leicsmac

I'm not going to take that bet as I'm reasonably sure I'll lose when things become clearer. Balance of probability. However, there's a rather big difference in inference between "reasonably sure" and stating it as a fact when it's not known yet.

Is this a proven certainty or are we just saying balance of probability here (which would be fair enough)? On the general matter, see above for further elaboration.

Yeah, that's in all likelihood correct. All the more reason for cooler heads to target the specific issue rather than "country's gone to the dogs" rhetoric looking as if some kind of race war is inevitable (or even in the minds of some, desirable).

Just to add a little context here...

Agreed - as I said, somehow a balance needs to be struck. The stakes are rather high.

We can (and should) supply all the help that we can. That's just being a decent human being. And from a practical standpoint, it's the only way forward that stands even a chance of preserving our civilisation for any significant length of time. If the world does end up going to hell in a handbasket (and it might), then outside of a truly out-of-place occurrence like a meteor strike or supervolcanic eruption, all of our species will be at fault, the UK included - either through action or not doing enough to prevent it. That's the way that it will be seen by anyone left afterwards. Though my thought has been for a while that if something like that occurs, such "lifeboats" will firstly be inevitable (as you infer here, it won't turn out any other way) and secondly not last long at all. It will come down to being the last one to sink. Survive united, or pass on divided. I can understand the need to protect the "self" and the "tribe" in the way described here, especially when times are hard for many right now. But somehow, someway, a balance is going to have to be struck between the "tribe" and the greater world, because all other ways don't end anywhere but badly. And that would be sad, given we know the dilemma and unlike other animals, we have the choice. Can certainly understand the need for a drink after events earlier today.

Definitely a sliding doors moment. Anyone would have been hard-pressed to cut through the terrible tribal enmity in that corner of the world, but he seemed to the closest to at least deriving something of a solution for it.

Hve to ask, is there a reason beyond "tax bad" that this belongs in the thread with people like racist killers, nonces and Stephen Miller?

Little bit of a false dilemma there where there is a possible solution; rather than accepting them "all" to migrate, would be to supply the help they need, geopolitical and otherwise, to not have to migrate anymore. Of course, if you don't address the root cause of such matters then things play out exactly as you say and it comes down to where the line is drawn, but I don't think things have to be that way when a possible solution does exist. I don't doubt your intentions and we've chatted a bit about various topics here before. However, I would forgive people for being a bit willing to jump at remarks that they think might resemble what is described above when we are in a time where such remarks are not only widespread, but the people making them are in power and shaping political policy while gaslighting people into thinking they're not doing it in the name of the aforementioned bigotry.

As much as the first bolded part is true here, that and the second appears to accept the death and suffering of a great many people - perhaps numbering in the aforementioned billions - as a fait accompli that cannot be stopped. Now, if folks think that kind of social Darwinism is acceptable, that's between them and their own consciences, but I'm not sure how well history looks upon people who let a great many other people die, when there was even the slimmest chance of saving at least some of them.

We have them already. Unfortunately the self interested with the power are doing a very good job of convincing other people that they're "activists", "commies", "greenies" etc which is a difficult thing to counter sometimes. The legend that is Sir David is an exception by being pretty much universally loved.

Be ready for malarial mosquitoes to become much more widespread, with all that entails, for one such factor. The power inequality is an issue all its own which affects a lot of others, including this one.

Of course, but given there's so many blatant dog-whsitle inferences followed by "that's not what I said" going round on this matter right now, some folks clearly have rather had enough of people thinking they're clever by hiding their bigotry behind reasonably shallow innuendo.

Exactly. Our species has the rather dubious honour of being the first to be the cause of a mass extinction event. That is already happening. How that mass extinction compares to others in the past (rivaling the "Big Five" or a smaller event), and whether it will consume us as well when it's all over, is up to us. We have a choice, and that choice will be remembered by whoever and whatever observes in the future.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04gqez4lkyo A primer on COP30, and why it's important.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d0qwx5z2vo The latest politicking while people are about to go hungry.

On that I emphatically agree. Also, it would be better if we could do that ourselves as a species while having some element of control over the process, rather than it being taken pretty much out of our hands. Which it could well be, sometime soon.

Taken to watching Reuters news mostly these days. Would recommend, one of the very few that just reports the news, rather than any kind of commentary with bias on it.

Taking that as rote for a moment... I wonder if that bloke needs to be turned off and on again, what exactly needs to be done with other blokes involved in the democratic political process that either infer or flat out state that entire demographics of people are at best second class citizens and at worst subhuman, and are clearly willing to let the future burn for the sake of their own gain in the present?

"Who's Keyser Soze?"

Yep. Antibiotic resistance, endemic diseases, biodiversity decreases, increasing inequality between the most powerful and the least... These are also all issues either potentially or actually really rather harmful, yet they, among others, tend not to get much discussion regarding them. Instead, the legacy and social media channels tend to be full of how bad humans are to each other specifically along physical and cultural demographic lines only (which does cause harm, just not as much as other things do, so the attention is disproportionate imo). Edit: and to be clear, this isn't about what discussions are "allowed" or not, but about how disproportionate such discussions are.

If someone would actually do more about naming these subjects that no one wants to talk about, perhaps their relative importance might be discussed. Compared to some subjects that are discussed here in terms of actual tangible harm that they cause to humans and other life, it may be that they're not actually either that important or discussion worthy, and are in fact artificially inflated to appear a bigger issue than they are for base purposes. Which, ironically, is rather a big thing that people should talk more about.

I think that's because everyone either considers that batshit cruelty simply par for the course for this administration, or they're actually OK with both of those things but just don't want to articulate it.

Americanisation and social media both to blame for that, sadly. And one day, the damage that conceit, that lack of focus on things that actually matter, will cause will be absolute.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy40jj71243o That's the kind of immigration policy the UK is looking for, right? Come on, take those masks off just as the counterparts across the pond have all along...