced anytime soon. If anything, their numbers will increase every year for decades to come.

[ennui2]

"What does the world look like under those circumstances?"

We can afford to look at anti-immigration as xenophobia right now, because there's still a surplus of resources, but eventually it will teeter over to lifeboat ethics.

[Tanada]

If you look at the broad scope of human history most cultures have gone through phases I have written about extensively here and elsewhere. Something I have not emphasized much is the 'lifeboat equation' as I think of it.

When two tribes came into conflict over resources there were three basic outcomes when one side won and the other lost. Worst case scenario for the losing side, they are captured and killed to remove their potential of becoming a future threat. Second stage scenario, the women and girls who are most easily controlled are kept alive as servant/slave/brides for the victorious side in the conflict, men and boys are killed off. Third stage, the losing tribe is integrated into the winning tribe as slaves. Often in third stage the slaves are hereditary, the children born to the slaves grow up as slaves and remain slaves for life. This is more or less what was being done in the USA from the 1700-1865 period. Fourth stage slavery morphs into serfdom where the class structure keeps the field workers down and the elites up, but the serfs have many more rights than slaves had.

What determines which stage happens when two tribes war and one side loses badly enough to be completely dominated by the other? Economics of survival! If the winning tribe has a hard time supporting its own population it simply can not afford the resources to integrate serfs with rights into the group. If things are even worse a large influx of slaves is more than they can afford so the excess male/boy section of the vanquished are eliminated. If they are really struggling to survive the only viable answer is to completely eliminate the vanquished as unsupportable drain on resources.

Note that all of these economic drivers are a range of values, when you are going to a more desperate situation the first elimination is of strong vanquished males who are most likely to rebel along with anyone from the vanquished who can not labor to support the tribe. When the situation is bad enough to eliminate the boys and older women, then the youngest girls and least attractive women, and so on right down the scale to the point where no matter how attractive a captured 'slave' is she is eliminated as not being worth the cost of feeding her.

We have about 7.4 Billion humans on the planet as I type this. In a true survival situation how many of them would you personally be willing to do away with if it were a choice between your spouse and children's lives, or the strangers life? If and when we start seeing actual serious food deficits the world is going to turn very very ugly, very quickly. On one level ethics is about helping a stranger as if they were family, but when you are desperate to survive ethics morphs into how do you protect your spouse/offspring/tribe from "the other" trying to survive as well?

[Paulo1]

Good time to reread Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath". They still make jokes about 'okies' in California and those refugees were American, White, and Christian. The Dust Bowl only took a few years to start the migration/exodus westward. It will be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot.

[Timo]

Good points Tanada and Paulo. The underlying premise of this topic is one of ethics. How far are we really willing to stretch our ethics for the good of the whole, as opposed to the good of ourselves? I don't have an answer to that question. I'm just certain that we will all soon find out, and the answer may not be pretty at all.

[Paulo1]

Speaking just for myself, our door would be open until we were really up against it. I bought some propertry a few years ago in case family needed a place to set up. Neighbours can use ground for gardens, now, but I have found they don't bother unless I do all the work. Times just aren't tough enough, I guess; maybe yet. Hopefully, it won't degenerate to that point.

I live in a somewhat poor rural valley. Right now, I believe many locals think the Govt. will always be there to bail them out. There are a great many on Social Assistance, or at least there used to be around here. People seem to get by. Those who booze always seem to get enough for that, and smokes. I suppose it is the same for druggies. There is a Food Bank, in town. A newly arrived woman a few years ago railed that we had no local food bank. Her kids had nothing to eat. This was after I slipped into our freezer and loaded her up with salmon, beef, veggies, and some canned stuff. Then, I found out she always had enough for beer and smokes at the corner store. After that, when the food bank subject came up I advised that it not be done. I mentioned this to my friend's wife, who is a Social Worker Supervisor in town and she agreed and advised not to do it. Quote: "Build it and they will come". Now, we contribute to the scholarship fund for local kids and to the seniors Christmas dinner and hampers.

I have noticed that many now on the dole seem to be scammers. Sure, they lack life skills, but they would rather just have cash. I do know that when it gets tough for locals we pitch in with what's needed, as needed. My son provides an old beat up house to our friend who was getting evicted with his trailer. He is now the 'watchman' and helps with firewood and lawn cutting. He has a shop with every known tool to mankind and is always setting us up when he sees a need. It is one of those win win relationships. I suppose when he passes on someone else will be living there doing something similar. When he moved into the house he gave his trailer away to another guy who didn't have a home. He just had to get it moved. I suspect this is what it will be like around here, and more of the same.

[Peak_Yeast]

It is estimated and verified several times that about 75% of the "refugees" are migrants seeking better life - thus its safe to say that the majority are lying themselves to be abandoned minors and/or from warstricken countries.

[americandream]

Blinkers is something I notice across the board of activities I engage in. You see this in trading whee despite clear evidence that the markets are not riggable, traders still persist in blaming their failures on banks, or brokers or whatever rather than half cocked ntions.

And we see that in geo-political affairs involving the US and its traditional ally, Islam. Islam of the Saudi kind, paid for and formented for proxying value. Aimed at countries such as Russia and even India...though less so the Chinese who have filled many coffers with their labour surplus.

Thus in all this hysteria and wall building, what is anyone proposing that we do about this arrangement which is now proving to be too costly. Apart from some vague references from Trump, lots of woe betide yer hysteria from the same right wing that is in bed with the Saudis, nothing.

The global economy goes down the gurgler as a consequence in another one of these nasty cyclicals that bedevil us due to this incompetence.

The only nation that once again looks like it may be saving capitalisms bacon in the meantime, Russia, is hobbled time and time again.

These discussions about refugees are about as useful as discussions about the breeding habits of cockroaches for as long as we preserve the driver of extremism in the Islamic world.

[Timo]

These discussions about refugees are about as useful as discussions about the breeding habits of cockroaches for as long as we preserve the driver of extremism in the Islamic world.

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, no one is forcing you.

[vtsnowedin]

.....
Everyone here realizes the pending calamities of AGW. Most of us realize that a big part of AGW will result in the massive relocation of billions of people to other, more hospitable parts of the planet. Some of us realize that when push comes to shove, when those climatic refugees start showing up at our borders, we'll shut them down. A few of us realize that the reasons we refuse humanitarian aide to those in greatest need are based on (irrational fears),(Totally rational concerns.) and (selfish inhumane behaviors) (Necessary policies) to protect our own resources, lest they be used up sooner with more people depending on and using those already limited resources.
........
There fixed that for you.

[americandream]

These discussions about refugees are about as useful as discussions about the breeding habits of cockroaches for as long as we preserve the driver of extremism in the Islamic world.

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, no one is forcing you.

One word. Democracy. And the need to shut incompetent right wingers up. These pretend capitalists and their shonky ME partnerships are long overdue for a overhaul.

[SeaGypsy]

Some on the far left like to pretend borders have already ceased to exist & the figments remaining will dissolve under political pressure of globalism. Of course this theorem denies human reactionary nature, nationalism & reality. In fact there is extremely little free movement of people statistically & then so called free trade treaties are not free. Globalism is a project of economists, not a political or social reality.

[americandream]

Its a strange world when those who live by the sale of their labour accuse those who own capital for being far left.

The essence of labour theory is that globalism is a necessary function of an efficient market. An efficient market is a precursor to full blown secularism. And secularism sets the tone for the next evolutionary phase in humankind which should be collectivised if structure is to be complied with.

In stages, in stages comes the competent mind, labour and capitalist. Each plays their part. Of course, being an efficient capitalist is also very rewarding personally. And for the record, one can be an efficient capitalist as well as understand history. The new breed of enlightened globalist sets the way in the Bill Gates and Richard Bransons of this world.

The fearful lumpenprole quakes in his boots at the prospect of competing but he will learn.

[SeaGypsy]

Politics is actually circular, the extreme right & extreme left are indistinguishable. The extreme left envisiges a free movement of workers to jobs around the world, as does the extreme right, just for different reasons- the former to alleviate suffering of the poor & the latter to reduce labour costs.

Anyway my point is that the reality is that it is not happening. Countries do exist, do have borders & restrictions on who & what can come & go across those borders, however strictly or otherwise enforced. This is just a simple reality with nothing to do with the economic status of the observer.

[americandream]

Competent capitalists will always want to expand. Incompetent capitalists will always fear expansive competition. Competent labour will always be ever skilled for the challenge of an open labour market. Incompetent labour will feal competition.

That said, incompetent labour cannot pretend to power broke on the right as it is always at a disadvantage....and at the mercy of those who own capital, competent or incompetent. They only have power when they own the means of production.

In the meantime the circus will go on till globalisation finally completes or history ends the experiment.

[Timo]

Its a strange world when those who live by the sale of their labour accuse those who own capital for being far left.

The essence of labour theory is that globalism is a necessary function of an efficient market. An efficient market is a precursor to full blown secularism. And secularism sets the tone for the next evolutionary phase in humankind which should be collectivised if structure is to be complied with.

In stages, in stages comes the competent mind, labour and capitalist. Each plays their part. Of course, being an efficient capitalist is also very rewarding personally. And for the record, one can be an efficient capitalist as well as understand history. The new breed of enlightened globalist sets the way in the Bill Gates and Richard Bransons of this world.

The fearful lumpenprole quakes in his boots at the prospect of competing but he will learn.

Oddly enough, i actually understand and agree with this. 99% of it anyway. Your assumption that Bill Gates and Richard Branson are "enlightened" is mostly true, but being as filthy rich as both of them are, their enlightened status does have the requisite caveat of being primarily motivated by profit. They've each begun doing more altruistic endeavors with their profits, but they each still are primarily motivated to accrue as much money for themselves as they can.

But, as far as your statement that secularism should set the stage for the next evolutionary phase of humanity, i'm with you, 100%. That said, you and i combined are less than 0.00000001% of people in this world who actually believe that.

Keep on keeping on.

[americandream]

Its a strange world when those who live by the sale of their labour accuse those who own capital for being far left.

The essence of labour theory is that globalism is a necessary function of an efficient market. An efficient market is a precursor to full blown secularism. And secularism sets the tone for the next evolutionary phase in humankind which should be collectivised if structure is to be complied with.

In stages, in stages comes the competent mind, labour and capitalist. Each plays their part. Of course, being an efficient capitalist is also very rewarding personally. And for the record, one can be an efficient capitalist as well as understand history. The new breed of enlightened globalist sets the way in the Bill Gates and Richard Bransons of this world.

The fearful lumpenprole quakes in his boots at the prospect of competing but he will learn.

Oddly enough, i actually understand and agree with this. 99% of it anyway. Your assumption that Bill Gates and Richard Branson are "enlightened" is mostly true, but being as filthy rich as both of them are, their enlightened status does have the requisite caveat of being primarily motivated by profit. They've each begun doing more altruistic endeavors with their profits, but they each still are primarily motivated to accrue as much money for themselves as they can.

But, as far as your statement that secularism should set the stage for the next evolutionary phase of humanity, i'm with you, 100%. That said, you and i combined are less than 0.00000001% of people in this world who actually believe that.

Keep on keeping on.

And your point is what precisely?

[Timo]

AD, my point was #1, that i agree with nearly all of what you said that i referenced, and #2, understanding what you said makes us both in the vast minority of people alive, and #3, the only thing you can do about it is to keep plugging away at the status quo, and doing your best to convince/educate people about your point of view.

Sorry i didn't make that more clear, but given that we both speak English, I didn't think it was that difficult to understand.

[americandream]

AD, my point was #1, that i agree with nearly all of what you said that i referenced, and #2, understanding what you said makes us both in the vast minority of people alive, and #3, the only thing you can do about it is to keep plugging away at the status quo, and doing your best to convince/educate people about your point of view.

Sorry i didn't make that more clear, but given that we both speak English, I didn't think it was that difficult to understand.

Ah. My apologies Timo. I suffer from what one can term, cynicism fatigue.

[Timo]

You are not alone.