• Kaboom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    There are people who live in the artic and those who live in deserts. People even farm in the desert. It might not be great, but itll be more than inhabitable.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Kaboom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        And moving them here doesnt fix the sustainability problem either. It just moves sustainability problems here.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • Kaboom@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • Kaboom@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    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.