This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The UK's claim to a slice of Antarctica is worth about as much as if they claimed a crater of the moon instead.
Nobody wants to live in Antarctica. I would rather raise kids on a container ship.
This means that the normal process of the rule-based international order, where local polities organize however they like and get recognized as states (which is already flimsy in the case of Greenland with its 0.028 persons per square kilometer) will not have a good solution to this.
The traditional solution to solve conflicting territorial claims is, of course, war. Happily, Antarctica, being south of the Tropic of Cancer, is far outside NATO territory. So if the Brits want to wage war against China or Argentina in some god-forsaken desert of ice and desolation, let them.
Alternatively, the nations of Earth might jointly decide to exploit the resources of Antarctica, but in that case I would expect a reshuffling of territories. China is not going to accept that it does not get a slice based on some claims frozen by a treaty 60 years ago. Nor is the US, certainly not under 47.
Wikipedia indicates that British Antartica is only a little colder than Greenland, and actually warmer than Nunavut and Siberia. So it really isn't the most outlandish place to live, assuming that services are available.
The parts of Siberia that people actually live in(a non-negligible number of them), are much warmer than Antarctica. They have trees, and you can swim in the water.
Are people moving to Nunavut? Neither the traditional nor the modern Nunavut subsistence strategy is likely to be allowed by the British(they’re opposed when Japan does it) in Antarctica, nor is it very appealing to outsiders. Greenland, likewise, is a wasteland of severe alcoholism and doesn’t seem to generate any ROI for Denmark. The Inuit may be fine people, but they’re not taking to modernity very well. You’ll notice that the European colonies in the warmest parts of Greenland failed.
More options
Context Copy link
Kinda the main stumbling block, tho, innit?
I mean, if, as the article suggests, sufficient quantities of valuable natural resources are found, every incentive will be there to make those services available. It's probably not going to be that much harder than building remote North Sea wells or setting up shop in Siberia.
You mind unfiltering the comment you’re replying to?
Oh dear. It's fixed now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link