The author says "It's deeply rooted in a fear of a future defined by uncontrollable, continuous migration crises fueled by a climate-ravaged, demographically exploding African continent", as if this is a bad thing. Uncontrollable, continuous migration is a very bad thing. How is that not a bad thing? Also why would this problem even belong to Europe?
I don't think the politics of the average person think this many steps ahead, but if they did it would be a legitimate concern, especially given the struggles Europe has experienced trying to assimilate the migrants it currently has.
> The author says "It's deeply rooted in a fear...". Uncontrollable, continuous migration is a very bad thing. How is that not a bad thing?
When pundits in the modern era speak of this sort of fear, the point is not necessarily "the thing that others are afraid of would actually be good". The point is more likely "this won't happen, thus the fear is groundless and the people with the fear are irrational".
(Although I'm sure there are at least some people who consider that there is no good reason to put an upper bound on immigration, or ever turn anyone away; I'm not going to try to explain such a mindset, because it's beyond my own comprehension. In many cases, people may simply not have thought about - or not currently be thinking about - the numbers, and simply operating on a moral principle of uplifting people by admitting them into a geographic region with higher GDP/capita.)
Of course, the argument often depends on highly subjective definitions of "this". And of course, different people have their own reasons to extrapolate observable trends differently, depending on their own level of trust in institutions, which will depend at least a little on their personal history.
Why do we Europeans care? Because climate change is destroying the foundations of our life. The real question should be why are others caring less?
But back to us Europeans: Since we already have "basically" everything we want (including low inequality), we can afford to look forward to dangers that lurk only on the horizon. Also, our politicians do listen to their voters (at least sometimes) because media is less corrupt and votes count. This all helps.
Nonetheless, Europe is still too slow and we are heading right into the climate desaster anyway. But at least we did and do something. Yes, it lets me sleep better.
>"By investing in climate mitigation and renewable energy projects within Africa, Europe hopes to stabilize the continent at its source—to make life bearable enough that millions don't feel compelled to leave."
Aren't parts of the EU already encouraging them to migrate to plug labor holes in their demographically top-heavy systems and keep wages down? Wouldn't that outweigh these efforts?
yes, it's obvious to anyone who paid attention in the past century, and particularly in the past ten years or so.
the oligarchs, who are the power behind the throne in every country on this planet, don't care what color the underclass is - they simply want lower wages for their peasants and higher value for their properties. the politicians and the media they own will always find a rationale to do their bidding.
This is like scorpion-turtle parable crossing a river. Europe is on a raft. At some point the raft begins to sink = all drown.
They need to save Africa to save themselves.
Africa does not need saving, it is a huge continent - look it up on a map and notice that you can fit USA, China, India, Mexico, Peru, France, Spain, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Norway, Italy, New Zealand, The UK, Nepal, Bangladesh and Greece [1] in its area and still have 0.1% of its land mass left to build yourself a Singapore - and it can take care of itself and its own just as long as they manage to get rid of the tin pot dictators, warlords and grifting pseudo-revolutionaries who are in power in too many countries. Europe does need saving but it needs saving from itself, not from some 'climate emergency'. European countries need to realise they are the custodians of cultures which gave rise to most of what we're used to nowadays, both good as well as bad. They need to get over the self-inflicted guilt complex with regard to the bad things by realising the same is true for all other cultures currently in existence and nearly all of those which were vanquished by others and need to get back to promoting more of the good aspects of their (or should that be 'our' - I'm of Dutch origin, living in Sweden) cultures. Enough with the fatalism, enough with all the different scares which are being bandied around - climate, disease, migration, war and more - and back to building a future.
Yes, this means that many a person who has based her future on 'saving Africa' will be out of a job. That is a good thing, the paternalistic (or, to be more precise, maternalistic) attitude towards Africa is both unwarranted as well as an example of the type of hubris which got 'us' here in Europe in this situation to begin with. Find another job, stop trying to impose your maladjusted visions of societal bliss on Africa and elsewhere, go do something useful instead.
The author says "It's deeply rooted in a fear of a future defined by uncontrollable, continuous migration crises fueled by a climate-ravaged, demographically exploding African continent", as if this is a bad thing. Uncontrollable, continuous migration is a very bad thing. How is that not a bad thing? Also why would this problem even belong to Europe?
I don't think the politics of the average person think this many steps ahead, but if they did it would be a legitimate concern, especially given the struggles Europe has experienced trying to assimilate the migrants it currently has.
> The author says "It's deeply rooted in a fear...". Uncontrollable, continuous migration is a very bad thing. How is that not a bad thing?
When pundits in the modern era speak of this sort of fear, the point is not necessarily "the thing that others are afraid of would actually be good". The point is more likely "this won't happen, thus the fear is groundless and the people with the fear are irrational".
(Although I'm sure there are at least some people who consider that there is no good reason to put an upper bound on immigration, or ever turn anyone away; I'm not going to try to explain such a mindset, because it's beyond my own comprehension. In many cases, people may simply not have thought about - or not currently be thinking about - the numbers, and simply operating on a moral principle of uplifting people by admitting them into a geographic region with higher GDP/capita.)
Of course, the argument often depends on highly subjective definitions of "this". And of course, different people have their own reasons to extrapolate observable trends differently, depending on their own level of trust in institutions, which will depend at least a little on their personal history.
Why do we Europeans care? Because climate change is destroying the foundations of our life. The real question should be why are others caring less?
But back to us Europeans: Since we already have "basically" everything we want (including low inequality), we can afford to look forward to dangers that lurk only on the horizon. Also, our politicians do listen to their voters (at least sometimes) because media is less corrupt and votes count. This all helps.
Nonetheless, Europe is still too slow and we are heading right into the climate desaster anyway. But at least we did and do something. Yes, it lets me sleep better.
Also, the climate disaster is a continuum. The more prepared you are now, the more prepared you will be in the future when things are worse.
The immigrants arriving to the south of italy/greece from libya are Egyptians, syrians, sudanese, afghans, bangladeshi etc. Not subsaharan.
There is no significant migration of subsaharan africans to the north of Africa. They want to go to europe, and pay smugglers to get them there.
The article is out of touch with reality. That said, mass migration due to climate change SHOULD of course be a great fear for europe.
>"By investing in climate mitigation and renewable energy projects within Africa, Europe hopes to stabilize the continent at its source—to make life bearable enough that millions don't feel compelled to leave."
Aren't parts of the EU already encouraging them to migrate to plug labor holes in their demographically top-heavy systems and keep wages down? Wouldn't that outweigh these efforts?
yes, it's obvious to anyone who paid attention in the past century, and particularly in the past ten years or so.
the oligarchs, who are the power behind the throne in every country on this planet, don't care what color the underclass is - they simply want lower wages for their peasants and higher value for their properties. the politicians and the media they own will always find a rationale to do their bidding.
Isn't a better question: why would it matter?
Whichever is true, we all benefit, so why agitate over it? Conflating the two issues will not generate a single iota of good so drop it.
This is like scorpion-turtle parable crossing a river. Europe is on a raft. At some point the raft begins to sink = all drown. They need to save Africa to save themselves.
Africa does not need saving, it is a huge continent - look it up on a map and notice that you can fit USA, China, India, Mexico, Peru, France, Spain, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Norway, Italy, New Zealand, The UK, Nepal, Bangladesh and Greece [1] in its area and still have 0.1% of its land mass left to build yourself a Singapore - and it can take care of itself and its own just as long as they manage to get rid of the tin pot dictators, warlords and grifting pseudo-revolutionaries who are in power in too many countries. Europe does need saving but it needs saving from itself, not from some 'climate emergency'. European countries need to realise they are the custodians of cultures which gave rise to most of what we're used to nowadays, both good as well as bad. They need to get over the self-inflicted guilt complex with regard to the bad things by realising the same is true for all other cultures currently in existence and nearly all of those which were vanquished by others and need to get back to promoting more of the good aspects of their (or should that be 'our' - I'm of Dutch origin, living in Sweden) cultures. Enough with the fatalism, enough with all the different scares which are being bandied around - climate, disease, migration, war and more - and back to building a future.
Yes, this means that many a person who has based her future on 'saving Africa' will be out of a job. That is a good thing, the paternalistic (or, to be more precise, maternalistic) attitude towards Africa is both unwarranted as well as an example of the type of hubris which got 'us' here in Europe in this situation to begin with. Find another job, stop trying to impose your maladjusted visions of societal bliss on Africa and elsewhere, go do something useful instead.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/