Yeah. Enough money and a concerted effort forever for each location that is developed. Sounds like a good plan.
This is how we currently live. Even without a shift to a more responsible and sustainable system, it is possible.
Dude, we are already trying to do that in places where people actually already live. It's a logistical nightmare. The money isn't translating to results because of a huge lack of infrastructure. I don't think you quite grasp the magnitude of such a task. Even if all the super-rich people came together to fund it, they might manage to pay for a few years.
The work required to completely turn an area that can't support people into a place that can be possibly self-sufficient and modern (roads, power, comm, medical, etc) is HUGE. There's not just the monetary toll to consider, but also the energy, water, and other resources it would require. And there's a pretty good chance it wouldn't work; most countries are already facing resource shortages (water, for one). Some things are limited by the planetary biosphere we inhabit. Providing it to a new place would take it away from one that already uses it. This is a far cry from simply reversing desertification.
There is more than enough water for humanity, any shortages come from mismanagement and lack of planning. Yes, starting a settlement is hard and takes time. The original colonists of the Americas were all rich, indentured, slaves, or fanatics for that reason. There is no insurmountable barrier to anything though, except for lack of land (it's all claimed, and already inhabited, even the deserts).
The "colonization" of North America coincided with a massive wave of death that had a huge impact on the natives. This wasn't virgin land waiting for colonization it was cultivated lands that had just experienced a massive epidemic that wiped out a majority of the native population.
Read some of the histories. Colonists, in many cases, walked into established settlements that had recently been thriving native settlements. For the most part they were not starting from an inhospitable land.
Virgin land waiting for colonization actually would have been even richer with resources. The colonization of North America went well in the fertile areas with good weather and very, very poorly in the areas without it. See: Dust Bowl.
There is more than enough water for humanity, any shortages come from mismanagement and lack of planning.
I am laughing so hard right now. Also, you forgot THE INABILITY TO EFFICIENTLY TRANSFER IT FROM THE PLACES IT IS ABUNDANT TO THE PLACES IT IS NOT. Which is kind of a prerequisite for your entire proposal.
I am laughing so hard right now. Also, you forgot THE INABILITY TO EFFICIENTLY TRANSFER IT FROM THE PLACES IT IS ABUNDANT TO THE PLACES IT IS NOT. Which is kind of a prerequisite for your entire proposal.
Why would it be necessary to transport it? Look at Greenland, very low population density, tons of water. There are lots of options, but a solution can be found to live anywhere on earth. No, you won't be able to drop New York City in the middle of the Sahara with no effort, but don't act like we can't fix desertification that we caused in the first place. Getting water to come to some areas is as simple as planting vegetation in cases. Desalination and purification techniques have also been advancing rapidly in the past couple years, and there is a lot of of practical stuff coming out of Africa with energy and soil science.
The main problem is that conquering is no longer really a thing. All the good spots have been taken for millennia. But people who wanted to split up or expand just conquered. Now you can't conquer anymore. We're forced to share geography with people that we do not like. Separating people based on geography is not tenable in the long run without constant secession and migration.
Sure, most regions are populated. I can't say exactly where will be best, to relocate a vast amount of people. I haven't done the geography. But I'm confident that even if we can't just point to a place on the map and say "build here", we could at least be organised enough to make equivalent solutions.
"With the available resources in this region we can support x amount of inhabitants. y amount can go here"
Refugee camps are temporary, there should be a solution above that, that has more permanence.
Oh Fuck off Russel brand, you psudeo-intellectual twit.
He has is own opinions, he brings up some points which I agree with.
Could we possibly have an Australian perspective with Churb's Blurbs™ a weekly no bullshit show on journalism and cars?
If he wants to do it, I want this as part of FNPL from now on.
Dude, I have so many different potential shows fizzing around inside my head for the FNPL feed that we could do weekly content without bringing in additional hosts. But yeah, I'd be up for it. We'll discuss it in the near future.
ISIS threw at least one man off of a fucking building for allegedly being gay. They also tied corpses of 'criminals' to gates around the building.
They are the poster children for carpet nuking everything.
Fuck those fucking monsters. It makes our 'carnival of horrors' torture look like a fun house.
Replace ISIS with any Christian extremist group, then carpet bomb yourself. The American Government is pro terrorist, it harbours extremist groups, carries out torture on a massive and organised scale to get misleading facts to help Saudi allies disrupt a region so that oil prices could be better controlled.
Interfering with a region on the scale that the US did, removing the established and stable power structure lead to empowering radical groups. I applaud the American government and their propaganda machine.
Goddammit Islam, stop making it hard to defend you.
I understand that Islamic extremism != Islam, but I have a really really hard time looking at the various major religions in the world and not believing that something is up about Islam in particular.
There's a lot of thought on the subject. Most modern strains of ultra-fundamentalist Islam came out of anti-colonial movements in relatively recent history.
Goddammit Islam, stop making it hard to defend you.
I understand that Islamic extremism != Islam, but I have a really really hard time looking at the various major religions in the world and not believing that something is up about Islam in particular.
Anti-theist mode is in full effect.
Easy answer, what area has the majority of non-democratic governments in the world and what is the major religion in those regions.
At the same time, the countries in those regions that want to influence the world, can't do it with military might and usually economics are out of their reach just because of scale. So using religion to influence is their strongest route to power.
I think that if you back off from the more specific (but not really necessary) "religion" term and embrace the more encompassing (and not really much more generic) "extremist ideology" term, it makes more sense.
There are racist gun nuts in Florida that scare me a fuckton more than radical Islamists. There are boards of Fortune 500 companies embracing adversarial, winner-take-all capitalism that scare me more than radical Islamists.
US intelligence services are warning that the three attacks around the world today may have been linked to a general increase in ISIS-inspired attacks.
Comments
Read some of the histories. Colonists, in many cases, walked into established settlements that had recently been thriving native settlements. For the most part they were not starting from an inhospitable land.
Looks like bacteria filling a petri dish.
Sure, most regions are populated. I can't say exactly where will be best, to relocate a vast amount of people. I haven't done the geography. But I'm confident that even if we can't just point to a place on the map and say "build here", we could at least be organised enough to make equivalent solutions.
"With the available resources in this region we can support x amount of inhabitants. y amount can go here"
Refugee camps are temporary, there should be a solution above that, that has more permanence.
Move from this
to this
Green Shipping Container Homes
Could we possibly have an Australian perspective with Churb's Blurbs™ a weekly no bullshit show on journalism and cars?
They are the poster children for carpet nuking everything.
Fuck those fucking monsters. It makes our 'carnival of horrors' torture look like a fun house.
The American Government is pro terrorist, it harbours extremist groups, carries out torture on a massive and organised scale to get misleading facts to help Saudi allies disrupt a region so that oil prices could be better controlled.
Interfering with a region on the scale that the US did, removing the established and stable power structure lead to empowering radical groups. I applaud the American government and their propaganda machine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/world/europe/french-factory-lyon-attack-isis.html?_r=0
Only his demolitions incompetence prevented a much larger disaster.
Anti-theist mode is in full effect.
At the same time, the countries in those regions that want to influence the world, can't do it with military might and usually economics are out of their reach just because of scale. So using religion to influence is their strongest route to power.
There are racist gun nuts in Florida that scare me a fuckton more than radical Islamists. There are boards of Fortune 500 companies embracing adversarial, winner-take-all capitalism that scare me more than radical Islamists.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-26/after-3-attacks-intelligence-community-braces-for-more