Originally posted by Eladar
Not at all. The disadvantaged need the help. Go move to areas that need your help, instead of depopulating certain regions and forcing larger groups in already densely populated areas.
How are we supposed to eat locally grown foods, if everyone is bunched together. No room to grow food and what little is grown can't go around. Spread people out, don't smash everyone together. Help them where they live. Save the planet and humanity.
How does one decide which areas needs our help? One way would be to use market forces, such that people migrate away from places where their labour has little to no value and towards places where there is an economic demand for their labour. Sounds reasonable to me. This is the sort of decision process that took me from Dublin to London for example when I was 19.
Eating locally grown food is another matter. Agriculture and urbanisation made it possble for human societies to grow in numbers to a level that was not sustainable in hunter gathering societies. The process is not reversible without radical population decline. Instead, megacities look likely to be our future as a species.
Migration is a response not only to market forces but also to climate change. This factor will have increasing importance, because so many of the world's population live in or near coastal regions, so many deserts are expanding, so much ice is melting. For example, glaciers in the Himalayas feed water to much of India, Pakistan and other areas, and this is going to dry up - it is coming. You could work to reduce or avoid that impact by collective action to manage or minimise climate change, but America has taken steps to ensure this is no longer feasible. As you do not choose the collective approach, you are left with the individual approach - and by that means you will confront countless individual decisions to migrate for survival.