Jump to content

US Politics: Russian Roulette Republican Style


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

See the thing about corporation gaining control over basically everything via automation only works if no government steps in ever. Once you can run a mine without any human workers what incentive does a government really have to keep the middleman that is a mining corporation instead of just doing it itself and controlling all the wealth produced? The US might be crazy enough for people to care about corporations that much. But resource extraction is important to my countries economy, and I can easily see on either the provincial or federal level government agencies being set up to handle that instead  of corporations.

Corporations have more or less captured the US government, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Relic said:

Looking at the world as it is today, would you make the choice to have kids? 

IMO, people with progressive ideals should really be increasing their biological output. One of the problems as I see it is that right wing conservatives never stopped breeding, and left-wing progressives basically stopped breeding. They stopped breeding for what seem to be eminently sensible reasons. But the end result is more children being raised with conservative / right-wing influences and fewer being raised with liberal / progressive influences.

If the conservative religious families are having 5 to 6 kids and the liberal secular families are having one or two kids what do you think is going to happen after a few generations of this reproductive imbalance? Who is doing all the breeding in the USA? Poor religious social conservatives, and rich religious economic and social conservatives? Outside of those demographics where is the breeding happening? Socially liberal Catholics? If they are socially liberal, it probably means they are ignoring the Catholic prohibition on birth control.

People might like the idea of fostering / adopting kids who's live have been turned to shit by the current economic and social system. and raising them in liberal / progressive environments. But you are competing there with the religious conservatives who will be looking to do the same thing. And they will be going to agencies saying: "look we've raised 5 good and decent, law abiding children of our own, surely we are the more reliable home in which to place these poor unfortunate children who are the victims of their own parent's idleness and sloth, and give them a better life." And progressives who have not had any experience raising kids are going to say... what?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I don't see anyone outdoing anyone on this.  It's reality and what we're working towards.  We'd be so lucky to have an asteroid hit us first.

I can't speak for others, but for myself the pessimism is tied deeply into my fear for the future of the kids and their children.  I'm not sure if I would have hit this emotional point if I weren't a parent, though that's not to say one has to be a parent to feel deeply emotional about the scary shit to come, especially as it relates to climate change.

Climate change is terrifying on it's own.  A country like the US deciding to ignore it makes it all that much worse.  

I am sure that as a parent your thoughts about the future are deeply tied into your children. But I don't think you are pessimistic because you are a parent, because I know parents who find their children to be a source of hope and optimism.

Being concerned about climate change is different from being terrified by it. Some concern or worry can be energizing and useful. Being terrified leads to being paralyzed and not being able to do anything effective about it in any way. And that makes me worried for you and your children, if you are truly terrified and not just being hyperbolic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

IMO, people with progressive ideals should really be increasing their biological output. One of the problems as I see it is that right wing conservatives never stopped breeding, and left-wing progressives basically stopped breeding. They stopped breeding for what seem to be eminently sensible reasons. But the end result is more children being raised with conservative / right-wing influences and fewer being raised with liberal / progressive influences.

If the conservative religious families are having 5 to 6 kids and the liberal secular families are having one or two kids what do you think is going to happen after a few generations of this reproductive imbalance? Who is doing all the breeding in the USA? Poor religious social conservatives, and rich religious economic and social conservatives? Outside of those demographics where is the breeding happening? Socially liberal Catholics? If they are socially liberal, it probably means they are ignoring the Catholic prohibition on birth control.

People might like the idea of fostering / adopting kids who's live have been turned to shit by the current economic and social system. and raising them in liberal / progressive environments. But you are competing there with the religious conservatives who will be looking to do the same thing. And they will be going to agencies saying: "look we've raised 5 good and decent, law abiding children of our own, surely we are the more reliable home in which to place these poor unfortunate children who are the victims of their own parent's idleness and sloth, and give them a better life." And progressives who have not had any experience raising kids are going to say... what?

 

To the last paragraph and sentence....right now that's unlikely as the US is currently experiencing a foster care crisis with number of children in care outpacing number of available homes.  So it's not a case of a placing supervisor choosing a religious family over a liberal one, but of just looking to see who has an open bed.  What does happen is that there might be more focus on recruiting religious homes.  Religious based foster and adoptive agencies are a scourge, but a scourge that has tons of money for recruitment so often there can be an imbalance.  More liberal people definitely need to be fostering, especially because, in my experience, they are more likely to be empathetic to the causes of a child being removed and thus more likely to support a family reunification (which is the primary goal of foster care).

But to the rest, yes I agree.  However, I've wondered if these large religious conservative families will soon have their own revolt as they realize that their chosen government doesn't give a fuck about their children and actively works to harm them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Republican Party can remain irrational and nutty longer than you can remain sane.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/12/republicans-decide-roy-moore-is-a-good-republican-he-is/#

Quote

Until today, Republicans could say that, officially at least, they have repudiated Roy Moore’s noxious behavior.¹ Not anymore:

Quote

President Trump on Monday strongly endorsed Roy S. Moore, the Republican nominee for a United States Senate seat here, prompting the Republican National Committee to restore its support for a candidate accused of sexual misconduct against teenage girls.

 

Quote

This is the most depraved conduct possible from the Republican Party. They could have stood by Moore from the start, saying that the charges against him weren’t credible. Alternatively, they could have publicly denounced Moore but continued to hope in their hearts that he won.

But no. They publicly accepted that the charges against Moore were credible. They agreed that this made him unfit for office. But then, when it looked like he might win, they turned around and decided to support him anyway. And this all came on the same day that Moore said this about Jewish philanthropist George Soros:

 

Quote

Speaking about financial bubbles, John Maynard Keynes once said “the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” Right now, we seem to be stuck in a sort of Republican immorality bubble, and it’s already continued its surge for far longer than I would have imagined possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I am sure that as a parent your thoughts about the future are deeply tied into your children. But I don't think you are pessimistic because you are a parent, because I know parents who find their children to be a source of hope and optimism.

Being concerned about climate change is different from being terrified by it. Some concern or worry can be energizing and useful. Being terrified leads to being paralyzed and not being able to do anything effective about it in any way. And that makes me worried for you and your children, if you are truly terrified and not just being hyperbolic. 

Well, yes, I agree.  I pointed out to @Zorral that's I've become unable to even thinking about it.  That's pretty clear that I'm legit terrified of it.  It feels hopeless because it's something where positive changes on an individual or even local level will have almost no impact.  Not even voting and having the Dems in charge will change things, merely slow it down.  And yes, that's terrifying.  When I think about how to prepare the kids for the future I'm having to think about how to prepare them for a world devastated by climate change and collapse.  The droughts, the famines, the wars....

I'd almost rather the asteroid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Well, yes, I agree.  I pointed out to @Zorral that's I've become unable to even thinking about it.  That's pretty clear that I'm legit terrified of it.  It feels hopeless because it's something where positive changes on an individual or even local level will have almost no impact.  Not even voting and having the Dems in charge will change things, merely slow it down.  And yes, that's terrifying.  When I think about how to prepare the kids for the future I'm having to think about how to prepare them for a world devastated by climate change and collapse.  The droughts, the famines, the wars....

I'd almost rather the asteroid. 

I think the droughts are inevitable. I think the wars and famines are not inevitable and will only happen when people are too terrified (or oblivious) to think about how to deal with the droughts in a way that minimizes their social impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

I think the droughts are inevitable. I think the wars and famines are not inevitable and will only happen when people are too terrified (or oblivious) to think about how to deal with the droughts in a way that minimizes their social impact. 

Can you explain Yemen, then? Like, right now? How does this fit into the model, and how would you solve it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Can you explain Yemen, then? Like, right now? How does this fit into the model, and how would you solve it?

 

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I think the droughts are inevitable. I think the wars and famines are not inevitable and will only happen when people are too terrified (or oblivious) to think about how to deal with the droughts in a way that minimizes their social impact. 

Started a new thread:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ormond said:

I think the droughts are inevitable. I think the wars and famines are not inevitable and will only happen when people are too terrified (or oblivious) to think about how to deal with the droughts in a way that minimizes their social impact. 

I believe there are some pretty good arguments out there that military conflicts are likely to increase as a result of climate change and it would seem lack of drinkable water would be a key driver of those conflicts.

Though I imagine our libertarian overlords will be fine in their compounds, while us peasents shoot each other over a couple of drops of dirty water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “Fiscal Responsibility” Trap
Republicans only care about debt and deficits when Democrats are in power.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/republicans_tax_bill_shows_fiscal_responsibility_is_a_trap.html

After Tax Cuts, Republicans Eye Civil War

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/after-tax-cuts-republicans-eye-civil-war.html


Susan Collins Wanted to ‘Get to Yes’ on Tax Bill So Badly She Accepted Promises Written in Vanishing Ink

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/on-taxes-collins-bought-promises-written-in-vanishing-ink.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Mass extermination sounds like so much effort and planning. I'm sure Peter Thiel and the rest of the vampire overlords will be content to simply wall themselves off into their own arcologies and let the undesirables fight over their waste.

I have a hard time thinking about the future and what kind of world will await my son. He's only three and it was a dagger in my fucking heart when he actually recognized Trump's face. I suspect his day care provider lets him see the news.

Some days I think I need to train him to be some kind of Book of Eli type character, prepared to bring light into the wasteland. I'll save my Terry Pratchett books for him instead of the Bible, so that the society he helps rebuild might be a kinder and smarter one.

That's probably New Zealand, since he purchased NZ citizenship a couple of years ago, and quite a few US billionnaires have also purchased reasonable tracts of land here, but not Trump, I hope. So I'm guessing NZ is their exit strategy, or at least is one of them. As far as I know New Zealand is likely to be among the fortunate landmasses to suffer the least from climate change, even taking sea level rise into account. A lot of our land is at reasonable elevation. With a 10 metre sea level rise the NZ map barely looks different from the current map. With a 25m rise there is much more obvious land loss, but there is still plenty of room and plenty of useable land. Our food production can currently feed about 30 million people. Even after a 25m sea level rise we could probably still produce enough food for 15 to 20 million people. Our current population is 4.5 million people. We will have some water challenges, but they won't be as bad as most of the rest of the world.

We are a long way from anywhere, with no land borders. So if it comes down to a dog eat dog world, we'll be able to blow any people smuggling ships out of the water a long time before they get close to our coastline. So we can easily control the inflow of people to ensure we remain sustainable. We have a shit ton of ocean around us that does not belong to anyone and we have a really big exclusive economic zone, that can be mined for whatever we can't get from the land. And as long as we keep the population at a reasonable level, we'll have food to trade for other things, with the other tech oases that might exist in other places. it is possible that New Zealand could be the only viable nation state that pretty much maintains its pre-disaster integrity after the climate shit hits the fan.

If all that turns out to be somewhat true, and the billionaires have been actively thinking about their contingency plans, then it's pretty logical that they have been either buying land or buying citizenships. I wonder what it means in terms of the timescale the billionaires are thinking about for when shit is going to get real? They are generally selfish greedy bastards, which means they only think about themselves, their kids and maybe as far out as their grandkids. If they already have their bolthole contingencies sown up, are they anticipating things turning to shit on a global scale within their lifetimes? I wonder if there is a way I can find out if the US (and other) billionaires are buying land on the coast, or at higher elevations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I believe there are some pretty good arguments out there that military conflicts are likely to increase as a result of climate change and it would seem lack of drinkable water would be a key driver of those conflicts.

Though I imagine our libertarian overlords will be fine in their compounds, while us peasents shoot each other over a couple of drops of dirty water.

The military has been saying so for a long time, as well as have the NSA groups.  It's been happening for quite a while already, for that matter.  There are dozens of articles, studies etc. if one googles.

The billionaires themselves have been buying as much sources of potable water and arable land for themselves as they can.  And soaking up other people's aquifers in the meantime to raise their pedigree horses, as with the Sauds having bought so much of the Southwest, including California, to raise hay via irrigation from the aquifers and then sending back home to feed their stables.

Many billionaires have long bought and furnished bolt holes in the Andes and so on -- and have, of course, their private armies, to hide out from the ravaging masses and climate collapse.  There are articles about this as well.  They know what's coming, one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

To the last paragraph and sentence....right now that's unlikely as the US is currently experiencing a foster care crisis with number of children in care outpacing number of available homes.  So it's not a case of a placing supervisor choosing a religious family over a liberal one, but of just looking to see who has an open bed.  What does happen is that there might be more focus on recruiting religious homes.  Religious based foster and adoptive agencies are a scourge, but a scourge that has tons of money for recruitment so often there can be an imbalance.  More liberal people definitely need to be fostering, especially because, in my experience, they are more likely to be empathetic to the causes of a child being removed and thus more likely to support a family reunification (which is the primary goal of foster care).

But to the rest, yes I agree.  However, I've wondered if these large religious conservative families will soon have their own revolt as they realize that their chosen government doesn't give a fuck about their children and actively works to harm them.

I think the issue with poor (and middle-class about to become poor) religious conservative families is that they will continue to think and vote on socially conservative lines, and choose to believe that their economic fortunes will turn around by some sort of miracle, or when the rapture comes and all the godless commies are smoten (smoted, smited, smiten?) from the Earth, or whatever is meant to happen. By the time they realise they've been played it's be too late to do anything about it.

While I would never advocate for people who do not want to have children to start breeding as some kind of strategy in a reproductive arms race. I do encourage people who would like to have children but who have chosen not to because of apparently sound reasons to have a bit of a rethink.  I believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside....I'm not saying those are my own words, but I swear I've never seen or heard them anywhere before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Under the circumstances it's unlikely that my environmental footprint comes anywhere near many of the people posting here, for a single instance.  I know compared to friends and relatives, I don't even have an environmental footprint.

Here in California, the environmental footprints are huge partly due to the mega commuting so many workers do.  (me too :( )  There are reports of nasty wildfires in Southern Calfi. today, several cities waiting possible evacuations and at least one person dead.  It's December, wildfires in Dec where it should be raining. 

I read that one proposal in the tax plan was to take away the tax credits (?) that had been allowed for people who lost property and other losses due to natural disasters.  If that proposal goes forward many Californians could lose lots because i don't see wildfires going away any time soon.  But also wf's were in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Nevada and other  states this year.  That one change could be so terrible for many folks in the future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I believe there are some pretty good arguments out there that military conflicts are likely to increase as a result of climate change and it would seem lack of drinkable water would be a key driver of those conflicts.

I could see climate change driving the movement of climate refugees, and as the world has proven lately, we don't deal well with refugees.  It's gonna be a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think over the top pessimism about the future is a bit much. Look Trump is bad really really bad he's dangerous and destroying norms and he is bad for America specifically. But if you look at the world we are not doing that bad can you think of a time when things were better. As much as Trump might want to he can't bring America back to the 1950s he can't in 1950 we had segregation, gay marriage was unthinkable, repression and racism were rampant. The Soviet Union still existed and was ruled by Stalin, China was a starving hellhole and rule by Mao. Say what you will about Putin but he is better than Stalin, say what you will about China but after Mao they have moderated and lifted  hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into a prosperous middle class. Africa, Latin America, and Vietnam while still poor are many times wealthier than in the pas

Yes Trump is a monster but if you look into human history you will just find more monsters and compared to the rulers of the 20th century Trump is pretty mild. If you read the comments on Republican and Nationalist blogs they talk about how Democrats always win and Republicans always lose, which is true on social issues. Gay rights are settled the last Republican president was trying to get a gay marriage ban into the  constitution. This one couldn't dream of that. These past years have seen the Republicans cave on any social issue. A bif part of the "fuck Libruls!!!" impulse which got Trump elected are results from a rage of seeing every relevant institution in this country be captured by liberals. It will not last the young generation of millennials are progressive on social issues and economics. Trump is an old man's president the last vestige of a dying generation who see there values and their culture slipping away. Trump is a mess, Trump is a disaster, His presidency will hurt many and likely even kill many but it is not by any means the end. The pendulum will swing back and meanwhile the rest of the world is doing pretty well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, conservative sorts of people. You know I'd just lose my goddamned mind reading this.

Doin' a walk down memory lane in bozoville.

23 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 

Quote

“We are living with a legacy of deficit spending that began almost a decade ago. Now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable,” said Obama, concluding with a nod to conservative rhetoric. “Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.”

The fairy tale of Swabian Housewives became quite popular. Now Obama I voted for you twice. And you certainly were a hell of a lot better than the clowns that you ran against. But, this was truly cringe worthy.

And I think there is a lesson here for liberals. And that is if you try to compromise or "reach out" to conservatives they will see  it as weakness and try to fuck you over. It's unfortunate it's come to that, but that is how it is. Treat every dealing with conservatives as if it were Munich and its 1938.

Quote

Yesterday the Senate cast one of the most expensive votes in history,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell at the time. “Americans are wondering how we’re going to pay for all this.”

Countries don't really pay back their debts. They simply outgrow them. When England reached a debt/GDP ratio of about 250% twice in it's history, it didn't "pay it back". It simply outgrew the debt. And with interest extremely low at the time that wouldn't be hard to do. I'm sure you know that. Oh wait, you're a Republican, so you probably didn't, Bozo.

 

Quote

During the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan repeatedly hit the Obama administration on debt and deficits. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Romney said Obama’s “trillion-dollar deficits will slow our economy, restrain employment, and cause wages to stall.”

How does that work ol' Mittster when the Fed Rate was at about 0.1 percent? The civilian unemployment rate was about 8%. The PCE core inflation was under 2%.

And there is little evidence the levels of debt, at least within relevant ranges that were plausible at thime, by itself, slow growth. That paper by Rogoff and Reinhart was blown out of the water. Fiscal deficits create a drag when the economy is at full employment.

And at the time investors around the world were willing to buy huge quantities of US Treasuries as they were desperate for safe assets.

Quote

Ryan had an even starker view: “In this generation, a defining responsibility of government is to steer our nation clear of a debt crisis while there is still time.”

In this generation, a defining responsibility of government should be to get rid of bozos like Paul Ryan.

I remember back in the day when the media, even the alleged libuuural media, made it sound like Ryan was "the serious policy wonk conservative" when in fact he was a clown and has always been a clown.

That's pretty good for somebody that's basically made an entire career from reading Atlas Shrugged.

Also fact was, despite what Bozo Ryan had to say, the interest payments/GDP was extremely low back then, about as low as they were in the 1970s.

Quote

Ryan is the driving force behind the party’s tax agenda, which balloons the deficit in both bills passed by the House and the Senate.

Yes, Ryan is the intellectual leader of the Republican Party. That tells you a lot about the state of the Republican Party.

Quote

When pressed on this, Republican lawmakers simply deny it, arguing against all evidence that their tax cut will actually increase revenues. “Economic growth produces more revenue and that will help to offset this tax cut and actually lower the debt,” said Susan Collins of Maine, one of the more moderate members of the Senate Republican Caucus.

Shape of the Earth: Opinions Differ

Quote

Overall, Republican administrations have been responsible for most debt accumulation over the past 40 years. At every opportunity, they cut taxes and damage the government’s ability to collect revenue, using the inevitable shortfalls to then justify spending cuts.

Conservatives: Always clueless about when and when not to run deficits.

Quote

The stimulus package, for example, was hundreds of billions of dollars smaller than it should have been, a choice Democrats made to appease conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Republicans rejected the bill outright and instead of winning credit for their fiscal propriety, the Blue Dogs were wiped out in the midterm elections. Indeed, by sacrificing hundreds of billions in needed stimulus on the altar of deficit reduction, Democrats likely consigned the country to a slower recovery, harming their political prospects and likely contributing to their 2010 wipeout.

And given the deep liquidity trap we were in, the "fiscal responsibility" likely didn't do a thing for long term fiscal sustainability in terms of debt/GDP and probably even harmed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cake case was heard at the SC today. The basic outline is that a gay couple went into a bakery to place an order for wedding cakes, an item the baker sells, and were denied due to the baker claiming some sort of religious mumbo jumbo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Quote

The case arose from a brief encounter in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Mr. Phillips’s bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colo. The couple were going to be married in Massachusetts, and they were looking for a wedding cake for a reception in Colorado.

Mr. Phillips turned them down, saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage as that would clash with his religious faith. The couple say they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s civil rights commission.

Obviously, it's not about a cake, but about discrimination.  I'm legit worried about this case as a ruling in favor of the baker opens the door for businesses to discriminate on just about everything and blame their religion for it.  I wish Kennedy would have just fucked off sometime between 2009 and 2015 so we weren't being held captive by his seemingly eeny meeny miny moe approach to judging cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I think over the top pessimism about the future is a bit much. Look Trump is bad really really bad he's dangerous and destroying norms and he is bad for America specifically. But if you look at the world we are not doing that bad can you think of a time when things were better. As much as Trump might want to he can't bring America back to the 1950s he can't in 1950 we had segregation, gay marriage was unthinkable, repression and racism were rampant. The Soviet Union still existed and was ruled by Stalin, China was a starving hellhole and rule by Mao. Say what you will about Putin but he is better than Stalin, say what you will about China but after Mao they have moderated and lifted  hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into a prosperous middle class. Africa, Latin America, and Vietnam while still poor are many times wealthier than in the pas

Yes Trump is a monster but if you look into human history you will just find more monsters and compared to the rulers of the 20th century Trump is pretty mild. If you read the comments on Republican and Nationalist blogs they talk about how Democrats always win and Republicans always lose, which is true on social issues. Gay rights are settled the last Republican president was trying to get a gay marriage ban into the  constitution. This one couldn't dream of that. These past years have seen the Republicans cave on any social issue. A bif part of the "fuck Libruls!!!" impulse which got Trump elected are results from a rage of seeing every relevant institution in this country be captured by liberals. It will not last the young generation of millennials are progressive on social issues and economics. Trump is an old man's president the last vestige of a dying generation who see there values and their culture slipping away. Trump is a mess, Trump is a disaster, His presidency will hurt many and likely even kill many but it is not by any means the end. The pendulum will swing back and meanwhile the rest of the world is doing pretty well.  

I think we've gone beyond the problems (potentially) 8 years of Trump will cause for the world at large, and into consideration of the fact that the world at large is still stubbornly refusing to really do what's necessary to mitigate the worst of climate change. One might argue that 8 years of Trump is not all that consequential in the long term (30-40 years hence). While one can recognise a great deal of socio-economic progress in most of the world over the last 40-50 years, all that can be reversed in less than 50 year if the wells start drying up and large tracts of land inhabited by hundreds of millions of people become unlivable because of rising sea levels, creating the greatest global human displacement crisis in recorded history.

We've already got some Pacific islands feeling the need to sort out re-settlement contingencies. Which suggests the disappearance of entire small island countries may already be inevitable regardless of what we do. But hardly anyone seems to care that Kiribati might be completely submerged within 20-30 years, or at least submerged with each high tide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...