If Trump offered you £1 million to vote for your country to become part of US, would you?

[Mochudubh]

This is hypothetically one of the options available to Greenlanders.

We're Scottish. I say no, DH says take the money and move.

Sorry, for some reason I can't enable voting. I get a No Entry sign

Cool story ChatGPT!

No way.

No not chat gpt. It's a typical index fund strategy. Check out vanguard life style strategy funds to see average market returns 😃

Cost of everything, value of nothing.

“…if you have children, the logic is even stronger.” The Iroquois predominantly, and many many other indigenous peoples, talk about the seven generations principle. In order to make decisions, especially about the land and the people, you look back to ancestors and forward to children, grandchildren and beyond. You consider yourself as steward of the land, of your culture, of the environment around you. Many indigenous peoples talk about ‘land-based education’ and ‘land-based healing’. Trauma is largely overcome engaging with culture on the land. It’s very effective.

One of the reasons indigenous peoples accepted money and goods (which the colonisers considered ‘buying’ the land) is that they had no concept of individual ownership of land and saw land as a gift from ancestors to steward for children. Indigenous people’s identity and culture is tied to the land.

All of which (AI didn’t help me, hence the lack of — in my post) means that Inuit people aren’t considering selling land for retirement. They are considering selling culture, language, their children’s welfare, the US strip mining their home (which can never be made right) and their futures for money. No indigenous person I’ve met would do that. Even to ‘de-risk’ their live financially.

I strongly suggest if anyone is panning a trip to Australia, NZ, the Americas, find a way to humbly learn about indigenous culture before you go and while you’re there. Not a tourist attraction. Visit cultural centres, see if there are local education events or installations. Learn the wider indigenous principles and read the UN Declaration. And learn about the history and culture specific to the region. For example, if you are going to Florida, learn about the Missosukee’s fight with the administration over Alligator Alcatraz.

I get that a million pounds could make me personally comfortable. But make no mistake about what is being sold.

Come on. It was ChatGPT. — and that wiggly approximately sign. ‘And here’s why’. We’ve all AI-ed something.

What’s interesting is what question you asked, what you put in. So what did you put in?

Although the amount of money is tempting, I wouldn't want to be owned by Trump & the US.
I think for that money Trump & Americans generally would feel they owned YOU & not just the place you lived.

Trump is too dangerous a man to get involved with!

I asked ChatGPT something just now.

Q: What is the environmental cost of removing 13 billion barrels of oil from an 836,000 square mile land mass?

ChatGPT: Removing 13 billion barrels of oil from an 836,000-square-mile land mass carries very large environmental costs, even before the oil is burned. Below is a clear, order-of-magnitude breakdown so you can see where the damage comes from and how big it is.

1. Carbon emissions (the dominant impact)

From burning the oil

• 1 barrel of oil → ~0.43 metric tons of CO₂
• 13 billion barrels → ~5.6 billion metric tons of CO₂

Context

• That is ~15% of all global CO₂ emissions in a single year
• Comparable to the total annual emissions of the U.S. + EU combined
• Enough to measurably affect global temperature, sea level, and climate extremes

This impact occurs after extraction, but it is the unavoidable downstream cost of removing the oil in the first place.

1. Emissions from extraction and processing

Oil extraction itself is energy-intensive:

• Drilling, pumping, refining, transport
• Methane leaks (far more potent than CO₂)
• Gas flaring

Estimated additional emissions

• 10–25% of combustion emissions
• ~0.6–1.4 billion metric tons of CO₂-equivalent

1. Land disturbance & ecosystem damage

Even if the oil field spans a huge land mass, extraction is not evenly distributed—it concentrates damage. Typical impacts

• Roads, well pads, pipelines, processing facilities
• Soil compaction and erosion
• Habitat fragmentation
• Long-term contamination from spills and drilling fluids

Typical footprint

• Large oil provinces permanently disrupt 5–15% of the developed region
• That can mean tens of thousands of square miles of degraded land

Recovery time

• Decades to centuries
• Some ecosystems (tundra, wetlands, deserts) may never fully recover

1. Water impacts

Oil extraction uses and pollutes vast quantities of water:

• 2–5 barrels of water per barrel of oil
• 26–65 billion barrels of water used
• Produced water often contains:
• Heavy metals
• Radioactive materials
• Hydrocarbons
• Salts

Even with treatment, leaks and disposal cause:

• Groundwater contamination
• Surface water pollution
• Long-term drinking water risks

1. Biodiversity loss

Large-scale oil extraction is strongly associated with:

• Declines in large mammals
• Bird population collapse near infrastructure
• Fish and aquatic life loss from spills and runoff

This is especially severe in:

• Arctic regions
• Tropical forests
• Wetlands
• Indigenous lands

1. Human & social costs (often overlooked)

• Increased cancer and respiratory disease near oil fields
• Indigenous land displacement
• Loss of traditional livelihoods
• Infrastructure scars that remain long after oil is gone

These costs are not reversible by cleanup alone. Summary table Impact categoryApproximate cost CO₂ from combustion ~5.6 billion tons CO₂-equivalent from extraction 0.6–1.4 billion tons Water used/polluted 26–65 billion barrels Permanently damaged land Tens of thousands of sq mi Ecosystem recovery Decades–centuries (if ever) Bottom line Removing 13 billion barrels of oil from an 836,000-square-mile land mass represents: One of the largest single environmental disturbances humans can cause, with climate effects lasting centuries, ecosystem damage lasting generations, and land impacts that often never fully heal.

With that in mind, no, even if it meant lifelong financial security, especially if I had children, because I'm not a selfish prick. I quite like countries such as the UK and Fiji not being underwater from global warming. I quite like wildlife having a home, and I quite like people not suffering from cancer and respiratory disease.

And I asked it about UNDRIP

1. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

FPIC is the core modern standard, articulated most clearly in the about:blank United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and reinforced by international law and best practice.

What FPIC actually means (not the watered-down version)

Free

• No coercion, pressure, or imbalance of power
• No “economic desperation” framing
• No threats of exclusion or loss if consent is withheld

Prior

• Consent happens before decisions are finalized
• Not after contracts are signed
• Not during a rushed consultation window

Informed

• Full disclosure of:
• Environmental impacts
• Cultural impacts
• Governance changes
• Economic risks and benefits
• Information must be understandable, not technical theatre

Consent

• Not “consultation”
• Not “compensation”
• Yes includes the right to say no
• Consent must be maintainable and revocable

🔑 A cash payout cannot substitute for consent.

2. Collective consent, not individual payouts

A key evolution in modern frameworks is the rejection of individualized compensation as a proxy for legitimacy.

Indigenous consent is:

• Collective (nation, community, or governing body)
• Governed internally, not externally defined
• Culturally rooted, not imposed by Western contract law

Offering money to individuals:

• Fragments community decision-making
• Undermines traditional governance
• Is widely considered ethically invalid under FPIC

3. Ongoing consent, not a one-time deal

Modern frameworks explicitly recognize that consent is not permanent.

This matters for:

• Climate impacts
• Resource extraction
• Military use
• Sovereignty shifts

Under FPIC:

• Consent must be renewable
• Communities must have exit mechanisms
• Terms must adapt across generations

This aligns directly with 7-generations thinking.

4. Self-determination comes first, economics come last

Consent frameworks reverse the usual order:

❌ “Here’s the deal — now decide”
✅ “How do you want to decide your future?”

This includes:

• Indigenous control over decision processes
• Recognition of Indigenous law and governance
• Respect for political status and autonomy

This is reinforced in about:blank International Labour Organization Convention 169, which treats Indigenous peoples as political actors, not stakeholder groups.

5. Land is not just land

Modern frameworks explicitly include:

• Spiritual relationships
• Subsistence practices
• Language survival
• Intergenerational responsibilities
• Ecological guardianship

This is why financial equivalency models fail:
they cannot price identity, continuity, or obligation.

6. How FPIC would assess a “Greenland purchase” proposal

Under modern Indigenous consent standards, such a proposal would fail because:

• ❌ It bypasses collective governance
• ❌ It substitutes money for consent
• ❌ It assumes land alienability
• ❌ It ignores future generations
• ❌ It centralizes power outside the Indigenous polity

Even unanimous acceptance today would be ethically insufficient if:

• Future generations are bound
• Governance control is permanently transferred
• Exit options are foreclosed

7. The modern shift: from compensation to co-governance

The most important evolution in Indigenous consent frameworks is this:

The goal is no longer “fair payment” — it is shared authority or Indigenous authority.

That’s why modern agreements focus on:

• Co-management
• Indigenous-led environmental governance
• Veto rights
• Revenue and decision-making power
• Constitutional recognition

Bottom line

Modern Indigenous consent frameworks make one thing very clear:

You cannot buy land without buying the future — and Indigenous ethics reject selling futures on behalf of those not yet born.

From this perspective, the Greenland proposal isn’t just politically unrealistic — it’s conceptually obsolete.

If you want, I can:

• Apply FPIC step-by-step to Greenland specifically
• Compare FPIC vs Western eminent-domain logic
• Show how Canada applies (and sometimes fails) FPIC in practice
• Tie this directly back to Arctic climate governance and sovereignty

Precisely. That was a lot of words to basically say 1m US dollars would give you a lot of financial freedom. We all know this. Laying it out in some kind of tech-bro economist style doesn't make it any more or less true. If the money couldn't give lots of financial freedom, it wouldn't even be a question in the first place. The question isn't how much financial freedom could 1m US dollars buy you (answer: a lot, especially if well managed), the question is would you consider it worth it to gain that financial freedom by selling your soul (answer for most decent, non desperate, people: no).

No thanks.

It's interesting that ChatGPT gave @dutchladypersoninuk that answer, though. When it's presented with questions that contain an ethical or moral element and have no clear, right or wrong answer, it is trained to give the answer it thinks the user wants to hear, based on their previous interactions.

Boris promised us 350Million a WEEK for the NHS, which hasn't materialised yet, and Trump's reputation for paying his bills is even worse...

Yes. And we give it context. I’m willing to bet PP didn’t ask, “if I was a Kalaallit Greenlander what would I consider when selling ancestral lands for $1 million?”

So I asked it. Weirdly no mention of diversified portfolios and derisking retirement:

If you were a Kalaallit person thinking about an offer like that, you’d likely weigh more than the money—because what’s being “sold” isn’t just acreage. It’s identity, sovereignty, continuity, and future options.

Here are the big buckets I’d expect you to consider.

1. Can you even sell it as an individual?

• Who has the authority to decide? You personally, your family/clan, your municipality, the Inatsisartut (Greenland’s parliament), or the broader Kalaallit public?
• What does “ancestral land” mean legally vs culturally? In many Indigenous contexts, land isn’t an individually alienable asset the way a house is.
• If it’s sovereign territory, an individual payout doesn’t match the decision scale.

2. “What am I giving up?” (not just land)

• Access for hunting, fishing, travel routes, cabins, berrying, seasonal camps
• Language and culture tied to place (names, stories, teaching kids)
• Burial sites, sacred places, community memory
• The right to decide what happens later (mining, ports, military, tourism, conservation)

A key question: Is this a sale, or is it a permanent loss of relationship and responsibility?

3. Intergenerational ethics

• Would this bind children and grandchildren to consequences they didn’t choose?
• If the money helps your family now, what happens when it’s gone but the governance/environment has changed permanently?
• Are there ways to meet today’s needs without closing doors for future generations?

4. Community cohesion and social fallout

• Would accepting the deal create division (between those who take it and those who don’t)?
• Could it be seen as undermining collective self-determination?
• What’s the impact on local trust, mutual aid, and the ability to negotiate as one people?

5. Power and control after the sale

• Who sets rules afterward—access, policing, development, resource extraction?
• Do you retain any co-governance, veto power, environmental safeguards, or cultural protections?
• Is there a right to reverse the deal if promises aren’t kept?

Often the real issue isn’t “price,” it’s loss of control.

6. Environmental and subsistence impacts

• Risk to wildlife, sea ice travel safety, fishing grounds, and water quality
• Whether development would increase costs of living, disrupt local food systems, or change the land in ways that can’t be restored
• Climate implications: if the buyer’s intent is strategic/extractive, the local ecological risk can be huge

7. Security, militarization, and geopolitics

Even if you ignore politics day-to-day, you might ask:

• Does this increase chances of military build-up, surveillance, restricted zones, or new conflict risks?
• Does it change Greenland’s ability to stay in control of its own external relationships?

8. The money itself (practical reality)

$1 million is life-changing, but you’d still want to stress-test it:

• Cost of living and housing (especially if prices jump due to outside interest)
• Inflation and currency risk
• Taxes, eligibility for benefits, legal fees
• Family pressures: who gets a say in spending?
• Long-term plan: education fund, housing, business, retirement, emergency buffer

A blunt question: Is this enough to compensate for what you can never buy back?

9. Alternatives to outright sale

If the goal is economic security, you might prefer:

• Long-term lease instead of sale
• Revenue-sharing with strict environmental and cultural protections
• Co-management/co-ownership, Indigenous-led development, or conservation finance
• A trust structure that benefits the community rather than atomized individual payouts

10. Consent and dignity

Finally: even if the offer is “voluntary,” you might ask:

• Am I being asked as an equal partner—or as a small population facing a powerful buyer?
• Is this offer respectful of Kalaallit governance and values, or is it trying to turn a collective future into a private transaction?

This is true. I can already imagine his bumbled, incoherent explanation;

"Fake news!!! We did not promise Greenlanders $1m each. They didn't understand. The democrats should have explained it to them. It's the democrats fault. My administration is committed to helping Greenland raise money to support itself. Shell is already talking to us about it. It will be amazballs. Greenland already told me they are thriving. The posts on Twatter are not from real Greenlanders. They're paid agitators and Russian bots. Anyway, Minnesota committed fraud. Immigrants are stealing your car. And I'm late for my fake tan."

The U.S have provided protection for their own benefit - but Denmark and Greenland agreed because they have also benefitted.

That is the nature of a defence alliance.

I guess one follow up question could be ‘what would happen if everyone else in my country also accepted the $1m?

Actually we don’t even need to ask ChatGPT. If everyone’s a millionaire prices for scare items like housing would increase and unless you moved to a cheaper country, you’d experience minimal if any financial benefit.

Yes. That is my point. And who are they defending Greenland against?

I'd take the orange monsters cash and then become like him and vote the way I want. Fuck him.

Nobody, really. Greenland hasn't historically needed much in the way of defence for its own sake. For most of history, Greenland wasn’t considered strategically or economically valuable enough to justify the cost of taking or holding it.

The military bases are for the US's benefit (as an outpost relatively close to Rusia) and while they may have had some economic benefit for Greenland, the US itself is the first country that seems to have its eyes on Greenland itself.

No. He lies anyway so probably wouldn’t pay up.

Same!

I am laughing at these assumptions that Trump would actually pay up 🤣🤣🤣

I’d accept, if it was paid in advance - don’t intend to spend much more time in the UK anyway. The only sticking point would be that I don’t want a US passport or any sort of American citizenship. Fuck having to do a tax report every year no matter where in the world I live. Land of the free my arse.

Certainly not!