Greenland is part and parcel of Danish national identity. It has nothing to do with money, almost everything to do with history and something I need a much better term for than cultural consciousness.
No Danish government would have survived a selling off. In the immidiate aftermath of WW2 and German occupation, you can multiply that with some considerable factor.
Footnote fact: Danes/Norwegians first settled in Greenland about a thousand years ago, at roughly the same time as the present inuit population.
There is another possibility: the modern notion that a sovereign's inhabited territory is not a chattel to be disposed of if an economically advantageous transaction can be arranged, but a trust held in benefit of those who live there under the sovereign's protection.
Under this view, it would be an abrogation of the Greenlanders' right of self-determination for them to be passed to the United States without their agreement.
Ah, but what if they hold a referendum and 60% want to change sovereign and 40% don't. Is it not an abrogation of that 40%'s right to self-determination? Maybe we should recognize that everybody has different desires and voting exists merely to pacifistically answer the question of if we fought a civil war over this decision, who would be more likely to win.
> Greenland is a poor country. Perhaps Denmark simply wants to help out. This is ethically reprehensible. Greenland is poor, but compared to many African countries it is fabulously wealthy
Earlier:
> Much of the Greenland population is Danish, unsurprisingly
I don't see that it's "ethically reprehensible" for Denmark to focus its charitable efforts on Danes. What did I miss? Gwern even calls this out:
> if that is Denmark’s true reason, shame on them for letting [...] ethnicity warp their ethical judgement to such a freakish extreme.
I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment.
> I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment.
I don't see warped judgment but it's something we see frequently these days: An attempt to take down liberalism, with its embrace of reason and compassion, by aggressively making illiberal statements - as if to challenge the very ideas. The crazier and more illiberal the better; it almost becomes a contest to see who can say the craziest thing, which also serves as a proof of ideological purity common in such movements. You can see it in the statements of GOP candidates (Trump is on the same continuum they've been on for a long time) and on Fox. The only solution is to letting these hateful ideas dominate our country is to start calling people on it.
We're not machines, we're human beings, and it is humanity's nature for a person to love their own parents more than other parents, and for parents to love their children more than other children. What's inhumane is preventing people from doing what comes to them naturally via excessively high taxes, and force people to provide for everyone else who they hardly know[2].
Love is not equal, and that is just a fact.
Mohism[1] - where everyone love everyone else equally - is dead. It will die once again.
This post ignores the massive social movements away from such highly tribalistic human associations. It ignores how technology, state, and economic structures have utterly dictated family structures since the neolithic. It does not actually establish some causal link between 'human nature' and what current familial affiliations people have. It is a statement of 'common sense' dressed up as an unassailable assertion about 'human nature'. How dare anyone question 'human nature'?
Furthermore, the idea that any particular inborn kin affinity implies any particular social structure, falls flat on its face on purely logical grounds: If it is human nature to maximize the utility of one's parents and one's children over other relatives and other human beings, it is still possible that the best way to do so is to create a more egalitarian, free associating society based on large scale cooperation between human beings and compassion for non-kinsmen. The assertion relies on unspoken intuitions which are shaped by the institutions and cultural powers that raise us. Convenient for someone trying to justify their world view, pitiable for anyone trying to understand 'human nature'.
Furthermore: We are all related and the time horizon of this kin favoring behavior has not been established. It is not clear why it is inborn 'human nature' to care for your immediate relatives and not more distant relatives. It is conveniently left implicit as that which makes most sense for the capitalist nuclear family, and maybe a generation or two down. If you care about your offspring into the indefinite future, and if you care about your relatives going back indefinitely, you care about all human beings.
What I truly believe 'human nature' to be, if such a thing could be well defined is our ability to apprehend what lot we have in the common good, what our place in the way of things is. Not just in our communities, but in our species and on our planet.
It's certainly not an excuse to grumble about taxes.
You are arguing people should be prevented from prioritising their resources to their kin. You are free to think such an action is contrary to your sense of ethics. My opinion is - if a person can't even love their own children, how can they love others'?
A long time ago all matter originated from the Big Bang, uniform and same in every way. Does that mean that is where we should aim towards? If you care about 'all', why not throw everyone and everything into another giant Big Bang yet again and be done with it? Because that is exactly what globalisation is doing - extinguishing unique cultures, languages and demolishing identity.
We don't live in a free society. If we lived in a free society, we would have to, from scratch, determine how best to cooperate. You complained about taxes: Taxes exist for a reason, because they are part of an enormously complex social structure whose main purpose is to support the concept of private property.
I am asking you to consider that if you want more freedom to love your kin, then maybe you ought to abolish the system of coercion that props up capitalism. It's not the taxes at fault. The taxes are there because without them, the system destabilizes. History teaches us that much. If you want private property, you're going to have taxes. The best you can hope for is to be the top of a feudal hierarchy where all the taxes feed into your estate. That does not endure, as we are all aware.
I don't think caring about everything means you want it to be homogeneous. I also reject globalization at a personal level, because I see it as a horribly violent system of interlocking political, social, and economic forces seeking to assimilate more and more of the world into their hierarchy of exploitation.
What I think it means to care about everything, is to not be myopic. It may be your intent to love your children, and even love them more than other children, but it may very well be that the best way to do so is to love all children. Is that unreasonable? It may be that the best way to love your children the most is to care about the entire ecosystem. Is that unreasonable? I think human beings are remarkably good at seeing the connections between things, and even if instinct is what tells us what is important, it is something far more dynamic and intelligent that tells us what is true.
If you want to be an individual, I think, personally, that it means you must find a society that supports the kind of individual you want to be.
I can't imagine being an individual without other human beings around. Realizing that, I see that my individuality is found in my community; my place in my community is part of my individuality.
I can't imagine being an individual without the world I live in. Realizing that, I see that my individuality is also found in my planet; how I treat the Earth is part of how I treat myself.
P.S. If we ever get to the point as a species where we can generate a new universe, I think it would be enormously important for every individual to contemplate what that means about what we are.
Everything is connected. Everything and everyone are merely shards of the same universe. And that is exactly the point. By my parents, I and my brother are one. By my grand parents, my cousins and uncles and aunts and I. By my ancestors, I am connected to the rest of humanity. And through me, my children will inherit this same connection. And, so, to take care of the world, I must take care of my parents first, and concentrate my resources on my children.
The same mindset that creates excessive high taxes for redistribution to everyone else, taken to the extreme, would abandon elderly in elderly homes, prevent children from receiving the love of their parents, take babes from the arms of mothers, and in doing so, tear the fabric of society apart, dissolving the connection between nodes and turning humanity into one giant glob, devoid of uniqueness of individuals, by equalising everything.
And the mindset to do that, as hackuser so fervently advocate, at its core, is narcissism. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038933 The idea that his ideas are all important and others have zero standing, to impose his ideas of how society should be structured on others.
I know nothing. I cannot convince him, and I cannot convince you. Are my ideas the only way people can build societies with? 100% no. What's important is for me to leave others to figure out their own humanity. People will find their own way and from your comment I can see you are already most of the way there. As long as I do nothing to meddle in others, there will be no need for me to meddle.
It's in our nature to live in caves, hunt and gather, die very young, lose most of our children before they turn 5, and murder each other over food and sex. But reason and compassion [1] also is in our nature, and using it we've built great things far beyond those other things.
[1] I'm not entirely sure "compassion" encompasses it, but I'll go with it.
I think it's more an acknowledgment that instinctual forces are more powerful than ideals could ever hope to be. That when push comes to shove, people will violently protect those closest to them and that its fantasy to pretend otherwise.
Well, no, except in the sense that it can be objectively demonstrated that it is better for your sister to die than it is for 100,000 Africans to die by just about any measure of 'better' — outside of your own immediate and immutable personal preference — that you might care to name. So in that one sense, it could be argued that it might be an example of warped judgement.
There was a time when nationalism was a much more powerful force in society. 100 years ago, millions of young men marched out to be slaughtered in the name of king and country.
Now, in many circles, people have adopted a guilt ridden opposite of nationalism. People genuinely believe that helping a countryman is an ethical dilemma so long as there is someone worse off.
Interesting points; I've a few rambling thoughts about them:
* I don't think many people are so extreme as the 'opposite of nationalism'. In fact, I think that nationalism (or more broadly, the basic tribalistic instinct) has such an natural, powerful pull on people that it will never need to be encouraged.
* I think it's great that many people moderate their nationalistic instincts now with reason and compassion. Not only did millions get slaughtered for the nation (or the race, or whatever), but they murdered millions more. The moderation of 'tribalism' with liberal ideas might be one of the most important changes in humanity's history.
* Unfortunately, I see nationalism and other tribalistic ideas as rapidly spreading again. It's promoted by state school boards in Texas and Oklahoma; many national leaders push it, for example in Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea (off the top of my head). Outright religious 'tribalism' is rampant in Europe and, to a degree, the U.S. The EU's unity is under serious strain, Scotland almost succeeded from the UK, and parts of Spain and other countries are discussing the same. Nobody stands up for the value of the liberal ideas and institutions that kept the peace since WWII.
Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity.
The problem is that in practice the alternative to nationalism isn't universal humanism. It's pernicious individualism or strong group identification along other dimensions. Many Netizens, for example, feel closer to the educated elite in other countries than they do to working class people a couple of neighborhoods away. I don't think that's actually a good thing if you're trying to create an egalitarian cohesive society.
> in practice the alternative to nationalism isn't universal humanism. It's pernicious individualism or strong group identification along other dimensions.
That's the 'tribalism' I'm talking about. People can divide into 'us and them' over nations or states or race or wealth or whatever. I agree with the downsides and your example.
But it's not intractable. We're not living in family units in caves; we've formed societies, nations, companies, bowling leagues, etc. Humans are naturally social, cooperative, even herd-like organisms and they do work together, organize, and build inclusive social structures.
The very divided states of 1776 did form the United States of today, though it took a little work. The Germanic states formed Germany. Europe did make peace and form the EU. Think of the notion of "white" in the U.S.: There used to be violent, hateful divisions between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews; between Italians, Irish and Germans (and more); it was a big deal when JFK was elected in 1960 that he was Catholic. Now that all would be absurd; those people are just "white" (and the division is with black and Hispanic peopl, and with Muslims). We had segregation, and now we elected a black President (though we still have a ways to go.) LGBTQ people are now widely accepted as just people.
Arguably, there are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those that bring people together, and those that play on tribalistic instincts and divide them. One kind has much better results for humanity.
There are two kinds of political movements (and leaders), those, like narcissists, forcefully change others into themselves, remove differences between peoples, demolish language and culture, and those that remain resolute in being non-interfering of others, even while being interfered with, allowing other humans to live according to their humanity.
In Firefly - you would be part of the alliance. In Star Wars - you would be part of the empire. In the People's Republic of China, you would be part of the CCCP. In the U.S. you would be part of the Federal government. In Europe you would be part of the Troika.
I disagree; I don't at all intend to force anyone or think they should be forced. I believe they can and will be pursuaded and do the right thing, of their own free will; good leaders facilitate that but showing them how to work together. Humanity's track record for working together is incredible - we're a long way from caves and hunting - and it may be that the more free you make people, the better they respond.
The most prosperous, safest and most peaceful countries in the history of the world, by a long shot, are the freest.
You can disagree. You have the same mindset as the U.S. Government in the 1800's thinking it is wise to persuade American Indians to 'civilise' for their own good. People who never admit failure no matter the results of their social experiments. And that's just how some of us are going to think some of the time.
I can more than disagree; I speak with absolute authority for what I believe. I declare the truth of it. You and your speculation have no standing at all.
That's true for you, since you know if you're lying; it's not true in general.
I don't mean to say that there's any reason to think you're lying here, but I think it's worth pointing out that the identical argument fails very badly in different circumstances.
Sometimes I wish there were "gwern-as-a-service". I give him a topic, and he researches and writes it up. Payment in bitcoin. That would be pretty fucking awesome.
Another reason has occurred to me: it may well have been that in 1946, with the post-war alliance structure not entirely clear yet, Denmark considered that selling Greenland removed a large part of their continuing value as a US ally.
This would explain why they didn't want to sell it, but were happy to allow US bases to be established without payment. The reciprocity the Danes were counting on was ongoing protection by the USA as a valued ally.
"That’s very strange. As an American, would I say Puerto Rico is one of the very last things that ought to ever be cut in the federal budget? Heck no! Puerto Rico has repeatedly decided it’d rather not be a state, but at least it’s still genuinely ruled by the USA; if Puerto Rico decided to switch to full home rule, I think I and the average American would care even less about them."
This is definitely an American point of view. The US is a) a very large country which b) has been growing in power throughout modern history and c) has a cultural aversion to 'empire' (whether they are an empire or not is a different matter, but it seems they don't want to be).
Compare that to many European countries, which are a) very small, b) have lost a lot of power in the last 200 years and c) have a (admittedly not universal) nostalgic streak for the glorious days of empire, when they were world powers.
For Americans to sympathise, imagine if in 2100 various states have seceded and the US has split into multiple nations, with the remnant USA consisting only of the New England states. Then Canada offers to buy Maine, which is otherwise a burden on the treasury. Can you see why you wouldn't want to sell?
But how much would they get for selling Greenland today? If the answer is higher that $15bn, and I think it might be, then the Danes were shrewd indeed.
It's a tough hypothetical to consider because a large number of political realities would have to change on the ground, not least of which is the national pride argument you made in your terrific article.
However, let's assume for the time being that they suddenly want to sell to the highest bidder for whatever imaginary reason.
I suspect if sovereignty were up for grabs again, the US would be willing to pay a very significant price to keep it out of the hands of a non-NATO country.
$15bn is a small fraction of annual US federal spending. Seems to me paying a slightly larger or even significantly larger figure would be worth it to the US for sovereignty over such a valuable geostrategic location.
Plus as you noted, it's likely that climate change could increase the value of the land. Sure, maybe not enough to turn a profit for the buyer, but it would offset the costs of buying to some degree.
One particularly interesting implication is that if the US owned both Alaska and Greenland, it could bolster its argument for declaring the northwest passage as international waters in opposition to Canada's territorial waters claim.
It seems unlikely that they would sell it to an unfriendly power if they did decide to sell. If the Danes view the Greenlanders as their fellow countrymen, it's unfathomable that they would toss them to the Han Chinese cultural extermination squads at any price. Yet they might be able to see their way to a deal with the US or Switzerland or some other relatively benign owner. This doesn't strike me as an absolute argument but one of degree, much like if you asked me whether the US should sell Florida: to whom, I would ask. I'd gladly be rid of it, but it wouldn't do to have it in Russia's hands.
If the Danes wanted a hypothetical something (money, favors, something) badly enough, it's not a completely unreasonable notion that they might entertain selling to a nominally unfriendly power. As I mentioned before, a large number of political realities would have to change on the ground for them domestically for something like that to happen, but assuming that premise I can imagine scenarios where Greenland could fetch well above $15bn.
Depends what's left when they're gone, right? We don't very well know what's under them now, and we know even less what the melting and runoff process will take with it into the sea.
Buying Greenland today would be very risky even if you knew with certainty that the ice cap would be completely gone in 20 years. An ice-free Greenland might be an arid dust bowl devoid of vegetation, minerals, and usable water. Or, with proper care, it might turn into something more like Quebec. No one knows.
Sweden sold off Swedish Pomerania at the end of the Napoleonic wars in a good piece of business. Initially they wanted to swap it for Norway with Denmark, but as the Norwegians balked they never handed it over and then the Prussians swooped in and bought that and other bits and pieces off Sweden and Denmark.
It was a good piece of business as the defense of it would have cost resources but it still would have been a walkover against a serious opponent. And they would have lost it soon enough, at the latest in 1848 and the upheaval then.
Many of those instances are selling what one is unable to hold. There was, for instance, ~zero chance that France would end up actually retaining the Louisiana Purchase lands in perpetuity, so the only question was whether they'd get something in return (and they quite needed the money at the time), or lose them in an expensive war later.
It's debated whether the US has made money off of the purchase of Alaska from Russia or not[0].
The question of whether the US has made a return is not exactly the same as whether Russia profited off of the transaction (the costs to the US of governing the property may not be representative of what Russia would have paid), but they are related.
The Dutch Republic traded New Amsterdam (modern day New York) to England in exchange for Suriname. But after England had demonstrated that they could take New Amsterdam whenever they wanted, so getting something in exchange was certainly better than nothing.
It's almost always true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it. I expect my house to continue to rise in value indefinitely. Doesn't mean it's never the right call to sell it.
> It's almost always true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it.
Actually, the usual belief held by economists is the opposite: that it's almost never true that holding real estate is better in the long view than selling it and investing it, since the value of land as a fraction of industrialized economies has been constantly falling and conversely, labor/capital rising. (There's also the diversification and uncompensated risk issue.)
I think the was my point: it's totally plausible that a country selling off land could have been "profitable" depending on what the country was going to do with the proceeds.
I can't see why the same logic couldn't applied to any country selling any piece of its land. Why doesn't the United States sell Pennsylvania? Why doesn't the United Kingdom sell Trafalgar Square?
It doesn't apply because some areas are worth far more, and are worth far more in conjunction with others.
First, Pennsylvania is a well-developed and rich state, which was at the heart of American industrialization (names like Carnegie will ring a bell), and had and still has many natural resources: Pennsylvania was the start of American oil drilling and even now is yielding lucrative profits in the form of fracking for natural gas (to the point where my uncle remarks on how many of his patients are suddenly rich off royalties). It's in the top 10 of American states by GDP. The net present value of Pennsylvania is enormous. Note the stark contrast with Denmark & Greenland: where Greenland might have commercially exploitable resources and those resources may be substantially profitable one day and perhaps those profits will redound to the Danish people & government and who knows the share could be large enough to repay all the opportunity cost and risk and subsidies, Pennsylvania has been extremely important to the American economy, is now, and will be for quite some time to come.
Secondly, Pennsylvania is worth far more as part of the USA than as part of any other country & an enclave: countless roadways, railways, and rivers flow through it, it's near the ocean, the people of it speak the same language and have the same culture as the surrounding states, which directly border on it with few or no natural barriers, it needs to import and export heavily with them, and so on. If it were part of another country, subject to entirely different regulations and laws and politics and using a different currency and imposing a border on all movements, it would be much poorer than it is now. In the same way that Greece is not in an optimal currency zone combined with Germany and it makes no sense for the USA to still own Puerto Rico and some other places, Pennsylvania is in an optimal currency zone with the USA.
Funnily enough, earlier today I re-read an old article of mine talking about retiring in the 2050s, which includes the quote "I, for one, will be reaping the rewards of my Greenland Viticulture investments."
No Danish government would have survived a selling off. In the immidiate aftermath of WW2 and German occupation, you can multiply that with some considerable factor.
Footnote fact: Danes/Norwegians first settled in Greenland about a thousand years ago, at roughly the same time as the present inuit population.