I was watching a lecture today about the fact that a number of Polynesian islands will be gone in about a century due to rising sea levels, and the people are currently looking for places to relocate to. And I was thinking to myself about how we’re as worried about money as we are while not being worried about land in the same way. Alongside the nations that need to evacuate, there are nations with one person per couple of square kilometers and nations with one person per couple of square meters. There are people in need of a home and homes in need of more people. And there are people on foreign land and land nobody owns that’s not claimed. You’d think it would be easy.
Nations have a lot of stuff going on, like overpopulation, war, natural disasters, etc. and half of the world has the potential to help. For example, Russia could receive half of the Chinese population to ease overpopulation, or the US (or even a billionaire) could set aside parts of Alaska for the countries being conquered by nature. But they won’t. They see it as a nationalistic issue. But that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t or couldn’t help. You, of course, see everything that’s going on. In a world where your hometown could literally save another town somewhere, what would you do for refugees, even if law was on the line?
You must log in or register to comment.
I think, in general, refugees should be placed in countries that are culturally closer to their country of origin. As a Finn, I feel like Ukrainians, for example, blend in quite naturally with our Northern European/Slavic culture, whereas it’s a very different story with people from the Middle East.
That’s not to say they should be banned from entering, but I do think the default approach should be relocating people to neighboring countries when possible, with wealthier nations stepping in to help cover the costs.
