We only need your user name and email address to join and the email address is just for notifications, we don't look at it (unless needed to help you or for debugging) or share with anyone.
The planet is overpopulated. There's not enough fresh water for everyone. Desalinating seawater will only help cities near the sea. So the one-family-three-child program should have been introduced in the 1970s. This would also solve the problem of refugees and immigrants. Iran, Central Asia, African countries, and Pakistan suffer from a shortage of fresh water. And a shortage of fresh water will slow down national economies and human progress. In short, Malthus was probably right that overpopulation is the main threat to civilization.
No this is not true at all. A warmer world has more not less rain. But it's uneven.
Globally if you look at some of the major river systems in the world some get wetter and some drier.
There's plenty of water. It's just locally that some places get drier while others get wetter. And there are various things we do that work in the opposite direction bringing water and vegetation to places that lost it.
BLOG: No we won’t have large scale water wars
— price of water is too low, below price of desalination for long distance transport
— sometimes countries with shared rivers have conflicts but most water issues are resolved amicably with water agreements
As an example, the Colorado river is so dry mainly because Americans built dams and extracted water from it for a century or more and they used it to populate very dry areas that previously didn't have large populations, and they do a lot of irrigation with water-thirsty plants like apricots.
So that's not new indeed the mouth of the colorado had dried up completely irrespective of climate change and they now deliberately let a bit of water through from time to time to regenerate part of the salt marshes.
The US has the Mississippi getting wetter and Colorado getting drier, most countries have some areas getting wetter and some areas drier.
So they can help protect agriculture in the areas that get drier with water recycling, ,desalination, collecting water when it's more abundant (e.g. in spring in India) and doing agriculture with much more efficient methods of irrigation. And then they can also plan for migration to the areas that get wetter.
This is about how most migration is internal
The UN World Bank estimates 216 million figure for very high emissions, way beyond what is even possible now (“Business as usual”).
With reduced CO2 emissions heading for 2 C or less, which we are already doing with optimistic targets, their projection reduces to 44 million people.
This does NOT mean 44 million people who don't have enough water. It means 44 million people who move to a part fo the same country where there is more water from areas with less water in a warming world.
It doesn’t include the wealthy countries in Northern Europe or North America. They also don’t model the Middle East or the low lying atolls because their methods didn’t work for those.
Most of the internal migration is in countries in Sub Saharan Africa (under 20 to over 40 mllion in their more climate friendly scenario), China and neighbouring countries in East Asia (below 10 to above 30 million) and India and neighbouring countries in South Asia (10 to 20 million potential migrants).
One place they study as an example of this done well is Bangladesh. Many people migrate from the delta and river to Dhaka. This was causing problems so Bangladesh has created "poles of growth". especially the Port of Mongla, Cox's Bazaar and the coastline generally.
They have growth potential for technological innovation in the marine industry,
aquaculture, and wind energy so they are promoting Mongla as migrant friendly with good quality education, health care and housing for internal immigrants.
BLOG: World bank report is to HELP countries plan for INTERNAL migration as parts of their country get more fertile and other parts get less fertile as the climate changes - while total crop yields increase globally
Did you see my comment above? Please leave this up for now so others can see my answer, but please do NOT comment with extra topics not in the article itself in future. You can contact me personally or visit our new ddebunked.org forum instead.
Is economics a zero-sum game? Democratic Iran is a threat to Central Asia I think. Iran is a country with vast oil and gas reserves and human capital. Investments will flow to Iran instead of Central Asia. So, it's better for Central Asia if the Ayatollah regime remains in place.
Democracy is good for people in authoritarian countries, but it has a downside. A gain somewhere means a loss somewhere else. Of course, authoritarian Iran has its downsides, but for the Central Asian economy, a democratic Iran is bad.
No not at all. A democratic Iran doesn't make much difference to its oil and gas it would be the same either way the difference is on whether it is able to enter into a deal to drop sanctions.
During the JCPOA until Trump exited it, Iran was trading with other countries normally. The sanctions mostly affect trade with Europe. China continues to trade with Iran normally.
The sanctions also don't affect humanitarian supplies, many things like medicine are exempt though there can be bottlenecks.
And a gain somewhere doesn't mean a loss somewhere else. The world as a whole is moving towards a more prosperous future. Example Iran as it gets more prosperous will of course also invest in other countries too. There isn't a fixed amount of capital to go around the world.
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC
Also please check the purpose of this substack - to help people scared of many things. Welcome:
- questions if you are still scared and need help
- fact checks if I got anything wrong however small
- help with debunking
Please don't post potentially scary things here unless you are yourself scared and needing help.
FOR POTENTIAL SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS YOU WANT DEBUNKED - PLEASE COMMENT IN OUR NEW FORUM HERE
https://ddebunked.org
There are many there who can answer you not just me. And it is setup for voluntary fact checking and far easier to use than comments here
https://ddebunked.org
It’s just a forum not social media. No age verification. Set up by myself with free open source software Flarum.
For details see my:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/our-own-new-discussion-forum-for
We only need your user name and email address to join and the email address is just for notifications, we don't look at it (unless needed to help you or for debugging) or share with anyone.
If you have any issues joining it do let me know.
The planet is overpopulated. There's not enough fresh water for everyone. Desalinating seawater will only help cities near the sea. So the one-family-three-child program should have been introduced in the 1970s. This would also solve the problem of refugees and immigrants. Iran, Central Asia, African countries, and Pakistan suffer from a shortage of fresh water. And a shortage of fresh water will slow down national economies and human progress. In short, Malthus was probably right that overpopulation is the main threat to civilization.
No this is not true at all. A warmer world has more not less rain. But it's uneven.
Globally if you look at some of the major river systems in the world some get wetter and some drier.
There's plenty of water. It's just locally that some places get drier while others get wetter. And there are various things we do that work in the opposite direction bringing water and vegetation to places that lost it.
BLOG: No we won’t have large scale water wars
— price of water is too low, below price of desalination for long distance transport
— sometimes countries with shared rivers have conflicts but most water issues are resolved amicably with water agreements
You can read it here: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/No-we-won-t-have-large-scale-water-wars-price-of-water-is-too-low-below-price-of-desalination-for-long-distance-trans
As an example, the Colorado river is so dry mainly because Americans built dams and extracted water from it for a century or more and they used it to populate very dry areas that previously didn't have large populations, and they do a lot of irrigation with water-thirsty plants like apricots.
So that's not new indeed the mouth of the colorado had dried up completely irrespective of climate change and they now deliberately let a bit of water through from time to time to regenerate part of the salt marshes.
The US has the Mississippi getting wetter and Colorado getting drier, most countries have some areas getting wetter and some areas drier.
So they can help protect agriculture in the areas that get drier with water recycling, ,desalination, collecting water when it's more abundant (e.g. in spring in India) and doing agriculture with much more efficient methods of irrigation. And then they can also plan for migration to the areas that get wetter.
This is about how most migration is internal
The UN World Bank estimates 216 million figure for very high emissions, way beyond what is even possible now (“Business as usual”).
With reduced CO2 emissions heading for 2 C or less, which we are already doing with optimistic targets, their projection reduces to 44 million people.
This does NOT mean 44 million people who don't have enough water. It means 44 million people who move to a part fo the same country where there is more water from areas with less water in a warming world.
It doesn’t include the wealthy countries in Northern Europe or North America. They also don’t model the Middle East or the low lying atolls because their methods didn’t work for those.
Most of the internal migration is in countries in Sub Saharan Africa (under 20 to over 40 mllion in their more climate friendly scenario), China and neighbouring countries in East Asia (below 10 to above 30 million) and India and neighbouring countries in South Asia (10 to 20 million potential migrants).
One place they study as an example of this done well is Bangladesh. Many people migrate from the delta and river to Dhaka. This was causing problems so Bangladesh has created "poles of growth". especially the Port of Mongla, Cox's Bazaar and the coastline generally.
They have growth potential for technological innovation in the marine industry,
aquaculture, and wind energy so they are promoting Mongla as migrant friendly with good quality education, health care and housing for internal immigrants.
BLOG: World bank report is to HELP countries plan for INTERNAL migration as parts of their country get more fertile and other parts get less fertile as the climate changes - while total crop yields increase globally
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/World-bank-report-is-to-HELP-countries-plan-for-INTERNAL-migration-as-parts-of-their-country-get-more-fertile-and-other
Did you see my comment above? Please leave this up for now so others can see my answer, but please do NOT comment with extra topics not in the article itself in future. You can contact me personally or visit our new ddebunked.org forum instead.
Is economics a zero-sum game? Democratic Iran is a threat to Central Asia I think. Iran is a country with vast oil and gas reserves and human capital. Investments will flow to Iran instead of Central Asia. So, it's better for Central Asia if the Ayatollah regime remains in place.
Democracy is good for people in authoritarian countries, but it has a downside. A gain somewhere means a loss somewhere else. Of course, authoritarian Iran has its downsides, but for the Central Asian economy, a democratic Iran is bad.
No not at all. A democratic Iran doesn't make much difference to its oil and gas it would be the same either way the difference is on whether it is able to enter into a deal to drop sanctions.
During the JCPOA until Trump exited it, Iran was trading with other countries normally. The sanctions mostly affect trade with Europe. China continues to trade with Iran normally.
The sanctions also don't affect humanitarian supplies, many things like medicine are exempt though there can be bottlenecks.
And a gain somewhere doesn't mean a loss somewhere else. The world as a whole is moving towards a more prosperous future. Example Iran as it gets more prosperous will of course also invest in other countries too. There isn't a fixed amount of capital to go around the world.