Michel Boucher wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>> Every systemic change is like a revolution. It may not be
>>> bad in the moral sense, but it doubleplus ungood in the
>>> survival sense for many if not all species, including
>>> mankind.
>>
>> Plenty of species have been migrating north. Here in Chicago
>> metro it is clear that humans are among those species because
>> I can now see advertising in Spanish.
>
> You are comparing the pressures of capitalism to ecological
> balance, which is like saying that telephone poles don't have
> armpits.

It remains an accurate observation - Humans are among the species
migrating north. Other migrations have happened during climate change
across history. Sucks to be in the path of a mass migration unless you
figure out how to deal the hand that's dealt to you.

> Humans live everywhere on the planet and most can choose where to
> live (in physical terms, not necessarily economic terms) but most
> animals live within a circumscribed area called a niche where
> their needs are met. They do not move out of the niche unless
> forced to migrate. When animals migrate, that means the niche
> has been disturbed (suffering from positive feedback) and they
> must look elsewhere for similar or at the very least adequate
> resources. If it is local, their region might allow them to find
> another similar area within the same zone, but if the change is
> broader, they have to go beyond their territory and find sources
> in places where they have no guarantee. This may result in
> changes, most dramatically in size, as food supplies may be
> considerably fewer. It's called adaptation which if applied with
> sufficient force may result in evolution.

So? Animal migrations have happened a lot in the past. This time
humans have consumed the places they migrate to. That is causing and
will cause more extinctions among species not human. Humans have had an
adverse impact on the planet with respect to migrations, polution and so
on. So what species is blocking the migration of humans?

> I think it's been said by others, there is NO arable land in the
> north, and by north, I mean north of the plains (boreal forest and
> beyond). It's called barrenlands because, surprise, you are unable
> to grow food there. Most of it is moss on rock. In order to
> terraform the North, you would have to invest more money than
> exists on the entire planet.

And the land is not changing as the climate warms? Uh huh. Lots of
roads will need to be built, just like when civilization arrived farther
south. Lots of swamp will need to be drained, just like when
civilization arrived farther south. All that work will be very good for
those locals who take advantage of the migrating humans.