Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
It may lead to more deaths at sea, but way, way less waste of human life in general. 
Assuming that humans behave like any other species, that is probably not true. People (the exception are very well developed states that artificially restrict access to certain resources) multiply exponentially as long as resources are available.
For every person that migrates/flees - even though there are still resources to live - enough resources to "feed" another human become available.

As of right now, Africa is a people producing machine. If a piece of land has the capability to feed n people, the population will converge against that value in the long run. Removing k people from a country generally leads to more people from that country overall (at least in the case of Africa -- namely k+n).

I may very well be that i missed something, but according to the "logic" I presented, allowing migration overall leads to an increased production of people from problematic countries.
Thus I conclude (and again, I might very well be wrong) that incentivizing dangerous migration routes leads to an increased production of people from the problematic countries (by the capacity of the route).

As long as the incentive remains, every year a number of migrants will thus be at risk. By incentivizing migration, you basically increase a countries capability to "feed" people by the migration routes capacity, if the rest of the systems stays more or less the same.
I would really like to see the argument I made dismantled, because I do not like the result myself. But right now I do not see why it should be any different.
PS: I do not apply the chain of arguments to war/political refugees.
Reposted fromFlau Flau

Don't be the product, buy the product!