I don’t know if this belongs in GQ or IMHO but here goes…
The thread about shipping ice bergs to Africa made me once again wonder why people in inhospitable locations anywhere don’t just migrate to a more hospitable place? Sure it may take time. Maybe even 2 or 3 generations, but if there’s no food, no water, no services, danger, crime, etc… Then get the heck out?
Someone’s going to say, where do they go? Who cares, somewhere else.
Instead, we try to ship supplies in, instead of working the obvious long term solution… People shouldn’t reside there.
Because there are already other people in the more hospitable places. It may be difficult to find a place to live there.
Because it costs money and resources to move somewhere else. If you’re a goat herder in the Sahara, you can’t easily just pick up and move to a city unless you abandon or sell the only resource you’ve got.
Because you know already know how to make a living in the place you live now. You may not have any survival skills in the new place.
I wonder this about the homeless people in Detroit, Chicago, and other northern states with bitter winters. There should be no homeless problem in northern cities. I understand that homeless people do have ties to an area, but if none of those ties supply you with a couch, then, dude… go to South Beach or something.
Can you give some examples? Are we talking about a tribe deep in the rainforest, a family in the slums, a colonialist in a malarial zone or a just a regular Joe in Alaska.
People generally live in inhospitable places because:
They are too poor to move
They are hoping to make a fortune off of unexploited resources
They found a niche that they have adapted to, and that place is where they have a competitive advantage
They don’t want to leave their family and way of life for the unknown
I’ve wondered the same thing about blacks who remained in the South under Jim Crow laws.
Human beings have an amazing ability, and willingness, to adapt to anything.
Their ancestors also may not have known that there existed more hospitable climates. There’s a story about an Inuit tribe who thought they were the only people on Earth until European explorers discovered them.
That doesn’t always work either. Ask me how I know this.
Do you know what it’s like to be told “You’re overqualified” by someone with green hair, multiple facial piercings, and every square inch of visible skin except for their face covered in tattoos?
I can’t believe people live where tornadoes, cyclones or earthquakes are possible … but plenty of people do. I do live in an area where fire is a high risk; deadly snakes and spiders are common too!
What have people grown up with will change their assessment of risk, what is too risky for someone else might be OK for them. Ties of family, community and cost will keep people in places that seem highly unsuitable.
Most places have some form of risk (the ‘safest place to live’ still has car accidents, crime etc) and we’re actually not great at assessing risk factors and how they apply to us.
People rebuild on flood plains all the time, it seems. Makes no sense to me, but there you go! And if you live in a tornado zone maybe insist on a tiny basement room, instead of a pool or media room!
I too am surprised so many just rebuild in the same spot after such events. I mean I understand the urge, but I would never feel safe again, I think.
Often times, it will be because other people will actively hurt or kill them if they move. “Immigrate over generations” you say? That doesn’t really work - only one generation is the actual immigrant one.
Sounds like a more correct assessment would have been “doesn’t fit in with the corporate culture here.” If everyone at the place you’re applying to has tats and piercings, get some of your own or go somewhere else. If they’ve all got suits and ties, off to Brooks Brothers. Most people who aren’t hired can do the job, but are recognized as a poor fit for other reasons.
Most homeless people who live in the Northern Tier do so because they have family ties in the area. They often interact with family members, but they have often burned their bridges to the point where those family members will no longer allow them to live in their homes. They don’t want to leave.
And even if they do, areas which are attractive to live for people with money often have police forces geared towards making the homeless unwelcome. It’s very unpleasant to be homeless in Florida as the law enforcement there makes it clear that moving you along/out is Job No. 1. Why move there where the cops don’t know you when you stay where they do and leave you alone?
My original thought was the food & water starved of places in Africa like Ethiopia. But I modified the question to be more generic because there are people struggling in lots of places.
By the way, I don’t want to be perceived as unsympathetic. My concern is the reason I question it. Charities an foreign aid are already spending the money. It’s just such temporary solutions, most of the time. It will just continue with subsequent generations that way.
Yes it’s sad that some people don’t have the freedom to move like we can in the US.
And maybe some don’t have the education or means to apply to live elsewhere.
I was imagining poor people moving across a large area like a whole continent. I don’t expect groups could do it in one trip. It might have to happen slowly over time.
Texas
I realize trade is a common practice everywhere, but In some places it’s a one way transaction.
“Inhospitable” is a sliding scale. I wonder why people live in Alaska or Greenland or Saskatchewan. But then, people in Florida wonder why the heck I live in Chicago. It’s all relative to what you’re used to.
