There can be 2 problems at the same time.
Whatever people focus on shouldn't be a topic.
Edit: That seems far more callous than it was meant. You're right, people are forced to travel the sea almost daily, desperate people will do anything.
This IS different. And hits different because it was a choice, with a real discussion about "Hey, it's really possible you can die, and you already have a rich life"
The fact it's rich people should show that it's a completely different scenario.
As for media coverage. I would agree.
It's different because 'we' would never think to jump on an overflowing boat. 'We' could imagine taking an 'adventure' in a submarine.
So it relates to 'us'.
This isn't a dig or insult. But context matters.
Flawless logic here.
It can impact your life financially, i.e., he might have faced foregoing an inheritance and heaving to build wealth himself instead of relying on the billions of his dad. But that's his choice, so don't relieve him from his own responsibility. He wasn't 5.
I'm thankfull I didn't have access or was challenged to go into a sub-4000ft expedition into the titanic wreck.
I did pass over the wreck on a Cruiseship, I thank my mother for his normie preferences and lifestyle now
>Whatever people focus on shouldn't be a topic.
On the contrary, I think what people focus on is irrelevant topic for reflection and more importantly introspection. It's important to know what Yanks your emotional chains and who is yanking them.
Looking at what drives public attention lets you know what people really care about, not what they might say they care about. You can learn some hard truth about reality by observing the actions of others.
That is to say, it's not a bad time to talk about these things unless you are speaking with friends and family of The Departed. However, if people want to have a real conversation exploring what drives public attention, they need to treat it as a real conversation. This means engaging the person that you're talking with good faith, respect, and an open mind.
In the case of the refugee boat—but not so much the submarine—it occured because of a policy choice of the leaders of many news observers. These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these. And media coverage has been shown in the past to be able to influence leaders in making some policy changes.
So I stand with my previous argument of
"People don't change their life or opinion because of either of them."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_migrant_vessel_inciden...
On the one hand we have people who fear they will come and increasingly vote right wing and succesfully pressured sea rescue organisations in not operating in the mediterran sea anymore and on the other hand we have people donating lots of money to private sea rescue organisations that do operate there and also rescue refugees.
Not in the direction the poster thought they would/should change.
I would argue voters are aware of what's going on, and approve of the situation. In at least some of the countries directly involved (UK, France, Italy), the majority is calling for more restrictive immigration policies.
Note that most (almost all) of this negative media coverage has no basis in reality. The only connection between refugees and terrorism is the fact that many of them are fleeing real terrorist threats, there is no correlation between crime and refugees which cannot be explained better by poverty, increased immigration has been shown to have positive effects on the job market, etc.
Despite this, the media keeps churning out the negative coverage, and the policy choices by European leaders reflect that. The lack of media coverage of the human tragedy of the Andriana is therefor pretty consistent. In the media refugees are a burden, not humans lives which deserve empathy. The coverage reflects this, so does public opinion, and ultimately, so does policy.
This is overall a really sad situation in Europe.
"These leaders have the power to prevents disasters like these"
Like if the media coverage was empathetic to the lives lost in this tragedy, and if it had been so in the past, the public opinion towards refugees and the policy made by our leaders would perhaps be different, and this whole disaster would have been avoided. But that’s not the world we live in. European border and refugee policy reflects the media’s attitude of billionaires dying in a submarine disaster is worth the coverage, but not potentially the top 50 worst maritime disaster in history.
Anyhow, I seriously don’t mean to build a straw man, I just cannot see some simple pushbutton policy fix for “nations that are a bad place to live will generate a flow of refugees to better places exceeding the capacity those nations will have to absorb them.” Good luck though, if you come up with a grand solution that provably works, which you can convince a democratic majority to support, I’ll be happy for you.
Create a legal avenue for applying for asylum.
Yes, I believe this simple policy change would have prevented this disaster, and so many more tragedies. It could be as simple as having a request form present at the border crossing, where asylum seekers are than directed to a temporary facility.
I believe we are in this mess because refugees are literally forced to illegally cross into a potential host country before applying for asylum. This policy is nuts. And as we know thousands of people still do this. Seeking asylum is not illegal, but there are no legal ways to do it, which results in thousands of people attempting illegal border crossing and a blooming business for human smugglers.
My only point: It’s a complex problem with zero happy outcomes, and people shouldn’t act like a quick, cheap fix will solve it. It just moves the problem somewhere else. Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.
Criminalizing border crossing does not stop border crossing, it only stops legal border crossing, and as we see, people attempt illegal border crossings all the time. This leads to a deadly industry of human trafficking which is causing more deaths in Europe than terrorism (excluding Russian state terrorism in a war zone).
As of now there is nothing stopping the whole country of Somalia, El Salvador, etc. from arriving legally at a border crossing in Europe, Mexico, etc. If border crossings were legalized this wouldn’t change. Sure more people might attempt to seek asylum, but the consequences of failing would be far less severe as currently. And I think any prediction that western systems would fall apart at the prospects are fear mongering. There are no evidence any of that would happen. And any arguments in favor of such failures are ultimately based on vibes.
> The West doesn’t have enough decent “temporary facilities” to warehouse the whole population of Somalia, El Salvador, etc.
> Actually solving it would take trillions of dollars that most taxpayers don’t want to spend.
So spend the trillions, build those facilities. But I doubt this is the issue. We certainly had the facilities when the covid pandemic stopped the tourism industry, yet we didn’t use them. And I don’t think this will cost trillions of dollars.
Europe actually has experience with open borders, and the experience is a resounding success. There are no negatives, and there are a bunch of positives. And no, the whole country of Romania does not migrate to Norway as a result. But I’m not even calling for open borders here (even though I want them open). The humanitarian disaster at the European borders calls for immediate action and we don’t have time for a complicated policy change.
If temporary facilities for asylum seekers are too expensive for your liking, than don’t offer them. Mandate that asylum seekers provide their own accommodation (effectively offload it to charities) during the asylum application process. If you do that than just expect the homeless population to skyrocket. Personally I would favor the state offering temporary facilities (added benefit is you create a bunch of new jobs for your now bigger labor pool).
If you think that, I'd disagree with you.
"It's hard to imagine anything more vain than thinking immigration politics don't affect societies "
"Apples are vain."
The poster wrote thinking that immigration politics doesn't affect societies is vain.
"Oranges are vain."
"Because you wrote it?"
You (?) "Apples and Oranges are the same"
>despite Myhrvold’s enthusiasm, the Photonic Fence hasn’t been all that easy to actually build
>...laser is not safe for your eyes
>...no one has yet worked out how to make the device cheap enough
The new vaccine may do better https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62797776
As for being safe for eyes, I thought part of the idea was to make sure there was nothing in between the mosquito and the laser before firing, though I'm not sure exactly what the plan there was.
Unless of course in your point of view anyone that seeks a better future to avoid problems in their own country is a refugee, which could be a point of view but not one I (or dictionaries) agree with.
How are they not refugees?
UNHCR:
Refugees are people who have been forced to flee their homes and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan declared Monday a day of mourning for Pakistanis who died after a fishing boat
Um that's literally the definition of a refugee. Or perhaps your definition of "problems" needs clarifying?
Forced to flee
Pakistan is certainly a place some people would want to flee from, Malala Yousafzai being the most obvious example of the terrors that have happened there.
barf.