SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[...] Some experts estimate that climate change could force between 150 and 300 million people to find a new place to live by the middle of this century, though there is considerable uncertainty about the amount. Finding suitable locations to house them will be a significant impediment. As Michael Gerrard explained, "part of the problem is scale. If we're talking about millions of people having to be on the move, it just doesn't work."
In the U.S., there are very few habitable places that aren't already occupied by homes, businesses, or agriculture, or preserved as park lands or forests. Meanwhile, rural areas would provide few opportunities for migrants to find employment and rebuild their lives.
Instead, Gerrard suggested moving people from high-risk areas to cities whose populations are shrinking, such as Detroit, Michigan. He sees cities' potential for vertical development, energy-efficient buildings, and public transportation as a way to sustainably host climate migrants.
What if refugees from Caribbean islands don't want to live in Detroit?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday January 07 2018, @01:50AM (5 children)
I can't speak for khallow, but personally I toss out most of the climate change rhetoric precisely because it is not science. Science is not policy or political consensus, science does not dictate what you should or should not do.
Science has no ethics. Science attempts to accurately describes the universe as it is, and make predictions based on that understanding.
Anyone who attempts to suppress inconvenient data is not a scientist, he/she is a politician. The minute someone starts advocating policy changes, they are acting as a politician not a scientist.
Are we dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? - Yes, and measuring this is science.
If the climate changing as a result? - Probably, and determining this is science.
Is this change good or bad? - Don't know yet, and this is a value judgement.
Do we need to stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere ? - probably be a good idea until we know the result, this is a value judgement.
What are the ways we can reduce CO2 levels? - many, this is science
What is the best way to reduce CO2 levels? - don't know, but this is an economic value judgement
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:55AM (4 children)
So you ignore washing your hands and shit in your drinking water because it isn't sciences place to make value judgements and tell you what to do? Lots of people died while scientists were reaching a consensus on the germ theory of disease, especially when it was mostly statistical.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday January 07 2018, @06:36AM (3 children)
No. You still display a lack of understanding.
Science tells you "if you shit in your drinking water you will probably get sick".
It does not say whether this is good or bad, it is just true.
Deciding whether or not to shit in your drinking water is a value judgement.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday January 07 2018, @07:02AM (2 children)
True, but to be human is to say "do not shit in your water, as it will make you sick" and also to attempt to get the government to fix the leaky cesspit and even attempt to force those who are helping women to give birth after coming from the dissection room to wash their hands.
Science is a human endeavor and can not be separated.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:38AM (1 child)
Which is precisely the problem with science. If only you could follow your observation to its logical conclusion.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:21AM
What do you suggest? Quit doing science?